PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

watch 1:30

Interesting... but that is where the main undercarriage is... there is no room for R-73s there.

So the pakfa has 6 bays(4 in the middle and 1 at either side in the long slim protrusions beneath the wing). I find this a bit lacking though, only 6 targets could be engaged with missiles, perhaps the morphei could be small enough to fit 2 in a bay?

It is the standard capacity for everything 5th gen, though some have increased since. The two main bays are clearly large enough to contain 6 missiles of R-77 size...will they in the future? We will see.

NPO Saturn should ideally focus on fully developing the PAK FA's AL 41F engine . This development is going on for eternity & yet there is nothing concrete that has yet come out.

Just look at how long NPO Saturn took to develop the AL-55I turbofan for the HJT-36 IJT & how long it is taking to develop a 20% uprated thrust AL-31FP .

They need to swing for the fences coz as of now things are moving very slowly .

Wasn't there a report recently about the engines going well and that they will be ready for the operational PAK FAs in 2016 or 2017 when they fully enter operational service?

Most of the time the PAK FA will carry very light military payloads and with internal carriage there will be no external drag so the increased thrust engines are not really critical to its performance.

I would say the new missiles being specifically developed for the aircraft will be much more important to how effective the aircraft will be.

GarryB wrote:Wasn't there a report recently about the engines going well and that they will be ready for the operational PAK FAs in 2016 or 2017 when they fully enter operational service?

Lockheed has also produced tons of such reports for the last 5 years about the F 35 doing extremely well . Reports mean nothing .

GarryB wrote:Most of the time the PAK FA will carry very light military payloads and with internal carriage there will be no external drag so the increased thrust engines are not really critical to its performance.

You kidding me ......right ? In that case why not have the engines of the SU 30 SM or SU 35S on the PAKFA ?

Lockheed has also produced tons of such reports for the last 5 years about the F 35 doing extremely well . Reports mean nothing .

The F-35 is a huge international program with lots and lots of customers that have sunk lots of cash into this aircraft... press releases have a different meaning for it.

When Saturn starts lying then we can question the validity of its reports... so far its track record is good.

You kidding me ......right ? In that case why not have the engines of the SU 30 SM or SU 35S on the PAKFA ?

Actually the engines on the Su-30SM and Su-35S are from the current PAK FA... but funding has been allocated to produce more powerful and more fuel efficient engines so why would they not introduce that engine when it is ready for the aircraft it was made for?

More importantly why introduce it now when it is not ready and risk losing an expensive prototype?

thats the benefit of poded engine configuration in pak-fa unlike f-22 whose intakes and engines are of strict dimensions , the drawback is worse rcs ofcourse.

Problems with Pak Fa?, Wath you think?

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-09-20/various-obstacles-confront-russias-t-50-project

GarryB wrote:Actually the engines on the Su-30SM and Su-35S are from the current PAK FA... but funding has been allocated to produce more powerful and more fuel efficient engines so why would they not introduce that engine when it is ready for the aircraft it was made for?

I think that Su 35 has a 117S (AL-41F1S) similar but not the same than the 117 (Al-41F-1) of the Pak Fa, and SM has the al 31FP the same of the MKI (or maybe a 31MF1)

Thanks

Stupid article.

That article is clearly written by someone with little actual knowledge of the program.
Factual errors abound, regarding radar, engines...everything really.

Pass.



Meanwhile this pretty girl will keep flying...

Thank you. Its now clear for me

JPJ wrote:Thank you. Its now clear for me

For example- the engines are not Su-35 engines, an the radar is not N-050.

Pitor PAK-FA write up from Air International issue

http://www.crocko.com/EA00ED90007D40E4BF8A66E1F2378F23/AirInternational201310-PAK-FA.zip


I need clarification on now the lower number of stages for new engine in hot and cold section will improve the performance ?

Pitor PAK-FA write up from Air International issue

The AESA description is very interesting. Any comments on the program's pace. Do you also think that PAK-FA will fall behind schedule?

Is there a chance in the future for there to be separate T-50 variants, one having 3d TVC while the other one having 2d stealth nozzles ?

sepheronx wrote:There was a theory floating around that I read years ago where T-50 is really a huge R&D project fir new technologies that can be applied to current gen and future aircrafts; which makes sense. New radar with new sensor fusion idea (aesa and optics) newer, more efficient engines, newer composite materials, new avionic suite using all Russian components. Most to all of these stuff can be applied to current gen aircrafts and makes way for the technology of the future. Although, having an aircraft with all those goodies, as good as it will be, will make it not only expensive to purchase, but also expensive to maintain. Theory is, there will be different categories or variants of PAK FA that will incorporate technologies to its specific roll and its cost. For instance, an interceptor variant, an air superiority variant and a Strike variant. Or they may forgo the strike and air superiority and just go with a true multipurpose variant. I dont know. But with the costs being high for it, and Russian defence spending is limited, than a variant by Mikoyan could be a good concept for a cheaper aircraft to field in numbers and to replace the ageing jets in service now.

I've actually thought about this too.

I mean the T50 sounds utterly phenomenal. So much so, I wonder, why is it inviting India to the table? (I dont know the level of tech sharing, but anyway...)

I think the numbers plane will be the Mig LFMS. Even the spend happy Americans aren't prepared to send an F-22 into combat, or even produce more.

Another aspect is that military and air doctrine is constantly changing. Hypersonics, energy weapons, drones, new SAMs, radar, new enemies, new friends. Its never gonna be a showdown F22 vs T50. There are so many other factors.

I think military issues are often about image, or even bluster (eg USA's Star Wars bullshit)
I dont think Sukhoi are bullshitters. Far from it infact. I believe the T50 will be magnificent. But Russia can say "look how good this is, do you really want us to produce lots of them, maybe even sell them to others? We can be friends, or you can be stupid and be our adversary.."

T50 is a bargaining chip. And I think it will be a very strong one.

Its interesting just how good a plane the Su-35 is. And ofcourse that is only a 4.whatever G plane.

Austin wrote:Pitor PAK-FA write up from Air International issue

http://www.crocko.com/EA00ED90007D40E4BF8A66E1F2378F23/AirInternational201310-PAK-FA.zip


I need clarification on now the lower number of stages for new engine in hot and cold section will improve the performance ?

It would means lighter engine, combined with higher bypass ratio (means the engine can suck more air) engine plus higher rotor inlet temperature (after combustion in combustion chamber) will result in high thrust to weight ratio.. higher compared to other fighter engine such as the basic AL-31F.

F-22's PW/F-119 have its power in similar manner.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a chance in the future for there to be separate   T-50 variants, one having 3d TVC while the other one having 2d stealth nozzles ?

I think they will settle on one variant when the definitive engines are made. No point in complicating the situation, plus extensive comparisons between the nozzle types have already been done.

I need clarification on now the lower number of stages for new engine in hot and cold section will improve the performance ?

Fewer parts means lighter, simpler design, less complex design, plus simpler air flow.

A feature of newer western engines is often fewer stages and fewer parts to reduce weight and cost and simplify the design.

One example would be instead of making a hub with turbine blades attached to it... making a disk that includes the blades as part of the disk.

It means the blades can be made stronger, which makes the engine more resistent to bird strike, and easier and cheaper to maintain... and indeed simpler... but harder to make properly.

The AESA description is very interesting. Any comments on the program's pace. Do you also think that PAK-FA will fall behind schedule?

I would say the article on the Mig-35 was more interesting...

At MAKS 2013, the Phazotron company showed another variant of the Zhuk-A radar, initially designated FGA35 (3D), with new transceiver modules made from LTCC (low temperature co-fired ceramics) technology. The array is much thinner and lighter than the Zhuk-AE variant. Each module is 13mm (0.5in) deep, several times less than those used on the Zhuk-AE. The array is air-cooled (the Zhuk-AE is – liquid-cooled) while the impulse power of each module is 5W. Yuri Guskov, Phazotron’s designer general promises the handover of the new radar for evaluation on the MiG-35 in 2014.

Is there a chance in the future for there to be separate T-50 variants, one having 3d TVC while the other one having 2d stealth nozzles ?

Yes.

I mean the T50 sounds utterly phenomenal. So much so, I wonder, why is it inviting India to the table? (I dont know the level of tech sharing, but anyway...)

India is a friend, but also India can contribute to the further development of the aircraft... even though they will be getting a version of it in the same way they got a version of the Flanker. Keep in mind that without the work on the Su-30MKI the Su-35 would not be the aircraft that it is... or will be.

Working with India will improve the aircraft in many areas even if it will make things more difficult in some areas... a demanding customer often leads to a much better final product.

Look at the Pantsir-S1... it was a warmed over Tunguska initially which the Russian military accepted because it was good enough and they didn't want to spend more money on replacing the old sensors and systems and just upgraded everything. UAE wanted more and paid for new sensors and systems and the result is a much better system overall... it is not the case that UAE can teach Russia about making SAMs, just that their requirements were far more demanding than the Russian military as it already has a range of other supporting SAMs so the lower performance was not really a handicap. The result is a much more rhobust and capable system for all the countries that buy it.

ts never gonna be a showdown F22 vs T50.

I hope so...

I think they will settle on one variant when the definitive engines are made. No point in complicating the situation, plus extensive comparisons between the nozzle types have already been done.

I agree... for the Russian military, I think they will settle for one design... or perhaps two... one for the air force and one for carrier use perhaps.

For export however I think they will allow the customer to choose... though they might leave the development of alternatives to the customer as well which might make such a choice very expensive...