Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part I [2010-2012]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am intalks with this company, because they are making PAK-FA kit in 1/48.

http://amg.cdc.cz/index.php?VypisKategorii=1

I supply them with info, pics etc for free, because i would like an as correct as possible PAK-FA kit. :)

I have been allowed to post small version of the boxart. :)

Made by Jan:

http://www.jan-martinec.cz/

(It is amazingly detailed in full version)

My question is following:

There is a general consensus that main bay takes only 2 missiles each, of the R-77 type. The smaller one take one each probably R-60. Maaaybe R-73. KAB-1500 will not fit inside, that is 100 % surely. But how about Kh missiles? For example Kh-29, -59 etc. Are the Su-47/PAK-FA designed to be able to take those missiles inside?
 

Attachments

  • krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg
    krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg
    247.6 KB · Views: 68
flanker said:
There is a general consensus that main bay takes only 2 missiles each, of the R-77 type.
Click to expand...
There is a general consensus that you must forget of RVV-AE (R-77) and start think of more advanced Izdeliye 180 (K-77M)
flanker said:
The smaller one take one each probably R-60. Maaaybe R-73.
Click to expand...
forget of R-60. forget of R-73. more advanced missles like Izdeliye 750 (K-74M) or Izdeliye 300 (K-30) will go there
flanker said:
KAB-1500 will not fit inside, that is 100 % surely.
Click to expand...
obviously
flanker said:
But how about Kh missiles? For example Kh-29, -59 etc.
Click to expand...
at least Kh-59USHKE specially designed to fit inside T-50, so you'd go figure itself with a ruler regarding other missiles
very sceptic about Kh-31 WB carriage
flanker said:
Are the Su-47/PAK-FA designed to be able to take those missiles inside?
Click to expand...
T-50 IS NOT Su-47

I think that your questions mainly will be left unanswered for a long because T-50 weapons load, actually, deals with new KTRV missiles. And KTRV are maniacally careful about spreading information about their new designs on certain reasons.
 
flateric said:
flanker said:
There is a general consensus that main bay takes only 2 missiles each, of the R-77 type.
Click to expand...
There is a general consensus that you must forget of RVV-AE (R-77) and start think of more advanced Izdeliye 180 (K-77M)
flanker said:
The smaller one take one each probably R-60. Maaaybe R-73.
Click to expand...
forget of R-60. forget of R-73. more advanced missles like Izdeliye 750 (K-74M) or Izdeliye 300 (K-30) will go there
flanker said:
KAB-1500 will not fit inside, that is 100 % surely.
Click to expand...
obviously
flanker said:
But how about Kh missiles? For example Kh-29, -59 etc.
Click to expand...
at least Kh-59USHKE specially designed to fit inside T-50, so you'd go figure itself with a ruler regarding other missiles
very sceptic about Kh-31 WB carriage
flanker said:
Are the Su-47/PAK-FA designed to be able to take those missiles inside?
Click to expand...
T-50 IS NOT Su-47

I think that your questions mainly will be left unanswered for a long because T-50 weapons load, actually, deals with new KTRV missiles. And KTRV are maniacally careful about spreading information about their new designs on certain reasons.
Click to expand...

I am aware of izedelija 180, but wasn't about K-74 and K-30.

Okei, Kh-59 fits, i will do some more research regarding other missiles. I am also higly sceptical about Kh-31 inside PAK-FA. The last comment i meant it as that it seems PAK-FA and Su-47 have same (identical) missile bays.

I understand that the "dinosaurs" ( ;)) are very hush hush about this, i am just looking for the most probable truth behind lies and speculation.

Thank you for all info. :)
 
flanker said:
The last comment i meant it as that it seems PAK-FA and Su-47 have same (identical) missile bays.
Click to expand...
while other dimensions are the same as on T-50, Su-47 modified bay seems a little bit shorther inside (while WB doors are mimic to T-50s) as rear wall stuck into existing airframe structure size limits. 'Pregnancy' of S-37's bay and wish to make it deeper compared to original one should cause thoughts of T-50 WB depth (or, at least, oneof the WB depth).

Using Occam's razor, Jan should eliminate at least half of his prepared T-50's weapons pack (at least he should start with R-37)
 
flateric said:
flanker said:
The last comment i meant it as that it seems PAK-FA and Su-47 have same (identical) missile bays.
Click to expand...
while other dimensions are the same as on T-50, Su-47 modified bay seems a little bit shorther inside (while WB doors are mimic to T-50s) as rear wall stuck into existing airframe structure size limits. Using Occam's razor, Jan should eliminate at least half of his prepared T-50's weapons pack (at least he should start with R-37)
Click to expand...

Jan is just artist, not maker of the model itself.

However, there is plans to include the weapons and weaponbay. This i personally don't agree with, i think there should be no weaponbay and weapons in the kit. Reason is simple: We have no pictures of weaponbays, and won't have for a long time, probably. And number 51 is basically just a shell, so it might even never carry weapons. (although YF-22 and YF-23 did so). In any case, it will be unrealistic and not accurate. That is my 10 cents.

I have said that to Jan, but will contact the model maker himself tomorrow. (i have exchanged info etc, we just haven't talked about weapon subject yet)

PS: Speaking of Su-47 bay, does any one have a *good* scan of the famous picture taken from below with doors open?
 
original foto itself are murky, so there won't be much details
 
flanker said:
...
I have been allowed to post small version of the boxart. :)

krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg

....
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... ??? Can't see the preview ... only a red X ! :(

However these are nice too .... ;D

http://tuku.military.china.com/military/html/2010-08-18/149354_1460157.htm
 
I still see it fine. But here it is re uploaded:

Thanks for the link.

[Attached via forum - Admin]
 

Attachments

  • krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg
    krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg
    247.6 KB · Views: 221
flanker said:
I still see it fine. But here it is re uploaded:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9810/krabiceoprava3definitiv.jpg

Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

Hu ?? ... the same red X as before ! ??? Maybe You could upload it her ?

Deino


Edit: THANKS
 
overscan said:
Done.
Click to expand...

Thanks, feel stupid for not thinking of that. :-X

For non-russian speakers, PAK-FA flew again yesterday.
 
Can i ask is this flight confirmed by the more knowledgeable russian folks here? It SHOULD be number 17 if i'm correct...thanks.
 
August 19: http://www.forumavia.ru/forum/5/4/3337584874534271655451282232754_1.shtml?topiccount=14

"Roman" reports that he saw PAK-FA being accompanied by an Su-30(?)
 
flanker said:
. KAB-1500 will not fit inside, that is 100 % surely.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be 100%. If Butowski's estimates for the bays are correct there could be plenty of room. One has to remember that the Kab-1500 has a surprisingly narrow hull at around 600mm (I forget the exact figure) - if you trim the fins a bit it might well fit. The really dubious thing is the idea of carrying two R-37 sized missiles per bay.
 
Avimimus said:
If advance in sensors decreases the effectiveness of stealth for aircraft such as f-22, then how much it decceases the effectiveness of aircraft with less stealth features than the f-22? And how much would it decreases the effectiveness of a non stealthy aircraft? For example, If f-22 can be detected at longer range by more powerful sensors, then how far out can these sensors detect an aircraft with RCS a 100 times or 1000 times larger than f-22?
Click to expand...
If sensor networks can detect stealth aircraft earlier it reduces the overall value of stealth (as stealth aircraft end up being used more like non-stealthy aircraft). A very stealthy aircraft might still be able to "shoot first", but it might lose the "look first, shoot first" capability which is of such high tactical value. Fifth generation aircraft provide much better situational awareness in BVR and a mixture of performance and tactical awareness can do wonders for a design's ability to get in a good firing position and get out.
Click to expand...
Sorry that I overlooked your response. I don't think you see the picture. If advance in sensors allow to detect a stealth aircraft at longer range, than the same level of sensor on the stealth aircraft and its allies can detect the enemy's aircraft (less stealthy) at much much longer range. This would still mean "first look, first shoot" for the aircraft with significantly smaller RCS. If advanced sensors can make stealth aircraft less effective, than it makes less-stealthy aircraft that much more vulnerable. So arguing that if current stealth standard would one day become obsolete, therefore we should not emphasize on that aspect is moot. Physics apply both ways.

The realization that stealth standard of today would fall short of the stealth standard of tomorrow should compel designers to strive in that regard even more, instead of overlooking it, because if an f-22 struggles to have a chance in the future, then you know that an airframe with significantly larger RCS has absolutely no chance whatsoever in that same future . I think analyzing it as “stealth vs nonstealth” is only the privilege of the uninformed, since we all know that all aircraft has RCS regardless of whether it’s an f-22 or f-111, and the label “stealth” is only a misleading name applied to aircraft with RCS small enough to meet that ever changing standard.

The reason why I see Russians do not place emphasize on stealth as much as the US is simply because of cost, risk, and requirements. Beside the facts that Russia doesn’t have the finance or the experience, I don’t imagine penetrating a carrier group or deep into the US continent were on the requirement lists for PAK FA, but the US did have the requirement to establish air superiority over highly defended enemy’s airspace (AKA the Soviet Union).

I believe the objectives behind PAK FA are to be a formidable interceptor, stand-off weapon delivery platform, and a strong contender on the international market, in which its level of RCS are not inadequate to achieve.
 
^not to mention maintenance, component familiarity(although they are new) and the ever present requirement for surviving the motherland.

IMHO, stealth will still play its role but in a "level" playing field, it's all up to the tactics, positioning and chaos theory.
 
...

http://img827.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=graytop.jpg

still needs further refining though(chamfering it like crazy so it won't be embarrassing compared to the chinese)
 
19,24,25,26. Preparing for another VIP demo.
 
Chrome translator of paralay's boards seems to indicate the plane flew with new engines correct?
 
photo (c) NavigatorIL62
 

Attachments

  • 0000033854_large.jpeg
    0000033854_large.jpeg
    452.3 KB · Views: 148
photos (c) Vlaadiimiir
never thought the side bays would be that long...
 

Attachments

  • 02.jpg
    02.jpg
    193.7 KB · Views: 79
  • 111.jpg
    111.jpg
    254.7 KB · Views: 98
  • 2222-2.jpg
    2222-2.jpg
    279.1 KB · Views: 79
Have any more details been released on those two L-band radars? Wouldn't any potential benefits when it comes to detecting low RCS designs be outweighed by the lower power and resolution of those L-band arrays? I have my doubts that feature will make it to production aircraft.

Still a damn fine looking aircraft. You have to give the Russians that.
 
I assume they're placed on the flaps to justify the panels which is identical to the ones(the L-band AESA) shown in previous videos...

but that's all I know for now...
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Have any more details been released on those two L-band radars? Wouldn't any potential benefits when it comes to detecting low RCS designs be outweighed by the lower power and resolution of those L-band arrays? I have my doubts that feature will make it to production aircraft.
Click to expand...

A possible answer to that question might lie in the (mobile phone related) research some years ago that successfully 'piggybacked' weak high frequency signals on strong low frequency transmissions.
 
hmmm... frequency amplification?

wonder if it has something to do with this...

http://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Archives/Jan04/HFE0104_RaabPart5.pdf
 
http://www.aex.ru/news/2010/9/1/77980/

[Added Google Translation - Admin]

PAK FA showed to Indian delegation

September 1, 2010, Aviation Explorer - yesterday, on August 31 in Zhukovsky near Moscow a demonstration of the new Russian perspective Complex Frontal Aviation (PAK FA) representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Air Force and the Indian aircraft corporation HAL.

Getting promising complex was part of the process for the preparation of the contract between the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and the corporation HAL to jointly develop fifth generation fighter. It is assumed that such an agreement could be signed soon.

The current draft PAK FA can form the basis of future joint Russian-Indian fighter. First flight of the PAK FA was held on 29 January 2010. During yesterday's demonstration of the Indian delegation were shown the possibility of a new machine. It is assumed that the aircraft was 5-th generation will be multi-functional complex and versatile, able to solve a wide range of tasks to work on the ground and air targets, have the maneuverability, low profile and be able to cruise at supersonic speeds.

Russian Ministry of Defense expects to receive the first such aircraft in 2015. The cost of each aircraft 5-th generation will be about 100 million U.S. dollars.
Click to expand...
 
:)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?149828-Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA&p=5176049&viewfull=1#post5176049
 
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=11355&mode=view
Full version of this image never presented??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom