it seems we cant understand each other , i said engine versions ,not number of engines Rolling Eyes , there will be always 2 engines in t-50 ,but different engine version (different nozzle mostly).x
When you say 1-2-3 engine versions, it sounds like you mean versions with one engine (ie a light 5th gen), the standard version with two engines (PAK FA), and a heavy version with three engines presumably as a Su-34 type variant replacement or Mig-31 replacement or both.
You would need a significant redesign of the PAK FA to make it suitable for Mig-31 replacement... the reduced manouverabilty requirement would allow the rear horizontal tail surfaces to be removed and perhaps even the vertical tails removed as well and of course the wing would then become a very large delta though the higher speed requirements would require much more sweep of the leading edge.
The body could be half as long again and the belly could be lowered so it has a flat bottom that would allow a row of medium or short range missiles below the engines in sort of semi conformal positions of the current design and an extra layer of heavy missiles in the main bay, though with the lowered belly they would all be internal.
That would allow perhaps two R-77s and a 9M100 under each engine nacelle at the front and the back, so 8 R-77s and 4 9M100s plus 4 R-37Ms in the original centre bays and 4 more below them for a total load of 8 x R-37M, 8 x R-77, and 4 9M100. In this case the 9M100 are short range point defence missiles with a lock on after launch capability and full thrust vectoring performance so they could be released downwards in flight and then be directed in any direction to hit an incoming missile like an AMRAAM for self defence if the US has a sneaky trick like arming its B-2s with a few AMRAAMs for self defence.
In fact an interesting idea would be to add a ramjet engine on a spine down the upper back of the aircraft that gets air fed from the main inlets to the standard two engines to operate at high altitude and high speed so one or both standard engines could be shut down to further improve fuel efficiency... the main issue of course is whether the structure can take the heat of those speeds which it likely can't as it was never a requirement.
that doesnt matter interceptor version was to be with just frontal stealth or reduced rcs with circular rear nozzles (no loss of thrust)
Even with just frontal stealth it is an unnecessary cost that will make the aircraft more expensive to make and operate than it needs to be.
When the only tool you have is a hammer you have to treat every problem like it is a nail... not all problems are nails.
russian and indians wanted 2 seat then russian side give up and single seat with l-band radars added.
Russian side never planned for 2 seat PAK FA.
From Austins post above:
The T-50’s “e-pilot” functionality is constantly analyzing the situation, offering the pilot several options on which to act.
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 5th gen avionics act as an electronic pilot that passes only necessary and relevant information to the pilot so he can make a choice or decision... there is no need for a second crewman.
Once you can master a 4th gen fighter (ie Su-27/30/35) then flying this 5th gen fighter should be like flying with an instructor all the time.
and single seat with l-band radars added.
L band radars were planned for the Su-35 first and were added to PAK FA because both would be dealing with stealth targets.
indiand wanted 2 seat with square nozzle and all round stealth so it would be a fighter version.
We shall see what India wants... that will be the FFGA... the PAK FA is Russian.
russian cant seem to reach mig-31 performance supercruise is not near mach 2.
Funny that... perhaps a bit like the F-22 not being able to supercruise at the same speed as the Mig-31. Very odd. Perhaps because PAK FA and F-22 were never intended to be Mig-31 replacements?
so thats the reason all the talk about new mig-31 production with 6 missileaesa radar and better speeds.,there is lot of potential there.
Potential what? If PAK FA can be adapted to do the job of a Mig-31 then surely the Yak-130 can be adapted to the role of Su-25 and perhaps even light 5th gen fighter... or not.
The key to saving money is not to take the most expensive fighter in the fleet and use it for everything. The US wouldn't save money by taking the B-2 design and using it to replace all its B-52s and B-1Bs. A much cheaper B-2 design without the stealth and with the capability to carry enormous numbers of long range stealthy cruise missiles conformally over its belly with a straight forward avionics package designed for stand off launching of cruise missiles in WWIII or heavy high flying bomb truck for use against Afghanistan with extensive fighter support for other actions that maybe costs $150 million a plane to buy that is much much cheaper to operate... is fuel efficient.
Well lets not be too overcome with common sense and reality...
t-50 interceptor armament is just 4 missiles same as current mig-31. so t-050 interceptor version will be same or lacking not upgrading on mig-31.
Both aircraft could have the same armament in fact except the T-50 would have 4 R-37M missiles internally and a further 4 missiles on external pylons, while the Mig-31BM could have 4 R-37Ms on its belly with four wing pylons for other missiles too.
Both would have a gun, though I believe the Mig-31s are not using them at the moment.
The difference is that four big heavy externally mounted missiles would likely greatly reduce supercruise capacity for the T-50, and also effect flight range.
The other aspect of course is that the PAK FA will likely actually be rather more expensive than a Mig-31.