The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[marcos]

^Still not bad.

 

Another video on it.

 

 

Photos

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2013 by marcos

[Cali]

That's further than an F-22 can manage. All in one flight? How many mid-air refuels?

 

Are you saying the 22 can't fly that far?

[Sov13t]

Are you saying the 22 can't fly that far?

 

It would run out of oxygen. :music_whistling:

[aaron886]

01/17/2013, T-50-4 in Zhukovsky after 7000km-long flight from Komsomol'sk-na-Amure.

 

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201301171613-it4s.htm — video.

 

Great picture.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

0 mid-air refuels of course.

I don't know if PAK FA has air refueling capability?

[Flаnker]

I don't know if PAK FA has air refueling capability?

 

yes

[marcos]

Found this:

 

The machine has a maximum speed of 2,600 kilometres per hour. Its ferry range is 4,300 kilometres at altitudes of up to 20 kilometres. With a maximum takeoff weight of 37 tons, the fighter is capable of carrying up to 10 tons of armaments, including the GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon, guided missiles of various types and ranges, as well as precision guided bombs. Up to eight external and ten internal suspension points can be installed to attach armaments...

 

...The fighter is equipped with innovative radar systems designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute, which, coupled with the two onboard computers, ensure target detection at a range of up to 400 kilometres, tracking of up to 60 air targets and shooting at up to 16 targets at a time.

 

More:

 

http://indrus.in/articles/2013/01/11/russian_fifth-generation_jet_fighter_takes_off_21557.html

Edited January 17, 2013 by marcos

[LARGE]

It says in the video i did make two stops..

[Vault]

Interesting topic. I thought L band can detect range by pulse delay. Range equals half the round trip of the speed of light. If the USN are able to use UHF with an acceptable level of tracking to target airborne threats in azimuth and elevation then L band must also be able to give an acceptable level of tracking in azimuth and elevation for airborne threats.

[wilky510]

It would run out of oxygen. :music_whistling:

Yeah, so many jets never had any problems with them. The F-22 is the only plane that has problems. </sarcasm off>

[Cali]

It would run out of oxygen. :music_whistling:

 

Not if you are flying below a certain altitude :smilewink:

[Namenlos Ein]

Not if you are flying below a certain altitude :smilewink:

Below a certain altitude it can damage your lungs.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-impact-air-force-insiders-foresaw-f-22-084352828.html

 

By the time RAW-G got going, some pilots were already experiencing a problem called “Raptor cough” — fits of chest pain and coughing dating to 2000 that stem from the collapse of overworked air sacs in the lungs.

 

The group concluded that the F-22’s On-Board Oxygen Generation System — or OBOGS — was giving pilots too much oxygen, causing the coughing. The more often and higher the pilots flew after being oxygen-saturated, group members believed, the more vulnerable pilots affected by the condition would be to other physiological incidents.

 

RAW-G recommended more tests and that the F-22’s oxygen delivery system be adjusted through a digital controller and a software upgrade.

 

“The schedule would provide less oxygen at lower altitudes than the current schedule, which has been known to cause problems with delayed ear blocks and acceleration atelectasis,” the technical term for the condition that leads to the coughing, according to the minutes from RAW-G’s final meeting.

T-50-4 at Komsomol'sk-na-Amure.

 

Edited January 18, 2013 by Namenlos Ein

[Cali]

Below a certain altitude it can damage your lungs.

 

You missed this quote from that article

The Air Force says the F-22 is safe to fly — a dozen of the jets began a six-month deployment to Japan in July — but flight restrictions that remain in place will keep it out of the high-altitude situations where pilots' breathing is under the most stress.

and this

In the meantime, the F-22s in Japan must fly under 44,000 feet so that the flawed vests will not be required, and are on a 30-minute "tether," meaning they must be within 30 minutes of an emergency landing site.

The fleet, grounded for five months last year, has flown nearly 8,000 sorties totaling more than 10,000 flight hours since its last reported unexplained incident in March, Lyon said.

I know they flew to Guam from Alaska back in Sept and just went back to Alaska a few months ago which is over 5,000 miles each trip. Are the problems fixed? I don't know, but from I have seen they have been doing fine.

[Namenlos Ein]

The link between oxygen saturation at lower altitudes and the recent spate of hypoxia-like incidents at high altitudes remains a matter of debate, and other contributing factors are likely. Both the Air Force and NASA, however, now concur that the F-22's oxygen schedule needs to be revised.

[Cali]

Yes opinions are everywhere and I know the 22's just made a 5000+ mile flight twice in the span of 4 months. And they had no issues flying at their deployed location.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=161155

Sukhoi T-50 Completes First Long-range Flight

 

Moscow, Jan 18 (IANS/RIA Novosti): Russia's prototype fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 fighter jet has carried out its first long-range flight.

 

The flight was carried out during the transfer from a manufacturing plant in the far east to an assigned airfield near Moscow, deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said.

 

“It is a serious breakthrough! The plane flew 7,000 km, making two landings, in Abakan and Chelyabinsk, on the way to the Russian capital,” Rogozin, who oversees the defence industry, wrote in Twitter.

 

The plane joined three other T-50 prototype models at the Zhukovsky airfield prior to state flight tests, which are scheduled to start in March 2013.

 

The fifth prototype aircraft is being built at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur factory in Siberia.

The T-50, also known as project PAK-FA, first flew in January 2010 and was presented to the public at the Moscow Air Show in 2011.

 

The defence ministry is planning to finish the state flight tests of eight prototypes by 2015, so that they could go into standard production in 2016.

 

The T-50, which will be the core of Russia’s future fighter fleet, is a fifth-generation multirole fighter aircraft featuring elements of stealth technology, super-maneuverability, super-cruise capability (supersonic flight without use of afterburner), and an advanced avionics suite including an X-band active phased-array radar.

From Rogozin's Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/291846009854771200

Самолет укомплектован практически полным составом радиоэлектронного оборудования и обзорно-прицельных систем. Это серьезный прорыв!

The aircraft is equipped with almost the full avionics and surveillance and attack systems. This is a serious breakthrough!

Note a “radiation” sign on the tail cone.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Namenlos Ein

[marcos]

Note a “radiation” sign on the tail cone.[/img]

Tail radar to track missile threats and bogeys?

[Flаnker]

Tail radar

 

possibly

[marcos]

possibly

Laser to shoot down aforementioned?:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlikely.:lol:

[NOLA]

Found this:

 

More:

 

http://indrus.in/articles/2013/01/11/russian_fifth-generation_jet_fighter_takes_off_21557.html

 

99% of that is pure BS.

[Weta43]

99% of that is pure BS.

I take it you were off the day they did percentages at school.. :)

 

Which bits do you consider BS - it's a fairly straightforward list of either publically available facts, or capability statements from the manufacturer.

 

so is it this bit you object to :

Foreign media have also praised the Russian plane as having clear advantages over the American fifth-generation planes. In mid-autumn, Australian military analysts at Air Power Australia issued a report comparing the Sukhoi PAK FA with its American peers F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightening II. Based on their conclusions, the new Russian jet fighter is superior to its existing foreign analogues based on many of its features.

cause that's the only controversial thing in there, and that's 9.6% of the article

 

or do you just generaly have a problem with someone saying the Russians could build something that might out-perform Western gear - even if that's only that it has a higher fuel fraction ?

[Pilotasso]

Not to discard the possibility its actually a jammer protecting its less RCS protected rear, or even a MAWS system.

[NOLA]

I take it you were off the day they did percentages at school.. :)

I will soon be engineer, smartypants. And i was referring to the quoted bit. Since you apparently took it personal, did you write it?

 

The machine has a maximum speed of 2,600 kilometres per hour.

 

- Wrong. PAK FA's top speed has been known for ages, and that is not it.

 

Its ferry range is 4,300 kilometres at altitudes of up to 20 kilometres.

 

- 20km is fine to guess, but no range has been disclosed. I might say its range is one bazzilion km. Surely that is true? All we know is that it carries more fuel than Su-27.

 

With a maximum takeoff weight of 37 tons

 

- What i said above.

 

GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon

 

- Correct although designation may wary.

 

Up to eight external and ten internal suspension points can be installed to attach armaments...

 

- Wrong. Someone is unable to count, where are you supposed to put eight external stores? It is 6 external and 6 internal. This all has been known since 2010.

 

The fighter is equipped with innovative radar systems designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute, which, coupled with the two onboard computers, ensure target detection at a range of up to 400 kilometres, tracking of up to 60 air targets and shooting at up to 16 targets at a time.

 

- Useless to say the range without saying against what. Rest isn't correct.

Edited January 18, 2013 by NOLA

[Weta43]

I will soon be engineer, smartypants. And i was referring to the quoted bit. Since you apparently took it personal, did you write it?

 

It's alright - I was just pulling your leg - I'm sure you'd have had to have had more than a day off to actually be that bad at stats, & I was just being a 'smarty-pants' :)

 

The machine has a maximum speed of 2,600 kilometres per hour.

 

- Wrong. PAK FA's top speed has been known for ages, and that is not it.

 

That great font of knowledge Wikipedia (which may have factual errors from time to time, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt here) says the max speed of the PAK-FA is Mach 2+, or between 2,100 and 2,600 km/h. GlobalSecurity.org use the same numbers. If you have a better source, I'd love to see it (no sarcasm intended) - and you could edit the Wiki article to boot.

 

 

Its ferry range is 4,300 kilometres at altitudes of up to 20 kilometres.

 

- 20km is fine to guess, but no range has been disclosed. I might say its range is one bazzilion km. Surely that is true? All we know is that it carries more fuel than Su-27.

 

Su-34 has max ferry range of 4,000km, slightly newer Su-35 has max ferry range of 4,500km , Wiki and GlobalSecurity say 5,500km for the much newer PAK-FA. I'd have thought 4,300 km a reasonably conservative estimate - or was that your probelm with it ? That it was understating capabilities ?

 

The author doesn't say ferry at 20km, only that it can fly "up to 20 kilometres". That would be its service ceiling.

The Su-34's service ceiling is only 15km, but the newer and lighter Su-35's service ceiling is 18km, and the ageing (1975) but loveable MiG-35's service ceiling is 20.6km.

Again, is your problem that you think they're underestimating the PAK-FA, or that you think Sukhoi can't design a plane to fly at 20,000m ? (or that the F-22's service ceiling is 19.8km ?)

 

That source that causes you to doubt ?

 

With a maximum takeoff weight of 37 tons

 

- What i said above.

 

Again - Su-34 max take-off weight of weight of 45,100 kg, Su-35 max take-off weight of weight of 34,500kg, same sources say 37,000 kg for PAK-FA, article says 37 tons (33,600kg) - again, very conservative I'd have thought.

Even if we assume they equated a ton with 1,000kg - that falls within the capabilities of existing Sukhoi fighters. Again - a source for your doubt ?

 

GSh-30-1 30 mm cannon

 

- Correct although designation may wary.

 

So you only have a problem with their transcription skills here :) ?

 

Up to eight external and ten internal suspension points can be installed to attach armaments...

 

- Wrong. Someone is unable to count, where are you supposed to put eight external stores? It is 6 external and 6 internal. This all has been known since 2010.

 

Now I could continue my smart-*ss line and say that 6 internal stores is covered by the statement "Up to eight external and ten internal suspension", but I'll say instead you may have a point.

To me, this :

Hardpoints: Two internal bays running longitudinally on the fuselage supporting 6 R-27/R-77 AAMs (3 each) or 4 R-33/R-37 AAMs (2 each), plus 2 small internal wing bays for 2 R-73 AAMs and up to six external hardpoints

reads as :

Internal = (2 bays * 3 R-27 each (your "6"))+(2 bays *1 R-73 each (That you missed)) = 8 internal stores

and

6 extenal hardpoints = some unknown number of external weapons not less than 6, but possibly in excess of 12 if they're carried on racks as per the FA-18.

 

So - for internals, you're 2 low, and they're 2 high. Does being 2 out count as BS ?

 

The fighter is equipped with innovative radar systems designed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute, which, coupled with the two onboard computers, ensure target detection at a range of up to 400 kilometres, tracking of up to 60 air targets and shooting at up to 16 targets at a time.

 

- Useless to say the range without saying against what. Rest isn't correct.

 

Isn't it a development of the IRBIS-E from the Su-35 ?

Don't the manufacturers claim a detection range of 400Km against an approaching 3m^2 target ? You could assume they used that figure in the article (I agree - bad form not saying), then the artivle would be correct (Who has better data than the manufacturers ? ).

 

My understanding is the manufacturers claim simultaneously track 30 targets, engage 8 ?

 

That was a radar that started development in 2004 and was in the air in 2007 - I'd expect the PAK-FA to be better than that. How much better do you get for an extra 6 ears of development ? Twice seems optimistic, but given how quickly computing power has increased overthat time (& it's all just processing) who knows.

You got a source for the specs on the Irbis-E derived radar to be used on the PAK-FA to show me how BS the authors claims are ? (one with actual test data, not based on competitors assumptions...).

 

How will I decide which is right - the article's claims, or your statment that they're all BS ?

 

Most of his claims seem plausible - even conservative - based on the performance of existing aircraft from the same manufacturer.

The only stretch is the "track 60, engage 16" which, while it would be a big jump in performance, isn't outside the realms of posibility - after all - who got the first active scanning radar into a fighter ?

Edited January 19, 2013 by Weta43

[Weta43]

While we're being so shure about things - or not ..

 

If one possible configuration of A2A missiles is this (sorry small photo) :

 

so 4 missiles evenly spaced

 

and another is this (nicer photo):

 

 

- 6 missiles staggered 3 to a bay..

 

How many hardpoints do you need to be able to have those options ?