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

[kcran567]

some of you guys on this forum sound like you have a nightmare that a russian mechanic is going to pop a few panels off the t-50 and a flanker will appear underneath...relax, its an all new plane. Any simlarity is probaly due to Sukhoi having so much confidence and experience in the flanker configuration. Just as the US went with the somewhat more conventional yf-22 over the more radical yf-23 for various reasons. The somewhat more conventional yf-22 just happened to look more like a stealthy, internal weapon, thrust vectored evolution of the f-15 in basic layout.


I notice on the T-50 much less smooth contours as an f-22/35. Maybe the PRODUCTION version will be more contoured and have an axisymmetric nozzle more like the f-35's.

Hands down the current T-50 is much less stealthy than a production f-22. circular nozzles, less planform alignment, simply more protuberance of structure that is reflective at certain angles. The
T-50 relies on a lot of faceting and some blending but much less blending than expected.

 

[Deino]

New photos courtesy Sukhoi via Sergey Kuznetcov (Pilot)
seems that hi-res versions soon will be available at Pilot's blog
http://pilot.strizhi.info/2010/02/03/7540

[removed - higher quality in next page -Admin]

 

[sferrin]

New photos courtesy Sukhoi via Sergey Kuznetcov (Pilot)
seems that hi-res versions soon will be available at Pilot's blog
http://pilot.strizhi.info/2010/02/03/7540

Hope they make their way here. Very nice pics.

 

[Avimimus]

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.

Oh. Ad hominum. Not good. I'll get the popcorn.

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? :

There are reports that each of the bays can carry a 1500kg bomb or 4xRVV-AE derived air-to-air missiles. The plane can also carry two 400km range air-to-air missiles (presumably used against AWACs as the fighter's radar will have a much shorter range). This information can be founded earlier in the thread. In addition to these main bays there are apparently two small side bays. This are believed to each carry a single short range missile (but there is no certainty yet). Finally, one of the members here mentioned six external hardpoints, two under each wing and one under each engine nacelle. However, no source was given and it may be an accidental misinterpretation of the photographs.

The design is probably a little bit smaller than the F/A-22 (but we don't know for sure yet). It does have fully three-dimensional thrust vectoring. In addition, the leading edge root extensions and layout of the design should yield better controllability at very high angles of attack than any previous design (with the probably exception of the Sukhoi Su-47 prototype).

 

[flateric]

Each of the bays can carry 4xRVV-AE derived air-to-air missiles. The plane can also carry two 400km range air-to-air missiles (presumably used against AWACs as the fighter's radar will have a much shorter range).

You'd definitely must add 'allegedly'.

 

[SOC]

Regarding the RAM issue, Russia has used RAM operationally for years now. The intakes of the Tu-160 are RAM-coated, along with the engine faces. This is mostly why operational BLACKJACKs displayed at airshows like MAKS have their intakes covered.

 

[Avimimus]

Each of the bays can carry 4xRVV-AE derived air-to-air missiles. The plane can also carry two 400km range air-to-air missiles (presumably used against AWACs as the fighter's radar will have a much shorter range).

You'd definitely must add 'allegedly'.

Good point. Thanks. I seem to have forgotten what I was speaking about.

By the way: Does anyone have the source for this information? From the header it looked like it was copied from a press article.

 

[Sundog]

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.

You're so full of it. It was the USAF that admitted those countries had all of that info in Aviation Week, but I guess the USAF doesn't know what the hell it's talking about. I will find the article and post the reference here so you can write Aviation Week and tell them how full of it they are as well.

As for the structure, the engines of the Flanker are below the surface of the wing, so the wing carry through structure goes over them, whereas the T-50s engines are mounted higher up in the airframe so the engines have to go through the wing carry through structure, so they aren't the same. If you're going to post about structural engineering you should at least know something about it, before you post. And yes, for the record, I've done structural engineering for a living and I'm also an Aeronautical Engineer so go lecture someone else with your nonsense.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Regarding the RAM issue, Russia has used RAM operationally for years now. The intakes of the Tu-160 are RAM-coated, along with the engine faces. This is mostly why operational BLACKJACKs displayed at airshows like MAKS have their intakes covered.

Yes, but there is RAM and there is RAM. There are multiple generations of technology involved. There are many different radar absorbing materials with differing absorbing and structural properties. If you covered an F-35 in SR-71 era RAM I'm sure it would rather degrade performance compared to the modern coatings it will use.

Not to forget maintenance...

 

[flateric]

courtesy Sukhoi via Sergei Kuznetcov (Pilot)

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-2.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-3.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-4.jpg

 

[Trident]

courtesy Sukhoi via Sergei Kuznetcov (Pilot)

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-2.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-3.jpg
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-4.jpg

Excellent! Note the faired gun muzzle.

 

[AeroFranz]

ahem...can we please drop the confrontational tones? If you want to have a healthy discussion, sound engineering sense is more powerful than insulting in advancing one's opinion. And if that does not work i would just give it a rest.

Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Agreed AeroFranz.

Great pics Flateric. The front view emphasises the considerable bend in the intake paths.

 

[mrdetonator]

Yes, but there is RAM and there is RAM. There are multiple generations of technology involved. There are many different radar absorbing materials with differing absorbing and structural properties. If you covered an F-35 in SR-71 era RAM I'm sure it would rather degrade performance compared to the modern coatings it will use.

Not to forget maintenance...

Modern military aviation coating systems start to melt approximately at 250 and burn at 300 degree Celsius, but most of them whether US, European or Russian or Acrylic, PU, Epoxy based paints have safe operational use up to 200 degree C. You can roughly translate it to sustained supersonic flight around Mach2. Reports of problems with stealth coatings are surfacing from USAF time to time. Probably it is not a secret that modern stealth coatings are even more demanding in terms of production, aplication, maintenance and mechanical properties in order to fulfil their function. I tend to believe that if a F-35 era RAM coatings would be applied on the SR-71(I know it is not going to happen), after a Mach3 flight Blackbird would land completely stripped off.

 

[mrdetonator]

courtesy Sukhoi via Sergei Kuznetcov (Pilot)

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-4.jpg

One can see that almost all removable panels are rectangular, radome is a metal structure with AOA probe on it, though some kind of antenna has been built in.Those intakes are still mystery to me, would love to see a better detail. It is really true, this prototype is far from finalization. Keeping fingers crossed.

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-2.jpg
this photo doest it for me, real killer look, my new wallpaper... .

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Slightly resized for posting

 

[HeavyG]

From those pictures, it looks like the T-50 uses a lot of good old-fashioned metal technology (check out the rivets!)

My guess is that is any arms are carried internally, it's probably in the space between the two engines.

Any stealth features are probably limited to internal carriage of weapons and intake design.

Anybody know if this plane will have any kind of vectored thrust capability? Look like regular adjustable aperture nozzles to me.

 

[Matej]

From those pictures, it looks like the T-50 uses a lot of good old-fashioned metal technology (check out the rivets!)

Yes, it is very likely the prototype to test the flyability of the platform, so it is sufficient solution for now.

Any stealth features are probably limited to internal carriage of weapons and intake design.

"Any stealth features (that you are able to see) are..." What about the eye-poking incline of the vertical tails if not everything else?

Anybody know if this plane will have any kind of vectored thrust capability? Look like regular adjustable aperture nozzles to me.

Almost every new version of the Su-27 family in the last decade has 3D or near 3D (Su-30MKI) TVC. Should their replacemet (PAK FA) go back and have classical fixed ones?

 

[flanker]

From those pictures, it looks like the T-50 uses a lot of good old-fashioned metal technology (check out the rivets!)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35B_Final_Assembly_lg.jpg

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/lockheed-f35-lightning-ii_10.jpg

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

It is an interesting aircraft and it will be interesting to see how much the production version differs.
Because, for all anyone on the outside knows this airframe may end up bearing the same relation to
the production aircraft as the YF-22 and X-35 do to their respective production versions.

 

[Stargazer]

F-22A is almost totally different from YF-22A, IIRC... a little less ugly perhaps...
F-35 is just as boring as X-35 was...

Let's hope the PAK-FA will remain just as beautiful as the prototype!!!

 

[donnage99]

I think the T-50 in comparison to the flanker is somewhere in the level between the Super Hornet to the Hornet and Mcdonnell Douglas' conservative ATF proposal to the f-15. It certainly cannot be compared with f-22/f-15. That's just intentional ignorance. The reason for similarity with its predecessor is because both built by sukhoi. And for the past couple decades, flanker is all that sukhoi built. It's only predictable that the heritage carries on to flanker's successor. Second reason is that the requirement of the PAK FA is not as radical as the ATF probably, since it's not the Cold War anymore, and the russian government probably have a smaller investment and budget for PAK FA now and into the future than the level of money US had for the ATF. Sukhoi did the wise choice of taking as much from the flanker as possible to lower the risk.

 

[Avimimus]

I think the T-50 in comparison to the flanker is somewhere in the level between the Super Hornet to the Hornet and Mcdonnell Douglas' conservative ATF proposal to the f-15. It certainly cannot be compared with f-22/f-15. That's just intentional ignorance. The reason for similarity with its predecessor is because both built by sukhoi. And for the past couple decades, flanker is all that sukhoi built. It's only predictable that the heritage carries on to flanker's successor. Second reason is that the requirement of the PAK FA is not as radical as the ATF probably, since it's not the Cold War anymore, and the russian government probably have a smaller investment and budget for PAK FA now and into the future than the level of money US had for the ATF. Sukhoi did the wise choice of taking as much from the flanker as possible to lower the risk.

Certainly the design is a Sukhoi (& associated firms).

I suppose the Superhornet did get a new radar and a new wing. But, I think the new radar, new missiles, new RAM, completely new aerodynamic layout, not to mention a bunch of minor features, should mean that this aircraft will be a full generation ahead of the earlier Sukhois. Might it not be more appropriate to say that the Su-35BM represents the Superhornet? I think this is clearly a case of the Flanker getting engines, sensors, RAM coatings and missiles (eventually) from the PAK-FA program, rather than the other way around.

Isn't it refreshing that no one is calling this new bird an "ATFski"? Despite the fact that it's overall design is in a number of the more obvious areas more similar to the American 5th generation fighters than the Russian 4++ generation fighters? I'd expected the chauvinism to go in this direction. I'm so used to the old propaganda line that Russian's have conformist thinking and have to steal all their ideas.

The budget is also definitely smaller, but the development time has also been longer, the design has newer technologies and can learn from NATO's taking the first move. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the delaying of the production of the F/A-22 isn't ultimately a boon for the American aviation industry, as it gives a chance to reengineer the design and upgrade the avionics in response to the younger competition. It could put a lot of people in work.

I'm quite impressed overall by Russia's ability to remotely keep up with the United States over the years (given the financial resources available). If you look at Russian production capabilities in the 1920s you get an idea of how far the technology has come. There have been a lot of innovations to get around unaffordable solutions and there is a lot more experience overall working out cheaper solutions. I don't think it hurt the Soviet space program to use pencils in space instead of Zero-G pens. Perhaos the designs may be slightly inferior in some respects, but the engineers can make designs at costs which are closer to what is affordable in the modern age (even for a country like the United States once it's economy has finished deflating). I can see why some people feel a little threatened, but the whole situation is rather silly.

 

[zen]

Do we have pictures of the cockpit layout? Or should I say the proposed cockpit layout as a Prototype is unlikely to be representative of the intended final form, let alone the final final form.

 

[Spring]

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.

Who knows, probably the russians took the RAM of the drone destroyed and laughed about it?, i don't know a lot about RAM, neither i pretend to, but who knows, probably there is more advanced RAM in the civilian martket than in the military one?

Probably RAM is itself actually not that advanced, and is based on conventional materials.

The F22 cost increased because the multiple of problems found, the over-optimistic goals and the messy program in general, who knows, probably the russians won't do the same mistakes?

They aren't trying to beat the F-22 in all areas.

How do you know this?

 

[sferrin]

Who knows, probably the russians took the RAM of the drone destroyed and laughed about it?

Uh, no. More like "DAAAAAMM!"

 

[Matej]

Do we have pictures of the cockpit layout? Or should I say the proposed cockpit layout as a Prototype is unlikely to be representative of the intended final form, let alone the final final form.

I think that we dont have the cockpit photos even from the Su-47 yet (not to count model). Su-35BM should make some clue.

 

[donnage99]

I suppose the Superhornet did get a new radar and a new wing. But, I think the new radar, new missiles, new RAM, completely new aerodynamic layout, not to mention a bunch of minor features, should mean that this aircraft will be a full generation ahead of the earlier Sukhois.

I never said that superhornet to hornet represents t-50 to flanker. Please read my post carefully!

Isn't it refreshing that no one is calling this new bird an "ATFski"?

Bill Sweetman does. And I completely disagree. The lack of blending under the fuselage and the exposed round engines and nozzles probably get a no from the evaluation team with first look. It looks clearly to not remotely fit into the ATF requirements.

They aren't trying to beat the F-22 in all areas.

How do you know this?

Come on! Stop this already. Look at the T-50 and tell me that Sukhoi sets out to beat f-22 in stealth? This "How do u khow?" is the kind of "last fortress of a dreamer" to deny clear reality.

 

[Spring]

Come on! Stop this already. Look at the T-50 and tell me that Sukhoi sets out to beat f-22 in stealth? This "How do u khow?" is the kind of "last fortress of a dreamer" to deny clear reality.

Why, because the F22 is actually the greatest thing ever and not a piggy plane doomed from the start?

We don't know anything about the pakfa, the program is just starting

People are and still claiming things about the suppossed lack of 'rcs measures' from the sides

People are crying about the rounded nozzels

But the Fb-23 was meant to use rounded nozzels

The F35 as well

And some proposals for the Fb22 and other advanced programs were meant to use 3D TVC with rounded nozzles

Probably the 2D TVC is not worth the efford?

Probably is more important a 3D TVC?

Probably no aircraft -fighter- does have a decent RCS signature from it side? or from it back?

We don't know about the T50, will it follow the same doomed path? will it end in a successful program?, remains to be seen.

 

[donnage99]

Come on! Stop this already. Look at the T-50 and tell me that Sukhoi sets out to beat f-22 in stealth? This "How do u khow?" is the kind of "last fortress of a dreamer" to deny clear reality.

Why, because the F22 is actually the greatest thing ever and not a piggy plane doomed from the start?

No. In fact, pages back, I said that the pak fa will be a much more successful plane than the f-22 due to its versitility as a multi-role fighter:
-variety of weapons
-most likely suitable for carrier.

Stop putting this into my dad vs. your dad. We don't know anything about it yet, but there are certain things that are simple physics. The shape of the t-50, by simple physics, cannot compare in term of stealth to the f-22. And given various background reasons, they all fit in and make perfect sense. For example, how do I know that f-35 stealth is not good against VHF band? No offical release has ever stated so, nor have I ever been briefed with JSF officials, but the fact that physics dictates it to be so makes it so. Like I said, the kind of statement like "you don't know" is the last haven for people to hide from reality by hangin on to a delusional possibility that denies logic.

EDITE: As for your so-called "examples," I think you're smarter and more knowledgable than that. you probrably listed them out without thinking it through.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's not forget that when Lockheed talks about F-22 stealth they say it is a generation beyond the B-2 which is a generation beyond the F-117. To my amateur ear that means pretty stealthy. Can the PAK FA hope to match US third generation stealth? I don't know but my guess is no. Is it meant to again probably not. Can we say Gen 4.75?

 

[bagera3005]

there also the stealth aircraft in black world

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Back to topic please. Note the weird graphical glitch on the landing gear in the fourth picture - bad Photoshopping?

 

[Matej]

Where? Can you be more specific?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Back to topic please. Note the weird graphical glitch on the landing gear in the fourth picture - bad Photoshopping?

That could be an opticall illusion created by some movement in the gear as the photo is taken?

 

[flateric]

nope
all photos are PSed heavily in some areas - note that almost all strain gauges are deleted, namely from vertical tails
MLG leg got collateral damage from stamp tool while retoucher was dealing with strain gauge on left vertical tail - guys have made short investigation here already

 

[Deino]

Hmmm ... interesting !

Besides that any info on its second flight ?

Deino

 

[flateric]

no sign of

 

[nn903]

Just a few words about the round nozzles. First of all we have to keep in mind that the protoype is being discussed here and production aircraft often differ from prototypes. Have a look at the Su-27 prototype (T-10) and the end product. I remember reading a quote from one of it's designers saying that at some stage they were moving stabilizers vitually all around the aircraft. It is still unclear what type of engines T-50 is fitted with. Very likely these engines are only to make it complete some of the flight tests and are different from what we are going to see in the end product. If they were thinking about different shape for the nozzles, they were designed for the proper engine which may vary in dimensions and other characteristics. I am not trying to say that there are different nozzles to be fitted. We could draw some more accurate conclusions on stealth characteristics if we saw the ground tests prototype which is probably fitted with all projected LO measures.

In regards to the second flight - wasn't it supposed to be moved to Zhukovsky for further flight testing?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

took a while to do this.

not very accurate though :-[