PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Supercruise gives you the high ground and also gives you speed, so if you want to engage the enemy or leave the fight you can do so... older fighters can only spend a few minutes at supersonic speeds as it burns fuel at a very high rate.

Supercruising around your missiles get extra reach from the higher launch speed and the enemies missiles have shorter range against you because you are moving faster and they invariably need to catch up.

You can get to objectives faster, or move away from threats faster without burning a lot of fuel.

In combat comparisons between the Flanker and the Hornet the Flanker enjoys many of the advantages that supercruising would provide because it just carries a lot of fuel and can use AB rather more than the Hornet because it carries so much more fuel.

Thanks Garry

Engine development for PAK-FA runs without any problems

The final engine for the T-50 will be developed in 2015

There are claims, that Russian air force will this year receive its first PAK FA. Anyone knows, if this will be one of prototypes or first pre-serial plane?

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.

I didn't mean to hide the speed indicator - sorry if it sounded that way, what i mean is to hide the Mach speed indicator.
Because usually in western hud you are shown speed in knots and also as a Mach number.
And that is in my opinion useless. Pilot definitelly need to know his speed because each airplane have such an aerodynamic profile that allows the plane in certain speed have the highes possible angle of attack (turn rate) - however this is usually way below the 1.0 Mach speed - yet Mach speed redout is still shown.

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.

Well depending on type... im not knowledgable about the hud types but i've seen in DCS A-10 Warthog you can configure your HUD a lot. Knowing the DCS series i would not be so suprised if that was true in real world.

Austin wrote: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

What Garry said, basically crossing Mach barrier and flying fast without resorting to fuel-intensive afterburner.
There is a lot of marketing behind it though- some makers define Supercruise as staying at supersonic cruise speeds without resorting to AB, while others define it as crossing mach barrier without AB.

Further, Lockheed marketing would have you thinking if a bird can super cruise, it has amazing range.
Well, it helps, but even without supercruise a Su-27 or a MiG-31 will outrange an F-22 at supersonic speeds considerably- for one they simply have more fuel.

Su-35BM supercruised during testing as well.

MIG-31 is still a king. 1500km at Mach 2.35.

F-22 does not come not nearly as close in speed and range. PAK-FA will probably surpass it in range but not in speed.

Not probably, all indications are PAK-FA utterly crushes anything else out there in supersonic range. Pogo already stated they are seeing a supersonic range more than twice that of the Su-27.

In terms of cruising speed I suspect they will be roughly similar. Neither will have the practical Mach 2 sustained capability that the MIG-31 has, but it is a very specialized bird.

GarryB wrote: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.

I'm not sure. I've heard that the R-33 was not very impressive (comparatively speaking; it didn't have to be a world-beater to be shot at cooperative, high-RCS targets like a B-52), the R-33S being far, far better. It did use redesigned internal components and different aerodynamics, hence the reprofiled wings and added canards.

TR1 wrote:Not probably, all indications are PAK-FA utterly crushes anything else out there in supersonic range. Pogo already stated they are seeing a supersonic range more than twice that of the Su-27.

Yeah, but define "supersonic". Is that range at Mach 1.2? Mach 2? Sukhoi has proven with FLANKER that they have no problems getting something big to be aerodynamic and long-legged, so I wouldn't doubt that it may have better performance than the F-22 in range. But on the other hand it lacks the design engines, so there's a bit of speculation (what if they aren't as efficient as planned?), and there's no data about what the speed and range correlations are (i.e. what range at what speed).

And a better term should be "crushes anything else out there intended for current service": 1) the Blackbirds had very long range at Mach 3, and so did the XB-70 for that matter, and so did Concorde and the Tu-144D, and 2) the best performing (in terms of speed, range, and LO) fifth generation fighter yet conceived is currently on display at the USAF Museum; the YF-23A and GE F120 combination was completely, totally, and utterly ridiculous. Which was of course interpreted as too risky and too expensive!

TR1 wrote:In terms of cruising speed I suspect they will be roughly similar. Neither will have the practical Mach 2 sustained capability that the MIG-31 has, but it is a very specialized bird.

Supercruise speed will likely be dependent on the individual combinations of aerodynamics and propulsion. "Best range speed" for each fighter will likely be different. They will probably be within the same general range, say Mach 1.3-1.7, although that's a total guess on my part. Also, either one will be able to sustain Mach 2 until they run out of gas. They won't get as fast as the MiG-31 because of the different materials used (and again the different aerodynamic/propulsion concepts), but sustaining Mach 2 should not be a problem. The question becomes whether or not there's any sort of tactical utility in being at Mach 2 vs. Mach 1.7.

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

Supercruise is getting past Mach 1 and sustaining supersonic flight without using afterburners. Supersonic cruise is simply the ability to sustain supersonic speeds. Concorde, the SR-71, the MiG-31...these are supersonic cruise aircraft, not supercruisers. And it also does help if you can supercruise while carrying weapons. Otherwise it's just a parlor trick. Now, why do you want to do that? Less 'burners means more gas, which means more range. Supersonic speed means you can 1) cross distances quicker, useful for a lot of reasons, and 2) impart more kE to your missile at launch, which in turn gives it longer range. Going faster at launch can have a pretty big impact In that regard. An AGM-69 fired from a B-52 had a range of something around 100 miles or so. Fired from a modified SR-71 at speed and altitude, Lockheed projected a range of at least 300 miles. An AAM fired at Mach 0.85 versus one fired at Mach 1.5 isn't going to get as big of a boost, but the principle is the same. It ties into the whole "first shoot" idea, using physics to give you a longer reach.

What is the SC speed for F-22 ?

Austin wrote:What is the SC speed for F-22 ?

This figure varies.. kinda forget the source.. but i remembered it's some mach 1,6-1,8.

There are claims, that Russian air force will this year receive its first PAK FA. Anyone knows, if this will be one of prototypes or first pre-serial plane?

Likely just a prototype for testing... might be a new build rather than an existing prototype.

F-22 does not come not nearly as close in speed and range. PAK-FA will probably surpass it in range but not in speed.

An important aspect too is that while some aircraft can fly very fast they can't do so for very long as heat build up can damage components and parts.

The Mig-31 for instance can fly as long as it likes at mach 2.4, but at mach 2.6 it has a flight time limit of about 5 minutes before it needs to slow down again.

Pogo already stated they are seeing a supersonic range more than twice that of the Su-27.

This is a case in point regarding supercruise... the Su-27 can fly about 4,000km in most models at subsonic speeds, but its supersonic range is about 700km. That means that when a supercruising aircraft is involved the Su-27 will have to use AB to keep up which as you can see will nullify its huge range advantage. For an aircraft like the Mig-31 it will have no effect because there is no supercruising aircraft that can supercruise at over mach 2 so to keep up or to have speed superiority it will need to burn fuel at a high rate too... except of course the SR-71 which is unarmed.

A supercruising range of 1,400km would be very useful as it means the aircraft can remain in super cruise mode for longer.

I'm not sure. I've heard that the R-33 was not very impressive (comparatively speaking; it didn't have to be a world-beater to be shot at cooperative, high-RCS targets like a B-52)

Errm... the data released about the R-33 was something like a missile released from 10,000m that hit a target at 20m altitude that was x distance away... sounds to me like they were testing it against cruise missiles too.

And a B-52 would be anything but cooperative... they had and have all sorts of electronic jiggery pokery to prevent them being defeated.

It did use redesigned internal components and different aerodynamics, hence the reprofiled wings and added canards.

Missile design technology had improved over the time before and after Donald, and the R-33S certainly likely took advantage of that.

The question becomes whether or not there's any sort of tactical utility in being at Mach 2 vs. Mach 1.7.

If you want to decline the fight then mach 2 gives you a choice... though make sure your DIRCMs are set to kill...

Supercruise is getting past Mach 1 and sustaining supersonic flight without using afterburners. Supersonic cruise is simply the ability to sustain supersonic speeds. Concorde, the SR-71, the MiG-31...these are supersonic cruise aircraft, not supercruisers.

To follow on from this... supercruise is a bit of a gimmick it doesn't really matter how you get to be supersonic... to get that extra push to break the sound barrier using AB is not that big a deal as using it just to cross the speed of sound doesn't use an enormous amount of fuel.

For most 4th gen fighters flying supersonic means full AB to break the speed of sound and then continuing to use an AB setting to maintain supersonic speed. For supersonic cruising aircraft they need AB to break the speed of sound but can maintain flight at supersonic speeds using dry thrust without AB. Supercuise aircraft can break the speed of sound and maintain supersonic flight without AB. In practical terms the difference between supercruise and supersonic cruise is not nearly as important as the condition the aircraft can maintain supersonic speeds.

Stealth aircraft easily supercruise because all their weapons are internal and dont generate drag. For an aircraft like the Mig-31 that could supersonic cruise around the place at mach 1.5 or so with a full weapons load then that capability is rather more valuable than for an aircraft with a seriously limited weapon load (either external or internal).

Getting some place fast makes no sense if you have no weapons... aircraft are delivery platforms for their weapons.

GarryB wrote:Errm... the data released about the R-33 was something like a missile released from 10,000m that hit a target at 20m altitude that was x distance away... sounds to me like they were testing it against cruise missiles too.

And a B-52 would be anything but cooperative... they had and have all sorts of electronic jiggery pokery to prevent them being defeated.

Test data, or max range figures given in advertising material, are not necessarily indicative of how things work in real life. The AIM-54 looked ridiculously effective in trials, but how did it work in combat in 1991? Not so well, although in it's defense I think only two were actually fired. The R-33 ruminations I've heard were related to in-service experiences.

Also, I meant cooperative as in "can't maneuver to save its own ass"! EW/ECM is certainly a concern, but Zaslon can do a few things in the ECCM arena as well.

Viktor wrote: PAK-FA will probably surpass it in range but not in speed.

Naturally . High speed means high turn rates , something that the PAK FA cannot afford as it will have to win WVR combats with Stealth Fighters . The Foxhound is basically a missile carrier with a powerful radar and extremely high speed .

Test data, or max range figures given in advertising material, are not necessarily indicative of how things work in real life.

I think most amateurs would be confused by the figures...

The AIM-54 looked ridiculously effective in trials, but how did it work in combat in 1991?

If you looked at the test parameters there were fairly clear flaws... for instance when engaging 6 targets at once the speed and direction and distance to the targets was generally variable but the vertical distance between the targets was something less than 1km... which was a limitation of mechanical scanning of the radar rather than any limitation of the missile.

Equally in practise it seemed to be used against retreating targets rather than closing targets which were not really its design bread and butter.

The R-33 ruminations I've heard were related to in-service experiences.

Do tell. AFAIK the only reason for R-33S was because the original systems were compromised by "Donald".

Also, I meant cooperative as in "can't maneuver to save its own ass"! EW/ECM is certainly a concern, but Zaslon can do a few things in the ECCM arena as well.

I should also clarify that I did not mean to suggest that the difference between the R-33 and R-33S was new more powerful rocket propellent... the reason for the change was to minimise the damage done by revealing the secrets of the Mig-31/R-33 by the spy called Donald.

It was given a fairly complete upgrade/change to make a much better system.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

N036B-1-01L/ -01B NIIP AESA ( side looking ) to be displayed at MAKS 2013






Source : http://www.ng.ru/armament/2013-08-16/5_niip.html

New Moves : T-50 Design Rationale unveiled ( AW&ST ) ( Pg 43 )

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416275188&e=true

Thanks Austin!

Nothing new for us defense enthusiasts though.

Austin wrote:New Moves : T-50 Design Rationale unveiled ( AW&ST ) ( Pg 43 )

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416275188&e=true

Thanks Austin, my vote to you.


Naturally i must point out that also the old ,knowledgeable Bill Sweetman slipped on the most classical banana peel of Russian weapon denominations, exactly as the last of the low level military enthusiasts :

"Tactical Missiles Corporation General Director Boros Obsonov identified several T-50 weapons in an interview early in the 2012 including the existing Kh-35UE anti-ship missile, Kh-38ME air-to-surface weapon and the RVV-MD, an improved version of the R-73E short range air-to-air missile with an enlarged seeker field of view and a claimed 30% range increase "  

Now someone should explain to him that it has managed ,with enviable skill, to regroup in the same statement not a SINGLE weapon foreseen for T-50

After so many years of respected coverage of news, trends and technological development in the international aerospace sector ,with high professionalism, it should be capable to recognize, by now, the denomination of EXPORT versions of Russian weaponry (those usually cited in publications, brochures, interviews and expositions in international shows  and saloons)  which cannot be adopted by Russian Federation's military forces.

RVV-MD is the improved EXPORT version of R-73E ,at its own time the old EXPORT version of the close range R-73 AAM.
RVV-SD is the improved EXPORT version of RVV-AE ,at its own time the old EXPORT version of the medium range R-77 AAM
RVV-BD is the redesigned/improved EXPORT version of R-33E , at its own time the old EXPORT version of the long range R-33 AAM
Kh-35UE is the improved EXPORT version of the Kh-35E ,at its own time the old EXPORT version of the subsonic anti-ship missile Kh-35 AAM

And so on....
 

I believe that the words of the same Борис Обносов can be even more clear :



http://www.militarynews.ru/excl.asp?ex=155

Ряд систем вооружения для истребителя 5-го поколения проходят предварительные испытания на других типах самолетов, которые выполняют роль летающих лабораторий. По мере увеличения количества поступающих на испытательный полигон самолетов ПАК ФА испытательная программа авиационных средств поражения все в большей мере продолжается уже на основном типе самолета.

     По ряду изделий испытания находятся в завершающей стадии, по ним идет предварительная подготовка к серийному производству, по другим – испытания продолжаются.

     Завершены испытания управляемых ракет Х-31ПД, РВВ-МД, РВВ-СД и РВВ-БД. На выходе – Х-31АД. Отмечу, что новыеэкспортные разработки соответствуют лучшим мировым образцам, а по ряду показателей превосходят их. Не имеет аналогов в мире управляемая ракета РВВ-БД, обладающая высокой эффективностью на больших удалениях до целей[/b]

Enough said.
Sincerely i no expected similar low level mistakes from a renowed and very respected analyst such as B. Sweetman.

RVV-BD is the redesigned/improved EXPORT version of R-33E , at its own time the old EXPORT version of the long range R-33 AAM

At 280km range I suspect the RVV-BD is the export version of the R-37, rather than the R-33...

And you are very right... the standard weapons for the PAK FA will include Morfei 9M100 as a small short range IIR guided fire and forget missile that is supposed to be ready in 2015... for all we know it might incorporate an IIR QWIP sensor AND an ARH seeker of a standardised nature that is used on all AAMs from short, medium, and long range models.

Certainly the best anti stealth AAM will be IIR with an ARH backup and of course for use when the target is not stealthy for use at longer ranges.

GarryB wrote:At 280km range I suspect the RVV-BD is the export version of the R-37, rather than the R-33... Wink

Of course RVV-BD is designed on the layout of R-37M (only with a maximum engagement range of "only" 200 km, as for MoD decree); the real point is that it occupy the same slot of R-33E in the export offer of Rosoboronexport in the very long range AAM segment.

it is not a chance that ,any time RVV-BD is presented, the speaker compare its features and parameters to those of R-33E ; in facts a potential buyer can opt or for R-33E or for the new RVV-BD  

Sincerely i no expected similar low level mistakes from a renowed and very respected analyst such as B. Sweetman.

In fairness,  i would have thought it's likely those weapons are  going to be offered for the export (to third parties, outside Russia and India) T-50, at least initially, right ?
Anyway, pity none of the new AAMs will be shown this MAKS ( according to some sources), i think everyone is expecting them. Even just a little CGI please.

Don't expect too much regarding the new weapons... with full thrust vector control they will likely have small slim strakes or vanes and very few control surfaces for low drag and optimal internal carriage.

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/08/20/261953.html

- How is the work on the engine for the T-50?

- Development work on the engine of the second stage for the fifth generation fighter will be completed in late 2015. Until the end of 2013 will be completed engineering design of the engine of the second stage and released documentation for manufacturing and engine core demonstrator. The next year, to be manufactured, and the beginning of testing experimental gasifiers and engine demonstrator. Development of the engine of the second stage is carried out in close co-operation between enterprises Division "engines for military aircraft." KB integrator to develop the motor branch is defined UMPO KB. them. Cradles. In co-operation also involved Moscow's "Salute" and Ufa "Motor". Mass production of these engines will be organized at UMPO.