The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[Kaktus29]

@alex hunter.. such a true statement )) love it.. Best is the enemy of good) i agree..

 

Best is like an illusion, while good is the most rational, pragmatic and efficient approach that you can make at that moment..

 

searching for "best" in any field is pretty devastating.. like searching for the best wife, or best husband, girlfriend, or best job, all this searching only leaves a man devastated for he is searching an illusion, shadows on the wall..

 

a true man, is one that is practical, an engineer at his heart, doing what is good, what makes sense..and not wasting time in the pursuit of the "invincible" ..

 

there are many such stories from the ages of time, and all cultures, yet Russia epitomizes this the most in their military construction..

[mikoyan]

The russians are very careful, they are following a incremental approach just like they did with the flanker, I think that Lockheed is a great company for specialized airplanes but no the best making fighters, and Boeing has not designed a fighter aircraft of their own.

[wilky510]

 

@ZIM .. you say, you get what you pay for..am, not true.. NASA spend millions of dollars to design a PEN that will work in space, vacuum, etc.. russians engineers used a 5 cent pencil and the problem was resolved in 1 minute..

 

so, 1 million dollar pen equals 5 cents worth of pencil.. i'm thinking somebody doesn't know math and economics here..

Myth.

 

it might become heavier, fatter as time goes by and ending totally less capable machine as it was designed for

PAK-Fa can still run into these problems.

 

PAK already achieves the elements needed, electrionics and the rest will come, Russia is in no hurry to wage war, so if the final electronic suite will be ready in 2020 no problem.. the plane will still be able to fly without fear of igniting in mid air and exploding because of structural engineering problems..

 

And for all this to be designed in the last 5 years is nothing short of a brilliance on the part of russian engineers..

and i read this the whole time while the USSR anthem was playing. It suited it well.

 

I think that Lockheed is a great company for specialized airplanes but no the best making fighters

Beg to differ, the F-22 is a very capable, amazing fighter. It's only had one minor flaw. That's apparently been solved.

[Nealius]

 

 

@ZIM .. you say, you get what you pay for..am, not true.. NASA spend millions of dollars to design a PEN that will work in space, vacuum, etc.. russians engineers used a 5 cent pencil and the problem was resolved in 1 minute..

 

so, 1 million dollar pen equals 5 cents worth of pencil.. i'm thinking somebody doesn't know math and economics here..

 

I'm thinking someone doesn't know reality. Both NASA and the Russians used the same space pen, at $2.39 a pop.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen

[Maior]

@maior.. you think there will be 6th generation fighter that will be manned? thats some serious optimism that i don't share..

drones are already here, and they are here to stay.. AI is improving at rapid pace..

 

so, 2050-2090 i don't see human pilots out there flying.. no way..

 

Well, given the software constraints, the manned asset will always be present. Smaller presence but present. There are things UAVs are not programmed to do. Imagina a simple F-16 turned into an UAV. When the aircraft enters a vertical spin, it keeps bobbing up and down and the fly by wire system tries to correct this worsening the stall. Now, a human pilot knows that to exit such stall, he has to turn Fly by wire off and then increase the momentum of the aircraft until he can regain control. If no human element was involved, the fly by wire system would continue to do it's job. Because it's what it was programmed to do otherwise, the F-16 wouldn't fly.

 

about your 30 yrs time of developing PAK-FA i disagree, there was hardly any developing done in the 90-and 00's.. so, yes, the most time and money spent on this project is 5 years ago.. and yes, the project has been super efficient as we can see with our own eyes..

 

how will PAK-FA come years later after F-35 is beyond me, F-35 has serious drawbacks that are impossible to re-design today.. it might become heavier, fatter as time goes by and ending totally less capable machine as it was designed for... PAK already achieves the elements needed, electrionics and the rest will come, Russia is in no hurry to wage war, so if the final electronic suite will be ready in 2020 no problem.. the plane will still be able to fly without fear of igniting in mid air and exploding because of structural engineering problems..

 

And for all this to be designed in the last 5 years is nothing short of a brilliance on the part of russian engineers..

well, the math is pretty self explanatory:

Next advanced fighter competition:

development began on the MiG 1.44 and Su-47 - 1983

 

Sukhoi awarded contract - early 2002

 

current year - 2013

 

2013-1983 = 30 years.

 

Now the T-50 model has been in development since 2002 so that's 11 years for the specific model which I'm sure shares the same airframe with the Su-47. It was the next step.

 

What serious drawbacks does the F-35 have? What major design flaws? All testing is proving more than satisfactory including pleasant discoveries like the supercruise ability. Also, in terms of product milestones the F-35 is miles ahead of the T-50. They already ended the LIRP phase of the production. They have airframes with over 3,000 flight hours in them a thing, let me remind you, the first two models of the T-50 couldn't achieve since they cracked way before that. Also, the F-35 is already ahead in avionics the only lacking feature being the advanced HMCS which literally allows you to see through the aircraft. Handy for dropping a couple of AIM-9s in a dogfight. the T-50 has a looong road ahead. It's not bias against the Russian engineers. It's just how these things go.

 

Assuming the phase in which the F-35 is, the admission into service is in 2017. The T-50 is, best case scenario, 2019.

 

@ZIM .. you say, you get what you pay for..am, not true.. NASA spend millions of dollars to design a PEN that will work in space, vacuum, etc.. russians engineers used a 5 cent pencil and the problem was resolved in 1 minute..

 

so, 1 million dollar pen equals 5 cents worth of pencil.. i'm thinking somebody doesn't know math and economics here..

That is a myth (as pointed out before) and is not true. Russian planners are betting that the T-50 which is mainly an air superiority design, will be able to tango effectively with the F-35 and that it's lower cost and simplicity mean that it'll be more cost effective than the Western models. It's a matter of cost-effectiveness. But I can assure you that Russian leadership appreciates that the other side has the technological edge over them. And nowadays, that means a lot.

 

I mean, even in a "light" simulation like FC2 or 3, I love the Su-27 to death but the truth is, once you go to an F-15 you can never stop thinking "upgrade". It's just way easier and you have a lot more info available. Even comparing the F-15 flood mode for the AIM - 7 is leaps and bounds better than anything the Russians have for BVR. The West has more technology. The Russians have 20 years of lag in major experimental scientific knowledge. I mean, they're very good at theoretical science and that's most of the work. But the practical applications of some of their breakthroughs is still hard to achieve.

 

Damn, sorry for the long wall of text. I just got a bit carried away. Again, this is just a heads up with some of the data available. If I'm proven wrong so be it, I'll admit it. But don't get your hopes too high on seeing the T-50 operational before 2020 based on what we publicly know.

[Weta43]

Re the post that - 'The Russian's used the US's Space Pen" - First Russian in space 1961, First Russian order of the space pen - 1968.

Before 1968 ? "Originally, NASA astronauts, like the Soviet cosmonauts, used pencils"

NASA did originally use a pencil - a mechanical pencil @ $129 ea.

 

well, the math is pretty self explanatory:

Next advanced fighter competition:

development began on the MiG 1.44 and Su-47 - 1983

Sukhoi awarded contract - early 2002

current year - 2013

2013-1983 = 30 years.

 

 

So if we look at planes that led to planes that led to the curret aircraft we should start the F-35 developmet at the start of the "Have Blue" L.O. project (clear line of technological evolution to the F-35) started in 1974 - so 2013 - 1974 = 39 years development time.

 

But that wouldn't be a particularly useful line of investigation, and I don't think yours is either...

[Maior]

 

So if we look at planes that led to planes that led to the curret aircraft we should start the F-35 developmet at the start of the "Have Blue" L.O. project (clear line of technological evolution to the F-35) started in 1974 - so 2013 - 1974 = 39 years development time.

 

But that wouldn't be a particularly useful line of investigation, and I don't think yours is either...

 

well, my "line of investigation" was just to alert that the T-50 has been developing for longer than people think. For me the development of the proper aircraft began 11 years ago. And due to differences in how both projects were procured, I found amusing to use such an analogy.

 

What I'm pointing out is that the development of a 5th gen aircraft and it's associated technology is not a five years project. The T.50 had more than double of that time and it still lacks it's proper engine and avionics making it presently a 4+ gen aircraft (legacy avionics) with stealth.

[NOLA]

Is this 4th prototype in response from the two other airframes that exhibited structural cracks during low g maneuvers out of the box?

 

You didnt read what i wrote some post above, did you?

[Cali]

I don't think it will be the last manned aircraft either. Human eyes in the cockpit has better SA then a camera looking around. A pilot in the pit will understand what's going on with his aircraft by feel and sight, things you can't get from flying it thousands of miles away.

 

As far as development goes, I'm sure it's been longer then 5 years. These aircraft go through a bunch of different stages before it is even built. After that, as you can see there are a bunch of stages and test before it's made operational.

[Invader ZIM]

Yea NOLA, I saw your review of the revisions, but was looking for more info on what changes were made specifically to aircraft number 4 because of the airframe cracks from the other test aircraft.. A few items you had listed were expected advances toward a more functional or fleshed out prototype, other changes, for example the structural changes going from composite to metal might indicate there are problems with some of the composite materials in certain parts of the airframe not performing to specifications at this time.

 

There will be hurdles to overcome, both expected and unexpected. Any info is interesting to me.

[FanBoy2006.01]

I don't think it will be the last manned aircraft either. Human eyes in the cockpit has better SA...

 

Personally I don't get taking the pilot of of the cockpit period.

 

How survivable is a guy sitting in a container at an airbase in the Nevada desert?

Here I'm revering to RAF pilots controlling UAVs in Afghanistan. This was shown on TV for the world to see!

 

It is so far away from the battlefield that security will be much lower.

 

A couple of guys with handguns can just cut a hole in the perimeter fence and sneak up there and shoot them!

This kind of operation will also be so much easier if you got guys that don't worry about what happens after the mission is completed.

 

Also you can target the antenna that transmits signals from the pilots to the satellite. Not as hard to hit as an 5th gen fighter.

 

But personally I would just blow up one of the pylons from which overhead transmission lines are suspended that feeds the airbase. If it is underground cables you just need a shovel, axe and a really dumb guy.:thumbup:

But get a couple of special forces operators to fubar their backup generators clandestinely first.

 

An electrical power grid gives you so much places you can attack which are unguarded. Your biggest problem is knowing what backups they have in place and getting at that.

 

That would take their UAVs off line for a while. A normal fighter + pilot setup is more robust to damage.

 

As for autonomous killing machines. I don't think it is in a county's best interest (On even tactical level.). To have things like that. You need tight control over what to shoot and when to shoot. So you don't necessarily need a very smart machine but one that can make decisions like a soldier with security clearance, acting lawfully and acting within the ROE.

 

Of course here I don't think that countries should stop developing UAV technology. I just cant see the benefit of taking pilots out of cockpits of all aircraft.

[aaron886]

Too many video games.

[NOLA]

Yea NOLA, I saw your review of the revisions, but was looking for more info on what changes were made specifically to aircraft number 4 because of the airframe cracks from the other test aircraft.. A few items you had listed were expected advances toward a more functional or fleshed out prototype, other changes, for example the structural changes going from composite to metal might indicate there are problems with some of the composite materials in certain parts of the airframe not performing to specifications at this time.

 

There will be hurdles to overcome, both expected and unexpected. Any info is interesting to me.

 

Ah okei. When it comes to specifics we don't have anything other than our Mark 1 eyes and pictures. :) Middlepart being replaced suggests that either composite skin is not strong enough for that area, or they miscalculated the strain on the main spar.

 

As far as i am aware, only T-50-1 suffered big cracks (hence its grounding for over a year), -2 for instance flew a lot even after MAKS 11. It doesn't mean that it is mature design of course, it is probably just that it wasn't pushed as much as -1 was. -2 is more of a system tester tho, while T-50-1 was supposed to start high alpha right after MAKS 11.

 

Interesting enough, T-50-2 haven't flown since about December, while T-50-1 is flying frequent now.

 

But yes, i am sure they have their share of problems with composites, Su-47 was fun in that regard.

Edited March 31, 2013 by NOLA

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for that info NOLA, what I had heard (and I cannot confirm) is that some of the in house or lab vibration tests and other stress tests done on some airframe parts on the ground also exhibited stress cracks earlier than anticipated in accelerated age testing, indicating a problem early on with some of the materials when trying to achieve the specified operational lifetime of the material. This is just speculation, but it may explain the lack of flying time for T-50-2, as modifications are done to address the problem.

 

I'm sure experience was gained with the S-47, specifically I liked that the S-47 had a pronounced "S" shaped ducting for the engines, but it appears using that would have limited the internal weapons in such a way that Sukhoi decided to make a trade off with the T-50 that left the ducts more straight, but allowed for more volume for internal weapons.

 

Thanks again for the info, it's always appreciated.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[NOLA]

Thanks for that info NOLA, what I had heard (and I cannot confirm) is that some of the in house or lab vibration tests and other stress tests done on some airframe parts on the ground also exhibited stress cracks earlier than anticipated in accelerated age testing, indicating a problem early on with some of the materials when trying to achieve the specified operational lifetime of the material. This is just speculation, but it may explain the lack of flying time for T-50-2, as modifications are done to address the problem.

 

I have followed this program for many years, but i can't recall any information of the state of T-50-0 tests, good or bad.

 

However, once again, i won't be shocked to learn the materials didn't perform as expected, that is why they are testing them to start with. There is rarely any piece of hardware that is designed and work perfectly out of the box. :)

 

As to T-50-2 it is possible its recent grounding is due to modification indeed, but we don't know. There were also problems with vertical stabs, i know that T-50-1 got new ones around October of 2010, and T-50-2 is a true cannibal. It got vertical stabs from T-50-1 after its grounding, and one of the horizontal ones. ;)

 

 

-2 got vertical stabs from -1, and one horizontal.

-3 got horizontal stab from -2.

-1 got horizontal stab from -3?. (not sure about this one, haven't checked yet)

 

Also, a correction; It is S-37 or Su-47.

Edited March 31, 2013 by NOLA

[Invader ZIM]

However, once again, i won't be shocked to learn the materials didn't perform as expected, that is why they are testing them to start with. There is rarely any piece of hardware that is designed and work perfectly out of the box.

 

I certainly agree, it's one reason engineers tend to like being in the field, because there's always unexpected results in practice that constantly challenge them to come up with a solution to a problem.

 

Thanks for the horizontal and vertical stabilizer comparisons, it's interesting how the systems are being swapped onto the other test airframes. This practice is different from current U.S. procedures for prototype aircraft.

 

Thanks for the correction on Su-47.. I must be dyslexic because I always mess up it's designation. :doh:

[FanBoy2006.01]

Too many video games.

 

Man, what do you know about me?

 

Here is a couple of things I do know:

 

I served in the SADF/SANDF Engineer Core. I do not think that I am an expert at any thing but I did get training in, amongst other things, demolitions and mine warfare (Including regular infantry training.).

 

I am also studying electrical engineering and have done my practical year as part of my course.

I have learned how electrical distribution systems work and what they are made up of.

I have also done maintenance on them.

I know how distribution and transmission networks' backup works.

 

I personally have seen on many occasions how construction workers have damaged high tension underground cables with pickaxes (Causing power outages.) and walked away without a scratch.

 

I also know of two attacks on airbases (28 October 1965 and 14 September 2012).

The attack on the airbase in Afghanistan was made by a maximum of only 19 insurgents!

Now it is impossible if I suggest something to be done in peaceful areas that had already been done in war zones?

 

Also I know that electrical networks are prime targets in war to diminish an enemy's capabilities. Like in 1999 Balkan conflict and 1991 Gulf war.

 

Lastly I am not suggesting that I am going to personally lead an attack on RAF No. 39 Squadron at Creech Air Force Base Nevada (Basically attacking two countries I respect greatly.).

 

What I am suggesting is that current UAV systems have certain vulnerabilities that normal manned fighters don't. I bet it's harder to hit an F22 with an ARHM than it is to hit a the pilot of a UAV's stationary van with a ATGM!

[aaron886]

You're equating attacks on forward operating bases in Afghanistan to attacks on air force bases in the continental US? The great part about logic is that it doesn't care what your military experience.

[FanBoy2006.01]

I say it's is easier to disrupt UAV operations than normal fighter operations because their control is stationary and their position is known.

 

And I am equating nothing. I am straight out saying that any military base would be on a higher level of vigilance in a war zone than in another place.

Or do you think when you are in place where people are trying to kill you, you should be more at ease?

 

You are insulting me in both your posts. Yet you are very vague about how I am wrong in my statements.

 

If there weren't certain rules on this forum I would tell you what I think of you.

[OutOnTheOP]

He's not insulting you at all; he's questioning your logic- as do I. It's much, MUCH harder- in fact, nearly impossible- to conduct insurgent operations in the midst of a hostile population (and the US public may not like it's own government too much, but it HATES terrorists). The cell probably would never make it to its target.

 

That aside, by your logic, the F-22 pilot and its associated support structure (of which there is much more than for the UASs) is equally vulnerable to destruction as the UAS control shed. I mean, stationary, 2-mile-long runways are even easier to hit than 10-meter-long UAS control sheds, right?

 

There's perfectly good reasons to keep pilots in cockpits of combat aircraft, but the notion that UAS control shelters are somehow the weak point in the system is a bit silly.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://russianplanes.net/id102823

[FanBoy2006.01]

He's not insulting you at all...

 

"An insult is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading, offensive and impolite."

 

Nope. he pretty much insulted me in both posts.

 

In regard to insurgent operations in hostile territory. History is full of examples of how it took place.

Bombing attacks was launched on Spain and Brittan in resent years (While they were at war in Afghanistan.).

 

This was done by terrorists. Most terrorists doesn't have formal military training.

 

Now what about special forces? Special forces of many different countries have operated in hostile territories an many different wars. And they have conducted acts of sabotage.

 

I didn't refer to terrorists exclusively in my first post. After all I mentioned special forces (Part of normal military organizations.).

 

Hostile population: That is one of the reasons to do things clandestinely. The biggest two would be the military and intelligence services of the enemy country.

 

You can point out that nearly all terrorist attacks since 11 September 2001 have failed; but like I said, I am talking about actions that can be done by normal military organizations as well. But it will probably not be legal.

 

Remember there is well documented cases where the special forces and intelligence services of different countries have broken different laws.

Intelligence gathering is against some law most of the time!

But lawfulness is OT on this OT post.

 

...2-mile-long runways...

Yes and no. Bigger target, but harder to knock out.

How many explosives are going to need to knock out a runway for a descent amount of time?

How are you going to get them to target? If you are going to use a fighter with Durandals on Creech AFB, from where are you going to take off and what kind of support are you going to need?

 

The biggest explosion I saw when I was in the military was when we blew a "padkrater" (Road crater.). Like bombing a runway from the air you do not want to detonate your explosives above ground. It takes a lot of explosives with detonators, cortex, etc. and allot of time to set up (Plus a specialized explosive device.).

 

So it is easier to attack the control van, satellite antenna, etc.

 

But it is far more easy to attack the unguarded electrical supply to an airbase. You don't need explosives for that. You can steal the things you are going to use. The biggest risks here are burning and electrocution.

 

Like I said then you will have to take out the backup systems of the electrical supply as well.

Firstly you will have to disable the ring feed. But that can be done any where along that part of the transmission line. Or you can target the substations connected to those feeders.

 

You will have to physically break into the airbase and disable the backup generators. But here again you don't even need explosives to damage them to the point where it will take a long time to replace or repair.

Plus generators are usually placed away from people for several reasons.

 

...but the notion that UAS control shelters are somehow the weak point...

 

Here is a couple of reasons why I think so:

At this point you get centralization taking place. Pilots in front of control panels. Data cabling to antennas and the antennas themselves. And the list goes on. And this is in a building.

 

Now with a UAV control van you get all that is needed to control that thing in a soft skinned vehicle or trailer!

Usually these things are parked together and not dispersed Like you get with hardened cold war aircraft shelters.

 

Predator setup is so that you got control for takeoff and recovery, is forward at point of operations, while control beyond line of sight is usually back. And that is the part that is the least protected.

 

 

• Creech AFB will not have CAS aircraft standing by.
  
• There will not be artillery support on standby.
  
• Patrols will not be sent in the surrounding area.
  
• Their will not be fortified positions for soldiers around the base.
  
• Security personnel will most likely be lightly armed.
  
• Civilians will stay on the base and travel to and from the base daily.
  
• Food, etc will be supplied to the base by civilian businesses and civilian trucks.
  
• Personnel will be at a lower level of vigilance because they are not in a combat zone.
  

 

So this is why I think what I think.

Edited April 1, 2013 by FanBoy2006.01

[aaron886]

I find your condescending and self-important reply to be offensive and impolite. You are insulting me! Actually, being insulted is your choice.

 

I still feel you are lacking in the logic department, for reasons stated above (and succinctly, I might add,) by OutOnTheOP. I'm just not concerned enough to write 800 words about it. Do you think you're the first person to contemplate the security of the C4ISR chain? I imagine the DoD has run a few scenarios by the water cooler, but maybe that's just me.

[NOLA]

Are we done yet?

 

Can we come back to the topic?

[EtherealN]

Are we done yet?

 

Can we come back to the topic?

 

Yes please.

 

Guys, if you want to debate the vulnerabilities of UAV's, feel free to open another thread on the topic and I'll have a few things to add myself, but this is the PAK-FA thread.