PAK FA, T-50: News #1

What were the obvious reasons?

It was a tiny single engine civilian aircraft. They sent Mig-23s but once identified as not military they sent out helicopters to force him down. The helicopters don't have air intercept radars and had trouble finding it till it was too late and he landed.

Of course they are not going to order it shot down... they just went through the crap about shooting down a Korean Airliner... in that case they suspected it was a US spy plane... in this case they were pretty sure it was not a spy plane so there was no reason to open fire.

If it had been a B-1B the Mig-23s would have shredded it with cannon fire if it refused orders to land and an airfield.

BTW your hero Rust got into the news again... he is now a convicted wife beater... real hero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1mJZIrbAaP8

Pogo: While the Su-27 can do around 600-700km @ supersonic speed, the T-50 manages over 1500km at supersonic speeds. while subsonic range is close to 3500km.

Daaaaamn.

TR1 since you understand Russian are you sure he says 1000 or 1500 km supersonic speed in that video ?

Yep, he clearly says more than 1500km for the PAK-FA

That is good for a multirole fighter... keep in mind the Mig-31 can fly 1,400km at mach 2.4 but you need a 50 ton aircraft to carry enough fuel to do that.

It is pretty clear that now that the aerospace defence forces are a separate entity that they might get a budget of sufficient size to create custom designed aircraft for their mission... for instance the PAK FA would be too stealthy for their needs and a bigger radar and larger missile payload would also suit... perhaps a stretched PAK FA with no horizontal tail surfaces and a large delta wing with semi conformal missiles in the belly and underwing positions with the internal weapon bay simply filled with a lot more fuel and the engines tweaked so that bypass air can be ram fed to form a ramjet bypass engine for higher speed supersonic cruise...

I still think a modified Tu-22M3 might be suitable too with a massive AESA and a relief crew and enormous numbers of AAMs over the belly and internally carried in the bomb bay.

PAK-FA succesfully passed important test phase and it seems it is far better than what they expected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfG0dr8cPRU&feature=player_embedded

medo wrote:PAK-FA succesfully passed important test phase and it seems it is far better than what they expected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfG0dr8cPRU&feature=player_embedded

What's the status on the new engines?

medo wrote:PAK-FA succesfully passed important test phase and it seems it is far better than what they expected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfG0dr8cPRU&feature=player_embedded

Pretty impressive footage (the spin test)...I could be wrong, but I don't think I've seen footage of other fighters doing horizontal spinning without losing altitude

Go home T-50, you're drunk.

Interview with Sergei Bogdan
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/06/24/257770.html

The main advantages of the Su-35 can not be demonstrated at the air show, for obvious reasons, because its main advantages - it's combat effectiveness. And here it is possible to give specific figures: combat effectiveness by 40 percent, he is superior to all other aircraft of the 4th generation, and the number of parameters is able to surpass 10 percent of the planes of the 5th generation.

Austin wrote:Interview with Sergei Bogdan
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/06/24/257770.html

The main advantages of the Su-35 can not be demonstrated at the air show, for obvious reasons, because its main advantages - it's combat effectiveness. And here it is possible to give specific figures: combat effectiveness by 40 percent, he is superior to all other aircraft of the 4th generation, and the number of parameters is able to surpass 10 percent of the planes of the 5th generation.

"and the number of parameters is able to surpass 10 percent of the planes of the 5th generation"

What does he mean by this?

I think more likely in kinemetic parameters like manouveribility,top speed ,STR ,ITR etc  Su-35 has got some good Avionics,Sensors,Radars, MMI,EW etc but its really hard to say how it would fare against says RAFALE , EF or F-35 avionics etc perhaps competitive.

I think RuAF is planning to purchase 100 Su-35 but people who has seen Su-35 at paris air show were dumbstruck and are awe with its performance ....  I just hope they purchase 100 more to make a 200 strong fleet of Su-35.

I hope Indian Air Force purchase too these types.

In terms of avionics, Su-35 smashes EF.
Rafale is closer match. Very difficult to say due to secrecy over both EW systems, IFF, etc.

Irbis is ascendant though, by a big margin. Rafale suffers from tiny space availability.

sepheronx wrote:My guess he is talking about manoeuvrability, which is correct.  And maybe at what ranges it can engage aircrafts like AWACS and or Tankers, due to its massive radar (Irbis-E has longer tracking/engagement range than the APG-79 radars).  But, when against 5th gen, thanks to F-22's and F-35's sensor fusion, it would get detected sooner than the Su-35 (Simply because, even though it has a powerful radar, the sensors on the F-22/35 will be able to pick up the radiation from the Irbis-E radar before the Irbis-E radar would be able to pick up the F-22/35).  So in terms of BVR combat, it would be more than 10% less capable.

Correct. But this is not confined to the F-22 and F-35 but effectively to all radar warning receiver systems, especially the ones designed after the Cold War due to advances to technology.

We know that radar detection is based upon reflection. What this mean is that what happens to the outgoing signal is not as important to the reception half as those reflected signals. Assume that we have a maximum theoretical range of 200 km, a safe figure based upon radar antenna size typical of the fighter class. That is the maximum reach of the outgoing signal. At this point, the physical characteristics of the target is irrelevant, meaning it does not matter if the target is 'stealthy' or not. But for the sake of debate, assume that the target is 'non-stealthy' and provide the necessary amplitude for those reflected signals.

As the outgoing signals leave the transmitter, it is affected by many factors, notably the inverse square law which states that loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance traveled. Another factor is that the atmosphere is not completely 'clean'. As the outgoing signal travels, it will collide with smaller targets ranging from birds to insects to assorted hydrometeors, fancy word for water based airborne objects. All of these will weaken the signal and that loss cannot be definitively declared simply because different altitudes have different levels of opacity regarding these smaller targets, and also the same different parts of the world for that matter.

The reflected signal will suffer the same ordeal as it travels back to the seeking radar, except now that its amplitude is weaken even more considerably because the target itself will have some absorption ability. All materials, including metals, do absorb some. By the time this signal is received by the seeking radar, it will be just a small fraction of the original outgoing signal and it may have phase and polarity changes as well.

For the target, it does not care about the reflected signal. It only care on analyzing the signal that impacted it. For the seeking radar, it must know the transmission characteristics of the transmitted signal, it must extract the reflected signal from background or what it thinks is a signal that is characteristically different from background, then compare it against the signal characteristics of the transmitted signal. It is this data processing that give us ghosts, scintillating targets, assured targets, or ambiguous targets. But as far as the target is concerned, as long as it can discriminate a signal that is radically different from background, it will know that it is being searched.

For the seeking radar, it also must contend with its own internal flaws such as radome aberration, waveguide leaks, poor electrical connections, and a long list of other potential technical deficiencies. If the target is 'non-cooperative' in design or 'stealthy', the problem of identification compounds many folds, to the extent that the reflected signals cannot be discriminated from background at all, which is the goal of 'stealth' in the first place: the insertion of the target into background noise.

So for a theoretical maximum reach of 200 km, a safe general assumption of effective detection range for 'non-stealth' targets ranges from 50-70% of that maximum. For low observable targets, more like visual range.

Interview: Chief designer of systems and electronic warfare, Deputy General Director of JSC "Concern Radio-electronic technology," Yuri Majewski.

General designer EW systems: technologies sometimes pull us back

Quite an informative interview

In terms of avionics, Su-35 smashes EF.

I am a bit surprised about this statement. True, Su-35 is equipped with a PESA radar, but EF-2000 has other advantages: it already has access to targeting pods, latest missiles and Link-16. I know this is not strictly related to avionics, but could you provide more detail?

I was mostly, admittedly, talking about radar. In terms of this primary sensor, the Su-35 is light years ahead of EF and its Captor.
The IRST also enjoys a much larger aperture.

Datalink is very secretive stuff, but is nothing new for Russian birds- they had them back in USSR days. Of course back then they were criticized by West for being "reliant on GCI" but really it was a natural step in providing fighters with more complete radar picture.

Missiles are a matter of integration, so I don't see how that's an EF exclusive advantage. Of course if we talk about weapons, the Su-35 is cleared with FAR more A2G munitions than the EF is. The typhoons path to full multi-role capability has been long and painfull. Today they can....drop guided bombs and that's pretty much it.
Of course, this isn't really the fault of the bird, but the situation it was born in.

With pods Russia is behind. We will see if this new pod is integrated into Su-35, hopefully sooner than later.

well americans are in the lead in AESA technology, europeans come second and russians 3rd.
but russian fighters do have bigger apertures so ill give them equal.
but the meteor ramjet missile gives huge advantage over rusian ones.
russian engine is still not developed.its a big x factor.
Well french have among best thermals in the world, and russia buys form them and its second hand.
Europeans also have better composite technology.
So it doesnt look good.
 

link

If you can understand Russian, you would learn that PAK FA has exceeded its developers expectations in the fields of supermaneurability and supercruise speed.
Commenting journalist has stated that PAK FA is much lighter than F-22 and its maximal speed is 500 km/h greater than F-22.
It is unknown, what speed has he talked about, afterburned max or supercruise speed. It is possible that this is his own fake addition, but bearing in mind the official status of those video it is unlikely.

Data is short, almost none actually. However progrm-outside experts have calculated that if the PAK FA empty weight is 3 tons less than F-22, then T-50 can reach 2100 km/h supercruise speed using the current 117 engines. This is indirectly confirmed by Mikhail Pogosian. He has stated that Sukhoi company is completely satisfied with 117 engine performance and the engine completely complies all the 5-gen fighter engine requirements on thrust, specific thrust, resource and speed/altitude params.

Also guys from KNAAZ say that T-50-6 and T-50-7 prototypes are in the middle-construction phase now. T-50-7 will not be flyable.
Experts oppinions on T-50-7 purpose has separated to 2 points:
1 - T-50-7 is an RCS measurment and optimizations body.
2 - T-50-7 is another one prototype frame for resource testing while the previous prototype testing gave a lot of data to improve airframe strength and optimize weight. It is also rumored that CM part in the future prototypes and LRIP planes bodies will be significally increased, so they will be tested on T-50-7.

There are the other facts about static version:
1 - T-50-4 has enforcement plates on several parts and those plates must be removed and replaced by internal body strength improvements.
2 - As T-50 has exceeded initial speed parameters, then they must be utilized by more robust body allowing to withstand long 2650 km/h (2.35M) flights.

Rpg type 7v wrote:well americans are in the lead in AESA technology, europeans come second and russians 3rd.
but russian fighters do have bigger apertures so ill give them equal.
but the meteor ramjet missile gives huge advantage over rusian ones.
russian engine is still not developed.its a big x factor.
Well french have among best thermals in the world, and russia buys form them and its second hand.
Europeans also have better composite technology.
So it doesnt look good.
 

The EF uses Captor. It is not AESA.
The Su-35 uses already a much more technologically advanced array.
Russia has been flying AESAs for as long as Europe, and PESAs far longer.

This is the reality today.

Doesn't look good?
LOL

PAK-FA development, vs the Euros finishing up the EF and Rafale.

Yeah, it doesn't look good for Europe, thats for sure.

Russian military to take delivery of 70 units of T 50 this year

Russian military to take delivery of 70 units of the stealth fighter this year; Indian version to be ready in 2018.

The Sukhoi PAK FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation), aka the T-50 fighter, a stealthy acrobat, will be seen on Russian airspace later this year. The important phase of engine development has been completed, Sukhoi said at the recently-concluded Paris Air Show.

According to the Russian military, which just completed stage one of flight tests, initial results suggest the Russian fighter turned out to be on a par with and even better in certain areas than its main American rival, the F-22 Raptor.
United Aircraft Corporation Chief Executive Mikhail Pogosyan says five T-50s are participating in the testing programme, which has allowed Russian designers to speed up the process and close the gap with the Americans. The F-22 has been serving in the US Air Force for a long time and is still, for good reason, considered to be the most advanced fighter. Far less is known about its Russian rival.

According to its designers, the T-50 is the embodiment of the latest in Russian aircraft technology. A number of innovative solutions have been implemented in the machine, including stealth technology, new construction materials and coatings, artificial intelligence, and the element base, which have brought Russia’s military aircraft building to a qualitatively new technological level.

A whole range of the latest polymer carbon plastics have made their debut on the T-50. They weigh 50 percent less than aluminum of comparable rigidity or titanium and are 20-25 percent lighter than steel. New materials cover 70 percent of the fighter’s surface. Its weight has been reduced to just a quarter of that of a fighter made of conventional materials, allowing the designers to increase its combat load.
The Sukhoi Design Bureau has highlighted “the PAK FA’s unprecedentedly low level of radar, optical and infrared visibility.” The T-50’s effective reflective area will amount to 0.5 square metres (its predecessor, the Sukhoi-30MKI, has 20 square metres). This means that the Sukhoi-30MKI appears on the radar screen as a 5x4 metre metal object, while the T-50’s reflection would only be a 1/40 of that, making it much more difficult to notice or aim weapons at it – especially as the machine benefits from the exceptional manoeuvrability that has been a hallmark of Sukhoi fighters.

In addition, the T-50 meets the main requirement of modern fighters – a high degree of intellectualisation. Its radar, complete with an active electronically-scanned array (AESA), can “see” everything that is going on in the air or on the ground at a distance of hundreds of kilometres. It can track multiple airborne and surface targets simultaneously, while keeping them in the crosshairs of its weapons.
Several dozen sensors attached to different parts of its hull not only enable it to monitor the surroundings but also to exchange real time data with ground control and within its airborne unit at the same time. The T-50’s “e-pilot” functionality is constantly analysing the situation, offering the pilot several options to act on. The pilot will receive the bulk of flight and combat data in the form of symbols and signs, making it easier to process and substantially easing the pressure on the pilot, while allowing him to focus on the tactical mission at hand.

The T-50 can take off and land from an only 300-400-metre runway. Going forward, it will serve as a basis for a navy variant. Weapons will be stored completely in internal compartments to meet the stealth technology’s requirements. According to certain reports, those compartments would be able to carry up to eight R-77 air-to-air missiles or two up to 1,500-kg guided aerial bombs.

Additionally, two long-range missiles could be suspended externally, to allow the fighter to engage targets located as far as 400 km away.
Indian version to be ready in 2018.

The fact that India has joined in development of the fighter suggests that the programme is promising and meets the highest standards. New Delhi has allocated almost $25 billion for this purpose and expects to obtain a proprietary version of the fifth-generation fighter by 2018. It is that machine that will be exported, according to Russian specialists, while the Russian-made T-50 will remain an exclusively domestic model – like the American F-22. Russian airmen expect to take delivery of the first serially produced fighters as soon as in 2013 and plan to purchase at least 70 units.

Source : Dmitry Litovkin in Rossiyskaya Gazeta

but the meteor ramjet missile gives huge advantage over rusian ones.

How is Meteor (100km+) a huge advantage over R-37M (300km)?

In fact I would say the opposite, that the Russians have advantages over the west in terms of AAMs and it is only going to get worse after PAK FA enters service and introduces new missiles.

russian engine is still not developed.its a big x factor.

It already exceeds their expectations and is not even the final developed engine.

Well french have among best thermals in the world, and russia buys form them and its second hand.

The French do have very good thermals and Russia produces some of Frances best including the QWIP based Catherine XP, but they also have their own developments that use some of the new things they learnt from the French...

Europeans also have better composite technology.

Based on what?

So it doesnt look good.

There you go again adding three and three and coming up with 3.5.  

Even assuming what you said was totally correct... which it wasn't, you have proven that no one western country is the best at everything. Is it a surprise that what Russia makes is not the best of everything too?

The point is that the sum of the parts does no equate to the whole like some mathematical equation... things can be compensated for... Bigger apetures of radar and IR sensors can compensate for lessor sensitivity, yet a very good PESA with very high power can be much better in many ways than a crude immature AESA that is bolted together to get an AESA into service as soon as possible. Equally you are ignoring the fact that the Europeans don't have a stealth fighter to put all their high tech stuff into, so they are starting with a handicap that can't be overcome easily.

The fact that the US has all sorts of useful stuff like AIM-9X high off boresight AAMs doesn't mean much when their F-22s can't even use it so in a dog fight it would be like a Mig-29 against an F-16 in the early 1990s... which means instant victory to the Mig as the F-16 just couldn't compete.

Sujoy wrote:The T-50 can take off and land from an only 300-400-metre runway

Sujoy wrote:it will serve as a basis for a navy variant

Sujoy wrote:those compartments would be able to carry up to eight R-77

Sujoy wrote:two up to 1,500-kg guided aerial bombs

Sujoy wrote:Additionally, two long-range missiles could be suspended externally, to allow the fighter to engage targets located as far as 400 km away

Sujoy wrote:Indian version to be ready in 2018

Sujoy wrote:Russian airmen expect to take delivery of the first serially produced fighters as soon as in 2013 and plan to purchase at least 70 units

Sujoy wrote:The T-50’s effective reflective area will amount to 0.5 square metres

Nice. Specially part about 8 R-77 carried internally.

How reliable is Dmitry Litovkin ?