The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[aaron886]

Demo-flight

 

http://rutube.ru/tracks/4729648.html

 

Thanks for the link.

[GGTharos]

Which won't be the first or last time such a missile is used. Like I said reasonably reliable sources reported ... now it just remains to be seen :D

 

It is unusually big and long for just an actuator housing, but it just doesn't seem big enough to properly house a legit air-to-air missile. If it really does, I can only picture it working with a very short-ranged LOAL missile. Pop-out fins and the like.

[Pilotasso]

Either they are taking it slow because its a prototype or the plane turns worse than the Su-27. 10s versus 22s. Well see as it evolves.

[nscode]

someone said here: it's a 5g limited display, and it looks like they're not even hitting that.

[DEChengst]

Two beauties playing together:

 

5HUBPRGjBCQ

[mikoyan]

Either they are taking it slow because its a prototype or the plane turns worse than the Su-27. 10s versus 22s. Well see as it evolves.

 

Why would it be worst? They still testing the airplane; I don't remember seeing the raptor doing an air show at full performance a year after its first flight.

[aaron886]

I'm betting it's related to the engine fit or flight testing sensors.

[mikoyan]

here is the demo; at 1:50 you can see that it uses the ruder surfaces to aid the roll.

 

[LARGE]

On russian news they said the planes would do only basic maneuvers since there are still limits applied cause it is a test plane.

[aaron886]

here is the demo; at 1:50 you can see that it uses the ruder surfaces to aid the roll.

 

Hope there's another upload somewhere?

 

All computer-controlled aircraft blend rudder into slow-speed rolls to a degree, by the way. Many aircraft don't even make use of aileron at very slow speeds. (drag concerns)

Edited August 17, 2011 by aaron886

[Cali]

It has two bays between the engines, and you're right, they're not too deep.

It also has two bays for short range AAMs specifically - the two pods under the wings.

 

Yes, so say certain reasonably reliable sources; though we've never seen those bays open.

 

Look at the wing roots just a bit outside of the engine nacelles. You'll see a triangular pod on each wing. Allegedly those are for AAMs.

 

I don't know if they can fit an R-73, but one way or the other, new missiles are being developed to go with this aircraft anyway.

 

I don't see anything there but the landing gear door, am I missing something here? Look at the last pic in this post http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1272126&postcount=1278 Nothing there but landing gear. With the gear down http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1269374&postcount=1232

Edited August 17, 2011 by Cali

[mikoyan]

ok hope it works

[RIPTIDE]

I don't see anything there but the landing gear door, am I missing something here? Look at the last pic in this post http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1272126&postcount=1278 Nothing there but landing gear. With the gear down http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1269374&postcount=1232

Check again. Look at the landing gear pics, then look out wing and you can see it.

 

 

I reckon besides IR missiles it might be used for ECM gear.

Edited August 17, 2011 by RIPTIDE

[Cali]

Can't see your picture Rip, guess I'll have to wait til I get home. Are you talking about the pointy shape triangle thing? If so, it doesn't look like it opens up.

[Weta43]

or at least a complete F-22 knockoff

 

Like this STOVL Yak-41 is a knockoff F-35 :-)

 

 

Lockheed Martin Following the announcement by the CIS that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev immediately entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program (a tactic they were also pursuing for development of the Yak-130 trainer, which was eventually developed in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy). Lockheed Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.

 

Lockheed Martin paid Yakovlev for the test data, development work and design ...

 

Cali - you saw the main bays didn't you ? (below)

Edited August 18, 2011 by Weta43

[EvilBivol-1]

Hypothetical:

 

[combatace]

Hypothetical:

 

 

Yes they are big enough to fit six novator and RVV-AEs(folding wings), its not at all meant to use R-27series.

 

I will miss the ET of all.:(

[Pilotasso]

Check again. Look at the landing gear pics, then look out wing and you can see it.

 

 

I reckon besides IR missiles it might be used for ECM gear.

 

The positioning is not very favourable for that. Plus if the plane has full blown AESA radar and small RCS an ECM POD is not needed but to increase the aircrafts electronic signaure.

[combatace]

True ECM is like, 'I'm somewhere in this direction come closer to know me'.

[GGTharos]

No, true ECM is like 'can't have my range', 'can't have my azimuth', 'can't have either of those', 'your scope's whited out', to things like 'the brightest spot is on the ground' and 'you can see me, but you can't lock me'.

[Frostiken]

No, true ECM is like 'can't have my range', 'can't have my azimuth', 'can't have either of those', 'your scope's whited out', to things like 'the brightest spot is on the ground' and 'you can see me, but you can't lock me'.

 

+1

 

If the aircraft is truly stealth with a miniscule RCS, yeah, ECM wouldn't be that necessary as the stealth features will do most of the heavy lifting, but this aircraft doesn't seem to be really that stealthy, certainly not with those engines and the inlet design. It may be LO at best, in which case an ECM suite would be a great help.

 

Hypothetical:

 

 

Between the landing gears and the 'missile bays'... what exactly holds the wings on? Cutting big hollow holes for both of those doesn't leave a lot of structure for the front 2/3rds of the wing faring to handle much stress... I still think it's just an actuator housing. I just don't see any way there could be enough room - we can't see any actuator housing for the leading-edge flaps, nor for the inlet ducts, and putting actuators in there would work for both of them - it's in the right spot, at least. If it was an opening bay, that means you have to have two actuators for that as well, and that's a lot of stuff to move around. If it is an internal bay, I'd be thoroughly impressed, that's for sure.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Frostiken

[RIPTIDE]

+1

 

If the aircraft is truly stealth with a miniscule RCS, yeah, ECM wouldn't be that necessary as the stealth features will do most of the heavy lifting, but this aircraft doesn't seem to be really that stealthy, certainly not with those engines and the inlet design. It may be LO at best, in which case an ECM suite would be a great help.

 

 

 

Between the landing gears and the 'missile bays'... what exactly holds the wings on? Cutting big hollow holes for both of those doesn't leave a lot of structure for the front 2/3rds of the wing faring to handle much stress... I still think it's just an actuator housing. I just don't see any way there could be enough room - we can't see any actuator housing for the leading-edge flaps, nor for the inlet ducts, and putting actuators in there would work for both of them - it's in the right spot, at least. If it was an opening bay, that means you have to have two actuators for that as well, and that's a lot of stuff to move around. If it is an internal bay, I'd be thoroughly impressed, that's for sure.

I think its a given that the inlets are still WIP.

[Cali]

design ...

 

Cali - you saw the main bays didn't you ? (below)

 

Yes I saw the main bays, but the little thing on the wing doesn't look like it opens up to me.

 

Hypothetical:

 

Exactly, hypothetical, until there are some pictures of it open. If not we'll get that guy talking about the EA missiles again and SAM sites being a stealth killer :D.

[aaron886]

I think its a given that the inlets are still WIP.

 

Agreed, seeing as it's still not fitted with the engine it's supposed to have, right?

[EvilBivol-1]

The two bays being intended for SRMs is at this point widely accepted as true. The question is primarily about their operating and firing mechanisms. Still, as far as I know there has not been any real confirmation.