The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[marcos]

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

Well here is a generous close-up:

 

 

 

 

 

Re-fuelling:

 

Edited January 19, 2013 by marcos

[NOLA]

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' :)

 

No problem. I was being somewhat sarcastic, as obviously the exact number of BS isn't 99 %. Measuring of BS is no joke, it is a very precise science. :)

 

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.

 

C-in-C Ru AF that played instrumental part in setting specification of the project. From 2004:

 

12.2004

В.Михайлов сообщил, что снизил на 0,15 число "М", заданные в тактико-техническом задании характеристики скорости нового самолета".

"К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число - 0,15 влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля, увеличение веса самолета", - сказал главком.

По его словам, "анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что эти самолеты, хоть и способны ходить примерно на этих скоростях, но редко на них выходят".

"Зафиксировано всего лишь несколько полетов летчиков-испытателей на таких скоростях, это влечет сотни проблемных вопросов по усилению хвостового оперения и плохо сказывается на других характеристиках самолета", - сказал В.Михайлов.

12.2004

Mikhailov said that the mach number has reduced with 0.15 "M", set in the tactical and technical characteristics of the job rate of the new aircraft. "

"For example, given a description of 2.15 m, so that the aircraft was flying at such a rate, but the number - 0.15 leads to the need to strengthen the tail/stab, and increased weight of the aircraft," - said the commander in chief.

According to him, "the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that the aircraft, though able to fly at around at these speeds, but they rarely do."

"Only a few test pilots flying at such speeds, it involves hundreds of problematic issues to strengthen the tail and has a bad effect on the other characteristics of the aircraft," - said Mikhailov.

Might things have changed since 2004? Definitely. But i have't seen any concrete proof they have, so imho this is the current truth. In same interview he discussed number of rockets needed by 5'th gen ac, saying that it doesn't need 12 of them but 4 is a better number overall. I tried to find the complete interview yesterday (i have read it before), but no luck. IMHO speed recruitment has not changed.

 

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 ?

 

Ferry range of Su-34 is a bit more, 4100 something iirc. I remember it from pilot telling Medvedev that. I would have to find the video to give the precise number. My problem with the number is not that it is overstating or understating capabilities (as i don't know the true range either), but that it says in the article like it is the truth. It is estimation, nothing more, an estimation i would also be able to pull out of a certain place.

 

Although as i said it is known PAK FA carries more fuel than Su-27 it doesn't necesserily carry more than Su-35S. Flanker series and especially Su-34 is much larger than PAK FA, although it is also very compact plane. Basically it is very hard to tell.

 

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 ?)

 

Surely you mean MiG-31 and not MiG-35?

 

Problem with that number is same as i described 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 ?

 

Su-34's max take off is above 45k, as it has been tested with almost 12 tons of armament. 8000 kg is a very very conservative number...

 

Source of my doubt is logic. PAK FA is smaller than Su-35S and lighter by a few tons. It might tops have the same fuel capacity as the much larger Su-35S frame, but if one subtract the empty weight one still ends up below Su-35S.

 

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 :

 

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 ?

 

Doesn't matter how the wording is, up to or not up to. Simple point is that it CANT be eight. It is clear as a day where the external point are located, and has been so since first flight. And yes, it totally counts as BS because it is a matter of simple counting.

 

 

First off, PAK FA will not use R-27, that is laughable. Same goes to R-73, derivative of R-73 will be used. When it comes to internal bays, insiders have said 6 hardpoints and infamous Su-47 picture says the same. Well, it shows only one weaponbay obviously, and there is clearly 2 ejectors in there. Hence there is two racks for each of the big bays, and one for each of the small. 2+2+1+1 = 6. Heck, if my memory isn't failing me KTRV themself have hinted heavily to that.

 

 

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 ? ).

 

Not really, they are entirely different types of radar. Maybe some "back parts" are somewhat the same, but overall they are entirely different. When it comes to Irbis, but yours truly... :P

 

 

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 ?

 

Listen, don't understand me wrong here. I am not dissing PAK FA, in fact i think it is highly impressive plane and i have closely followed on the program for a long time, and have contact with an insider. I am just not fan of pulling numbers out of the arse (which the article did imho).

 

Now when it comes to tracking/engaging i can't recall if numbers like that has been released. And if they are not, the guess is as good as my grandmothers. Engaging 16 is obviously wrong, considering PAK FA cannot engage that many no matter how much it wants to. Considering Irbis is one hell of a beast, N050 is no doubt amazing piece of radar as well.

 

PS: I hope you realize your two pictures are not real and are purely CG? They are rather old as well. In terms of number of missiles the upper is correct.

Edited January 19, 2013 by NOLA

[marcos]

Oh great, another argument about something nobody knows about.

[NOLA]

Oh great, another argument about something nobody knows about.

Argument =/= discussion.

 

And atleast i know more about it than you and don't post pics full of mistakes or quotes full of mistakes. :)

[maturin]

Does anyone else feel like AusAirPower is just desperately trying to scare its government into increased military spending?

[Cali]

Argument =/= discussion.

 

And atleast i know more about it than you and don't post pics full of mistakes or quotes full of mistakes. :)

 

:disgust: I like the pictures he post. We all can't be as knowledgeable as you it seems.

 

Does anyone else feel like AusAirPower is just desperately trying to scare its government into increased military spending?

 

That's how it is, gotta make sure they get their funding and that's a good way to do it.

[Flаnker]

[Weta43]

Listen, don't understand me wrong here. I am not dissing PAK FA, in fact i think it is highly impressive plane and i have closely followed on the program for a long time, and have contact with an insider. I am just not fan of pulling numbers out of the arse (which the article did imho).

 

Nice post all round - Probably a politer response than I desrved. Thanks :-)

 

See what happens when you jump to conclusions - I hadn't even looked at the article till I saw your "99% BS" at which point I decided you were in the "If it claims something made in Russia is good, it must be BS" camp, and went off to read it.

 

I agree there's a whole lot of speculation in that article, but it didn't seem to be any more speculation than virtually any other article one can find, so took your reaction as probably driven by Nationalism... & now I have to change my mind - but I still think some of your objections are semantic - is it a mach 2 + plane ?

Your quote says it's capable of that, but will be operatinally limited to something below that.

What's its top speed then (what is the top speed of a Mig-31 ? (yes I did mean 31)) - what it's capable of, or what it can do if you really need it to to save the future of your country (or your life) ?

 

Still - if you define statements based on speculation not verifiable fact as BS, then yes, it probably was 99% BS, but given that if speculation based on inference and extreme enlargements of grainy photos counts as BS, someting like 99% of everything on 99% of all military aviation threads counts as BS (& probably 85% of everything on the internet), I'm not sure that's such a useful definition. I'd save it for unreasonable speculation. Like maybe the engage 16 claim...

 

Changing tack slightly (I'm not trying to defend the article here, and given your aversion to speculation maybe I should start a new post :), but) I was thinking about the usefulness (not the likelyhood of it having) of an 'egage 16' ability on a plane with only 6 BVR missiles carried in a clean configuration.

I was thinking that if you have an active scanning radar that can - to all intents and purposes - instantly splt its beam and track a particular piece of space while still scanning its normal search volume, you could pass the launch data and tuning frequencies for the MCC to the missiles of a number of other aircraft that are 'silent', have them launch, and have the only aircraft with its radar on guide the missiles of a number of aircraft to their targets. You know the paths the missiles intend to take (you know their programmed flight paths, having just sent the info to their INS), and if you need to send a mid course correction to a particular missile, you split a bit of beam off, point it at the bit of space you expect the missile to be in, and send an update..

 

Did I read a claim the F-22 could do this ?

 

Anyway - wild speculation...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Weta43

[AlexHunter]

Hi Rez

Edited January 20, 2013 by AlexHunter

[Ich666]

Does anyone know why theres a radiation sticker on the part between the engines? Just curious :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Does anyone know why theres a radiation sticker on the part between the engines? Just curious :)

I assume it is a radar radiation warning label. You don't want to stay in front of radar when it is turned on. It would be similar to being inside the microwave oven.

 

BTW microwave ovens were successfully used as decoys for HARM's.

[danilop]

...

BTW microwave ovens were successfully used as decoys for HARM's.

 

+1

 

:thumbup: :D

Edited January 20, 2013 by danilop

[X-man]

The trefoil symbol is usually used for ionizing radiation or radioactivity. Radar do not emit ionizing radiation...

 

That's not to say other forms of EM radiation are safe... High powered microwaves can be pretty uncomfortable ;)

Edited January 20, 2013 by X-man

[NOLA]

:disgust: I like the pictures he post. We all can't be as knowledgeable as you it seems.

 

It is good that he posts pics and updates etc, but do you think he should call me and Weta43 out on our supposed ignorance ("something nobody knows about") when he has himself displayed it? Unless he can correct me or Weta43 out on something specific (like i did with the quote he posted) what gives him right to say that and shut us up?

 

I agree there's a whole lot of speculation in that article, but it didn't seem to be any more speculation than virtually any other article one can find, so took your reaction as probably driven by Nationalism... & now I have to change my mind - but I still think some of your objections are semantic - is it a mach 2 + plane ?

 

The way i read it he is talking about the actual top speed set in specifications. MiG-31 has limit of 2.83 although i have heard about pilots venturing into higher numbers than that. From time to time pilots do high speed dashes (they don't do it often as obviously it wears on the frame) and i know that atleast in 2010 they were flying up to atleast mach 2.53. Some series are limited to lower number because of the windshield.

 

And yes, i think "narrow channel" (i am not deep into radar specifics so those with more knowledge on specifics are free to correct me :P) is something that AESA gives option of. I think that was possible to some degree on Zaslon as well?

 

I assume it is a radar radiation warning label. You don't want to stay in front of radar when it is turned on. It would be similar to being inside the microwave oven.

 

BTW microwave ovens were successfully used as decoys for HARM's.

 

Correct. That sign is very typical on Russian fighters, you often find it on Flankers and Fulcrums for instance. And earlier planes as well of course. However, i can't recall ever seeing it in any other place than on the nose, aka for the radar.

 

Whether this is actually rear view radar, i am highly skeptical about that. I have followed this program for a long while and i can't recall any mention of such radar to be installed. Different band radars have been known to be installed in different areas for a good while (even prior to PAK FA being shown, thanks to a certain Polish resident...) but rear radar has not been mentioned.

 

I am inclined to think it has more to do with EW/ECM. ECM of PAK-FA is probably the most secret part of the program, along with its weapons. If my thoughts are correct, that must be some really powerful stuff back there to merit such sticker...

 

And no, Su-34 DOES NOT have rear view radar...

Edited January 20, 2013 by NOLA

[Cali]

It is good that he posts pics and updates etc, but do you think he should call me and Weta43 out on our supposed ignorance ("something nobody knows about") when he has himself displayed it? Unless he can correct me or Weta43 out on something specific (like i did with the quote he posted) what gives him right to say that and shut us up?

 

I must have missed anything he said to you guys. If that's the case then I retract part of my statement.

[marcos]

It is good that he posts pics and updates etc, but do you think he should call me and Weta43 out on our supposed ignorance ("something nobody knows about") when he has himself displayed it? Unless he can correct me or Weta43 out on something specific (like i did with the quote he posted) what gives him right to say that and shut us up?

I didn't say 'shut-up' anywhere. This is exactly what I posted.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1655633&postcount=1630

 

To me it's pretty obvious when a discussion is going down the road to nowhere. It usually begins when someone starts disputing quoted figures, without any logical reason as to why they're wrong, and with no access to the real figures.

 

The figures may be wrong but there's no way of knowing that, so any argument/discussion about it is futile.

 

Arguing about the range of the PAK-FA at this stage is like arguing about the origin of the universe. Unless you're sitting down at the Sukhoi design bureau with the performance speification marked TOPCRET or whatever, you simply don't know.

 

 

I must have missed anything he said to you guys. If that's the case then I retract part of my statement.

You didn't miss anything. He's just upset because I pointed out that the conversation was ultimately unresolvable in an attempt to prevent a circle-jerk.

Edited January 20, 2013 by marcos

[NOLA]

The figures may be wrong but there's no way of knowing that, so any argument/discussion about it is futile.

 

= shut up.

 

But nice try. There were no circle jerk. Weta43 was interested in why i thought that info was for most part BS and i provided my analysis.

 

You didn't miss anything. He's just upset because I pointed out that the conversation was ultimately unresolvable in an attempt to prevent a circle-jerk.

 

Unresolvable how? There was no arguing between me and Weta43.

 

Seriously, stop trying to curb a discussion just because you clearly have nothing to add to it.

 

Unless you're sitting down at the Sukhoi design bureau with the performance speification marked TOPCRET or whatever, you simply don't know.

 

Please, point out where i said i know T-50's range? Clearly you have not being reading carefully, because the only thing we know is that it carries more fuel than Flanker. That is it. Which was exactly my point, beyond that guessing is pretty much pointless.

[marcos]

= shut up.

What?:lol:

 

Seriously, stop trying to curb a discussion just because you clearly have nothing to add to it.

I'll try keep it going when I clearly have nothing to add to it instead hey?

 

Please, point out where i said i know T-50's range?

Point out the quote where I said 'shut up' and I will.

 

Everyone here knows that most figures are part speculation at the moment but to say they're wrong out-right you have to have some kind of justification.

 

So when you say:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1654795&postcount=1622

 

99% of that is pure BS.

 

We'd like some hard evidence, not merely some counter-speculation from around the internet.

 

I'm not continuing this circle-jerk any further.

Edited January 20, 2013 by marcos

[Cali]

Wow, he got mad over that, I didn't see anything there to be upset about, but that's me. Carry on gentlemen.

[marcos]

[marcos]

Is PAK-FA to be a naval fighter? I ask because of the double nose-wheel.

[Thor77]

Is PAK-FA to be a naval fighter? I ask because of the double nose-wheel.

 

Twin nose-wheel is used because of weight. I haven't heard of any navalization plans.

[marcos]

Twin nose-wheel is used because of weight. I haven't heard of any navalization plans.

The F-22 is heavier (according to information available which is admittedly poor/bollocks) and has a single nose-wheel.

 

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Is PAK-FA to be a naval fighter? I ask because of the double nose-wheel.

It would not surprise me to see PAK FA for aircraft carrier operations. Something similar as Su27 and Su-27K (Su-33).

[Thor77]

The F-22 is heavier (according to information available which is admittedly poor/bollocks) and has a single nose-wheel.

 

that may be true but it doesn't carry a mudguard either; All the Su-30 series and Su-35S as well have twin nose-wheels due to heavier weight and unlike Western planes, can operate from a poorly prepared airstrips.