PAK-FA, T-50: News #4

Air International Issue some snippets on PAK-FA from Piotr Butowski

The top speed of the SU-57 is a state secret so naturally the above estimate is strictly propaganda BS. There is simply
no physical reason why the SU-57 would be limited by Mach 2 vs. Mach 2.25 for the F-22. But then again, the retards who
publish this magazine called the S-57 a "Raptorski". The SU-57 and F-22 are clearly not from the same design template.
Those ridiculously huge tail rudders on the F-22 make it look like a joke when talking about "stealth".

MOSCOW, August 30. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Ministry expects to sign a contract for a pilot batch of fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jets next year and troops should receive these cutting-edge aircraft in 2019, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said on Wednesday.
...
"We are now considering signing a contract for the delivery of a pilot batch of these fighter jets in 2018 with their dispatch to the troops in 2019," he said.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/962787

kvs wrote:The top speed of the SU-57 is a state secret so naturally the above estimate is strictly propaganda BS.   There is simply
no physical reason why the SU-57 would be limited by Mach 2 vs. Mach 2.25 for the F-22.    But then again, the retards who
publish this magazine called the S-57 a "Raptorski".    The SU-57 and F-22 are clearly not from the same design template.
Those ridiculously huge tail rudders on the F-22 make it look like a joke when talking about "stealth".

The max. speed for Su-57 is about 2500-2600 Km/h (or will be when the final engine is deployed) or 2,32-2,4 mach at altitude
The number of Mach 2,25 for F-22 is to divide 2410 km/h between 297,5 m/s, this is about of 10000 metrers of altitude
The Mach number depends of altitude
At sea level, sound speed is 340m/s or 1225 Km/h.
The usual mistake is to divide the max speed with the sound speed at sea level (or multiplicate mach number with the mach speed at sea level)
That article has counted as T-50 speed 2450 Km/h and has divided between 1225 Km/h or mach speed at sea level
at 10.000 metres of altitude sound speed is about 300 m/s or 1060 Km/h
In fact , none airplane can reach 2 or 2,5 mach at sea level
The faster airplanes at sea level often have variable wings

Of course the performance of these airplanes is military secret
This numbers are published as reference, could be other at different altitudes or diferent payload

Aircraft T-50-11 arrived in Zhukovsky

Spotters report that on September 10, 2017, on the airfield of the Gromov Flight Research Institute JSC in Zhukovsky outside Moscow for testing came from a self-sustained flight from Komsomolsk-on-Amur across Russia, the ninth flight prototype of a fifth fighter generation PAK FA (Su-57) - the aircraft T-50-11 (the side number "511").

The T-50-11 airplane flew with hanging tanks with an intermediate landing in Novosibirsk, which enabled the spoters to take numerous photographs of it - earlier T-50-11 photos were not published in open sources.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2839953.html

Is the Su-57 targeting pod ready? If yes, is it a stealth disadvantage if its external and the F-22's is internal? Also why are there no operational targeting pods in the VVS? Its 2 decade old tech. If Russia can make anti-stealth radars and TV guided AGMs then it should've made targeting pods long ago.

Whats a targetting pod needed for?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is the Su-57 targeting pod ready? If yes, is it a stealth disadvantage if its external and the F-22's is internal? Also why are there no operational targeting pods in the VVS? Its 2 decade old tech. If Russia can make anti-stealth radars and TV guided AGMs then it should've made targeting pods long ago.

Because in the attack dedicated planes like Su-24, Su-34 and the Su-25 they just have integral targeting devices, so no need of a pod, same happen in the west with planes like Tornado and now F-35.
In the case of Su-57 and the other that would swap between A2A and A2G missions a detachable pod to be carried just in the attack ones are a wise choice.

GarryB wrote:What internal targeting pod does the F-22 have?

AFAIK it does not even have IRST let alone targeting pod.

I thought they were getting that upgrade? Or am I mistaking planes?

Hold on, If the Su-57 isn't going to need a targeting pod, what was all that business about the 101KS-N?

It will have a targeting pod. That pod will also be used for all other jets too.

GarryB wrote:What internal targeting pod does the F-22 have?

AFAIK it does not even have IRST let alone targeting pod.

F-22 can't carry any targeting pod. It has very limited A2G capabilities.

As far as I can tell, a targeting pod has been in use for many years on what is known in the West as "legacy aircraft". Since the approach there has been to acquire "multi-role" capability from a single platform. And also, the legacy aircraft such as F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s used a variety of independent systems which merged together on the platform. The targeting pod was integrated with the platform as yet another tech-capability added on. Targeting pods didn't exist at the time when these legacy aircraft were designed. Whereas aircraft designed and developed post-legacy era, i.e Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripen-NGs and etc, seemed to have carried on with the "add-on" targeting pod concept. It is only when the fifth-gen fighter was conceptualized, that a concerted effort (in some 5th-Gen aircraft, not all) was integrated into the design and architecture of the aircraft. Of course various aircraft design & manufacturing bureaus/corporations taken different approach in how they design and develop aircraft. It isn't a "set in stone" rule to follow.

Just my two cents on the subject.

Interview with United Engine Corporation Chief on New features of 117 Engine currently on PAK-FA compared to 117S Engine on Su-35 and AL-31F on Su-30

http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8228

1 ) there will be new ceramic materials can withstand very high temperatures.
2 ) High-pressure turbine can operate without cooling blades, bearings - no lubrication.
3 ) Inlet temperature exceeds the temperature of the combustion theater kerosene at 2300 degrees.
4 ) The engine is a new low-pressure compressor.
5 ) Substantially upgraded high-pressure compressor.
6 ) The new combustion chamber.
7 ) The new turbine.
8 ) Almost all new units 80 % new parts compared to 117S
9 ) Weight Reduction of 150 kg link
10 ) Fundamentally new system of automatic control system (ACS) - fully digital, with full responsibility. For the first time it will be built at the Russian element basis. Architecture of the system, the control algorithm and its Russian counterparts

kvs or anybody any thing on HPT without cooled blades and 2300deg TIT discussion we are having here , If the translation is correct is this a breakthrough for 117 engine ?

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6811&start=1920#p2212703

Found this comment here

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=24232&sid=1a68e398f2c841829350c11aaecd4068

To come back to the original question the answer is of course yes. The T-50 has a level of instability between 10-12% which is about twice that of the Su-30MKI and other canarded Flanker derivatives. One of the main rationals behind this particularly high level of instability is to vastly improve the maneuverability in the supersonic regime. The pressure point moves aft as the aircraft goes faster and the aircraft will become more stable in supersonic flight. On stable or marginally unstable designs that situations causes a pitch down moment which must be compensated by trimming the control surfaces to maintain level flight or larger control surface deflections to maneuver. The result is a considerable drag penalty at higher supersonic speeds and reduce maneuverability. Aircraft like the F-22 or Typhoon were the first to place emphasis on supersonic maneuverability as its benefits for BVR engagements were recognised throughout the 1970s in simulation studies. The maneuverability at supersonic speeds is one of the main differences between these newer designs and older ones when it comes to maneuver performance, while performance gains at subsonic speeds are smaller in comparison

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is the Su-57 targeting pod ready? If yes, is it a stealth disadvantage if its external and the F-22's is internal? Also why are there no operational targeting pods in the VVS? Its 2 decade old tech. If Russia can make anti-stealth radars and TV guided AGMs then it should've made targeting pods long ago.

The f 22 just doesn't have one. They were making an external one which was going to be a little windowed bump on the bottom. But a few of these details got scrapped. The fancy hide-away sensor tubes were scrapped too.

As for the su 57's pod. Theoretically it would be more stealthy if it wasnt there. Just like it would be theoretically more aerodynamic without it there too. But no. It is not a big enough increase in RCS to compromise the stealth. And remember. Sukhoi put a premium on frontal stealth. The face of the pod does a 180 so that when its not in use, a radar absorbant material is facing out.

People forget a major factor here. The pod would only work within a very short distance, like the other pods. What this means is that by the ranges the PAK FA would be flying into with the pod to do air to ground operations, it wouldn't be too hard for the ground based assets to spot the Su-57 and shoot at it or shoot it down. Ideally the pod would work better for bomb trucks like the Su-34 or Su-30.

miketheterrible wrote:People forget a major factor here.  The pod would only work within a very short distance, like the other pods.  What this means is that by the ranges the PAK FA would be flying into with the pod to do air to ground operations, it wouldn't be too hard for the ground based assets to spot the Su-57 and shoot at it or shoot it down.  Ideally the pod would work better for bomb trucks like the Su-34 or Su-30.

Main role of Su-57 is not to be a bomber
For that job, Russia built the Su-34 and for mixed role the Su-30SM