• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development

Status
Not open for further replies.

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
20
flateric said:
that's what RITA said. but it doesn't mean that fire did happen for sure
Yup. Still have sound file somewhere where Rita claims hydraulics are gone on T-50. ;D
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
I talked to witness - engines were running on landing. another sensor glitch may be? we'd never learn for sure at least nearest time
would be interesting to check time gap to next flight...
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
(54) AIRCRAFT IN INTEGRAL AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION
(57) Abstract:
FIELD: transport.
SUBSTANCE: invention relates to multimode
aircraft. Proposed aircraft comprises fuselage 1 with
dogtooth extension, wing with outer wings 3
smoothly jointed with fuselage 1, all-moving
horizontal tailplane 5, and all-moving vertical
tailplane 5. Fuselage middle section is flattened and
made up of a set of aerodynamic sections. Engines
are mounted in engine nacelles 6 spaced apart along
horizontal line while engine axes are directed at
acute angle to the plane of aircraft axis of symmetry
along flight direction. Said dogtooth extension 2
comprises rotary parts 8.
EFFECT: increased radar deception, better
maneuverability at larger angles of attack and
aerodynamic quality at supersonic speeds.
10 cl, 4 dwg





 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
20
Discovery of the year goes to...

Mr. Flateric. Awesome stuff! ;D Could you please attach the pictures, i am not having any luck opening them in Radikal or here.
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
20
Thank you. It is just i can see pictures, but cant open them to appear larger. That problem is solved with PDF. :) I did try to google it, but my google-fu is weak today...
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
331
Sundog said:
I'm at work, and out web filter won't allow me to access the source to get the details.

T-50 faster, longer ranged, and able to carry more weapons than the F-22
Sorry for being a little bit offence (maybe I had a too bad day :-\ ), but each time I read Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, says something and esp. the Sukhoi PAK-FA will "fly faster, further and carry more payload than the American F-22" it is as realiable as a glossy print advertisment from Lockheed Martin or any other manufactor praising their product as the best.
Such statements are more political "hot air" than anything substantial.

Deino :mad:
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
172
Deino said:
Sundog said:
I'm at work, and out web filter won't allow me to access the source to get the details.

T-50 faster, longer ranged, and able to carry more weapons than the F-22
Sorry for being a little bit offence (maybe I had a too bad day :-\ ), but each time I read Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, says something and esp. the Sukhoi PAK-FA will "fly faster, further and carry more payload than the American F-22" it is as realiable as a glossy print advertisment from Lockheed Martin or any other manufactor praising their product as the best.
Such statements are more political "hot air" than anything substantial.

Deino :mad:
As I said above, I couldn't read it until I came home from work. I thought there would be actual numbers in the article to demonstrate it; though there isn't any real proof until the aircraft actually "flies" the mission. Considering it won't really be operational until about fifteen years after the Raptor, I would hope it would be better in some areas. Although the range issue was expected, considering the Russians have always gone with larger fighters to protect all of their territory. We've never required that kind of range.

Also, I expect it to carry more payload because I figure they're going to have the ability to carry all kinds of external weapons loads. If we hung a lot of weapons off of the wings of the F-22, it would probably be comparable, but we're not going to that. At least, not yet anyway.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
Deino said:
Such statements are more political "hot air" than anything substantial.
as always
 
R

Radical

Guest
Considering that the T-50 shares some aerodynamic traits with the YF-23, the PAK-FA may very well be faster than the F-22.
 

tacitblue

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Radical said:
Considering that the T-50 shares some aerodynamic traits with the YF-23, the PAK-FA may very well be faster than the F-22.
And lack of caustic at high temperature RAM. While the YF-23 may have been a rocketship (who knows how fast!?) it was a prototype that didn't incorporate all of the LO technology of a production aircraft that limits time spent at high mach airspeeds.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
947
Radical said:
Considering that the T-50 shares some aerodynamic traits with the YF-23, the PAK-FA may very well be faster than the F-22.
And may not be.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
M=2.1 -- M=2.35 max
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
Reaction score
59
I would be surprised if the airplane we're seeing now hasn't been designed to achieve >M2.4 speeds eventually. Eventually being when it is re-engineered into a successor in twenty to thirty years (yes, I think the Russians are thinking that far ahead in terms of building in development potential).

I'd submit the following observations:
- The observed increasing importance of development potential in airframes (eg. Su-35, Mig-35, various F fighter and mirage upgrades)
- The fact that the original requirements specified a top speed in the upper half of the Mach 2+ range (ie. approaching speeds for Mig Interceptors)
- The fact that kinematic performance is known to be valued in the air doctrine (mention of the importance of sustained supersonic maneuverability for defeating BVR SAMs as a design feature of this aircraft in the Russian press. The decision to build the weapons system around ~700kg intercept missiles may also be evidence for this valuation - although weaker evidence).
- The wide spacing between the engine and core components (like tail surfaces and weapons bay), potentially allowing for larger diametre engines
- Ongoing development of successor engines
- The lack of faceting on the rear fuselage

I'd be curious as to your reactions. If anyone can take down one of these points it would be quite interesting for me.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
Avimimus said:
I would be surprised if the airplane we're seeing now hasn't been designed to achieve >M2.4 speeds eventually.
it's well known FACT, that maximum speed was dropped from initial 2500 km/h to 2300 and then to 2135 km/h on request from Sukhoi to AF commander Mikhaylov
 

tacitblue

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Avimimus said:
I would be surprised if the airplane we're seeing now hasn't been designed to achieve >M2.4 speeds eventually. Eventually being when it is re-engineered into a successor in twenty to thirty years (yes, I think the Russians are thinking that far ahead in terms of building in development potential).

I'd submit the following observations:
- The observed increasing importance of development potential in airframes (eg. Su-35, Mig-35, various F fighter and mirage upgrades)
- The fact that the original requirements specified a top speed in the upper half of the Mach 2+ range (ie. approaching speeds for Mig Interceptors)
- The fact that kinematic performance is known to be valued in the air doctrine (mention of the importance of sustained supersonic maneuverability for defeating BVR SAMs as a design feature of this aircraft in the Russian press. The decision to build the weapons system around ~700kg intercept missiles may also be evidence for this valuation - although weaker evidence).
- The wide spacing between the engine and core components (like tail surfaces and weapons bay), potentially allowing for larger diametre engines
- Ongoing development of successor engines
- The lack of faceting on the rear fuselage

I'd be curious as to your reactions. If anyone can take down one of these points it would be quite interesting for me.
Mig-31s had/have Mach 3 performance. Was it ever useful? Maybe I'm wrong, but F-15s and F-16s have downed more Migs and Sukhois than Charlie Sheen downs drinks in a week.
Those types of short bursts of speed for getting out of range of guns and short ranged AAMs, but if they've turned tail and are heading for friendlier skies, even Mach 2.5 for brief moments won't help against the 120C and D when it comes out. The Pak Fa doesn't look too LO from the rear, so barring ECM, they'll present a bright spot on our F-35s and F-22s radars and IR.
The Pak Fa is also a quite large/heavy airplane. But there is no mention of accelleration performance. A F-22 with a "slower" max speed may very well out accellerate it through Mach 2. After all the F-22 is lighter. Yes, yes, I know no official weights exist, but comparing the Pak Fa with its closest relatives, and considering its a more complex machine, full of internal weapons bays with hydraulic actuators that its relatives don't have --- The Pak Fa simply must weigh more.
The US (my US) has banked quite a bit on the F-35s technological wizardy over blistering performance. I hope we've put our money on the right horse. But considering the numbers of Pak Fa's to be built, they would be overwhelmed by technocratic-networked F-35s with 6 slammers tucked away neatly inside the somewhat bulbous inlets. While the F-35A/B may not have the altitude advatange of the Pak Fa for adding kinetic energy to missiles, the F-35C with its larger wing will surely have more useable altitude (by how much?) than either the USAFs or USMCs aircraft.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,729
Reaction score
172
tacitblue said:
Mig-31s had/have Mach 3 performance. Was it ever useful? Maybe I'm wrong, but F-15s and F-16s have downed more Migs and Sukhois than Charlie Sheen downs drinks in a week.
Those types of short bursts of speed for getting out of range of guns and short ranged AAMs, but if they've turned tail and are heading for friendlier skies, even Mach 2.5 for brief moments won't help against the 120C and D when it comes out. The Pak Fa doesn't look too LO from the rear, so barring ECM, they'll present a bright spot on our F-35s and F-22s radars and IR.
The Pak Fa is also a quite large/heavy airplane. But there is no mention of accelleration performance. A F-22 with a "slower" max speed may very well out accellerate it through Mach 2. After all the F-22 is lighter. Yes, yes, I know no official weights exist, but comparing the Pak Fa with its closest relatives, and considering its a more complex machine, full of internal weapons bays with hydraulic actuators that its relatives don't have --- The Pak Fa simply must weigh more.
The US (my US) has banked quite a bit on the F-35s technological wizardy over blistering performance. I hope we've put our money on the right horse. But considering the numbers of Pak Fa's to be built, they would be overwhelmed by technocratic-networked F-35s with 6 slammers tucked away neatly inside the somewhat bulbous inlets. While the F-35A/B may not have the altitude advatange of the Pak Fa for adding kinetic energy to missiles, the F-35C with its larger wing will surely have more useable altitude (by how much?) than either the USAFs or USMCs aircraft.
As with all things air combat related, it's easy to speculate about acceleration, top speed, etc. However, combat rarely, if ever goes according to how it's modeled. In combat, both planes aren't only going to meet at each aircraft's optimum combat weight, for instance. Also, I don't think the Russians are worried about the rear IR signature anymore than we are on our planes, especially considering they may just shoot and extend going from super cruise speed to max speed in order to minimize exposure to enemy missiles.

Also, I've never seen any evidence that a MiG-31 could do Mach three. I knew the Foxbats could, but it was rare since it wasn't sustainable and repeatable without changing the engines. To the best of my knowledge the MiG-31s top speed is around Mach 2.5. What I've always found interesting was the Foxhounds very high q limit. IIRC, it could do around 1000mph on the deck. I believe that was for the purpose of chasing down high speed under the RADAR strike aircraft and cruise missiles.
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
884
Reaction score
80
Sundog said:
To the best of my knowledge the MiG-31s top speed is around Mach 2.5.
Mach 2.83 dash (2.35 sustained), which is close enough, I suppose. It also works out to some 3000km/h TAS, perhaps further causing some to think in terms of Mach 3.
 

rousseau

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
7
flateric said:
Avimimus said:
I would be surprised if the airplane we're seeing now hasn't been designed to achieve >M2.4 speeds eventually.
it's well known FACT, that maximum speed was dropped from initial 2500 km/h to 2300 and then to 2135 km/h on request from Sukhoi to AF commander Mikhaylov
Which means the top speed will be lower than M.1.8?
 

tacitblue

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Kryptid said:
consealed said:
Which means the top speed will be lower than M.1.8?
Between 40,000 feet and 80,000 feet, 2,135 kilometers per hour is about Mach 2.
How does this affect the SR-71s fabeled speed at 120k ft? ;)
 

Kryptid

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
7
Website
www.facebook.com
tacitblue said:
Kryptid said:
consealed said:
Which means the top speed will be lower than M.1.8?
Between 40,000 feet and 80,000 feet, 2,135 kilometers per hour is about Mach 2.
How does this affect the SR-71s fabeled speed at 120k ft? ;)
At 120,000 feet, the speed of sound is 710 miles per hour. Mach 3 would be ~3,400 kilometers per hour.
 

DSE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
457
Reaction score
19

CrimsonStars

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
flateric said:
Avimimus said:
I would be surprised if the airplane we're seeing now hasn't been designed to achieve >M2.4 speeds eventually.
it's well known FACT, that maximum speed was dropped from initial 2500 km/h to 2300 and then to 2135 km/h on request from Sukhoi to AF commander Mikhaylov
Will this design change reflect in the Indian FGFA also?
There were talks of a design starting in 2012, what is there to design newly? Structural changes for the new engine that the Indians wanted?
There could be a possibility that the Indian version will end up better than the original PAK FA. Like the Su 30MKI vs vanilla Su30MK.
They could wait till 2018 since they have the Rafale production till then and then the LCA MK2 flight testing. Plus the AMCA design and development. That seems like quite a handful.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
94
Forgive me if these photos have already been posted, I only went back 15 pages to check (this post can always be removed by the Powers That Be). I find they illustrate clearly some interesting details.

 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
conjecture. only hint is that officially licensed by Sukhoi Zvezda model kit carries "Su-50" name
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
404
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Indian PAK-FA variant delayed by two years"
by
Dave Majumdar
on May 15, 2012 6:55 PM

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/indian-pak-fa-variant-delayed.html

The Indian version of Sukhoi's T-50 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter might be delayed by two years, press reports in that country indicate.

Previously, India's defense minister A K Antony had said the Sukhoi/Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) would be inducted into the Indian Air Force by 2017. On 14 May, deputy minister M M Pallam Raju told the Indian parliament that the project is being delayed.

"The fifth generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019, following which the series production will start," Pallam Raju says.

The Indian T-50 variant, which the country hopes to buy 250 of, is expected to cost about $100 million per copy--$25 billion for the whole Indian production run. The Russians are also buying 250 jets.

But the Indian variant is far more ambitious that the original Russian version of the T-50. The Indians have a good 40 to 45 improvements that they want incorporated.

One notable feature that India wants is a 360° active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar rather than the more conventional AESA found on the original Russian aircraft. A 360° AESA would be a first for any fighter on the planet, and it will undoubtedly be expensive.

Nor have the Indians determined if they want an enhanced single-seat version of the fighter or if they want to develop a two-seat variant. Redesigning the airframe might adversely affect the aircraft's stealth characteristics or impact the jet's performance to a degree that the Indians find unacceptable. It would also add to the jet's cost. The Indians will make that decision pending the outcome of the FGFA's preliminary design phase.

The Indian side of the programme is focusing on composite materials that can withstand flights at Mach 1.7. That suggests that the goal of the Indo-Russian effort is to the design the fighter to cruise at around those airspeeds--which would be comparable to the US Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

From the Indian perspective, perhaps the most important aspect of the FGFA effort is that the country's engineers are being embedded with their Russian counterparts. That would enable the Indians to learn how to design and build a large twin-engine fighter from the relatively early stages of the project.

More here at India's Business Standard:
http://business-standard.com/india/news/delayschallenges-for-indo-russian-fighter/474329/
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
20
"One notable feature that India wants is a 360° active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar rather than the more conventional AESA found on the original Russian aircraft. A 360° AESA would be a first for any fighter on the planet, and it will undoubtedly be expensive."

Oh those Indians. How about Plasma stealth? Lets call Iran.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,896
Reaction score
511
2 was seen yesterday in flight, BTW
 

Kryptid

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
275
Reaction score
7
Website
www.facebook.com
Hmm, is it that they want a single radar that can look 360 degrees, or a system of radars placed around the plane that give 360-degree coverage when data-fused? I sure don't know how you'd get a single AESA in a fighter plane's nose to have fully-spherical situational awareness.
 

saintkatanalegacy

Little Miss Whiffologist
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
718
Reaction score
2
^DAS radar. I reckon you need a slightly bigger tail for that though. The current one doesn't have enough space for such module.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
331
posted at the Key-Forum ... anyone with an idea, why the left engine is new (without the ceramics ??)

Deino
 

Attachments

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
saintkatanalegacy said:
^DAS radar. I reckon you need a slightly bigger tail for that though. The current one doesn't have enough space for such module.
Do you mean the "radome-like" structure peaking out between the engine nozzles?

My god! it's a mini Nimrod AEW!! ;D
 

flanker

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
20
Deino said:
posted at the Key-Forum ... anyone with an idea, why the left engine is new (without the ceramics ??)

Deino
First off, this pic is as old as Mammoth sh*t. Second how is that engine new? Here is a "new" picture with the new engine:



http://www.take-off.ru/index.php/news/94-may-2010/469-t-50-14-05-2010
 

saintkatanalegacy

Little Miss Whiffologist
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
718
Reaction score
2
Catalytic said:
Do you mean the "radome-like" structure peaking out between the engine nozzles?

My god! it's a mini Nimrod AEW!! ;D
the problem is more like this

note: old speculative image from paralay

and yes the rear structure is rather thin albeit risky...
 

Attachments

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
331
flanker said:
Deino said:
posted at the Key-Forum ... anyone with an idea, why the left engine is new (without the ceramics ??)

Deino
First off, this pic is as old as Mammoth sh*t. Second how is that engine new? Here is a "new" picture with the new engine:



http://www.take-off.ru/index.php/news/94-may-2010/469-t-50-14-05-2010

Not sure why you are so Offensive ? I simply noteced that in the left Engine the ceramic is of a different Color ... As such I think it's Safe to Assimilation that there is something New on it.


Deino
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top