Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA 1st Flight, Video Options

[Edsato82]

Notice how most, if not all, 5th generation (stealth) air superiority fighters look like the Raptor?

It will be difficult to know whether it will be superior in combat to Raptor. Even the Raptor has more time and the PAK FA is still new, the only way to know which of the two is superior is in a fight and I doubt that happens.

[Waris]

Notice how most, if not all, 5th generation (stealth) air superiority fighters look like the Raptor?

Form follows function.

IMO, it'll be on par with the F-35, but I doubt it'll be superior to the Raptor (although it probably will be more numerous than the Raptor).

The F-35 will be like the F-18 as the F-22 is like the F-15, and we all know how inadequate the Hornet was.

[D' WRTHBRNGR]

The F-35 will be like the F-18 as the F-22 is like the F-15, and we all know how inadequate the Hornet was.

F-16 and AV-8 also (F-35A and F-35B respectively), and the F/A-18 has some problems (like range and payload) as a universal carrier-based fighter.

[partyzanPaulZy]

Russia has still some S-400 and maybe secret AA lasers (which were developed mostly in the 1970's).

And 8 missiles from 2 S-400 could take Raptor down... o' wait, Iran bought some of them like those chinese copies of almost every Russian missile...
Currently has Iran those light former MiGs originally supposed to be 5th generation fighter, China has been working on some copy of Raptor and Su Pak-Fa
and India almost traditionally has this contract with Russia.

Raptor probably will be still superior to Pak-Fa, because it's older on top so most of the bugs has been caught while Pak-Fa will be introduced to service when new version Raptor can be already in service.

It would be interesting to compare their firing performance, because Pak-Fa is said to be able to fire on 8 targets from 100 aimed.

and some specifications from wikipedia:
F-22

* Crew: 1
* Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
* Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
* Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
* Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
* Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
* Empty weight: 43,430 lb (19,700 kg[3][178])
* Loaded weight: 64,460 lb (29,300 kg[179])
* Max takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans
o Dry thrust: 29,300 lb[citation needed] (130 kN) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each
* Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally,[3][178] or 26,000 lb (11,900 kg) with two external fuel tanks[3][178]

Performance

* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[85]
o Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h)[85]
* Range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
* Combat radius: 410 nmi[177] (471 mi, 759 km)
* Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
* Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
* Wing loading: 77 lb/ft² (375 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.26 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
* Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g[85]

USAF poster overview of key features and armament

Armament

* Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing root, 480 rounds
* Air to air loadout:
o 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
* Air to ground loadout:
o 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder for self-protection, and one of the following:
+ 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
+ 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
+ 8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
* Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 US gallon drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg).[180][181]

Avionics

* RWR (Radar warning receiver): 250 nmi (463 km) or more[94]
* Radar: 125-150 miles (200-240 km) against 1 m2 (11 sq ft) targets (estimated range)[92]

Pak-Fa (still prototype)

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 22 m (72.2 ft)
* Wingspan: 14.2 m (46.6 ft)
* Height: 4.7 m[citation needed] (15 ft)
* Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft)
* Empty weight: 18,500 kg (40785 lb)
* Loaded weight: 26,000 kg (57320 lb)
* Useful load: 7,500 kg (combat load) (16534 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 37,000 kg (81570 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× New unnamed engine by NPO Saturn of 175 KN each[35],[41]

Performance

* Maximum speed: 2,400 km/h (at 17,000 m altitude) (1,315 mph (at 45,000 ft altitude))
* Cruise speed: 1,300 - 1,800 km/h (808 - 1,118 mph)
* Range: 4,000-5,500 km (2500-3100 miles)
* Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65616 ft)
* Rate of climb: 350 m/sec (1184 ft/sec)
* Wing loading: 330(normal) - 470(maximum) kg/m² (67(normal) - 96(maximum) lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.84-1.19

Armament

* Guns: 1x30mm
* Hardpoints: 8 internal, 8 external for R-74 Archer and R-77 Adder missiles
*Other:

Avionics
N050(?)BRLS AFAR/AESA

But I believe Sukhoi can make the best Russian aircraft and probably one of two best supersonic fighters in the world. After year of hiatus Russian bear has started to move... and this seems to more developed than latest manned MiG (sold to Iran) or Koalition-SV double howitzer (only turret with barrels was finished). And it's not so secret like t-95.
On the other hand - don't forget on Potyomkin's villages... (like what happened to that stealth unmanned MiG)

Pak-Fa looks different than F-22, it's lower, longer and it's similar to older Sukhois a bit.
It's similar to F-22 like MiG-23 to F-14.

[Raven]

Also do not forget that Mig is also developing another plane called the LMFS which is more lighter than the Pak FA. Those two planes will fill the counter role for Raptors and Lightnings... (At least the plan i guess). One thing the Russians have as an advantage is that they have seen and prob know most of the Raptor's capabilities which would allow the PAK FA desginers to equal or better them.....

[partyzanPaulZy]

another* 5th generation MiG? Maybe this will save poor bureau, poor although MiGs are great planes** (MiG-35 is on the same level as those Gripens from corrupting SAB).

*one was heavy MiG 1.44, other light one was sold to Iran in early stage, so this is the 3rd 5th generation MiG
**I still hate they choosed Gripens, but on the other hand there was no other 4.5th gen. supersonic fighter in that time (F-35 were problematic on export)

This post has been edited by partyzanPaulZy: 30 Jan 2010, 17:34

[Raven]

from what i heard is going to based on the 1.44

[Balizk]

If my president doesn't sign the technology transfer with Suhkoi, he's an absolute moron.

I want brazilian T-50s D:



@video:

*fapfapfapfapfapfap*

We need to develop our technology. Fast.

[GrizzAFWX]

Looks a bit like a hybrid of the early prototype F-22, the YF-23, and the Su-37 Super Flanker. Anyone know if this plane will be able to pull the cobra, the aerial manuever that's come to be a staple of Sukhoi aircraft?

[Massey]

all spec's are unknown. but after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXBs4PNdE_A
me thinks. Fast and very little radar mark.(or what ever the term is ) So i dont think it be a quick turner.

This post has been edited by Massey: 1 Feb 2010, 6:02

[Raven]

all spec's are unknown. but after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXBs4PNdE_A
me thinks. Fast and very little radar mark.(or what ever the term is ) So i dont think it be a quick turner.

I think the term you are referring to is called the "Radar Cross Section" . Hard to say. I saw somewhere that the second test flight is scheduled for today. We have to and see about the cobra i think.

[partyzanPaulZy]

It will be and maybe already is capable of Cobra manouver... and some of those specifications are probably real (I posted them):
for example Pak-Fa looks really flat compared to Su-35 for example

[GrizzAFWX]

Another question, I haven't taken a look at the video yet, but has anyone been able to tell if this thing has thrust vectoring, and if so does it have 2-D or 3-D thrust vectoring. A lot of people said that the Su-37 didn't really have a chance of becoming operational and as such would be a tech demonstrator. It had 3-D thrust vectoring and I would be surprised if the PAK did not, especially since the F-22 has 2-D thrust vectoring.

[Raven]

Yep...this has 3-D thrust vectoring AFAIK. A major principle i think of raptor's design was to take out the enemy before coming into a dogfight with Beyond Visual Range weapons. I guess this would be what PAK FA is planning to do as well. This one may not be as agile as other Sukhoi's we have already seen and love.

Anyway its too early and foolish to make too many assumptions by just seeing footage from a single flight IMO.

[Overdose]

This may end up being like the Berkut. Maybe there will be a definite one later.

[GrizzAFWX]

This may end up being like the Berkut. Maybe there will be a definite one later.

I think the S-37 Berkut and the Su-37 Super Flanker designs were both incorporated into the PAK-FA. To me it would make sense that the PAK-FA would be the operational version of the tech demonstrated by the S-37 and Su-37, taking the low radar cross section and internal weapons bay tech of the Berkut and the 3D thrust vectoring and agility of the Su-37. Just my two cents.

In response to Raven,
The Raptor while it may have been designed primarily for BVR engagement, it is still quite manueverable and can outperform F-15s and F-16s in close air to air combat (mainly due to the 2D thrust vectoring). I would be very interested in seeing a "joint" US-Russian exercise pitting the F-22 and PAK-FA in a mock aerial battle in both BVR combat and traditional dogfighting.

This post has been edited by GrizzAFWX: 2 Feb 2010, 18:37

[partyzanPaulZy]

Pak-Fa won't end like Berkut, it's too conventional compared to berkut or even other sukhois...
It has stealth properties, properties common with the MiG-35 (3D thrust vectoring, cameras, sensors), improved radar(WIP) and some extras (targeting over 100 targets and fire on 9 of them at once) in the final version...

Suhkoi bureau worked on this plane too long to be not finished.

[Raven]

I think the S-37 Berkut and the Su-37 Super Flanker designs were both incorporated into the PAK-FA. To me it would make sense that the PAK-FA would be the operational version of the tech demonstrated by the S-37 and Su-37, taking the low radar cross section and internal weapons bay tech of the Berkut and the 3D thrust vectoring and agility of the Su-37. Just my two cents.

In response to Raven,
The Raptor while it may have been designed primarily for BVR engagement, it is still quite manueverable and can outperform F-15s and F-16s in close air to air combat (mainly due to the 2D thrust vectoring). I would be very interested in seeing a "joint" US-Russian exercise pitting the F-22 and PAK-FA in a mock aerial battle in both BVR combat and traditional dogfighting.

True...but the previous sukhoi's were very much more agile than US counterparts. PAK FA may not be going along the same principles IMO. Anyway lets wait and see .

I also do not think this is a tech demonstrator. They will modify the aircraft slightly after testing. But this would be the base version that'll be put into service ultimately.

[Overdose]

Gates Tries to Get F-35 Program Back on Course
by Christopher Drew
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

provided by
The New York Times

The Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be the program that broke the mold, proof that the Pentagon could build something affordable, dependable and without much drama.

But rather than being the Chevrolet of the skies, as it was once billed, the fighter plane, also called the F-35, has turned into the Pentagon’s biggest budget-buster. And with worries growing that the rise in costs could overwhelm other programs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired the general in charge this week and said he would withhold $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin.

The decision was an embarrassment for Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest military contractor, which could eventually draw at least a quarter of its sales from the F-35. But Pentagon officials said they wanted to make sure they avoided the kind of death spiral that had caused so many other weapons programs to collapse.

The Air Force, the Navy and the Marines are planning to buy more than 2,400 of the planes. But any delays could force them to spend billions of dollars on less advanced fighters to avoid a shortfall. That, in turn, would reduce their orders for the F-35, driving up the price for each plane and forcing them to cut orders further.

The main problem, some analysts say, is that even with recent improvements in acquisition practices, the military persists in buying new weapons systems before all the kinks are worked out.

At the Pentagon’s behest, Lockheed Martin has already started building production models of the F-35, even though only 2 percent of the flight test program has been completed. “Unless they convert the program to a fly-before-you-buy approach, they will continue to have pain,” said Winslow T. Wheeler, an analyst for the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

But Pentagon officials said that given the rapid changes in technology, they could not afford to take such a gradual approach without systems becoming outdated before they rolled off the line. Lockheed Martin executives said that they had gotten the message about picking up the pace, and that they believed they would be able to start delivering the planes faster than the government now projects.

“They have been very clear that they intend to hold us to more aggressive standards, and we intend to perform to those,” Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s project managers, told reporters on Tuesday.

Mr. Crowley acknowledged that the program, which has been adjusted several times, was running six months behind the latest schedule. But he said that after building the first few planes, the company had been able to sharply reduce how much time and money each one required. And that has given it more confidence that it can get back on track.

Mr. Gates also said on Monday that he knew of “no insurmountable problems, technological or otherwise, with the F-35.” But he added a year to the development phase of the program, and slowed plans to increase production, to give the company a chance to catch up.

Still, that solution is basically a gamble that the company will do better. The program, which is by far the Pentagon’s largest, is expected to cost nearly $300 billion if all of the 2,456 planes are purchased in the next 25 years. Eight allied nations have also invested in the program and could buy hundreds of additional planes.

Some senators sounded skeptical in questioning Mr. Gates at a hearing on Tuesday. “I’m still concerned about whether the services will get the J.S.F. when they need them,” said Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, referring to the plane.

Other senators criticized Mr. Gates, who promoted the coming of the F-35 as a reason to kill the more costly F-22 fighter program last summer, for not having a handle on the problems sooner.

Many of the concerns were outlined in a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008. Mr. Gates said at the hearing on Tuesday that he did not recall that report. He said he had intervened now to try to head off the dire projections in a similar assessment completed in the fall.

That study found that the development of the plane could be delayed by two and a half years and cost an extra $16.6 billion if no changes were made. Mr. Gates has also said that he replaced the head of the program, Maj. Gen. David R. Heinz of the Marine Corps, to show that officials would be held accountable “when things go wrong.”

When the Pentagon began thinking about the F-35 in the mid-1990s, the Pentagon was building the F-22, the world’s stealthiest fighter, for aerial dogfights, and it expected to buy 650 to 750 of them. The F-35, which also has stealth features to avoid radar, was meant to focus more on attacking ground targets. Creating three versions with a similar core — one each for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines — was supposed to make it more affordable.

But while delays and overruns pushed the cost of the F-22 so high that only 187 are being built, the projected costs of the F-35 program have also risen to $298.8 billion from an early estimate of about $200 billion.

Counting all the development costs, each F-35 is now projected to cost about $122 million compared with about $350 million for each F-22. Another concern is that additional problems often appear in flight testing. And a recent Navy study concluded that the F-35 could be significantly more expensive to operate than older fighters.

But Mr. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin’s top managers on the project, said the company had greatly reduced the parts shortages that delayed the first planes. He said the company was talking to the Pentagon about adding another plane to the flight test program, and it was much closer to finishing sensitive systems, like the software that operates the plane and its sensors, than it was at a similar stage on the F-22.

He added that it was “our intent to outperform” projections for the program, enabling the government to buy more planes than it expected to over the next few years.

Other industry officials said they had heard that Mr. Gates was likely to name Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, commander of the Naval Air Systems Command, to succeed General Heinz in overseeing the program. And given that Mr. Gates has had to backtrack from his praise for the program, he now has even more on the line in holding it together.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting...-back-on-course

[Raven]

F-35 does have its problem..i saw in a documentary that even during the prototype phase(during the competition phase with Boeing), Lokheed broke some of the competition rules regarding finances. They may accelerate the program because of PAK-FA and the possible development of MiG-LMFS

[GrizzAFWX]

True...but the previous sukhoi's were very much more agile than US counterparts. PAK FA may not be going along the same principles IMO. Anyway lets wait and see .

I also do not think this is a tech demonstrator. They will modify the aircraft slightly after testing. But this would be the base version that'll be put into service ultimately.

I agree with you that this will definitely see operational service. The initial F-22 prototype underwent some minor redesigns (take a look at the wing area of the early design model and look at the wing area of the operational model, quite a difference) and I'm sure they'll do the same with this.

On another note, the more I look at the PAK-FA the more its design really begins to deviate from that of the F-22... Sure they look similar at first glance, but you can really see some Sukhoi-specific characteristics really blaring out at you when you look back over it. IMHO I really don't think the two look all that similar when you get down to the gritty design details.

[partyzanPaulZy]

so far these are best images I could find:
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7089/pakfa2.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1507/ccf565c3ff49.jpg


EDIT: That prototype had motors from Su-37, radar isn't finished yet, and those proportions are officially:
length: 21.0 m
wingspan: 14.8 m
height: 5.45 m
chassis length: 6.9 m
chassis width: 5.85 m

However there are rumours this plane can be even more stealth than F-22 due to new composite materials and special paint,
however it's radar sensors (X+) should be able to detect any plane (some parts of that radar should be integrated into front edge of wings).

This post has been edited by partyzanPaulZy: 8 Feb 2010, 17:42

[Waris]

Any words on plasma stealth being used?

[Raven]

I don't think so.....not sure whether the tech exists even

[partyzanPaulZy]

well, I heard plasma stealth coat has been developed for decades. And I think they can upgrade this plane with such emitters (since it should be possible to use this on almost any plane).
Irony is first who started this "stealth race" were soviet physicists which calculated stealth plane isn't possible to create... few decades later Americans created F117... (well nothing can be stealth completely)

This post has been edited by partyzanPaulZy: 9 Feb 2010, 11:20