PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

I doubt any self respecting Indian pilot would fly a FFGA to Pakistan, but even if they did, the FFGA is not a PAK FA... they will be different aircraft.

Over time secrets will be revealed... that is bound to happen... the secrets of the F-35 are probably available to anyone with enough cash to bid for it...

Finding a design is only the first step to defeating it... although it is certainly a big step forward.

Once compromised the design can be changed.

It could be argued that the defection of Belenko to Japan with a MiG-25 led to the complete upgrade of the aircraft and its full introduction into service, which made it rather better in all areas... though I doubt it was cheap.

What do you guys think will be the actual/final designation/name of PAK FA? (Or is it already known?) I'm not an expert but wiki says that Flanker prototype was called T-10, so PAK FA is probably going to be called something totally different too, not "Su-50"? Not to mention that above poster is apparently fake anyway. So... Su-40-something?

I am pretty sure Su-50 it will be.

Initial batch is preparing to be delivered

Slyusar: KLA fighters start adjusting supply T-50 Ministry of Defence

Any advantage of an elliptically shaped radar?

chicken wrote:

Any advantage of an elliptically shaped radar?

I don't know about the image labeled "расчетные исследования" (computational studies—Google Translate), but I think some of the images are about optimizing the antenna characteristics of an AFAR—beam pattern, resolution,and power density.

If you look at the last image, I think the implication is that the AFAR at the right has a comparable (actually better that comparable) off-boresight performance as the mechanically scanned slotted waveguide array to its left, which is phenomenal.

I should mention that a regular AFAR, with a flat planar antenna, has terrible off-boresight performance due to array projection issues.

I have always been promising about my intention to talk about Russian radars that go beyond AFAR; let's count this as one. Thanks for the images.

Another Russian hyper-AFAR technology, to achieve the same objectives, is the AFAR used by some Morfej variants that use a wide-angle microwave lens in front of a planar antenna.

Stealthflanker wrote:I won't take anything from Deviant art related to arms info really seriously.

That chart above is clearly fan-art.

Nonetheless some (perhaps) Lots of ppl out there will think it's real.

Ugh... Lot of people are already thinking it's real... One group thought that Sukhoi was stupid for thinking they'd get a SK deal. 

India ordered more than 140 of this units.

Werewolf wrote:I am pretty sure Su-50 it will be.

Oh... Ok. On second thought, I suppose that actually makes perfect sense, as Su-47 already exists.

Actually that raises an interesting issue... the chart itself is clearly just fan art, but putting Sukhoi emblems and symbols all over it to make it look like a legitimate Sukhoi product I wonder what legal action Sukhoi could take...

GarryB wrote:Actually that raises an interesting issue... the chart itself is clearly just fan art, but putting Sukhoi emblems and symbols all over it to make it look like a legitimate Sukhoi product I wonder what legal action Sukhoi could take...

Well it's also my concern..

You know i want to make a T-shirt using T-50 an putting Sukhoi emblem and stuff... Hope it'll sell well.

When i brought this idea to ppl however there are two major "sides" with third additional faction

One side said.. "Just do it, Sukhoi will not take any legal action.. In fact it might give them free promotions"

Another side said "Don't.. Not only sound unethical as artist but yes Sukhoi may take legal action"

The third faction however said "Yes Sukhoi may take legal action BUT you're just selling T-shirts... Not much profit, Sukhoi will spend more money prosecuting you than the value of your T-shirt sales. So we don't think Sukhoi will take any action"


Nonetheless i think i'll E-mail KNAAPO or Sukhoi design bureau first before give a go on my project.

Most companies are very protective of their brand... if I were you I would leave the logo off the T-Shirt.

From their perspective they have no quality control over your production... what if you print a shirt with a bad photo or a photo of an aircraft that is not even made by Sukhoi (by accident).

What if the T Shirt itself is poor quality and falls to pieces after being washed... it would reflect badly on the company... so I really don't think they would approve.

if you are doing this commercially I would pick something you own the rights to... your own drawings for example...

It is also unethical.

And third if you want to go ahead with it just because you don't think they will bother to take action... well why not sell illegal DVDs too while you are at it...

EW is on schedule

Nasenkov: work on radar and electronic warfare systems for the PAK FA is on schedule

Viktor wrote:Initial batch is preparing to be delivered  

Slyusar: KLA fighters start adjusting supply T-50 Ministry of Defence

Why are they rushing the T-50 into production when Izdeliye 30 is not yet ready?

They can fit a new engine later on... it makes more sense to get it into service and get some real experience with it and what it can or cannot do than to wait until a better engine is available.

A good example is the F-14A with the same engines as used in the F-111. They were excellent engines in the F-111, which despite its fighter designation was a long range strike aircraft.

In the F-14A it was a fairly ordinary engine.

the engine fitted to the F-14D however along with a few other changes transformed the aircraft into something special.

there is no reason why the PAK FA can't enter serial production before its final engine is ready... early production models can have the new engine retrofitted later on.

This is about having a test squadron for military to confirm performance and develop operating procedures etc...
The exact engine performance parameters just really don't impact 95% of operational abilities,
certainly not when the interim engine itself is supposed to have fulfilled minimum performance requirements (I take as thrust),
it may not have next gen serviceability, efficiency parameters, and not attend to RCS via exotic compressor/etc,
but that does't impede performing 95% of the tests that will need to be done, so no point in holding things up.
If the test birds don't match final performance in 5% of flight envelope, or don't have same RCS, that doesn't prevent other relevant tests.

TR1 wrote:
I'd kill to see that too, but let's be honest, it will not be anything intersting (aside from RAM application). We know how NIIPs AESA face looks like.

Yeah.

Anyway anything new on the L-Band AESA ? Well the latest i heard was that KRET news and that MAKS 2009 report about it being an "Active Array IFF"

I'm still with Carlo Kopp's analysis on this one..That the L-Band array was not a mere Interrogator.

Well, in Russian official sources they mention that it has capabilities that assist in detection of low-RCS targets....no details but it is clearly more than just of simple IFF use.

I doubt there for long range detection (and IFF just doesn't make sense), considering the PAK-FA doesn't fulfill any of the 3 requirements necessary for that (Large size/high power in processing /high power in output), my best guess is that it's mostly for EW/ECM.

P.S: Ok, the PAK-FA and Irbis equipped Flankers might be able to fulfill that processing requirement.

AlfaT8 wrote:I doubt there for long range detection (and IFF just doesn't make sense), considering the PAK-FA doesn't fulfill any of the 3 requirements necessary for that (Large size/high power in processing /high power in output), my best guess is that it's mostly for EW/ECM.

P.S: Ok, the PAK-FA and Irbis equipped Flankers might be able to fulfill that processing requirement.

Well the thing to remember is that:

1.) Russia's latest fighters won't be bringing democracy anywhere, so they'll be flying to protect Russian sky's, that means all the radar assets on Russian soil will be sharing information with the fighter task group.

2.) there won't be 1-on-1 fighter scenario, they'll likely be a Su-35/T-50 task group sharing information with each other. The PAK-FA will also be a beneficiary of stealth.

3.) While it's true the L-band AESA by it's self probably won't be powerful enough due to size restrictions, it was never meant to be used by itself. It was meant to  combine it's L-band AESA on the leading wing edge, with the nose mounted X-band AESA, and with the thermal imaging equipment, and both the F-22 and the B-2 bomber can be easily spotted by modern IR thermal imaging equipment:

Let's not pretend that the T-50 has no attack capability. Strictly speaking in terms of a one on one scenario with a F-22, the PAK-FA has a huge advantage in all boards except for rear and side rcs reduction measures. It has the benefit of 5 AESAs in passive mode, further added with other passive RWR sensors in it's Himalaya suite,along with a 360° IRST system rivaling that of the F-35 EODAS.
The PAK-FA could very easily punch through areas defended by Westernmilitaries, their AWACS would be shot down from huge distances outside of F-22 and F-35 ranges, forcing them to go active or rely on F-35 IRST systems. What Cromagnon says is very true, but lets not make it black and white with Russia being the innocent defender. Russia is looking for a serious attack capability and it is getting that with the PAK-FA.(the VDV would also make for a baddass imperial force btw)

Talking about Who has better RCS is same nonsense talks of how much RHAe armor tanks have. That is top secret and there are problably less people that actually know such values than you have fingers on your hand. Trying to evaluade or speculate about RCS is far more complex than armor values for tanks.

I doubt there for long range detection (and IFF just doesn't make sense), considering the PAK-FA doesn't fulfill any of the 3 requirements necessary for that (Large size/high power in processing /high power in output), my best guess is that it's mostly for EW/ECM.

The NATO datalink system operates in L band so even a single one dimensional array could determine the horizontal direction of an emission from such a system... if you get a datalink signal from a direction there is no return from a very large powerful nose mounted X band radar then it is probably safe to presume there is a stealth aircraft there and its approximate direction.

With that in mind you could then use that AESA array to scan for targets near the source of the emissions determining range and speed... certainly enough to direct other sensors on other aircraft (irst and L band and X band radars) to that area and indeed to get a scan from longer wave ground based systems.

It doesn't have to generate a total solution on its own... as part of a team and a network just indicating a presence passively is enough to start the persecution of the target.

2.) there won't be 1-on-1 fighter scenario, they'll likely be a Su-35/T-50 task group sharing information with each other. The PAK-FA will also be a beneficiary of stealth.

MiG-31s can link radar signals to form an enormous synthetic radar... I would expect the Irbis and the radars fitted to PAK FA would be at least able to do the same.

While it's true the L-band AESA by it's self probably won't be powerful enough due to size restrictions, it was never meant to be used by itself.

Power is relative.. the larger elements in an L band radar should allow plenty of power to be used, while the fact that the F-22 is not optimised to evade L band radar should make it rather more effective no matter what the power is used.

What Cromagnon says is very true, but lets not make it black and white with Russia being the innocent defender. Russia is looking for a serious attack capability and it is getting that with the PAK-FA.(the VDV would also make for a baddass imperial force btw)

Cromagnon is perfectly correct... what attack capability would Russia want?

When was the last time it invaded a country?

In the 25 years since the end of the Cold War the only territory they have annexed was the very recent situation in the Crimea, which was Russian territory anyway.

There was plenty of opportunity.... they could have invaded several 'stan states that were former Soviet republics, and Georgia and Ukraine could both easily have been brought back into the fold.

The simple facts are that Russia is sick of carrying those countries and Putin is not interested in them... Russia is already big enough.

the PAK FA is multirole because all Russian AF fighters were multirole and would take on air to ground duties when enemy air power was less of a threat.

The exceptions were the PVO interceptors like the Tu-128, but even the current MiG-31 can carry anti radiation missiles and bombs... they don't really have an only for fighting fighter like the F-15C.

Talking about Who has better RCS is same nonsense talks of how much RHAe armor tanks have. That is top secret and there are problably less people that actually know such values than you have fingers on your hand. Trying to evaluade or speculate about RCS is far more complex than armor values for tanks.

And more importantly the better armour or RCS you have costs more money, yet your enemy is not stupid... if their anti tank weapons don't work from the front they will only attack from the sides or rear. If the RCS is too small then they will use IR guided weapons like Verba and Morfei and develop BVR missiles with those sensors and guidance systems.

I am not disputing what Cromagnon has stated. But you seem to have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.It is unlikely that Russia would invade a country the western way. But with stating that Russia does not want a attack capability I simply must protest. S-300 and S-400 systems are defensive, but they have enough range to shoot down planes across the border. An S-300 in Damascus can shoot down a plane over Tel Aviv.
The same way a PAK-FA can be defensive, by launching anti ship missiles that destroy an incoming CBG.

Between two superpowers, there is no aggressor or defender, there is the victor.