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

[donnage99]

Interesting thought, except the T-50 wing is in fact very thin Not sure if it will cruise faster than the F-22, but thickness was apparently not the consideration behind choosing the sweep angle.

I didn't mean as thick as the x-32. the x-32 didn't have neither mach 2 class stop speed nor supercruise in mind.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

imho, the LEVCONs are a good place to place a radar antenna.

the wings are kinda thin though I'm not sure if placing L-band radars would be ideal given its thickness.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Several analysists noted that the high wing sweep are for supercruise. I think like the x-32, the high wing sweep is so that the wing can be thicker to accomodate the L-band radars and copious amount of fuel without having to pay a drag penalty. I don't think the higher wing sweep angle indicate a better supercruise or top speed than seen on the f-22.

While I’m sure there are strong aerodynamic reasons for the wing planform by sharply sweeping the wing Sukhoi have pushed back the centre of lift of the T-50 compared to the Su-27. This enables them to compensate for the likely rearward shift in centre of gravity of the T-50 compared to its Su-27 structural template caused by the larger and heavier engines.

Such a bandaid approach to changes of centre of gravity is obvious when it is resting on its gear. The outrageous nose down attitude is likely an attempt to compensate for the rearwards centre of gravity compared to a Su-27 despite the negative effect this has on the inlets and wing attitude. The T-50 has identical gear positioning (taking into account the widening of the between engines plug) which is one of the many clear copies in structural from the Su-27.

While the T-50 is probably a great climber I doubt it will have very short takeoff runs with this (quite literally) balancing act short nose gear arm, nose down takeoff run.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

well, the wing is semi delta and the center line weapons bay does extend almost to its rear so it's an understandable "compromise". but I guess the LEVCON's and large wing area are there to do the trick for its supposed STOL capability.

 

[Sundog]

Actually, I would be willing to bet the wing area for this design is more a function of maneuver requirements and possibly fuel requirements. With those weapons bays taking up the center of the fuselage, they're going to need to put a lot of fuel in the wings to meet the fuel fraction requirements for supercruise. Now, I don't doubt they also put it in the wing glove and the forward fuselage as well, I'm just saying those will be factors as well.

With regard to "STOL" I doubt the wing area came into play there as a design driver. I'm willing to bet it's really the same way the F-22 achieves "STOL" performance. The thrust vectoring gives both aircraft much more control power without requiring larger tails. This allows them to rotate at much lower airspeeds than an aircraft without TV. Therefore, they're able to use substantially less runway than a conventional design on take off.

As for landing, the large wing area (low wing loading) also allows for slow, relatively speaking, approach speeds. Couple that with the fact that the T-50 has drag chutes and I'm quite sure the T-50 can use some very small airfields.

Of course, I see it only doing that in a worst case scenario and for "training" purposes, in much the same sense that you are unlikely to see a Harrier use vertical take off operationally, even though it can. In that sense, the T-50's "STOL" capability is really just a fallout of the other design drivers. The one exception may be the drag chutes. I don't know if it was short field performance that was the design driver for those, or just a need to save brake life and operational costs as a result. It does pay a small weight penalty for it, but it was obviously worth it to them.

Of course, I think it makes sense from a brake failure stand point as well, as they could probably land at any airfield without arresting gear to stop if required. In fact, I've never bothered to look, but I don't think the Russians use tailhooks on their aircraft in case of brake failures as we do, do they? In which case, the drag chutes make even more sense.

 

[Trident]

Emergency braking is definitely one of the reasons (no tail hook, as you said), another important one is probably snow & ice on the runway.

I think the nose-down attitude probably has more to do with crew access and the engines are currently the same as in the Su-35, in any case.

 

[Avimimus]

While the T-50 is probably a great climber I doubt it will have very short takeoff runs with this (quite literally) balancing act short nose gear arm, nose down takeoff run.

Wouldn't the T-50 have enough control authority to raise the nose regardless of the attitude while the gear are down? I'd assume that it simply needs to get enough speed for the climb.

The wing layout may represent many compromises. The high sweep on the outer wings should lower overall drag and increase the strength to weight ratio of the outer wing (compared to a higher aspect ratio wing). I recall an interview with a senior Sukhoi official who speculated that the sixth generation fighter would be orbital. If this is indicative a wider-spread and broader view that kinematic performance will remain or become important as other technologies develop than the low wing loading, large engine bays and high levels of sweep may be there to allow development potential. I'd love to create a reconstruction of the wings and see how the lift-to-drag ratio changes as speeds increase - whatever they are optimised for it might indicate if a third-stage of engine development is considered possible. However, I lack the technology for such simulations. The idea that there is a Mach 2.8 interceptor buried in the airframe is intriguing. But, I wouldn't be surprised if the design has a lower top speed than it's American counterpart.

I think the factor a lot of western analysts may overlook is the super-manoeuvrability requirement. There has been research attempting to move beyond the 'Cobra' or the back-flips of the Su-37 for several years, toward more sustained and controllable flight. To have smooth control over pitch during high angles-of-attack requires careful management of moment at both the front and rear of the aircraft, as well as some consideration of the distribution of cross-section (as viewed from in front and below the aircraft - ie. a mixture of frontal and dorsal-ventral). When viewed from this perspective the enlarged forward LERXs, their movability along with the leading edge devices and the high sweep of the outer wing, with its rearward distribution of surface, area makes a tremendous amount of sense (although the rearward distribution of cross section may be counter-productive unless actively compensated for by the horizontal stabilisers - which would further increase drag and be difficult to pull off). The design seems to be less optimised for sustained high-aoa flight than project Integral or the Su-47. However, the planform can certainly be explained as a compromise between supercruise and supermanoeuvrability.

 

[lantinian]

I think the factor a lot of western analysts may overlook is the super-manoeuvrability requirement. There has been research attempting to move beyond the 'Cobra' or the back-flips of the Su-37 for several years, toward more sustained and controllable flight. To have smooth control over pitch during high angles-of-attack requires careful management of moment at both the front and rear of the aircraft, as well as some consideration of the distribution of cross-section

It not overlooked. It's history to them. The US did quite a bit of research into super-maneuverability during the 80's. Not all maneuvers and configurations have real world value. Listen to what John Beesley has to say and I think you will agree that F-22, F-35 have taken the right approach to the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI

 

[Avimimus]

It not overlooked. It's history to them. The US did quite a bit of research into super-maneuverability during the 80's. Not all maneuvers and configurations have real world value. Listen to what John Beesley has to say and I think you will agree that F-22, F-35 have taken the right approach to the issue.

I agree. Super-manoeuvrability may be most beneficial for prestige at airshows (something I'm sure both the Russian government and the company both bask in).

The point about thrust-to-weight ratios varying with altitude isn't something I'd thought about. The inherent problem is the sheer amount of drag generated which means that one can't keep energy up during sustain manoeuvres (even at low altitude). So low altitude helps make such manoeuvres possible, but the basic problem described is still there. For terrain masking aircraft flying at low altitude is necessary (and whether there is a future in low altitude combat depends on how one views the development of anti-aircraft guns, MANPAD seeker vs. IR jammer arms race in comparison to the lethality of long range / high velocity systems like the Patriot and S-300/S-400). Against foes who can't afford long-range SAM systems one is unlikely to need high manoeuvrability anyway. For low altitude operations super-manoeuvrability may have some utility (especially for future small subsonic UCAVs).

Jon Beesley's point about controllability is exactly what projects like Integral and the Su-47 demonstrator are aiming at - increased controllability, including aerodynamically controlled supermanoeuvrability at intermediate angles of attack (rather than pure use of thrust vectoring). Here the Russian research teams may have made considerable developments past what we worked out thirty years ago.

I think the F-22 is truly impressive. It has very good acceleration in a straight-away and the 2d thrust vectoring means that it can almost immediately repeat a short range attack by turning around suddenly in a very short radius. However, if the enemy isn't shot down in BVR or the first two WVR passes the fight degenerates into a more traditional dogfight where the aircraft may not be as competitive. However, the probability of surviving three consecutive attacks by an F-22 isn't very high.

I think it has the right approach. However, the freedom of the less pragmatic efforts to increase the envelop is pretty".

 

[Wil]

Hi!

Interesting links about RCS calculation software:

http://www.bodrum-bodrum.com/vorteks/arsenal/stealth.htm

And from India, with love

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/products/cem

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/downloads/products

India is partner of PAK FA projects...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With regard to "STOL" I doubt the wing area came into play there as a design driver. I'm willing to bet it's really the same way the F-22 achieves "STOL" performance. The thrust vectoring gives both aircraft much more control power without requiring larger tails. This allows them to rotate at much lower airspeeds than an aircraft without TV. Therefore, they're able to use substantially less runway than a conventional design on take off.

While TVC will no doubt help the T-50 will still be at a disadvantage because it appears to have negative angle of attack (alpha) sitting on its wheels compared to a normal on gear attitude. Anyway I’m not so concerned with the effects of the nose down attitude as to why the aircraft has it. Another clear indication of its dusted down Su-27 design base.

I think the nose-down attitude probably has more to do with crew access and the engines are currently the same as in the Su-35, in any case.

I’m sure the Russians have access to ladder technology which makes configuration design for aircrew access redundant. Also any difference in weight between the prototype and the planned production aircraft that has effect on the CG is likely to be corrected by adding ballast. Otherwise flying a prototype which doesn’t replicate the actual aerodynamics, weights and balances of the eventual aircraft pretty much defeats the purpose.

 

[Avimimus]

Another clear indication of its dusted down Su-27 design base.

I still don't know what you're seeing that I'm not - quite the puzzle.

I believe the link I posted earlier had largely settled the issue:
--> http://www.redstar.ru/2010/03/24_03/2_03.html <--

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I still don't know what you're seeing that I'm not - quite the puzzle.

This was discussed considerably earlier on in the forum (twice!) and I’d hate to go through that mind numbing experience again.

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.

The fact remains that much of the T-50’s fuselage (aka centre barrel) is structurally identical to the Su-27. There are differences but they are built around the same ‘chassis’ and in many cases are just structures that are bolted on and off (like the wings) and appear to be bolted on at exactly the same points as on the Su-27.

To demonstrate this just take a three view of the T-50 and Su-27 bring them into scale and overlay. Many of the major structural lines are identical. And many of the most important ones.

Now it has been suggested that this is not intentional but rather a case of convergent evolution or even mimicry as in a “V” lizard alien with a human skin covering. But such arguments so immensely defy Occum’s razor and the practice of aerospace engineering to make them ridiculous.

I believe the link I posted earlier had largely settled the issue:
--> http://www.redstar.ru/2010/03/24_03/2_03.html <--

A throw away line of “it is all new” from the same people who said the T-50 is “as smart as a human” is hardly a deal breaker. Now unless someone can offer some real evidence disputing this hypothesis it’s on its way to being a theory (and using the proper definitions of these words not the common usage). If you don’t like it or understand it then that’s not good enough for this forum.

 

[quellish]

Hi!

Interesting links about RCS calculation software:

http://www.bodrum-bodrum.com/vorteks/arsenal/stealth.htm

And from India, with love

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/products/cem

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/downloads/products

India is partner of PAK FA projects...

As someone with experience, I can tell you the first 12db is relatively easy, but everything after that is a lot harder. The software models are not difficult to do up to a point, after that point they get real hard, real fast.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

well, the fuselage and body aren't identical per se. just similar tbh. if the construction lines are to be compared from a top view, they're quite different and the "spine" isn't as pronounced as the flanker. though I have to agree that they share plenty of similarities.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And from India, with love

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/products/cem

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/downloads/products

Note the key difference with:

http://www.surfaceoptics.com/Products/ModSim/RadBase.htm

Validated against range measurements of ground and air vehicles

 

[lantinian]

It has very good acceleration in a straight-away and the 2d thrust vectoring means that it can almost immediately repeat a short range attack by turning around suddenly in a very short radius. However, if the enemy isn't shot down in BVR or the first two WVR passes the fight degenerates into a more traditional dogfight where the aircraft may not be as competitive.

I agree with your logic. You are in fact stating the exact philosophy of the Lockheed ATF operational approach. However recent exercises in Red Flag, where the F-22 routinely faces 4-5 times as many aircraft in the air showed quite a different outcome: 144-0. Why? Because when you have a much faster and stealthier airplane with better situational awareness, you can decide when the odds of the battle are against you and just sneak out. Same thing when you run out of missiles. The F-22 pilots just learned how to make the aircraft operationally invincible in the sky by not "going with the sniper in the phone boot to kill the midget armed with the knife". How many aircraft they could face was not limited by the performance of the plane but its finite fuel and missiles.

Needless to say this works only against fighters from the previous generation but can still be utilized by expert pilots and commanders even if the slightest stealth/performance/awareness advantage is held over the opponent. One needs only too look at the game Starcraft being played by Korean Pro gamers to appreciate the devastating effect a momentary lack of detection or advantage in range or speed can have.

Still, I would be interesting to see what kind of airshow maneuvers Suchoi pilots will come up with using an aircraft with true sustained high angle of attack performance an 3D high trust to weigh ratio engines. I am hoping for an advanced version of the F-22 helicopter maneuver

 

[JCage]

And from India, with love

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/products/cem

http://www.zeusnumerix.com/downloads/products

Note the key difference with:

http://www.surfaceoptics.com/Products/ModSim/RadBase.htm

Validated against range measurements of ground and air vehicles

Hardly any difference.

Zeus does work with the Indian scientific establishment. Its just that they are being circumspect with what they can state.

Furthermore, the Indian defence research labs have their own test facilities & capabilities, apart from Zeus itself.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hardly any difference.

Zeus does work with the Indian scientific establishment. Its just that they are being circumspect with what they can state.

Furthermore, the Indian defence research labs have their own test facilities & capabilities, apart from Zeus itself.

On their marketing information for their RCS calculator they have pictures of the F-117 and B-2 with RCS 'hot spots'. They HAVE NOT been able to validate their RCS measurement models for these stealth aircraft against range testing. This is all part of the serious disadvantages someone has in developing a stealth aircraft without 50-70 years of heavy investment behind you.

 

[Trident]

Surely not against a real B-2, absolutely. However, test cases for validating numerical simulations are typically kept fairly simple (a sphere of specific material, for example - no idea what's commonly used for RCS prediction tools) to facilitate comparison with measurements and analytical solutions that are not prone to errors and are straightforward to obtain. So anybody with access to a decent RCS range can get a useful validation without resorting to highly complex configurations like an actual aircraft where the results might be hard to interpret and which are not as easy to troubleshoot.

I'm willing to bet the tools the B-2 was designed with were primarily validated like that - by the time you start simulating complete aircraft you like to know your code is already sound An analogy in CFD would be using a viscous flat plate or a backward-facing step to test a new numerical scheme. Of course cross-checking with results from measurements on real aircraft (or more representative models) will be done and WILL help, but generally the software is already considered fairly reliable at that point.

 

[Stuka]

The accuracy of RCS codes varies greatly depending on the calculation method used and the ratio of target size to wavelength. The more accurate codes require insane computing power and are not available commercially. CFD has been around a long time and it hasn't put wind tunnels out of business. CEM won't put radar ranges out of business any time soon. There is no substitute for real world data.

 

[Trident]

CEM won't put radar ranges out of business any time soon. There is no substitute for real world data.

I wasn't suggesting that it would, just that you do not need to have built a B-2 to come up with worthwhile software.

Experiments and simulation are complementary.

 

[bipa]

Hardly any difference.

Zeus does work with the Indian scientific establishment. Its just that they are being circumspect with what they can state.

Furthermore, the Indian defence research labs have their own test facilities & capabilities, apart from Zeus itself.

On their marketing information for their RCS calculator they have pictures of the F-117 and B-2 with RCS 'hot spots'. They HAVE NOT been able to validate their RCS measurement models for these stealth aircraft against range testing. This is all part of the serious disadvantages someone has in developing a stealth aircraft without 50-70 years of heavy investment behind you.

Technically speaking, there is a big difference between the Zeus products and Radbase: the former uses a Finite Volume Time Domain (FVTD) method while the latter relies on a Geometrical Optics / Physical Optics approach. Which also means that they have rather different purposes. GO/PO is an approximate technique retaining only high frequency phenomena. Although I'm not familiar with FVTD, I understand that it has much less approximations but will cost a lot of computation for large objects and/or comprehensive studies.

In any case, having built the B-2 has very little to do with the validity of the software (especially one that has not been developed by Northrop)... and nowadays having valid software is probably not among the most critical factors in building a B-2. Almost everything about Maxwell's equations numerical resolution methods is published and well-known in many many countries, not least because the same methods are used to solve many other kinds of RF problems, including some found in mainstream products (cell phones, WLAN, microwave ovens, GPS, satellite dishes). However, very little is published (or even known) about the key stealth technologies employed on B-2.

 

[rousseau]

I think the factor a lot of western analysts may overlook is the super-manoeuvrability requirement. There has been research attempting to move beyond the 'Cobra' or the back-flips of the Su-37 for several years, toward more sustained and controllable flight. To have smooth control over pitch during high angles-of-attack requires careful management of moment at both the front and rear of the aircraft, as well as some consideration of the distribution of cross-section

It not overlooked. It's history to them. The US did quite a bit of research into super-maneuverability during the 80's. Not all maneuvers and configurations have real world value. Listen to what John Beesley has to say and I think you will agree that F-22, F-35 have taken the right approach to the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI

The Raptor hold its superior for 20 years, but we'd better to know this superior was based on the concept of 80's and the tech in that period. Perhaps while the TVC was developed by US, they also realized post-stall, but the post-stall are not equal to super-maneuver. Therefor, not all post-stall or super-maneuver are real valuable dos not mean all super-maneuver are worthless. In the video, we could see only Cobra has been mentioned by J. Beesley, he also emphasized the Raptor is not only capable to do AoA but also are able to keep the AoA within direction changing. This means he admitted or have to affirmed the advantage of Raptor's stance due to AoA no matter it is Cobra or not.

Very wrong precondition here goes made we messed BVR air war and large-scaled war in air. We couldn't see any necessity of super-maneuver in BVR air war just because we stupidly put the BVR air-war in peaceful air show condition. If you rethink a roughly full scaled war, there is no situation so clean that will gives you a comfortable launching posture, you fly smoothly, you will be shot down certainly. Furthermore, the more hostile air region you fallen in the more you would be forced changing your position and stance fast by circumstance converting. Which means you have no more maneuverability, you will have more dangers.

It has very good acceleration in a straight-away and the 2d thrust vectoring means that it can almost immediately repeat a short range attack by turning around suddenly in a very short radius. However, if the enemy isn't shot down in BVR or the first two WVR passes the fight degenerates into a more traditional dogfight where the aircraft may not be as competitive.

I agree with your logic. You are in fact stating the exact philosophy of the Lockheed ATF operational approach. However recent exercises in Red Flag, where the F-22 routinely faces 4-5 times as many aircraft in the air showed quite a different outcome: 144-0. Why? Because when you have a much faster and stealthier airplane with better situational awareness, you can decide when the odds of the battle are against you and just sneak out. Same thing when you run out of missiles. The F-22 pilots just learned how to make the aircraft operationally invincible in the sky by not "going with the sniper in the phone boot to kill the midget armed with the knife". How many aircraft they could face was not limited by the performance of the plane but its finite fuel and missiles.

Needless to say this works only against fighters from the previous generation but can still be utilized by expert pilots and commanders even if the slightest stealth/performance/awareness advantage is held over the opponent. One needs only too look at the game Starcraft being played by Korean Pro gamers to appreciate the devastating effect a momentary lack of detection or advantage in range or speed can have.

Still, I would be interesting to see what kind of airshow maneuvers Suchoi pilots will come up with using an aircraft with true sustained high angle of attack performance an 3D high trust to weigh ratio engines. I am hoping for an advanced version of the F-22 helicopter maneuver

A very big mistake again. Yes, facing some air-force like Iran or DPRK, you can write any score you wanted, don't mentioned 144-0, even 288-0 is highly possible, but if your enemy is Russian, they are surely going to broken your AWACS down and knock your satellite off, but you guys here are still dreaming you know everything buy your foes merely like blinder.

Moreover, the nozzle PAKFA used won't be simple 2D TVC like F-22 used or 3D TVC X-31 used. Both of nozzle the Raptor or X-31 fitted, changing its direction by convergence and proliferation, but the omnidirection vectoring thrust PAKFA used is capable of controlling its c-section and direction separately leading to PAKFA spinning like boomerang. Please wake, the meaning of turn for jet fighting has been changing.

 

[lantinian]

This means he admitted or have to affirmed the advantage of Raptor's stance due to AoA no matter it is Cobra or not.

The advantage of the Raptor is in full control throughout the its flight envelope, not the specific angle of attack it can achieve. When pilots fly the aircraft they'd rather don't think if I can do this at 45 AoA. They want to know if they can put the nose of the plane in the direction of the enemy when needed.

Therefor, not all post-stall or super-maneuver are real valuable dos not mean all super-maneuver are worthless.

Super-maneuverability refers to exact those post-stal maneuvers that are dangerous to perform in real combat and require for test pilots to switch off safeties and do idle on the engines, cary minimal weapons/fuel and generally require more than your frontline unit experience to execute. SO for all intent and purposes, they are useless unless part of the regular carefree airicraft flight envelope

Very wrong precondition here goes made we messed BVR air war and large-scaled war in air

but if your enemy is Russian, they are surely going to broken your AWACS down and knock your satellite off, but you guys here still dreaming you know everything buy your foes merely like blinder.

Red Flag is very realistic large scale exercise way more complex than probably any conflict the US has fourth in the Air since Vietnam

rousseau, you might want to examine to implications of your stamens carefully. You seam to think that you can analyze the operational requirements and tactics of modern air combat better than the second most experienced Air Force in the world. Needless to say, I think you are very far from seeing the big picture enough to make any valid observation.

If you rethink a roughly full scaled war, there is no situation so clean that will gives you a comfortable launching posture, you fly smoothly, you will be shot down certainly.

I guess you have not heard of the F-117 who flew smoothly (as you say) in the thickest of air defenses over 1700 times before being shot down as part of a very complex operation.

Flying smoothly is a main principle in operating stealth aircraft and has the side benefit of increasing range and aircraft service life.

Moreover, the nozzle PAKFA used won't be simple 2D TVC like F-22 used or 3D TVC X-31 used. Both of nozzle the Raptor or X-31 fitted, changing its direction by convergence and proliferation, but the omnidirection vectoring thrust PAKFA used is capable of controlling its c-section and direction separately leading to PAKFA spinning like boomerang. Please wake, the meaning of turn for jet fighting has been changin

Th Raptor 2D TVC is not simple at all. It provides not only pitch trust vector control but it also reduces the engine exaust RCS and infrared signature considerably.
Are you familiar with the F-15 ACTIVE research testbed? Please do some research before you imply that T-50 has something not seen before or that it will discover some fundamental air combat tactic that will give it a significant undiscovered advantage.

According to those running the Northrop AFT effort the one such advantage that gives 1 pilot the power of 10 is stealth. According to the director of Sukhoi at the time of the SU-37 debut (1998), it is trust vector control.

Please keep those arguments coming. I am having such a great time ;D

 

[Sundog]

Moreover, the nozzle PAKFA used won't be simple 2D TVC like F-22 used or 3D TVC X-31 used. Both of nozzle the Raptor or X-31 fitted, changing its direction by convergence and proliferation, but the omnidirection vectoring thrust PAKFA used is capable of controlling its c-section and direction separately leading to PAKFA spinning like boomerang. Please wake, the meaning of turn for jet fighting has been changin

Th Raptor 2D TVC is not simple at all. It provides not only pitch trust vector control but it also reduces the engine exaust RCS and infrared signature considerably.
Are you familiar with the F-15 ACTIVE research testbed? Please do some research before you imply that T-50 has something not seen before or that it will discover some fundamental air combat tactic that will give it a significant undiscovered advantage.

Just to add to what you stated here, the USAF and industry has considerable experience with engines thrust vectored like the PAK-FA's; It's called the F-16 VISTA, which flew with 3D TV, or MATV (Multi-Axis TV) as they referred to it, just like the PAK-FA's over a decade and a half ago.

F-16 Vista

 

[lantinian]

Yeah, the F-16 MATV was definitely a better example

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, the F-16 MATV was definitely a better example

Why? They both tested 3D TVC.

 

[lantinian]

Why? They both tested 3D TVC.

I think F-16 MATV used the TVC more in line with what rousseau was hyping about. The F-15 ACTIVE does not have such impressive videos.

 

[Sundog]

Yeah, the F-16 MATV was definitely a better example

Why? They both tested 3D TVC.

I was referring to the fact that it uses an axisymmetric TV nozzle, although it seems to me to be a more compact design than that used in the Russian engines. I believe the Russian engines just move the entire nozzle assembly for TV, not the actual nozzle plates themselves as on the NF-16D. Of course, their system probably allows great angles, but I don't know that that is actually necessary, except at low speeds.

 

[rousseau]

This means he admitted or have to affirmed the advantage of Raptor's stance due to AoA no matter it is Cobra or not.

The advantage of the Raptor is in full control throughout the its flight envelope, not the specific angle of attack it can achieve. When pilots fly the aircraft they'd rather don't think if I can do this at 45 AoA. They want to know if they can put the nose of the plane in the direction of the enemy when needed.

What you said sounds like took from fly-by-wire. Please don't make mess with maneuver and cause of maneuver.

Therefor, not all post-stall or super-maneuver are real valuable dos not mean all super-maneuver are worthless.

Super-maneuverability refers to exact those post-stal maneuvers that are dangerous to perform in real combat and require for test pilots to switch off safeties and do idle on the engines, cary minimal weapons/fuel and generally require more than your frontline unit experience to execute. SO for all intent and purposes, they are useless unless part of the regular carefree airicraft flight envelope.

Wrong idea.
Before we got available tech we even thought supersonic is dangrous thing in flight.

Very wrong precondition here goes made we messed BVR air war and large-scaled war in air

but if your enemy is Russian, they are surely going to broken your AWACS down and knock your satellite off, but you guys here still dreaming you know everything buy your foes merely like blinder.

Red Flag is very realistic large scale exercise way more complex than probably any conflict the US has fourth in the Air since Vietnam

Dear the Raptor got to know everything in battlefield, which needless to say, was already a huge wrong precondition to set

If you rethink a roughly full scaled war, there is no situation so clean that will gives you a comfortable launching posture, you fly smoothly, you will be shot down certainly.

I guess you have not heard of the F-117 who flew smoothly (as you say) in the thickest of air defenses over 1700 times before being shot down as part of a very complex operation.

Flying smoothly is a main principle in operating stealth aircraft and has the side benefit of increasing range and aircraft service life.

notice the F-117 is an attacker rather than a fighter, what's complex operation do you mean? To drop two bombs is a quite simple or the most simple mission in nowadays air war, needless to say its been protected by stealth and more importantly by superority air force.

Moreover, the nozzle PAKFA used won't be simple 2D TVC like F-22 used or 3D TVC X-31 used. Both of nozzle the Raptor or X-31 fitted, changing its direction by convergence and proliferation, but the omnidirection vectoring thrust PAKFA used is capable of controlling its c-section and direction separately leading to PAKFA spinning like boomerang. Please wake, the meaning of turn for jet fighting has been changin

Th Raptor 2D TVC is not simple at all. It provides not only pitch trust vector control but it also reduces the engine exaust RCS and infrared signature considerably.
Are you familiar with the F-15 ACTIVE research testbed? Please do some research before you imply that T-50 has something not seen before or that it will discover some fundamental air combat tactic that will give it a significant undiscovered advantage.

According to those running the Northrop AFT effort the one such advantage that gives 1 pilot the power of 10 is stealth. According to the director of Sukhoi at the time of the SU-37 debut (1998), it is trust vector control.

Please keep those arguments coming. I am having such a great time ;D

I think I know F-15ACTIVE well, if you had studied nozzle tech, you would know the inner structure of F-15ACTIVE's nozzle different from what PAKFA used.
Focus on how the nozzle makes thrust moving, if you please, you will find out how difference between those two.

 

[donnage99]

I think Rousseau has a point, here. The TVC of the PAK-FA is advanced enough to minimize vertical stabilizers. The inherent unstability coupled with correction provided by TVC would bring PAK-FA to newer meaning in maneuverability, not just at low speed, but high speed as well. This concept resonates with Mcdonnell Douglas' JSF bit where the designers proposes to eliminate vertical tail all together and using thrust vector to correct the instability of the aircraft. However, as I posted earlier, thinking that these maneuvers gonna bring any game changing capabilities in WVR, much less BVR, is false belief.

 

[donnage99]

Alright, so I did not post anything earlier; my earlier post is still not up for some reason. The exact quote of what suppose to appear first is:

Moreover, the nozzle PAKFA used won't be simple 2D TVC like F-22 used or 3D TVC X-31 used. Both of nozzle the Raptor or X-31 fitted, changing its direction by convergence and proliferation, but the omnidirection vectoring thrust PAKFA used is capable of controlling its c-section and direction separately leading to PAKFA spinning like boomerang. Please wake, the meaning of turn for jet fighting has been changing.

If you think WVR engagement is about pretty maneuvers, then you are greatly out of touch. First of all, it's a oversimplistic and geometry-less accessment of air combat. A failed BVR engagement directly effects the geometry, and thus the outcome of the follow-on WVR engagement. It also overlooks recent development of HOBS missiles that is increasingly making maneuvers in dogfight rather suicidal. Most importantly though, is that it childishly assumes that opposing aircraft are flyin toward each other in a linear and dimensionless environment.

Second of all, the point of stealth and supercruise is that you would be able to force your term on the enemy, namely keeping the fight outside of enemy's range of combat effectiveness, rapidly disappearing and reappearing to loose shots at the enemies at angles of severe disadvantage to the enemy and either killing off the enemy or forcing the enemy into predictably doctrinal maneuvers that are easily to exploit. So that begs the question: why would an aircraft with these features throw away its advantage to enter a dogfight. And if you think 2 stealth aircraft would degrade the air combat into WVR dogfight, then it goes back to my first point.