PAK-FA takes to the sky!

[RPK]

domain-b.com : The 'Raptorski' creates its ripples of envy


The 'Raptorski' creates its ripples of envy news

Rajiv Singh
30 January 2010

Moscow: The successful debut test flight of the Russian Sukhoi-designed fifth-generation fighter jet in the Russian Far East on Friday is already creating ripples, including those of the envious kind. The fighter prototype, designated the PAK-FA T-50, is meant to be Russia's answer to the American Lockheed constructed F-22 Raptor.


Sukhoi's T-50 fighter taking off for its test flight
Indeed, Western military sources, for long, have referred to it as the 'Raptorski.'

The 47-minute flight carried out by Sergei Bogdan, one of Russia's best test pilots, marks the launch of a five year long project that will see two versions of the aircraft being developed. In accordance with the operational doctrines of both air forces, a single-seat version will be developed for the Russian Air Force and a two-seat version for the Indian Air Force.

While induction of the single-seat version for the Russian Air Force is slated for 2015, the twin-seat version for the IAF will likely be ready only two years later.

The two-seat version is being worked upon by Indian aerospace engineers from the country's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). India and Russia have agreed to co-develop the fighter and share the estimated development costs of $8-10 billion equally. Both nations will also place similar quantum of orders for the production version of the aircraft – approximately 250 aircraft each.

The Indians are also entrusted with a 25 per cent share of the design and development work.

The Indian version of this advanced stealth fighter is designated the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

Following Friday's successful test, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has said that initial induction of the aircraft with the Russian Air Force must begin in 2013, even though mass production is slated only for 2015.

Speaking to Russian TV from an airfield in Komsomolsk-on-Amur where the company's KnAPPO production facility is located, Sukhoi's director general, Mikhail Pogosian said, "I think this is a new stage in the development of the military aircraft industry in our country, and I believe that this is a very good start of a big work we have yet to do."

According to Sukhoi, the T-50 will display "intellectual" capabilities allowing it to fly at any time of the day and in any weather conditions. The aircraft will be capable of simultaneously attacking multiple targets in air, on the ground and in the sea. The plane is also touted to have a very high degree of manoeuvrability and a very short take-off and landing capability.

"It will also be less recognizable for radars thanks to many innovations, the use of composite materials and a special coating on the surface of the plane," Suhkoi officials informed the media. They said that the T-50 would now allow them to catch up with the Americans, who developed advanced stealth technologies much before.

Predictably, the test flight has drawn a certain amount of scorn from some military observers.

They point out that the new prototype doesn't have new engines or electronics and hence cannot qualify to be called a fifth generation fighter, for it is components such as these that allow it to be placed in another generation. They said that the prototype was only a souped up model of the existing Su-27 platform and have characterised the test flight as a ''bluff.''

Not so far back in time, when the Su-27 platform, with its thrust vectoring engines and advanced aeronautic capabilities, was making its first entry into the world of military aviation similar scorn was heaped upon it. It was denied that the aircraft would succeed in displaying the kind of capabilities that the Russians claimed it would.

As Russian experts point out even the Su-27 made its first appearance borrowing engines from earlier models.

Strangely, the Western air forces now consider it a privilege to be able to take on its advanced variants, such as the Indian Su-30MKI, in air-to-air exercises.

For India, the Russo-Indian FGFA will mark a quantum jump in technology development for it will be the first time they will be involved in developing fifth generation technologies as full-fledged partners.

Both countries are set to sign commercial contracts and set up a joint venture company to build the aircraft. The BrahMos joint venture model is being kept in mind for this project as well, for it is indeed a successful example of joint venture cooperation

As for mutual understandings arrived at so far with regard to the project, India will supply the plane's navigation systems, mission computer, cockpit display, and also provide composites for the airframe.

Sukhoi chief is also confident about the cost-effectiveness of the fighter in comparison to its American counterparts –the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.

''The joint Russian-Indian aircraft will not only strengthen the defence might of the Russian and Indian air forces, but will take a worthy place in the world market,'' said Pogosyan.

According to Sukhoi, the FGFA will have a radar cross section (RCS) that will be 40 times less than that of the Su-30MKI. While the Su-30MKI has an RCS of about 20 square metres, the FGFA will display an RCS of 0.5 square metres, making it almost invisible to enemy radar.

Its ''intellectual'' capability will lie in data fusion, with a wide variety of inputs being electronically combined and displayed to pilots in an easy-to-read form. Data inputs will come from the fighter's infrared, radar, and visual sensors.

 

[Supersonic26]

@ buddy rpraveenkum
thank you buddy for the latest news. PAK-FA RCS 40 times less then SUKHOI-30MKI WOW. now thats what i call something. 0.5 meter vs 20 meters. i love PAK-FA. Sukhoi-30MKI still makes enemy fear with eyes wide open. They still didn't have answer for Su-30MKI. Now PAK-FA will come by 2017 to put more burden of fear on them. PAK-FA the beast and the beauty. Thank you again buddy for the latest news.

 

[Supersonic26]

they have actually made three prototypes but God knows if they have flown one or all of 'em that day

emo ji i think there were two prototypes that flown that day. 1 of them was bit yellowish and other one was bit bluish. To be honest i was bit confused watching the video because the color of PAK-FA to me seems like changing. 1st yellow, the blue and top view shown black and bit gray. i thought may be russia painted PAK-FA prototypes with 3 colors lol. There were two prototypes that flown on 29th jan.

 

[Srinivas]

While Russia may have imitated some what the YF-23. As the photo's show the YF-23 incorporates far superior stealth characteristics then the T-50.

I think thrust vectoring is not possible with YF23 design as the engine outlets are incorporated into frame, And we cannot infer the stelth characteristics of PAK FA since body shape is not the only stealth feature.

 

[Srinivas]

The way the exhausts are designed, rear aspect IR and RCS signatures will doubled or even tripled from front. Not good. Dead meat for the Raptor.

Exhaust nozzle convergent coupled with throttle setting control thrust. Everything on a body create its own RCS signature and contribute to the overall RCS value of the body. The convergent-divergent mechanisms of an afterburning turbojet engine are no exceptions, if anything, they are the major RCS creators of the rear aspect.

Take a look at 'iris' style exhaust convergent-divergent nozzle above. It is called 'iris' because the mechanisms works the same way the human eye controls its pupil opening. Look at all the 'feathers' and the gaps between them. Those are corner reflectors and I have explained plenty enough here on how dangerous corner reflectors are to designs intending to be radar LO.

Now look at the F-22 exhaust convergent-divergent mechanisms above. They are simpler in designs and because there are less mechanical 'doodads' such as actuators and 'feathers' the F-22 exhausts are far less RCS contributors than exhausts with the 'iris' convergent-divergent exhausts.

The downside to the F-22's exhaust mechanisms is that it restrict thrust vectoring to 2D, whereas with the 'iris' style, the exhaust TV can be 3D, provided there are sufficient clearance between nozzles, which lead us to the controversial subject of design philosophy, specifically engine placements. Wide area engine placements have advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I have never been a proponent of wide area engine placements. The argument here is that for any reason, from bird ingestion to battle damage to 'Acts of God', in the event of a catastrophic engine failure that result in an engine explosion, the other engine would be somewhat protected. Given the fact that the airframe area between the engines are not empty but contain fuel, wirings and assorted mechanical items, an exploding engine will create enough collateral damage to render the aircraft unflyable anyway.

In the event of a non-exploding engine failure, widely spaced engines will create asymmetric thrust that can send the aircraft into a flat spin, which can be nonrecoverable. The combination here is speed, altitude, attitude and how far apart are the engines that the resulting asymmetric thrust will send the aircraft into a flat spin. An extreme example of asymmetric thrust is the C-17A Engine-Out Compensation System (EOCS) software upgrade to the aircraft's FLCS during take-offs and landings. For EOCS, the critical engine is the most outboard one on each wing if its companion outboard engine on the other wing fail. The software upgrade, upon sensing engine failure, would command a rudder deflection to compensate for the inevitable yaw (lateral) movement by the aircraft.

AOPA Online: AOPA Pilot's "An Invitation to Fly" - Beyond the Private


Fighter aircrafts with multiple engines do not have as wide engine placements as multi-engined transports, nevertheless, asymmetric thrust is still a potential problem for pilot training. The F-14 and F-15 have wider engine placement schemes than the F-18. The wider the engine placements the higher of some energy loss when there is thrust. Any mechanical engineer will tell you that it is better to have thrust as much inline with the main longitudinal axis of the body as possible. It is necessary that thrust be in parallel, but the closer to the central axis, the greater the concentration of their combined thrust to the longitudinal axis, the more energy efficient the TV system. The downside is that the closer the engines are together, there will so little room for movement that 2D vectoring is the only option.

3D vectoring require more complex flight control laws -- IF -- the desire is to automate the thrust vectoring. Automation require the removal of some of the decision making process from the pilot, which is NOT always a positive. The US have done extensive testing on the integration of propulsion into flight control laws, of which the C-17A EOCS is one deployed example, here is the history...

Propulsion Control of Airplanes


NASA - NASA Dryden Fact Sheet - Propulsion Controlled Aircraft

Essentially...If we have engine failures, there is still a good chance of recovery and survival via flight control surfaces, aka 'dead stick' landing as UA 232 demonstrated...

Deadstick landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what if the aircraft loses some of its flight control surfaces, that is where PCA enabled flight control laws can help. Thrust vectoring works on similar principles as PCA but it is about the incorporation of DELIBERATE off-axis thrust not to recover a damaged aircraft but to radically enhanced its flight regimes. So asymmetric thrust can be exploited to good ends.

The PAK-FA's wide engine placements allows 3D vectoring, however, we do not know the extent of TV automation. Is the pilot allowed individual nozzle vector controls? Now that would remove a lot of mathematical complexity from the flight control laws but would transfer the burden to the pilot. After all, what good in having a feature if you do not know how or allowed to use that feature? Remember UA 232 above where the pilot had to manipulate the throttles himself. This mystery alone begs us to wonder how does Sukhoi view the pilot. Is he a 'killer' first and 'flyer' second? Or would the TV training and operation be so intensive that he would be so busy working the nozzles that he can lose situational awareness and lose the fight?

3D vectoring is best when there is so little aerodynamic forces to exploit that in order to change aircraft attitude, an alternate force is required, this would be at very low airspeed, so low that even if there is any advantage to be gained over the F-22, the F-22 would have to be either battle damaged or at so low an altitude that the F-22 pilot has next to no room to maneuver. The Soviets/Russians do not have a good history of avionics and ergonomics. We knew that even before the Soviet Union collapsed.

Do not be gullible and impressed by that airshow 'cobra' maneuver. It was done with extraordinary airmanship acquired through years of flight experience and natural abilities. That is not how we want our air forces. We want an efficient combination of high flying capabilities and human instincts now. The American philosophy is -- make the aircraft do the flying as much as possible so the pilot can be a 'killer' primary and 'flyer' secondary. When the aircraft exceed maneuvering requirements just through aerodynamic exploitations alone, TV capability is gravy and having 2D only allow some pilot control and some automation without overly complex flight control laws. This is like creating one hundred above average airborne killers in one year instead of ten excellent ones in two years.


Raptor is a classification of bird...

Bird of prey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead meat for the Raptor, baby...

The Engine development is taking place and the final shape of the engine outlets are still to be finalized, in that sense it is too early to predict the IR signatures

 

[gogbot]

What is is this "more stealth".

IF its stealth its stealth, What difference does it make what size its RCS is if it already undetectable by radar

What is this obsession people about arguing things they know nothing about

 

[Srinivas]

the first one is in Video & we saw it landing

seems both of 'em flew

Both are same during landing that flap is used for good landing i feel

 

[chantpapipart2]

Russia’s new T50 fighter- A match for Raptor, Lightning 2?
Russia isn’t exactly being coy about its first new fighter since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The plane is an announcement of Russia’s return to the forefront of arms manufacturing, and is being treated accordingly.
It’s not a bad looking plane, either, but this design is somewhat unexpected. The T50 is made by Sukhoi, makers of the highly respected Flanker. Sukhoi make tough airframes, and have a tendency to stick them on high performance aircraft. Flanker can turn literally on its wing root, not easy for a jet, nor recommended for peace of mind of other pilots within 20km.
So T50, which is nearly a wide delta design with some angle cutaway, is a bit out of the ordinary, because it's so un-stylized. The wing profile is one of the most fundamental jet fighter designs. This thing is built like a platform, lots of wing area, and a no-nonsense angled tail assembly which is obviously strictly engineer-inspired.
T50 isn’t a fashion statement in design terms. T50 has a large number of hardpoints, so the concept imperatives are clear. It looks very much like “Make us a reliable plane” was the basic instruction. According to the hype, T50 is intended to carry a lot of hardware and avionics, and it makes sense that the design is tough rather than flashy. Given that the plane is also intended to be a multi role fighter, having somewhere to hang things is a major design consideration.
The Russians are making a point of comparing T50 to America’s F22 Raptor, the “nobody else is allowed to buy it” fighter which Congress in its wisdom recently shut down.
T50 is touted as a lightweight, long range, supersonic fighter (Mach 2) which pretty much sums up Russia’s basic tactical and logistic needs for a modern fighter. The comparison to Raptor, however, means comparison to a plane which is intended to provide air superiority in a very unambiguous way. The T50 is also said to be able to use short 1000 foot runways, an obvious indicator of deployment capabilities in combat.
The plane is built of composite materials, and the Stealth aspect is based on creating a low acquisition profile, an alternative to the F117’s dramatic angles and lines. The economics of this in manufacturing and assembly are interesting, because it means the demand for specialist assembly capabilities is obviated.
India, which is a partner in the T50’s development, is expected to provide manufacturing for its two seat version of the plane. The Indians are hoping to acquire 250 of these aircraft, and Indian Air Force commentators have been reasonably enthusiastic. The Indian T50 is expected to be operational in 2017.
The big fuss, however, is about the “fifth generation” fighter capabilities. T50 is also being referred to as being a fifth generation fighter in the same sense as America’s laboriously developing and expensive Lightning II, aka Joint Strike Fighter, (JSF). It’s not yet proven, in any sense, that T50 is an actual equivalent of JSF, but the Russians are making a point of emphasizing the generational element.
Realistically, a basic model like T50 could survive a lot of upgrades without any particular need for redesign, so if it's not an equivalent now, it could become one, and carry whatever it needs to match combat systems.
The current stage of development is more likely to be good marketing than actual technology because the high loaded technically ultra-everything JSF is taking its own sweet time getting operational. If T50 is seen as the generic equivalent, or cheaper option, Russia can pick up quite a lot of business with this approach. They might be able to deliver operational planes while JSF is still teething.
T50 isn’t a design freak show, which should be a lesson to aircraft designers around the world. “It works, it flies, it does the job” is the obvious message, and it sends the message very effectively. Don’t be surprised if this unpretentious little plane becomes the aerial equivalent of an AK47.

 

[ptldM3]

This is what a formor Lockheed Martin employee that worked on the F-22 has to say about the Pakfa:

Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - The PAK-FA Saga Episode X

 

[brahmastra]

I'm still little disappointed on PAK-FA's RCS which is 0.5 compared to Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS),the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres and the F-35’s 0.01 square metre lower side and rear RCS.

But, it is russia's first development in 'stealth' technology and they did very well.

 

[brahmastra]

Imagine an apocryphal story of three fighter pilots meeting in the bar at an air combat conference in Stockholm, in the year 2015. Chuck is a NATO F-22A Raptor pilot based in Germany, Boris an Su-35-1 Flanker E Plus pilot flying from one of the bases protecting Moscow, and Johan, a F-35A Lightning II pilot from the Netherlands. All are masters of their craft and after drinks, “merely to lubricate the vocal chords”, they do what fighter pilots all over the world do – swap stories and make claims about their beloved aircraft.


Chuck starts. “I’m king of the skies,” he claims. “I supercruise at 52,000 feet and Mach 1.7. Boris, I can see you from ~100 nm, and my AIM-120D launch range at this Mach is 70 nm. You are one dead Flanker.” Boris acknowledges the performance of the APG-77 and the Raptor, but replies, “Your missiles are easy to avoid. When you fire, my OLS-35 will see the flare, and I will turn away to out-run the missile. You need to fire closer than 50 nm – even then at 50,000 feet and Mach 1.2, my Flanker can out-turn your missile. If you are side or rear on I can get a lock-on at ~40 nm and I have a choice of seeker heads, so you might wear an R-77M in the backside.” “No way Boris,” Chuck replies, “I know that game. I’m head on and you can’t see me until about ~15 nm. If I have not killed you at 50 nautical, I’m outa there at the speed of heat.” Boris and Chuck concede that there might be a nil-all draw, with Chuck being untouchable because of the Raptor’s stealth, altitude and speed and the well defended Su-35-1 defeating the Raptor’s missiles [1].

Now Boris makes his point. “Comrade Johan, I have something special for you. My IRBIS-E will see you head-on at ~25nm, but I fly my boys very wide and share the paints on our digital network. At side and rear looks, I see you at ~45 nm and my ramjet RVV-AE-PDs can get you at that range.” “No way”, Johan responds, “my APG-81 radar will see you at ~75 nm and I can launch at 50 nm. If you fire, my DAS will see the missile at launch, so I’ll turn away to break lock”. “And my wingman will see you in the turn, computer network will still know where you are, and we will skewer you in the cross-fire” is Boris’s riposte, “and you will run out of missiles before I do, If I duck your AIM-120D shots, I will win easily”. They bicker about the strengths of their own aircraft and weaknesses of the other’s and Johan grudgingly agrees the Flanker might be the winner.

Chuck and Johan stay in the bar after Boris is unexpectedly ‘called away’ by men in dark coats, and agree that work needs to be done on improving the AIM-120D’s terminal lethality.

curtsey : Peter Goon ,Carlo Kopp

 

[ptldM3]

I'm still little disappointed on PAK-FA's RCS which is 0.5 compared to Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS),the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres and the F-35’s 0.01 square metre lower side and rear RCS.

But, it is russia's first development in 'stealth' technology and they did very well.

As far as i know the 0.5 RCS estimate was from a blogger who supposedly heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy, who worked at Sukhoi, that same blogger has been wrong before. As far a i know Sukhoi has said nothing about the true RCS. In the Russian news they said this:

"In the air it's almost impossible to acquire. If the SU-30, for instance, is seen on radar as a 4 to 5 meter metalic object the fifth genneration aircraft will be 40 times smaller."

The RCS of the SU-30 is 20 sq metres not 4 or 5 metres...if that's true the real RCS would be much smaller than 0.5.

 

[faithfulguy]

@ buddy rpraveenkum
thank you buddy for the latest news. PAK-FA RCS 40 times less then SUKHOI-30MKI WOW. now thats what i call something. 0.5 meter vs 20 meters. i love PAK-FA. Sukhoi-30MKI still makes enemy fear with eyes wide open. They still didn't have answer for Su-30MKI. Now PAK-FA will come by 2017 to put more burden of fear on them. PAK-FA the beast and the beauty. Thank you again buddy for the latest news.

You must be kidding me, 0.5 meter is very very big and not even stealthy at all. I belive f-35 is 0.001 and f-22 is 0.0001, and a F-15SE is 0.01. 0.5 is the stealthiness of a Rafael. a 4+ generation fighter.

T-50 still needs a lot of work. It won't be ready for a while. I think for the sake of mother Russia, they should at least make it enough to be as stealthy as an F-35.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Imagine an apocryphal story of three fighter pilots meeting in the bar at an air combat conference in Stockholm, in the year 2015. Chuck is a NATO F-22A Raptor pilot based in Germany, Boris an Su-35-1 Flanker E Plus pilot flying from one of the bases protecting Moscow, and Johan, a F-35A Lightning II pilot from the Netherlands. All are masters of their craft and after drinks, “merely to lubricate the vocal chords”, they do what fighter pilots all over the world do – swap stories and make claims about their beloved aircraft.


Chuck starts. “I’m king of the skies,” he claims. “I supercruise at 52,000 feet and Mach 1.7. Boris, I can see you from ~100 nm, and my AIM-120D launch range at this Mach is 70 nm. You are one dead Flanker.” Boris acknowledges the performance of the APG-77 and the Raptor, but replies, “Your missiles are easy to avoid. When you fire, my OLS-35 will see the flare, and I will turn away to out-run the missile. You need to fire closer than 50 nm – even then at 50,000 feet and Mach 1.2, my Flanker can out-turn your missile. If you are side or rear on I can get a lock-on at ~40 nm and I have a choice of seeker heads, so you might wear an R-77M in the backside.” “No way Boris,” Chuck replies, “I know that game. I’m head on and you can’t see me until about ~15 nm. If I have not killed you at 50 nautical, I’m outa there at the speed of heat.” Boris and Chuck concede that there might be a nil-all draw, with Chuck being untouchable because of the Raptor’s stealth, altitude and speed and the well defended Su-35-1 defeating the Raptor’s missiles [1].

Now Boris makes his point. “Comrade Johan, I have something special for you. My IRBIS-E will see you head-on at ~25nm, but I fly my boys very wide and share the paints on our digital network. At side and rear looks, I see you at ~45 nm and my ramjet RVV-AE-PDs can get you at that range.” “No way”, Johan responds, “my APG-81 radar will see you at ~75 nm and I can launch at 50 nm. If you fire, my DAS will see the missile at launch, so I’ll turn away to break lock”. “And my wingman will see you in the turn, computer network will still know where you are, and we will skewer you in the cross-fire” is Boris’s riposte, “and you will run out of missiles before I do, If I duck your AIM-120D shots, I will win easily”. They bicker about the strengths of their own aircraft and weaknesses of the other’s and Johan grudgingly agrees the Flanker might be the winner.

Chuck and Johan stay in the bar after Boris is unexpectedly ‘called away’ by men in dark coats, and agree that work needs to be done on improving the AIM-120D’s terminal lethality.

curtsey : Peter Goon ,Carlo Kopp

Yeah Flanker will win, they are yet to introiduce R-77M correct me if i am wrong & even AIM-120D is not on the field yet
Irbis-E on Su-35 its fight with F-35 was long time back explained by Gambit

Tikhomirov NIIP has provided the ability to spot super-low-observable targets with RCS = 0.01 square meters at ranges out to 90 kilometers. This capability might allow Su-35 aircraft to engage cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles as well as fifth generation stealth fighter aircrafts such as the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. NIIP and GRPZ will take care of the Irbis production with the first radar system slated for installation on the Su-35 in August 2007.

That is outright misleading but should be expected from the Russians.

The official 'unofficial' standard for fighter aircraft size radar detection is between 200-300 km for a one meter square target, meaning that target will BECOME one meter square at that range. If anything, the 200-300 km is rather generous, effective target RCS usability is more like around 150-180 km. Usability mean the radar is able to maintain tracking of that target. As the target approaches, then its RCS increases to larger than one meter square.

The distance/power/frequency relationship is one that is often neglected whenever RCS is mentioned in just about all discussions. So when the F-35 is right in one's face, its RCS will be pretty much its physical dimensions, but at 200-300 km, the radar's signal has lost a considerable amount of its power due to distance traveled, that most of whatever left that actually impact the aircraft is absorbed and any reflection off the aircraft is classified by the radar as 'clutter'. That is how RCS figures like .0001-.0002m2 for the F-22 and the F-35 came to be. Without 'stealth' features like planforming and RAM, the same radar energy level will create a target RCS of 1-5m2 or greater.

So did the Russians lied when they said this: '...spot super-low-observable targets with RCS = 0.01 square meters at ranges out to 90 kilometers.' ? Not really a lie but partial truth. Yes...It is POSSIBLE, not definitive, that the F-35 will BECOME 0.01m2 at around 90km, but that distance is within AMRAAM-C's kill range. Not only that, this partial truth claim is contingent upon a head-on engagement which every pilot will try to avoid. So if a flight of F-35 with no external stores is alerted in anyway to the presence of a flight of Russian Suckhy junks, they will hit low altitude to get lost in ground clutter, get behind the Suckhys, then get so close that the enemy will not have time to maneuver against the AMRAAM.

 

[marcos98]

MY WALLPAper already...........