PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

[localhost127]

Like I said from my original post……….”I don’t have time to read all of the posts and I apologize!” I just needed a quick and simple answer. Is that too hard?

why are you in such a hurry to receive an answer?

there is no quick and easy answer for your questions. it's very involving and requires a lot of effort. you'll slowly come to an understanding of the subject versus looking for talking points that are mostly irrelevant.

find time to read the entire thread; it will be far more rewarding.

 

[gf0012-aust]

there is no quick and easy answer for your questions. it's very involving and requires a lot of effort. you'll slowly come to an understanding of the subject versus looking for talking points that are mostly irrelevant.

find time to read the entire thread; it will be far more rewarding.

There are more than a few nuggets of truth in the above.

"run" slowly and you'll see more....

 

[Feanor]

So I'm guessing that it's not as high tech as the f-22? Air superiority is #1 when it comes to warfare and I wouldn't see why any country would want to jeopardize that.
Sorry if my questions are elementary, I am trying to be logical.

Cheers!

Russia has hopes for long term strategic partnership with India that involves joint development, and close economic ties. Within that context Russia is willing to share it's latest and greatest tech with India.

 

[BK101]

Russia has hopes for long term strategic partnership with India that involves joint development, and close economic ties. Within that context Russia is willing to share it's latest and greatest tech with India.

Thanks Feanor!! That is all that I’m looking for. A quick simple answer.
Localhost127, I apologized ahead of time if the question was already asked, and I mentioned that I really don’t have time to read 10,000 posts to every thread. As you can see I only have a few posts, and you have 90. Feanor successfully answered my question without any sort of insult or criticism. I understand were you are coming from though.
My questions were nothing more than humble and from a person who came in the game late and needed to be quickly informed.
Anyway I don’t want to get off the subject.
Once again, thank Feanor!!

Cheers!

 

[localhost127]

photos:
Index of /su50

edit:
here is a zip with all of the photos, in case the website is taken down
http://www.sendspace.com/file/pbhjhx

 

[kay_man]

i still have a question about the underside of the Pak-Fa.
the air intakes and the underbelly of the plane are notin the same line. i.e unlike the F-22 it is not completely flat.
my question is that would it affect stealth of is it possible to make the aircraft stealthy the way it is?
also the engeine is easily visible from the front. That would surely compromise stealth.

 

[Marc 1]

i still have a question about the underside of the Pak-Fa.
the air intakes and the underbelly of the plane are notin the same line. i.e unlike the F-22 it is not completely flat.
my question is that would it affect stealth of is it possible to make the aircraft stealthy the way it is?
also the engeine is easily visible from the front. That would surely compromise stealth.

IIt has been mentioned earlier that it seems the stealthiness of the design has been optimised in the frontal aspect. The curves seen of the underside may not be as stealthy - but that may have been intentional as the Russians may have lacked the funding or time for all aspect LO - either that or their concept op operations is different and the extra expense of the additional LO shaping was considered superfluous.

There is a device that will block the direct view of the engines due to be fitted IIRC.

 

[kay_man]

IIt has been mentioned earlier that it seems the stealthiness of the design has been optimised in the frontal aspect. The curves seen of the underside may not be as stealthy - but that may have been intentional as the Russians may have lacked the funding or time for all aspect LO - either that or their concept op operations is different and the extra expense of the additional LO shaping was considered superfluous.

There is a device that will block the direct view of the engines due to be fitted IIRC.

Device? What device?...Never even heard anything like it.
Do u mean some sort of perforated covering?

 

[Marc 1]

Device? What device?...Never even heard anything like it.
Do u mean some sort of perforated covering?

Can't remember where I saw a diagram of how it would look. Basically imagine two large circular rings, one in the intake, one about 2m further down the intake at the face of the engine. Each of these rings has an equal number of spokes radiating out from the centre (a bit like an apple slicer/corer with twice as many spokes. These spokes are connected with panels from spoke to spoke.

The principle is that when the spokes are straight and aligned the air flows straight to the engines and the engine faces are visible. The ring closest to the engine can be rotated say an eighth of a turn, the ring at the intake stays stationary and the vanes connecting the spokes are then twisted in a spiral fashion, blocking the view of the engine and apparently reducing engine thrust a tad.

 

[OpinionNoted]

The PAK-FA programmes course will no doubt make for interesting times in the aerospace world and be quiet the conundrum for US airpower and the nations waiting on F35,if the F35 programme continues to feed the perception that its not a happy ship.
PAK-FA successfully entering service in its present airframe confige or morphed into a true all aspect VLO platform will no doubt cause aprehension amongst those qued to aquire F35,not the least amongst them the US military.
No doubt F22 is lurking in the wings as a fall back position...well in the US case anyway.
Will be interesting to see what options F35 nations will have...but anyway PAK-FA will undoubtably have the biggest impact on western combat aircraft houses and what they do to counter it...we are in for some very interesting times...let the show continue...

 

[moahunter]

I find this comment interesting because some people think the YF-23 was a better aircraft than the YF-22:

PICTURES & VIDEO: Sukhoi's PAK FA fighter completes first flight

Some observers have drawn similarities between the Russian design and the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23, which lost the US Air Force’s advanced tactical fighter contest to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The PAK FA also has some characteristics in common with both US designs, such as supercruise performance and internal weapons bays.

 

[kay_man]

I find this comment interesting because some people think the YF-23 was a better aircraft than the YF-22:

PICTURES & VIDEO: Sukhoi's PAK FA fighter completes first flight

You cant co-relate YF-23 to the PAk-Fa. Two aircrafts can be very different despite looking somewhat similar.
The YF-22 was proven to be better than Yf-23 but one cannot draw conclusion about the Pak-Fa from them.

 

[moahunter]

You cant co-relate YF-23 to the PAk-Fa. Two aircrafts can be very different despite looking somewhat similar.
The YF-22 was proven to be better than Yf-23 but one cannot draw conclusion about the Pak-Fa from them.

It was proven to be more manvoureable (useful if a naval variant had been developed), but not as stealthy or fast (per that reliable source, wikipedia). I don't know how the Pak-Fa, will match up to the Raptor, only time will tell, I sort of thought maybe the article is hinting that the Pak-Fa took some ideas from the YF-23, or at minimun, is a similar concept.

 

[Haavarla]

It was proven to be more manvoureable (useful if a naval variant had been developed), but not as stealthy or fast (per that reliable source, wikipedia). I don't know how the Pak-Fa, will match up to the Raptor, only time will tell, I sort of thought maybe the article is hinting that the Pak-Fa took some ideas from the YF-23, or at minimun, is a similar concept.

Oh, it's a total ripoff!
They stole the idea of having 2 engines, the idea of having 2 tail fins, the idea of having a pilot sitting near the front, the idea of tricycle landing gear, the idea of grey paint.:laugh


Come on, one quick glance at the wing design proves that the YF-23 and this T-50 is two different beast.
B.t.w... pls define a 'similar concept' when it comes to aircraft design?


Thanks

 

[gf0012-aust]

The YF-22 was proven to be better than Yf-23 but one cannot draw conclusion about the Pak-Fa from them.

I always preferred the YF-23 over the F-22. I'd be cautious in the claim that the YF-22 was proven to be better though. I've been involved in a few assessments where the selected solution won out not entirely due to technical proficiency issues.

performance needs to be seen through various constructs.

eg:

sheer platform performance
performance bands
doctrine impact (eg overall force doctrine changes etc... expeditionary vessels are a good example of how doctrine can undergo massive change just due to the injection of one new platform type)
systems performance
systems integration
system of system issues
IOC/FOC costs
through life costs
force integration
training issues
technology issues etc....
coalition interoperability issues
tech sharing issues

there are lots of ways to cut the cloth

 

[Scorpion82]

The YF-22 was simply a less risky and supposedly cheaper design than the YF-23 and Lockheed designed a more manoeuvrable and more developed aircraft (cockpit design etc.). The YF-23 proved to be stealthier and faster than the YF-22, while still being very manoeuvrable.
The YF-119 was also selected over the YF-120 because it was seen as the less risky and cheaper solution. The YF-120's variable bypath ratio was a revolutionary feature and we may in fact see something like that being standard on the next jet fighter generation. There were certainly a couple of other reasons to be considered as explained by GF though his list is general and not fully applicable to the ATF contenders.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Come on, one quick glance at the wing design proves that the YF-23 and this T-50 is two different beast.

Agree, one was clearly designed for a VLO mission concept, the other clearly does not - it's a class b runway capable platform with some LO features.

 

[Haavarla]

Agree, one was clearly designed for a VLO mission concept, the other clearly does not - it's a class b runway capable platform with some LO features.

Thats a new one..'class B runway platform with some LO features'.
Let me guess what the Class A runway capable platform would be, the F-22/YF-23?

The T-50 design has more practical operational design to it.
There will be very little changes from this T-50 prototype to the series prod.
It has been confirmed by Sukhoi.
No doubt it will be upgraded later on with new engines and canopy glass.
If we look at the YF-22 & YF-23 they was not like the prod series(F-22).
I think the YF-23 also would have been altered in some way if it had been selected in the tender.

And last the R&D/prod cost and service cost is nowhere near the lower budged of this T-50.
If one consider all this the T-50 design will quite a bird.


Thanks

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats a new one..'class B runway platform with some LO features'.
Let me guess what the Class A runway capable platform would be, the F-22/YF-23?

"Thats a new one.." ?? Are you serious? Have you not looked at the design profile and intent of the Mig-29/3nn class/family? Guess what - it's been a soviet/russian design philosophy to operate out of less prepared and unprepared strips for years. That's what large undercarriages, large wheels and FOD ejectors are designed for....

So, I gather you're going to take my earlier commentary badly without actually understanding why it was said in the first place.

so before you decide to get all frothy and try to polarise the debate into some idiotic east vs west debate lests narrow it down quickly.

the russian undercarriage and FOD indicates a design imperative to operate out of less prepared strips - atypically these are referred to as Class B airstrips and runways because their final finish is rough.

Its a well known issue so I'm unsure as to why you are compelled to take the above barely controlled response.

So, to paraphrase your previous, "Let me guess" - you knew that the F-22 and YF-23 are obviously not designed for Class B runways?

IOW, the design as usual is based on russian design philosophy to operate out of less/well prepared locations - its a doctrine/CONOPS issue

The T-50 design has more practical operational design to it.

and if you'd read and understood my comments prev then you would have seen that it was the underlying foundation for my response. CREF all above

There will be very little changes from this T-50 prototype to the series prod.
It has been confirmed by Sukhoi.

so apart from the throw away commentary by all and sundry on the internet that the engines and cockpit could be revised (all non trivial tasks and all requiring major testing as if effects handling, sensor issues etc....) you're accepting that the platform will be visually unchanged? I'd suggest not - unless they've decided that this is an interim class (Chinese development philosophy). Sonehow I don't think this is an interim,

and what has that got to do with a deliberate design intent of large wheels, robust undercarriage and FOD ejectors? You think they will design them out and effectively have to redesign the plane again? Its not a trivial task. Feel free to point out any russian/soviet design that went from one class of carriage to another as part of design development.

No doubt it will be upgraded later on with new engines and canopy glass.
If we look at the YF-22 & YF-23 they was not like the prod series(F-22).
I think the YF-23 also would have been altered in some way if it had been selected in the tender.

And last the R&D/prod cost and service cost is nowhere near the lower budged of this T-50.

If one consider all this the T-50 design will quite a bird.

If one considers the reality of the design "quite a bird" means what? Lets turn off the fanboi aspirational views that permeate Youtube etc and try to keep it realistic debate.

I'm not interested in aspirational woulda coulda shoulda debates. I'm interested in the actual design features and their development potential.

Thanks

ditto. I suggest that you pause before jumping and defending the platform and read what people are actually saying, not reacting badly because you have a soft spot for russian gear and have a need to defend it.

logic trumps emotion everytime.

 

[moahunter]

Come on, one quick glance at the wing design proves that the YF-23 and this T-50 is two different beast.
B.t.w... pls define a 'similar concept' when it comes to aircraft design?

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the quote I posted. I don't know what the similarities are, but clealry some people who know about aircraft see them (or the quote wouldn't have been made):

Some observers have drawn similarities between the Russian design and the Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23, which lost the US Air Force’s advanced tactical fighter contest to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.