Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]

[sferrin]

Can anyone tell me how many missiles the plane can carry internally.
It looks like it has two large internal bays and two small ones?

I have head that the Pak Fa has nearly twice the range of the raptor.
It seems like it can carry more missiles. Is it bigger than the raptor?

I have found video with english commentary at RT.com

Does the plane have thrust vectoring nozzles.

How 'bout reading some of the rest of this thread? :

 

[paralay]

 

[red admiral]

A rough yard stick is if a radar can detect an aircraft at 100 NM (km, miles, leagues, parsecs, etc) it will detect another aircraft with a 1/10 reduction in RCS compared to the first aircraft at 50 NM, then one with 1/100 at 30 NM and then one with 1/1000 reduction at 10 NM.

Radar as wave follows inverse square law with propagation, or 4th power with reflection to receiver. So, for a 1/10th difference in rcs you get 56% of the return, with 1/100th 32% and with 1/1000th 18%. Or so I thought...

Information in the public domain on actual aircraft RCS is rather limited, often just a number without regard to radar frequency or which aspect. You tend to get massive spikes in some directions which can also skew things if an average value. Together with the lack of accurate information on radar performance and it just involves so much guesswork to make any accurate conclusions.

 

[kooskakebeen]

I visited sukhoi.org. IT is all in Russian. Is there a English version of the website?

 

[flateric]

definitely

 

[Sundog]

Of course, all of the people showing up now could just go to page 1 of this thread and start reading, but that would make sense, wouldn't it?

As for the LEX flap, I actually think it's there to facilitate airflow to the inlet, as was susggested upthread.

As for the size of the inlets, as someone asked on the previous page, it is likely that the PAK-FA is designed to supercruise on dry thrust, just like the Raptor. Therefore, you're engine is going to have a very high mass flow rate. Couple that with the need for powerful engines, since this is a heavy fighter, and you need some seriously monster engines to generate the power required. Hence, the large inlet.

BTW, does anyone else remember all of the Russian talk about the PAK-FA being a medium fighter in size, between that of the Flanker and the Fulcrum? Was that propaganda or just misinformed people speaking about the project? Or was it that people thought "medium" meant between the Flanker and Fulcrum in size, when the Russian Air Force meant medium, in the sense that the Foxhound is a heavy fighter? That's one of those not too important points I just happened to think about and was wondering what the story is there.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It *is* between the MiG-29 and the Su-27 in size, overall.

 

[mz]

Of course, all of the people showing up now could just go to page 1 of this thread and start reading, but that would make sense, wouldn't it?

As for the LEX flap, I actually think it's there to facilitate airflow to the inlet, as was susggested upthread.

As for the size of the inlets, as someone asked on the previous page, it is likely that the PAK-FA is designed to supercruise on dry thrust, just like the Raptor. Therefore, you're engine is going to have a very high mass flow rate. Couple that with the need for powerful engines, since this is a heavy fighter, and you need some seriously monster engines to generate the power required. Hence, the large inlet.

A major difference between F-22 and PAK FA seems to be the inlet location, see piko1's post:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9186.msg83438.html#msg83438
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9186.0;attach=95868;image
The F-22 has it right forward while PAK FA has it quite far behind under the glove.

Since the F-111 had big problems with this with the inlet too far back under the wing, I wonder. But I'm definitely no expert on the very complicated affair of inlet aerodynamics.

Here's a big pic of the F-111. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/RAAF_F111.jpg

 

[AeroFranz]

inlet under the lerx (or nose) helps redirect airflow to the inlet at high alfa (see F-18, F-16, Typhoon, etc...)

 

[Sundog]

It *is* between the MiG-29 and the Su-27 in size, overall.

I'm reserving judgment until I have official dimensions, but it looks very close in size to the Flanker to me. It doesn't look to be halfway between the Flanker and Fulcrum to these eyes. Also, since it usually refers to "weight" class, I honestly don't see the PAK-FA being a lighter aircraft than the Flanker. Of course, until we have official measurements...

BTW, any word yet on it's second flight?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The odd strakes beside the engine bays are the field coil units for the cloaking device.

 

[bagera3005]

i was going to keep this just for what if

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Suffice it to say that Russia has gathered enough knowledge to be quite capable of designing its own RAM coatings nowadays.

All RAMs are not equal. The Germans had RAM in WW2 and in no way does it compare for power absorption and volumetrics to the first generation RAM on the B-2 which itself doesn’t compare to the second generation RAM for the B-2 and so on. The USA has a massive lead on anyone else in designing, developing, fielding and maintaining RAM. To wave a magic wand and say well the Russians have some RAM experience and to assume the field is equalised is fanciful. Not to mention the complexity of under surface design and construction of radar trapping aerostructures.

I doubt the LERX is a big contributor, basically it is little more than a leading edge flap and while large, seems to use only small deflections (so the impact is likely nothing like a canard, for example). The all-moving tails are smaller than conventional fins and would probably be in the neutral position during cruise, with the TVC taking care of stability and trimming.

Doubt or hope? The LERX slats are another moving object compared to the F-22 and F-35 that’s just basic mathematics 2+2= 4 and that is a bigger number than 2. If the T-50 is not going to use the LERX slats in LO mode and instead use the whopping big TVC nozzles then that is even worse. Its OK to have big reflectors at the rear of the aircraft and keep the frontal RCS down as long as the big things at the rear remain blocked from the front by the fuselage. If you start pointing them out, down and up then that’s a big thing.

Well, the evidence here suggests that the Russians have substantial experience with RAM so its absence on the T-50 prototype is hardly an indication that the production variant will not be coated - very much a pertinent fact to point out.

Your “substantial” is just a make believe semantic. Also if you can visually identify wether an aircraft is fitted with RAM or not based on relatively low resolution images then there’s a job for you with the DIA getting paid $250,000 a year because you’re a national asset. As I pointed out above there is no evidence that the Russians have anything like the USA’s expertise in RAM. Even if they did the limitations of RAM in a fighter type design and weight margins are such that at best (USA levels of technology) it’s unlikely to provide more than an order of magnitude reduction in RCS. The aircraft’s shape needs to get you most of the way to the finish line.

By the way, while I realize this is probably not the place to say so, I find your call for "making an evidence based assessment" and comments such as the following two to be strangely at odds with each other :

Most likely because the T-50 appears to reuse much of the Su-27 aerostructure.

I suppose it is reasonable to state that the F-22 appears to reuse much of the F-15 aerostructure then? Because we have about the same amount of evidence for both statements - a purely superficial resemblance.

The comparative similarities between the F-15 and F-22 and Su-27 and T-50 are not in the same ball park or even the same city. The T-50 has an extremely similar structure to the Su-27. The landing gear is in the same place, the engines are in the same place, the nose is in the same place, the wing roots are in the same place. While there have been some detail changes it would appear that both aircraft share a very similar or identical internal structure.

Of course you won’t see this evidence if you don’t want to. And since that’s your problem, not mine, I won’t pass any further comment or judgement.

 

[Kosmos929]

Page 19 of the study referred to states that the requirement was an RCS of 0.05 square meters or -12 dBsm.

Perhaps a decimal point has been lost somewhere in this long chain of quotations.

The CalPoly response to the AIAA 2001 student design competition has NOTHING to do with the PAK-FA/T-50. The RFP for the competition asked for a RCS from shape alone of -12 dbsm from dead ahead for what would have to be a 100,000 lb aircraft (ie three times as big as the F-35) to meet the range spec. Application of RAM would bring the RCS of such an aircraft down somewhat and it would also supercruise throughout its mission. That this type of Rapid Theatre Attack aircraft was rejected by USAF is probably a good indication that the -20 to -30 dbsm RCS of such a big non-flying wing shape aircraft is no longer considered survivable for the type of deep penetration mission despite the high speed.

The point of my post was that the industry definition of LO is (on the evidence of the CalPoly project) is an RCS of 0.05 square meters. If this is the case, it is very possible that the chain of evidence purporting to say that the T-50's frontal RCS is 0.5 square meters is flawed, someone having lost a decimal point somewhere along the line.

I, having learned to read the English language several decades ago, am quite aware of the subject matter of the paper. If I had found more in it that is germane to this discussion I would have quoted it.

 

[Spring]

Doubt or hope? The LERX slats are another moving object compared to the F-22 and F-35 that’s just basic mathematics 2+2= 4 and that is a bigger number than 2. If the T-50 is not going to use the LERX slats in LO mode and instead use the whopping big TVC nozzles then that is even worse. Its OK to have big reflectors at the rear of the aircraft and keep the frontal RCS down as long as the big things at the rear remain blocked from the front by the fuselage. If you start pointing them out, down and up then that’s a big thing.


Your “substantial” is just a make believe semantic. Also if you can visually identify wether an aircraft is fitted with RAM or not based on relatively low resolution images then there’s a job for you with the DIA getting paid $250,000 a year because you’re a national asset. As I pointed out above there is no evidence that the Russians have anything like the USA’s expertise in RAM. Even if they did the limitations of RAM in a fighter type design and weight margins are such that at best (USA levels of technology) it’s unlikely to provide more than an order of magnitude reduction in RCS. The aircraft’s shape needs to get you most of the way to the finish line.

Most likely because the T-50 appears to reuse much of the Su-27 aerostructure.

I suppose it is reasonable to state that the F-22 appears to reuse much of the F-15 aerostructure then? Because we have about the same amount of evidence for both statements - a purely superficial resemblance.

The comparative similarities between the F-15 and F-22 and Su-27 and T-50 are not in the same ball park or even the same city. The T-50 has an extremely similar structure to the Su-27. The landing gear is in the same place, the engines are in the same place, the nose is in the same place, the wing roots are in the same place. While there have been some detail changes it would appear that both aircraft share a very similar or identical internal structure.

Of course you won’t see this evidence if you don’t want to. And since that’s your problem, not mine, I won’t pass any further comment or judgement.

So the mirage 2M is stealthier? because it does have less mobile surfaces?

The T-50 has an extremely similar structure to the Su-27.

just because both are using the same landing gear?

What do you know about it internal structure?

What about the structural reinforcement to hold such bigger flying wing configuration?

What about the structural changes for the movable fins?

What about the demands for it internal bomb bay?

What do you know about it tension/force distribution?

Do you have x-ray vision ?

Both are based in the same basic layout? most likely, but the same structure? you don't have idea what you are talking about

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The point of my post was that the industry definition of LO is (on the evidence of the CalPoly project) is an RCS of 0.05 square meters. If this is the case, it is very possible that the chain of evidence purporting to say that the T-50's frontal RCS is 0.5 square meters is flawed, someone having lost a decimal point somewhere along the line.

The industry ‘standard’ of LO is not an RCS of 0.05. LO is any measure designed to reduce the radar cross section of an aircraft. To be tactically significant LO can be as little as a single order of magnitude (Super Hornet) or as much as six orders of magnitude (B-2) depending on the mission profile and likely threat. In the case of 2001 AIAA design competition the RCS was specified in their competition RFP and is purely based on shape with the assumption that all materials used are reflective. So it wouldn’t be the final RCS of such an aircraft.

As to the connection to the T-50 and the loss of a decimal point it is all very spurious. Trying to invent some kind of tenuous line of reasoning to get the T-50 off the hook wherever it seems deficient is no good to anyone except the egos of various fanboys.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Both are based in the same basic layout? most likely, but the same structure? you don't have idea what you are talking about.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming I am approaching this from the same lack of knowledge and analytical ability you are.

The structure of an aircraft can quite easily be identified by looking at its outside. What you do is recognise the relationship between the various positions of things. This is generally known as “configuration”. If the external configuration matches then it is very likely that the internal configuration matches as well. Looking at two different human beings would you assume that each has entirely different skeletons, blood vessels and nervous systems? The Su-27 and T-50 are not identical (obviously) but there is a clear and significant relationship between their configurations that indicates the T-50 design has reused as much from the Su-27 as feasible.

 

[Spring]

The structure of an aircraft can quite easily be identified by looking at its outside

This simple quote is showing your ignorance on this matter

This is generally known as “configuration”. If the external configuration matches then it is very likely that the internal configuration

lol

Looking at two different human beings would you assume that each has entirely different skeletons, blood vessels and nervous systems?

Let's say an alien comes and looks like a human, how would you know is made of the same bones, or is not a insect with skin?, you must 'open it' to
know

I'm not even anatomist, lol..never liked medicine careers with all that blood and fluids..i liked better handling non organic fluids..when the things get messy...lol

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let's say an alien comes, how would you know is made of the same bones, or is not a insect with skin?

So are you suggesting that the T-50 is as different on the inside to a Su-27 as a mammal is compared to an insect but has been ‘covered’ it in some kind of prosthetic Su-27ish skin? This is what happens when people bring to secretprojects.co.uk an understanding of the world derived from watching television.

 

[Trident]

All RAMs are not equal. The Germans had RAM in WW2 and in no way does it compare for power absorption and volumetrics to the first generation RAM on the B-2 which itself doesn’t compare to the second generation RAM for the B-2 and so on. The USA has a massive lead on anyone else in designing, developing, fielding and maintaining RAM. To wave a magic wand and say well the Russians have some RAM experience and to assume the field is equalised is fanciful.

Never said anything to the contrary, but there is no hiding the fact that it is a decade-old technology for Russia as well - they are definitely not messing around with charcoal like Nazi-Germany. The US does have a lead of course, but given this level of maturity of the technology in general, it may well be smaller than many would care to admit.

The LERX slats are another moving object compared to the F-22 and F-35 that’s just basic mathematics 2+2= 4 and that is a bigger number than 2.

Note that I'm not denying they will have an impact, I'm just not convinced it'd be huge and impossible to mitigate.

If the T-50 is not going to use the LERX slats in LO mode and instead use the whopping big TVC nozzles then that is even worse. Its OK to have big reflectors at the rear of the aircraft and keep the frontal RCS down as long as the big things at the rear remain blocked from the front by the fuselage. If you start pointing them out, down and up then that’s a big thing.

The nozzles would hardly have to move a great deal to keep the aircraft trimmed and you know it, I seriously doubt this would be enough to unmask them from the front. BTW, the F-22 takes advantage of the same idea, I believe (though in the pitch plane only, obviously).

Your “substantial” is just a make believe semantic.

So you simply dismiss out of hand more than 40 years of experience?

Also if you can visually identify wether an aircraft is fitted with RAM or not based on relatively low resolution images then there’s a job for you with the DIA getting paid $250,000 a year because you’re a national asset.

I might add the Su-35 which I had the good fortune of walking around close enough to actually touch it. Most of the examples I have mentioned are not my interpretation of a photo but published information. Nevertheless, I shall ask for the pay raise first thing tomorrow.

The structure of an aircraft can quite easily be identified by looking at its outside. What you do is recognise the relationship between the various positions of things. This is generally known as “configuration”. If the external configuration matches then it is very likely that the internal configuration matches as well. Looking at two different human beings would you assume that each has entirely different skeletons, blood vessels and nervous systems? The Su-27 and T-50 are not identical (obviously) but there is a clear and significant relationship between their configurations that indicates the T-50 design has reused as much from the Su-27 as feasible.

I am struck by your modesty - if you consider my ability to identify a RAM coating on a multi-megapixel close-up image a national asset, I cannot imagine the salary your apparent X-ray vision must warrant.

 

[Spring]

I'm suggesting you that there are not similar structure designs

For example.

The requirement for a bomb bay was solved in a very conventional way for the F22, a high wing over the bomb bay

This bomb bay applied for the centerline fuselage for the pakfa, that holds the wings torque and the engines bay could look like a su-27 from outside, but for sure it was a challenging structural issue (or is still)

This is the difference between a guy is just defining something from how it looks, and when people are actually educated on the matter

 

[sferrin]

So you simply dismiss out of hand more than 40 years of experience?

What's this "more than 40 years of experience"? This is what 40 years of experience in stealth looks like:

When you can show me the Russian version of that then you might have a valid claim.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Never said anything to the contrary, but there is no hiding the fact that it is a decade-old technology for Russia as well - they are definitely not messing around with charcoal like Nazi-Germany. The US does have a lead of course, but given this level of maturity of the technology in general, it may well be smaller than many would care to admit.

Another assumption based on no evidence. How is the USA’s technical lead in RAM mitigated? Has Russia been parity spending anything remotely close to defence development in the past 20 years compared to the USA? Their parity spending investment would struggle to make it past 5%. Yet somehow they are able to narrow a lead in technology that has very little civilian application…

Note that I'm not denying they will have an impact, I'm just not convinced it'd be huge and impossible to mitigate.

Now you’re not denying they won’t have an impact? But that’s what you entire first response was!

The nozzles would hardly have to move a great deal to keep the aircraft trimmed and you know it, I seriously doubt this would be enough to unmask them from the front. BTW, the F-22 takes advantage of the same idea, I believe (though in the pitch plane only, obviously).

The nozzles on the F-22 are embedded in the aircraft and don’t change the outer mould line beyond the straight to the rear angle. They completely different to those of the T-50. Even a small movement is significant when it some to generating more RCS. As to being masked from the front they aren’t. In a typical nose up cruise the T-50’s nozzles can be seen from the front.

Your “substantial” is just a make believe semantic.

So you simply dismiss out of hand more than 40 years of experience?

Not at all. I just don’t think I can so blithely give it an adjective. Why not “immense” or “significant” or “minuscule” or “awesome”. Besides 40 years of that experience included 20 years under the Soviets where science was politicised and LO seen as deviant capitalist science compared to glorious proletarian rocketry and the other 20 years of total funds starvation. In which all the best engineers that stayed in Russia went to work for Boeing designing aerostructures for commercial aircraft. It’s not a pretty picture.

I might add the Su-35 which I had the good fortune of walking around close enough to actually touch it. Most of the examples I have mentioned are not my interpretation of a photo but published information. Nevertheless, I shall ask for the pay raise first thing tomorrow.

Well I’ve been close enough to a B-2 to reach up and touch it. But that doesn’t mean squat.

I am struck by your modesty - if you consider my ability to identify a RAM coating on a multi-megapixel close-up image a national asset, I cannot imagine the salary your apparent X-ray vision must warrant.

See my response above. It may surprise you that some people can do things like look at a car and know wether there is an engine in the back or rear based on the exterior appearance. One doesn’t need X Ray vision just a basic understanding of structural engineering.

 

[Spring]

One doesn’t need X Ray vision just a basic understanding of structural engineering.

You need your x ray googles

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is the difference between a guy is just defining something from how it looks, and when people are actually educated on the matter

Actually no. What you’ve said is what someone who knows very little would say assuming it’s a big deal. The structure between the engine bays on the Su-27 is just used for fuel tankage and of course sharing loads via structural members. Replacing the fuel tanks between the engine bays is a simple thing. They may be some need to change some of the structural members to allow for a clear path for the bay door but these doors do not consume all of the length of this area and the depth of the bay is such members can go above the bay.

This is only a small change from the Su-27 for one of the most significant additions in the T-50: internal carriage of weapons. The F-22 is a design from scratch aircraft. For the simple point that Lockheed and Boeing in the 1980s never had access to the base calculations of the F-15 or any other suitably sized fighter aircraft.

You can try and call names as much as you like but anyone looking at a picture of the T-50 and the Su-27 can see a huge range of structural configuration similarities. That they were both designed by the same company beggars disbelief on a huge scale to assume they share no reusing of structural design.

 

[sferrin]

I'd be surprised if the two don't use some of the same tooling. As you pointed out, that back end is a dead-ringer. I wouldn't be surprised if those "movable LERXs" were similar in location to the Su-30MKI's canard as well.

 

[Trident]

What's this "more than 40 years of experience"?

Research into radar absorbent materials that started in the early 1960s. Nothing more, nothing less - exactly as I said in my original post.

This is what 40 years of experience in stealth looks like:

<image snipped>

When you can show me the Russian version of that then you might have a valid claim.

I never claimed there was a Russian version of that in the first place, the discussion was specifically - and very explicitly - about RAM and RAM only. You know full well that I have acknowledged more times than I care to remember that the T-50 represents the first aircraft with a hope of achieving VLO capabilites which Russia has ever flown. I'd appreciate if people would not put words in my mouth.

 

[sferrin]

What's this "more than 40 years of experience"?

Research into radar absorbent materials that started in the early 1960s. Nothing more, nothing less - exactly as I said in my original post.

This is what 40 years of experience in stealth looks like:

<image snipped>

When you can show me the Russian version of that then you might have a valid claim.

I never claimed there was a Russian version of that in the first place, I was talking specifically - and very explicitly - about RAM and RAM only. You know full well that I have acknowledged more times than I care to remember that the T-50 represents the first aircraft with a hope of achieving VLO capabilites which Russia has ever flown. I'd appreciate if people would not put words in my mouth.

If all there were to it is RAM (of any type) everybody would have been making stealth aircraft for decades already. There must be more to it than simply knowing how to make RAM wouldn't you say?

 

[Spring]

Fuel tanks?...fuel tanks are around all the plane..is still inside the closed structure without any kind of weakened area, just as the F-15 was, fuel tank placement does not weaken the structure, change the balance, yes , but that's another matter

We don't even know how the weight is distributed, and you already know how is the structure

We don't even know how the lift is distributed and you already know how is it structure

Configurations

how do you know the Flanker structural configuration could been adapted for a delta wing and different aerodynamic requirements?, the wing is completely different BTW, how could this interact with the main fuselage?

Sometimes you can, sometime you can't, you , again, need the x-googles to know

This is only a small change from the Su-27 for one of the most significant additions

You are talking out of your...oh well

 

[Trident]

If all there were to it is RAM (of any type) everybody would have been making stealth aircraft for decades already. There must be more to it than simply knowing how to make RAM wouldn't you say?

Of course there is more to it, the debate which that quote of mine belonged to just so happened to revolve exclusively around the issue of RAM.

 

[Sundog]

I really enjoy the discussions here, but you guys are beginning to sound like key forums. The simple fact about RAM, etc, is, "We don't know."

We do know Russia has all if not most of the F-22 and F-35 designs. Hell, that much was stated in AvWeek. It's what they have the ability to manufacture that is the key, and we don't know. Well, the U.S. Government's spy agencies might know and the USAF might know, but the last time I checked, they aren't sharing that data with us.

As for the structure, please spare me all of the silliness. Really, just stop. The T-50 is the Su-27, as the F-22 is the F-15, as the J-10 is the Lavi, as the F-15 is the MiG-25, as the MiG-25 is the Vigilante, as the... AAARRRRGGHHHHHH. Just stop already. Are their similarities in configuration between the T-50 and the Su-27? Yes, but all that really tells us is the mission requirements were very similar. Go figure.

So please, stop arguing over stuff we don't know anything about or just want to believe.

Now, does anyone know if it made it's second flight? <=== That's knowable by us. I hope.

One more question, do we know if more than the first three, that includes the static test airframe, have been funded?

 

[Gavin]

Page 19 of the study referred to states that the requirement was an RCS of 0.05 square meters or -12 dBsm.

Perhaps a decimal point has been lost somewhere in this long chain of quotations.

The CalPoly response to the AIAA 2001 student design competition has NOTHING to do with the PAK-FA/T-50. The RFP for the competition asked for a RCS from shape alone of -12 dbsm from dead ahead for what would have to be a 100,000 lb aircraft (ie three times as big as the F-35) to meet the range spec. Application of RAM would bring the RCS of such an aircraft down somewhat and it would also supercruise throughout its mission. That this type of Rapid Theatre Attack aircraft was rejected by USAF is probably a good indication that the -20 to -30 dbsm RCS of such a big non-flying wing shape aircraft is no longer considered survivable for the type of deep penetration mission despite the high speed.

The point of my post was that the industry definition of LO is (on the evidence of the CalPoly project) is an RCS of 0.05 square meters. If this is the case, it is very possible that the chain of evidence purporting to say that the T-50's frontal RCS is 0.5 square meters is flawed, someone having lost a decimal point somewhere along the line.

I, having learned to read the English language several decades ago, am quite aware of the subject matter of the paper. If I had found more in it that is germane to this discussion I would have quoted it.

Indeed, in recommending the Cal Poly report, I was simply trying to offer some context for the discussion about RCS sizes. Obviously, I didn't mean to imply that the two designs were related.

And Sundog is right. It's rather tiresome to see people arguing about whether the T-50 is either superior or inferior, based entirely on a handful of pictures and a couple of Youtube videos.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

how do you know the Flanker structural configuration could been adapted for a delta wing and different aerodynamic requirements?, the wing is completely different BTW, how could this interact with the main fuselage?

No one said the Su-27 and the T-50 were identical. Otherwise there would be no T-50. Also I’m not talking about the aerodynamic design but the structural design. Of course the wing is different but what isn’t different is the way the wing attaches to the fuselage.

If you take a Su-27 and align it structurally with the T-50 you find a range of mirror images appearing all over the place. Wing and tail roots are identical. Rear of engine bay to front of inlet is identical. Length displacement between forward and main gear, identical (meaning very similar weight distribution). The list goes on. Is all this co-incidence?

Now you can bury your head in the sand and try and insult everyone but it is clear to anyone who doesn’t have the prejudice to deny it that the T-50 is very much a descendent from the Su-27 and reuses a large amount of its structure. No X-ray or 3D glasses needed, though half a brain does help.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And Sundog is right. It's rather tiresome to see people arguing about whether the T-50 is either superior or inferior, based entirely on a handful of pictures and a couple of Youtube videos.

You’re quite happy to wade in with a totally unrelated quote from a totally unrelated paper but no one else is allowed to contribute because it becomes ‘tiresome’ for you?

Obviously the kind of excuse mongering and attribution of mighty powers based on feelings is very frustrating. As Sundog says it sounds like Key Forums. But that is because lots of Key’s clientele has come onto this site and is posting the same nonsense one expects there here.

On the other hand there is plenty of evidence on display from the appearance of the T-50 to work out a lot of things from it. If humanity had to wait for the publishing of independently verified general characteristics for everything we come across then we would still be in the bone age.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We do know Russia has all if not most of the F-22 and F-35 designs. Hell, that much was stated in AvWeek. It's what they have the ability to manufacture that is the key, and we don't know. Well, the U.S. Government's spy agencies might know and the USAF might know, but the last time I checked, they aren't sharing that data with us.

That is nonsense. Even if the Russians had the ‘blue prints’ for the F-22 or F-35 they couldn’t build one without all the industrial knowledge. Besides the ‘blue prints’ for such an aircraft are phenomenal. That hackers have download gigabits of data from the F-35 project does not actually mean they have anything useful. They could just have nothing but JSFPO compliance paperwork which would run into the terabytes.

As for the structure, please spare me all of the silliness. Really, just stop. The T-50 is the Su-27, as the F-22 is the F-15, as the J-10 is the Lavi, as the F-15 is the MiG-25, as the MiG-25 is the Vigilante, as the... AAARRRRGGHHHHHH. Just stop already. Are their similarities in configuration between the T-50 and the Su-27? Yes, but all that really tells us is the mission requirements were very similar. Go figure.

You have obviously missed the point. Its not about ‘it looks the same’ it is about ‘it is the same’.

Your post has just brought this thread down further towards the Key Forums tone.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

we would still be in the bone age.

He, he... bone age...

Anyway is there any word on how many prototypes Sukhoi plans to produce? And to what extent if any is MiG involved with the design and manufacture?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please remember to bring sources and facts to the discussion, or we will indeed end up being "Fanboi hell" here. The fact that a D-21 fell on Russia giving them access to early RAM technology in the 1960s is hardly proof that Russia can produce modern high tech RAM materials today. Not that I'm saying they definitely can't, either; the jury is out for me without more evidence.

Abe's point is a good one; the T-50 clearly derives a lot of its basic structure from the Su-27 series, which is obvious in various places when you align the 3 views of them. In many respects it is more like the FA-18E Super Hornet than the F-22, though it changes the aerodynamics rather more.

The idea that Russia has a magic wand that allows it to make something better in all respects than the F-22 and F-35 for a fraction of the investment is quite stupid. You can have good engineers, even good designs, but putting those designs into production requires massive investment in tooling etc. I could download the plans for an Intel's forthcoming processor, but unless I have a handy billion dollar fabrication plant it's not going to do me much good.

As far as we can see, Russia is being very pragmatic with the T-50. They aren't trying to beat the F-22 in all areas.

In some areas of avionics, starting later can be a positive advantage as they take advantage of COTS technology. However, they still need to create the software routines and algorithms to drive those chips. The key factor will be whether the extended hiatus in meaningful production experience will cause issues. In radars, NIIP has produced the Bars radar in some reasonable numbers, but how much feedback have they got from the Indians? How good was it, in reality? In radar warning receivers, NPO Automatika have put a few Pastel RWRs in service, but hardly in quantity. Do they have the skills and knowledge to make workable electronic intelligence software? If not, who does?

The list of questions goes on, and not just for avionics.

The idea that "hey, presto, the F-35 is toast" because Russia flew a prototype is so laughable it defies all sense. It is an important step, but there is a long road to travel to a working, production fighter. The characteristics of that fighter are as yet only vaguely understood.

 

[Deino]

AMEN to that !!

Besides ... any info about the second flight ? ???

Deino

 

[tomcat1974]

Overscan, as always... you are a pragmatic guy. And also rights with it.
Please keep this safe of Key Publishing forums level.

 

[nn903]

Hi there!

OK, let's assume that many components of the T-50 are based on Su-27. Also let's assume that these components have no or very little influence on stealth characteristics. Since Su-27 (especially latest versions) is still considered a very good fighter why shouldn't they use it's components? Why would you design something from scratch when the thing you already have works and is sufficient for the new machine? Completely new design doesn't always mean a better design.

Personally I am very curious what will be Russian approach to RAM. It is not a secret that these things are quite delicate and Russian maintenance standards are not as high as American. I wonder if they tried or maybe even managed to develop more robust materials even for the cost of higher RCS.

By the way, does the fact that there are fanboys of a certain design make the plane itself inferior to others? Maybe I shouldn't say such things since this is my first post here but come on guys, I am sure there is a lot of professional knowledge here. It will still be only speculation untill we see some official data and there's no need to look for fanboys everywhere.