PAK FA, T-50: News #1

Rpg type 7v wrote:ok what if engine stalls or explodes??

There will always be an emergency oxygen bottle.

Beside if it's only one engine damaged (as stalls can be managed by careful inlet designs)..there won't really be a problem

ok what if engine stalls or explodes??

The engine is not generating the "air", it is just collecting air from a compressor section... it can continue to do that even with a stalled engine.

And if the engine explodes then the pilot has a few problems to think about, but as the system wont be extracting the air for them to breathe one breath at a time there should be enough compressed breathable air for the pilot to complete their mission and land.

New G-suit gives PAK-FA higher operational ceiling than the Raptor?

Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA pilots will be equipped with a new g-suit that will allow them to eject from the aircraft at altitudes of 75,000ft (23,000m). If the PAK-FA is able to fly at those altitudes operationally, that would mean that it has a significantly higher operational ceiling than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptort-50-4_1200.jpg.

The F-22 is limited by US Air Force regulations to 60,000ft because of the Armstrong Limit, which is found at roughly 62,000ft. The USAF never developed a full pressure-suit for Raptor pilots to wear; instead those pilots wear the Combat Edge ensemble, which counts as a partial pressure suit. Other fighters like the Boeing F-15 or F/A-18, for example, are typically restricted by regulations to 50,000ft (that includes the German Luftwaffe, their Eurofighter Typhoons, as one of their pilots told me, are also limited by regulations to 50,000ft operationally).

There are some very good reasons for those altitude restrictions. Above the Armstrong Limit water will boil at the same temperature as the human body. Basically, if you lose cabin pressure, you will die a slow and horrible death as bodily fluids (except those under pressure inside blood vessels) start to boil unless you have a pressure suit–like the guys flying U-2s (except they don’t inflate those suits normally, which has led to problems in the past–but that’s a whole different story).

IF the Russian Television story is correct–it could mean the Russian have developed a full pressure/g-suit that is capable of operating at those altitudes. Or they’re completely insane–which is also a possibility I suppose.

75k ft? I wonder how that would help it in combat?
1stly I wonder how effective F-22 AAM missiles would be at that height?
ie how much it might enhanve Pakfa defence capabilities..

Ofcourse 75k ft would make it harder for SAM missiles to hit it too.

It would also allow Pakfa launched ground strike missiles to travel further..

Basic warfare... fight from above as it means you are stabbing down at your enemies heads and they are reaching up at your legs.

It is also like fighting from the top of a hill... your weapons increase energy going down and their decrease energy going up.

It also gives you max visibility and if you are stealthy means you are not that exposed.

Supercruising is easier at higher altitudes.

2 episode documentary on T-50 from Wings of Russia studio (also shown on Zvezda TV today i think), contains alot of unseen footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BgrmDDMI2-A

PAK-FA seems to be doing fine.
I hope they will not encounter a major problem.
Its specs seems to be perfect, but what i am most interrested in is beyond the performance of the maschine.
I am mostly interrested on the man-mashine interface.
In other words the interaction between pilot and the plane.
I had a vague imagination that in this field Russians would like to push the envelope further, like for example having their own JHMCS equivalent.
It seems i was right.
Take a look on this:



Not only that but they have a completelly new pilot life support system (with new helmet):





Collimator system
Angular field of view in the image space channel cathode-ray tube, not less than:
Horizontal 20 deg.
Vertical 30 deg.
The angular field of view of the grid in the image space, not less than 11 deg.
Exit pupil of SHKS-5, not less than:
vertically 70 mm
120 mm horizontally
Eye Relief 560 - 600 mm
Weight no more than 12 kg
Dimensions not exceeding 389 mm x 328 mm x 320 mm
Equipping the pilot:
Ejection seat K36-D5, helmet ZSH - 10, G-suit CAT-7

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/187788-pak-fa-information-translated-paralay-com.html#ixzz2bbci9MZE


Seems like Russians have come to catch up with what is the most important element of the new fighting mashine - the pilot.
I would like to know more about the new AI the Su-35 is reportedly fitted out and PAK FA would probably receive as well.
How cool it would be if the onboard system would detect that you have fainted or you are tired and autopilot would take over the controls to bring the plane back to base.
Or when the AI would hear Air Traffic Control message for you to being hand over to another ATC on differrent radio frequency and would ask you if you would like to automatically set the radio channel to new frequency? I see that having a good AI support from the plane could be critical, so that the pilot would be bothered by only important things.
Moreso that if you are in a dogfight - if you would start taking tight turns, switching to short range weapons chasing a target, AI would detect that you are in dogfight and suddenly you are being tracked and intercepted by more enemies - AI would call in for reinforcements for you and inform you of more incomming enemy fighters (bearing, range, types)? I know this should be the role of AWACS to watch over but what if you are out of its range? So having a good AI really would help. That is why im so interrested what the onboard AI is capable to do.
Many people discuss the airplane properties and attributes which are important, but many are forgeting the aspect of presenting the information to the pilot in a non-intrusive way.
I personally think that the western hud tends to overload the pilot with lots of informations he does not need - i hope Russians will not follow in American footsteps.

GarryB wrote:Basic warfare... fight from above as it means you are stabbing down at your enemies heads and they are reaching up at your legs.

It is also like fighting from the top of a hill... your weapons increase energy going down and their decrease energy going up.

It also gives you max visibility and if you are stealthy means you are not that exposed.

Supercruising is easier at higher altitudes.

I was also thinking that it would be much harder for a SAM to hit it at that height. Also whether key rival AAMs would have reduced or zero capability when the PAK FA is at max height. I know a fair number of missiles cant function that high up.

On another topic, it was interesting to read about hypersonic planes designed to fly in and out of the mesosphere(v high altitude). One problem with attacking such planes is that normal missiles cant function at that height.

Austin wrote:New G-suit gives PAK-FA higher operational ceiling than the Raptor?

Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA pilots will be equipped with a new g-suit that will allow them to eject from the aircraft at altitudes of 75,000ft (23,000m). If the PAK-FA is able to fly at those altitudes operationally, that would mean that it has a significantly higher operational ceiling than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptort-50-4_1200.jpg.

The F-22 is limited by US Air Force regulations to 60,000ft because of the Armstrong Limit, which is found at roughly 62,000ft. The USAF never developed a full pressure-suit for Raptor pilots to wear; instead those pilots wear the Combat Edge ensemble, which counts as a partial pressure suit. Other fighters like the Boeing F-15 or F/A-18, for example, are typically restricted by regulations to 50,000ft (that includes the German Luftwaffe, their Eurofighter Typhoons, as one of their pilots told me, are also limited by regulations to 50,000ft operationally).

There are some very good reasons for those altitude restrictions. Above the Armstrong Limit water will boil at the same temperature as the human body. Basically, if you lose cabin pressure, you will die a slow and horrible death as bodily fluids (except those under pressure inside blood vessels) start to boil unless you have a pressure suit–like the guys flying U-2s (except they don’t inflate those suits normally, which has led to problems in the past–but that’s a whole different story).

IF the Russian Television story is correct–it could mean the Russian have developed a full pressure/g-suit that is capable of operating at those altitudes. Or they’re completely insane–which is also a possibility I suppose.

Has there ever been a true fighter aircraft that used a full pressure g-suit?

One of the good documentary on PAK-FA details History , Interview with Test Pilot , Chief Designer and many unseen previous footage.
Since its in Russian change the caption translator to English for subtitles.

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img25/5964/zsh10wsura.jpg

That is ancient Shlem... the two probes on either side are used by sensors on the cockpit to determine where the pilot is looking, while the monocle has a cursor in it... it is a circle with a vertical and horizontal line through it like the crosshair of a telescopic sight.

The pilot places that crosshair on an enemy air target within his field of view and pushes a button on his flight stick. The cockpit mounted sensors determine where the pilot is looking and either moves the seeker of the R-73 (if selected), or the IRST (if selected) or Radar (if selected) to scan for a target. The solid crosshair starts blinking when it has a lock and the pilot knows he is free to look anywhere he likes... if he now has a radar lock he can get information about the target, and similar with the IRST. If he got a lock with the R-73 he is free to fire the missile.

I personally think that the western hud tends to overload the pilot with lots of informations he does not need - i hope Russians will not follow in American footsteps.

The main goal of the technology in 5th gen fighters is to process information and display it in a simple way to the pilot while hiding non relevant information to prevent information overload

They are working on helmet mounted displays both for fighters and helicopters and I suspect they will keep such things secret for the moment.

I was also thinking that it would be much harder for a SAM to hit it at that height. Also whether key rival AAMs would have reduced or zero capability when the PAK FA is at max height. I know a fair number of missiles cant function that high up.

And even the ones that do have very thin air to work with... this means blast waves of explosions are much less effective so fragmentation is relied on rather more for a kill. The thinner air means after burning up a lot of energy to climb up to those heights the small control surfaces of the missiles will have less bite in the air so will have reduce manouver capability... and also the height gives the pilot more time to react to an attack than if they were lower down.

At 23km up there are no clouds to hide behind and no weather to be a problem either.

[One problem with attacking such planes is that normal missiles cant function at that height.

Missiles fast enough to get up to those heights should have some method of manouvering at that height.

Also keep in mind that a hypersonic bomber with people in it will not be able to turn much... remember that the g forces of a turn greatly increase with speed... a helicopter travelling at 150km/h might not be able to pull more than 2-3gs, while travelling at 1,500km per hour a sudden 90 degree turn might result in 200gs... if it was possible.

Has there ever been a true fighter aircraft that used a full pressure g-suit?

The Mig-25 and Mig-31 use a pressure suit... but very few real pressure suits are actually full pressure suits... one of the biggest problems with the Apollo-Soyuz docking was that they each operated at different pressures and that the connector had to stabilise each side so they could connect.

Neither operated at full Earth sea level air pressure as the higher the pressure the stronger the pressure vessel needs to be, which adds weight and complicates breathing gasses used.

BTW nice vids guys...

The main goal of the technology in 5th gen fighters is to process information and display it in a simple way to the pilot while hiding non relevant information to prevent information overload

They are working on helmet mounted displays both for fighters and helicopters and I suspect they will keep such things secret for the moment.

Well what i wanted to say is that Americans did not do it the proper way. I know there are HUD settings so a pilot can actually customize the way his HUD will look like - im not sure to what degree is it possible to customize it. If you compare the Russian and American (or should i say wester) hud - the main differrence between them is that American HUD displays the angle at which your aircraft is situated compared to horizont (pitch altitude bars) with too many uneeded symbolics. If you look at the Russian HUD it is there in a form of one line with numeric angle readout. Or for example Western hud allways shows speed readout. This is totally useless in a dogfight - show Mach speed only when you are reaching close or you are maintaining speed >= 1.0 Mach
These are the tiny details that makes the differrence. Pilot is not bussy reading out information that are not neccessary for the situation he is in, and can concentrate fully on the task in front of him.

That is ancient Shlem... the two probes on either side are used by sensors on the cockpit to determine where the pilot is looking, while the monocle has a cursor in it... it is a circle with a vertical and horizontal line through it like the crosshair of a telescopic sight.

The Schlem (helmet) is the new one. Watch the youtube video guys posted - its there.
However the targeting system mounted on the helmet is the old version, that is true.

Zivo wrote:Has there ever been a true fighter aircraft that used a full pressure g-suit?

YF-12A? An interceptor rather than a traditional fighter, but the crew used the same basic pressure suit that turned into what was used on early Shuttle missions.

Hitting high altitude targets: many SAMs have envelopes reaching to around 100,000 feet. An S-400, for example, will not break a sweat trying to kill something at 75,000 feet. Part of this is due to the fact that the up-and-over missile profile takes the 48N6DM (or any other S-300P/400 5V55/48N6 series missile) a bit higher than 100,000 feet to begin with. Many long-range BVR AAMs do something similar. The AIM-54, for example, shot up when fired at a long-range target, allowing it to loft itself through the atmosphere. You basically turned altitude and velocity into range. The R-33S also did this, but not the R-33 I don't think, giving the latter a shorter range. Some late-model AIM-7s could do it, lofting during midcourse, and the AIM-120 does it as well for extended range. Basically the AAMs and the launcher's FCS are smart enough to know how to maximize the missile's kinetic energy and whatnot to make sure it gets to where it wants to go: for example, shoot an AIM-54 in a much shorter-range engagement, and it isn't going to use a lofted profile.

Western HUDs: they display the information the pilots are trained to make use of, and it's standardized with the other cockpit displays usually. They can be customized to a small degree, but that's primarily in terms of brightness and color based on operational requirements. More detailed HUD information is a direct result of the HOTAS concept, allowing the pilot to keep eyes up throughout an engagement.

Or for example Western hud allways shows speed readout. This is totally useless in a dogfight - show Mach speed only when you are reaching close or you are maintaining speed >= 1.0 Mach

Flight speed is critical in some manouvers... the pilot often needs to know his flight speed before deciding whether to enter a turn or manouver or bail out of that manouver to prevent a stall half way through.

allowing it to loft itself through the atmosphere. You basically turned altitude and velocity into range. The R-33S also did this, but not the R-33 I don't think, giving the latter a shorter range.

The R-27 also uses a lofted trajectory in the E model so I suspect the R-33 did too, though I suspect the difference in range performance between R-33S and R-33 was due to more efficient and more powerful fuel in the later R-33S. AFAIK range ratings are 150km for R-33S and 120km for R-33.

JSF does not have supercruise capability , While F-22 and PAK-FA does have. Even Eurofighter claims to do Mach 1.2 in supercruise with certain payload.

So how does Supercruise capability help in combat and flying quality of an aircraft ?

Thanks

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=2803