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

[SOC]

Just a weird observation-viewed from the front, it looks like they took the Su-27's engine intakes and nacelles and twisted them sideways to lay flat under the new wing arrangement. Might this design have more to do with the Su-27 series than we might think? If you were to really stealth up a FLANKER, you'd get something very similar to this.

Anyway, good to see it in the air. Remember when the 1.44 finally flew and all we got were some grainy images? This is very different, and demonstrates the increased openness to an extent of Russian aviation.

 

[donnage99]

I think the difference between russian media coverage of pak fa and 1.44 lies in the fact that 1.44 is a failed project. In fact, when 1.44 was shown to the public, it has been shelved for a while collecting dust. Pak fa is different. Not only it was designed for the russian military, it was designed to do well on the armed market. So wide coverage is only logical.

As for the flanker harritage, remember that this is not the cold war, where radical and risky designs but having greater potential are acceptable. And the fact that flankers are the only fighters sukhoi built for as long as we remember probably play in there as well. However, I don't think turning the engine intakes sideways have anything to do with it, since it means they are literally just a new design with different aerodynamic and structual characteristics.

 

[donnage99]

Brothers... note that the T-50 is quite a bit nearer than the Su-27 in this shot, which affects apparent size.

I think the fact that the chasing flanker is a 2 seater with bigger and more elevated canoby. Also they flanker has less wing sweep. With this angle, the t-50 might look smaller.

 

[sferrin]

Just a weird observation-viewed from the front, it looks like they took the Su-27's engine intakes and nacelles and twisted them sideways to lay flat under the new wing arrangement. Might this design have more to do with the Su-27 series than we might think? If you were to really stealth up a FLANKER, you'd get something very similar to this.

the more I look at it the more I find myself thinking the same thing. Look at the rear fuselage from above or below, and the landing gear. Also, there was a picture some time back of a CFT-like thing filling the tunnel on a Flanker. Maybe it was testing weapons bays right in plain sight? ??? From above the "LERX" almost looks like a Su-37 canard is sitting there at the front.

 

[starviking]

A cover for a refuelling probe?

 

[flateric]

Well, a provision for a probe, exactly (currently in the making)

 

[Firefly 2]

Just in on Google News via Drudge:
"It's going to be no worse than an F-22. I've been in an F-22 and I know."

Bold statement, I wasn't aware that Russian pilots have been allowed in the Raptor.

But the PAK FA is an aesthetically pleasing design. Major kudos to Sukhoi.
It will be very interresting to see how the testing phase goes, and if the 2015 IOC date isn't a bit optimistic.

 

[mrdetonator]

A cover for a refuelling probe?

T-50 size, weight, performance information from this video. They are saying that fuselage is built from titanium alloys 75% and composites 20%.
http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=257375

 

[starviking]

Has this been posted before?

[size=10pt]MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's fifth-generation fighter performed its maiden flight on Friday.

* The PAK FA can carry either eight next-generation air-to-air R-77 missiles, or two large controllable anti-ship bombs weighing 1,500 kg each.

* The new jet can also carry two long-range missiles developed by the Novator Bureau which can hit targets within a 400 kilometer range.

Hmmm...no mention of short-range missiles, could it be that there are no dedicated bays for such missiles at all?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A cover for a refuelling probe?

T-50 size, weight, performance information from this video. They are saying that fuselage is built from titanium alloys 75% and composites 20%.
http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=257375

Well, whaddaya know, Wikipedia was right on the money across the board before the jet even flew. Or possibly some lazy TV journalist googled PAK FA...... :

 

[mrdetonator]

Well, whaddaya know, Wikipedia was right on the money across the board before the jet even flew. Or possibly some lazy TV journalist googled PAK FA...... :

Gezz, did not know that, but would be funny to see your face when official data confirm those published on wikipedia... ;D, They were taken from russian web anyway.

 

[blackkite]

A cover for a refuelling probe?

T-50 size, weight, performance information from this video. They are saying that fuselage is built from titanium alloys 75% and composites 20%.
http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=257375

F-22:titanium alloys 39%, composites 24%, aluminum alloy 16%, thermo plastic 1%.(Source:Jwing magazine)
PAK-FA fuselage titanium alloy's composition 75% is extremely large.
PAK-FA's wide air intake contribute to lift. Small vertical stabilizer contribute to small RCS and low drag.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, whaddaya know, Wikipedia was right on the money across the board before the jet even flew. Or possibly some lazy TV journalist googled PAK FA...... :

Gezz, did not know that, but would be funny to see your face when official data confirm those published on wikipedia... ;D, They were taken from russian web anyway.

Well, its possible, but Occam's razor would suggest lazy journalists over Sukhoi insiders leaking detailed specs to the russianarms site months or years before first flight.

 

[Matej]

Just a detail but the forward fuselage is retracting forward or backward? I can see the indications of the additional doors just at the front of the gear, but the hydraulic device is behind the leg.

 

[flateric]

forward

 

[Austin]

sorry off the topic , but will Mig get an opportunity to build a light 5th Gen fighter or Mig-35 will be last of the manned fighter from the famous design bureau ?

I mean PAK-FA cant be replacing Su-27,Mig-31 and Mig-29 in the Russian Airforce.

 

[Trident]

Just a weird observation-viewed from the front, it looks like they took the Su-27's engine intakes and nacelles and twisted them sideways to lay flat under the new wing arrangement. Might this design have more to do with the Su-27 series than we might think? If you were to really stealth up a FLANKER, you'd get something very similar to this.

the more I look at it the more I find myself thinking the same thing. Look at the rear fuselage from above or below, and the landing gear. Also, there was a picture some time back of a CFT-like thing filling the tunnel on a Flanker. Maybe it was testing weapons bays right in plain sight? ??? From above the "LERX" almost looks like a Su-37 canard is sitting there at the front.

I don't think so, it shares nothing more than the basic layout (in a *very* general sense) and the nose landing gear with any Flanker variant (MLG is borrowed from the Su-47, if anything). If the Super Hornet is, for all intents and purposes, a new aircraft - what about the T-50?

IMHO it is no more a stealthed-up Flanker than the Raptor is a stealthed-up F-15.

 

[flateric]

sorry off the topic , but will Mig get an opportunity to build a light 5th Gen fighter or Mig-35 will be last of the manned fighter from the famous design bureau ?

all DBs soon will be united under United Aircraft Corp. 'Military Aircrafts' business unit (think of it like of EADS Defence & Security Division (DS)), and if will we see any aircrafts in nearest several decades after cycle of PAK FA, Mig-35, Su-35 will come to the end, carrying Su or MiG name, is not clear

I mean PAK-FA cant be replacing Su-27,Mig-31 and Mig-29 in the Russian Airforce.

it will replace -29 and -27, MiG-31 will be modernized to MiG-31BM level

 

[Sundog]

IMHO it is no more a stealthed-up Flanker than the Raptor is a stealthed-up F-15.

Actually, I think you misunderstand this statement. To a certain extent, it is true. Afterall, go through the drawings people have posted here of aircraft designs. Aerospace companies tend to stick with what they know or a "forumla" in this case, a layout, that works. Or they reference layouts of others that have worked.

I've always said the F-22 is just an F-15 that melted. With regard to it's configuration, it's true. It's not a "stealth-a-fied" F-15, but they arrived at similar arrangements due to similar requirements and our understanding in terms of "layouts." e.g.- mass properties, aerodynamics, etc.

As such, Sukhoi has stacks and stacks of data on the Flanker configuration, and when you look at the layout of the T-50, it has the same long forward fuselage, the separated engines, etc. If you look at the "basic" layout of the T-50, it's quite similar to a Flanker. Of course, that's probably because it's mission requirements are very similar to what the Flanker's were, in terms of long range, etc. But, of course, with the additional requirements the new century brings.

As such, it makes sense that they would end up using a design layout that has worked well for them in the past. I'm not saying they didn't look at other configurations, but the result just tells me that mission statements for the T-50 were likely an out growth of the Flankers, and if the Flanker met it's requirements well, then...we have the beautiful T-50.

P.S. - Flateric, thanks for those new high res pics! The bottom view in that res reveals a lot and it looks like that sideview high res pic is going to make a fine desktop wallpaper. I just have to add some graphics to it.

P.P.S. - I just noticed you can really see the door for the "side" missile bays/pods under the LEX quite well in that bottom view.

 

[LowObservable]

Mach 2.4? Eeeks.

 

[hole in the ground]

How many weapons bays does this aircraft appear to have? From the bottom plan view, obviously a main one between the intakes just forward of the main gear. Suggested that there are also bays outboard of the intakes in roughly the same longitudinal position. But is that a weapons bay aft of the centre bay? It looks quite a long way aft of the main gear to be hanging weapons. Or is that just me?

 

[Sundog]

How many weapons bays does this aircraft appear to have? From the bottom plan view, obviously a main one between the intakes just forward of the main gear. Suggested that there are also bays outboard of the intakes in roughly the same longitudinal position. But is that a weapons bay aft of the centre bay? It looks quite a long way aft of the main gear to be hanging weapons. Or is that just me?

Yes, two weapons bays between the nacelles, one forward and one aft, and one bay under each LEX.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Mach 2.4? Eeeks.

I pretty sure that those specs are just what some random fanboi posted on Wikipedia.

 

[Avimimus]

Well, whaddaya know, Wikipedia was right on the money across the board before the jet even flew. Or possibly some lazy TV journalist googled PAK FA...... :

Well technically it's Airwar.ru who is being quoted on the Wiki.

If people want to fix this problem for once and for all, we simply need the full citations for information sources. I could have the article fully updated in ten minutes using the information in this thread if it weren't for needing to track down all of the sources.

 

[Avimimus]

it will replace -29 and -27, MiG-31 will be modernized to MiG-31BM level

What is to prevent a two-seat T-50 from replacing the Mig-31 completely (other than money)? It would seem that the avionics are more powerful, range is rumoured to be greater and the payload should be at least as large as the earlier model Mig-31s. The difference in speed can't matter that much, can it?

 

[Trident]

IMHO it is no more a stealthed-up Flanker than the Raptor is a stealthed-up F-15.

Actually, I think you misunderstand this statement. To a certain extent, it is true. Afterall, go through the drawings people have posted here of aircraft designs. Aerospace companies tend to stick with what they know or a "forumla" in this case, a layout, that works. Or they reference layouts of others that have worked.

I've always said the F-22 is just an F-15 that melted. With regard to it's configuration, it's true. It's not a "stealth-a-fied" F-15, but they arrived at similar arrangements due to similar requirements and our understanding in terms of "layouts." e.g.- mass properties, aerodynamics, etc.

As such, Sukhoi has stacks and stacks of data on the Flanker configuration, and when you look at the layout of the T-50, it has the same long forward fuselage, the separated engines, etc. If you look at the "basic" layout of the T-50, it's quite similar to a Flanker. Of course, that's probably because it's mission requirements are very similar to what the Flanker's were, in terms of long range, etc. But, of course, with the additional requirements the new century brings.

As such, it makes sense that they would end up using a design layout that has worked well for them in the past. I'm not saying they didn't look at other configurations, but the result just tells me that mission statements for the T-50 were likely an out growth of the Flankers, and if the Flanker met it's requirements well, then...we have the beautiful T-50.

No argument from me. It just sounded like a suggestion that both designs are closely (read: structurally) related, that both follow the same basic configuration seems (to me at least) a bit too obvious an innocuous to point out as though it were a revelation Besides, Sukhoi has definitely looked at other fuselage configurations, the Su-47 comes to mind.

BTW, this high resolution picture does show a classic Flanker characteristic - louvres on the bottom of the intake.

 

[Pit]

French site commented, name of radar is N-050, L-band radar is called N-061.

Confirmation from our russian colleagues?

 

[Sundog]

it will replace -29 and -27, MiG-31 will be modernized to MiG-31BM level

What is to prevent a two-seat T-50 from replacing the Mig-31 completely (other than money)? It would seem that the avionics are more powerful, range is rumoured to be greater and the payload should be at least as large as the earlier model Mig-31s. The difference in speed can't matter that much, can it?

I'll be interested to see if it has the Range of the MiG-31, but the MiG-31 is larger than people think and I doubt the PAK-FA can do 1000mph on the deck like the MiG-31 can, because I just don't see the PAK-FA being built to that q-limit. Much less, those Amos missiles would probably force the PAK-FA to be subsonic, as I don't see the T-50 being able to carry those internally.

Having said that, I'm not saying they couldn't replace it with the PAK-FA, but I just don't see the PAK-FA filling the MiG-31's role. Not to mention, that giant nose in the MiG-31 means it carry a much more powerful RADAR than the PAK-FA's, assuming they use the same spec technology. There are very good reasons Russia is keeping the MiG-31 and until I see the official specs for the T-50, I'm going to remain skeptical. For a powerful long range interceptor, the Foxhound is tough to beat.

 

[Saladudo]

I'm working on a flight sim model and I can't read Russian but I assume that in the measures chart posted above reads "22 meters long". Is that right? If so, my model is 10 ft. shorter than it should be.

 

[sublight]

Hmmm...no mention of short-range missiles, could it be that there are no dedicated bays for such missiles at all?

That seems like a bad idea considering the incredibly small number of beyond visual range air to air kills. Isn't the number still in the single digits? (not counting passenger airliners)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That seems like a bad idea considering the incredibly small number of beyond visual range air to air kills. Isn't the number still in the single digits? (not counting passenger airliners)

By that rationale we should be putting machineguns in the wings of fighters because that’s what has recorded the most kills to date.

I still can’t locate any side weapons bays on the T-50. Apart from the between engine bays. The forward part of the side is consumed by the gear and the aft part is flush with the engine. The only thing that could be another bay is the pannier under the inboard of the wing.

 

[Saladudo]

They are supposed to be right there, in those large fairings below the joint of LERX and main wing. They have the right size for hold inside a short range defensive missile each.

 

[piko1]

I'm not sure about that Saladudo i don't think that those are side weapons bays
any way where is the TP positioned on the T-50 ?
or it is combined with the OET

 

[Saladudo]

I said that they are supposed to be there based on the little I managed to understand from a Russian forum. People there is way more excited with the T-50 and had developed thousands of theories and conclusions.

IMHO, I don't care for the side storage bays right now but I'd wish to see the rear internal weapon bay fully loaded and working. It looks like an overall balance threat but I'm not an engineer so I cannot be sure.

TP? OET? Meaning...?

 

[starviking]

Hmmm...no mention of short-range missiles, could it be that there are no dedicated bays for such missiles at all?

That seems like a bad idea considering the incredibly small number of beyond visual range air to air kills. Isn't the number still in the single digits? (not counting passenger airliners)

Well, I did say 'dedicated bay' - there's no reason a short range AAM couldn't be fitted into the under fuselage bays.

 

[starviking]

That seems like a bad idea considering the incredibly small number of beyond visual range air to air kills. Isn't the number still in the single digits? (not counting passenger airliners)

By that rationale we should be putting machineguns in the wings of fighters because that’s what has recorded the most kills to date.

I still can’t locate any side weapons bays on the T-50. Apart from the between engine bays. The forward part of the side is consumed by the gear and the aft part is flush with the engine. The only thing that could be another bay is the pannier under the inboard of the wing.

Lantinian at #103 suggested that these panniers were for actuators for the LEX. I think that's a possibility, though they could also be AAM bays. However, I was given to wonder by the lack of reference to Short range AAMs in the information given out to the media on the T-50

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Lantinian at #103 suggested that these panniers were for actuators for the LEX. I think that's a possibility

I think that is very unlikely. For one the pannier isn't actually near where ther LERX (aka PChN) would need an actuator. It is also way to big. The moveable LERX surface is quite small and would not have the kind of forces on it like the large flaps and ailerons requiring a much bigger actuator.

As to concerns about the location of the rear centreline weapons bay they are unfounded. Each centreline bay appears to be forward and aft of the aircraft's centre of gravity based on its centre of lift (from the wings). If anything the forward end of the aft centreline bay looks well forward of the CoG and the aft of the aft bay is plumb with the aft of the engines. The only thing about these bays is they don’t look that big. In that they lack depth because the centre body is not very deep. If the bays are half as deep as they are wide they will consume the entire depth of the centre body.

 

[yasotay]

As this is a prototype, is it not possible that some of the standard combat equipment is not yet attached for basic flight handling? For instance might there not be larger pannier's (all of the wonderful conformal things that have been tried on F-15/16 come to mind) in the works down the road. This is after all if I am not mistaken ACFT #1.

Just a thought.

 

[F-23 Blackwidow II]

I am very impressed with the T-50 prototype. It is a very cool looking aircraft indeed - in fact world-class! Very comparable to the USAF's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters in both stealth and performance. I wonder what its code name will be(?) Beautiful aircraft - just beautiful.

 

[sferrin]

I am very impressed with the T-50 prototype. It is a very cool looking aircraft indeed - in fact world-class! Very comparable to the USAF's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters in both stealth and performance. I wonder what its code name will be(?) Beautiful aircraft - just beautiful.

: