Is russian PAK FA /T-50 really stealthy?

[morrigan1]

Hello everybody!
I`m not skilled in air force technology at all but i`m very interested in the new fifth generation Russian jet fighter developed by Sukhoi. Since i cant find any articles about its stealth abilities i decided to put this topic in here hoping i`ll be answered to all my questions. I`m yet curious about have Russians made real breakthrough by this aircraft or it is just a bluff sent to the world.
I`ll be glad to have your opinion to this matter...

 

[ADMk2]

Hello everybody!
I`m not skilled in air force technology at all but i`m very interested in the new fifth generation Russian jet fighter developed by Sukhoi. Since i cant find any articles about its stealth abilities i decided to put this topic in here hoping i`ll be answered to all my questions. I`m yet curious about have Russians made real breakthrough by this aircraft or it is just a bluff sent to the world.
I`ll be glad to have your opinion to this matter...

In their current incarnation, no. They are simply demonstrator aircraft. However these aircraft have some features designed inherently into the aircraft that with development will lower the RCS of production aircraft assuming a whole range of other aspects come together.

The basic frontal shape of the aircraft is designed with some attention to shaping to enable the scattering of radar energy, rather than reflecting them back to the radar source.

I have no doubt production models will be coated with materials designed to absorb radar energy and these aircraft "might" have internal structures designed to further scatter, direct or aborb radiation and lower overall radar reflectivity, but nothing much is known about this.

The aircraft are likely to be built with internal weapon bays similar to the F-22A and F-35 to further reduce radar reflectivity (which occurs when weapons, pods or fuel tanks are hung externally on an aircraft).

The production aircraft may also feature devices commonly known as "radar blockers" which are stationed in the air intakes to reduce radar reflectivity from the engine blades.

The T-50 demonstrator models however have several features rather incongruous to being a "truly" low observable aircraft, level with the current US versions. These include exposed engines, Round ball shaped housings containing (in future) infra-red search and track systems and engine intakes that offer a straight path to the front of the engine blades (which is why it needs radar blockers in it's air intakes, unlike the F-22 or F-35).

The best guesses around at the moment is that the T-50 production variants will have reasonable low observability front on, with declining capability from side and rear angles de to design choices already made, unless significant redevelopment of the airframe occurs.

How reasonable LO, rather than "world leading" might be sufficient for Russia's purposes. Time will tell.

 

[Lion8]

The current prototype need a major redesign in order to achieve the same level of stealth as F-22.

Some how I feel the body streamline is very bad for stealth. I don't know whether Sukhoi can afford a major redesign of that? And I felt the fund inject by India will not be enough.

 

[Cailet]

It depends exactly what they want out of the aircraft.

If India/Russia want an F-22 beating aircraft then the Sukhoi offering is not going to do the job, it's design is comparatively primitive and thoroughly inelegant as described by ADMK2.

On the other hand if they want a relatively inexpensive aircraft which provides experience with 5th-gen concepts (with a few twists such as the L-band radar) without breaking the bank then this is a good start. If it provides a significant improvement in signal management with good physical performance then it will be able to meet the actual needs of the current Russian and Indian strategic situation very adequately as neither nation intends to confront 5th-gen threats in the near future but would be significantly boosted by the ability to outclass the 4th-gen equipment of Pakistan or China (J-20 aside, that's it's own can of worms and fanboys).

A lot of people have noted that it looks like a re-skinned Su-27 suggesting that a good comparison would be the F-15SE rather than the F-22 or F-35.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It depends exactly what they want out of the aircraft.

If India/Russia want an F-22 beating aircraft then the Sukhoi offering is not going to do the job, it's design is comparatively primitive and thoroughly inelegant as described by ADMK2.

On the other hand if they want a relatively inexpensive aircraft which provides experience with 5th-gen concepts (with a few twists such as the L-band radar) without breaking the bank then this is a good start. If it provides a significant improvement in signal management with good physical performance then it will be able to meet the actual needs of the current Russian and Indian strategic situation very adequately as neither nation intends to confront 5th-gen threats in the near future but would be significantly boosted by the ability to outclass the 4th-gen equipment of Pakistan or China

I think the Russians (and everyone else) have come to the realization that to survive, let alone compete, in the 5th gen battlespace some form of significant RCS reduction is mandatory. Tactical LO really is that much of a game changer. All this fluff about "competing with the F-22A" is simply marketing IMO, neither the Russians nor the Indians see the USAF as a realistic opponent, especially the Indians (apart from at Red Flag of course). T-50 is probably a real leap over 4th gen opponents, allows the Russians to compete against 5th gen equipped threats and provides some of the other synergies of having an LO asset in the battlespace.

(J-20 aside, that's it's own can of worms and fanboys).

I swear I thought Darth Vader was designing that thing.

A lot of people have noted that it looks like a re-skinned Su-27 suggesting that a good comparison would be the F-15SE rather than the F-22 or F-35.

Given the engine & horizontal stabilizer layout plus the general size and shape of the platform there is a reasonably obvious heritage back to the Flanker. However, I wouldn't compare it to the F-15SE, the design is far more obviously designed around RCS reduction. Maybe somewhere in-between.

 

[jack412]

what we are seeing isn't the finished article, they intend to build about 60 of these from 2015 it is said
what is more interesting is that India and Russia have agreed to put a further $8b into the development, which will equip both Russia and India from 2020 and also an export version

now will they be as advanced as the western 5th gen ? if the R&D money is a measure it wont be.
to klownklub's discust, an article in Pravda also raises doubt about about a unified Russian opinion of the current model

Russia to test another Sukhoi T-50 fifth-generation fighter - English pravda.ru
As for its drawbacks, experts point out the improper use of the stealth technology in the production of PAK FA. Choosing between manoeuvrability and stealth, Sukhoi chose the first quality.
Experts also say that the electronic equipment of the T-50 does not meet the requirements of a fifth-generation jet.

 

[Twinblade]

Ares blog on aviationweek took a peek at Pak-Fa sensors at MAKS. The frontal and rear IRST are still spherical but with "RCS reduction" (??) AESA radar, L band wing mounted radar and other electro optic sensors to be embedded in the structure for F-35 like EO-DAS.

T-50: The Fifth-Generation Fighter's Sensors

I have been informed several times that L-band is not good for tracking fighter sized objects and is used primarily for meteorological radars, so does the L-band radar function as some sort of maws-like "LO platform warning system" ?

 

[jack412]

I think you have shown us why Pravda said some dont think the PAK stuff isnt considered state of the art yet and look typically 4th gen to me
the lower bands are often used as a search/tracking radar, as that gives more range and then x-band for targeting

however VLO platforms can have a very wideband RAM/RAS, 0.1 mhz to 60 ghz ( HF-L-X-U bands ) for example
CNT-BASED SIGNATURE CONTROL MATERIAL - Google Patents


for balance, here is a PAK video on its systems
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgmSdx_eiCI"]Concern Radioelectronic technology MAKS-2011 - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[wormhole]

There's also the question of what kind of tolerances the planes are built to. Supposedly, the F-35 features a nearly seamless fit between body panels with tolerances of around 30% that of the thickness of a human hair. That kind of precision doesn't come cheap. The Raptor has bigger panel gaps hence the need for labor-intensive stealth caulking (for want of a better term) to achieve its low RCS. It will be interesting to see what the Russians are capable of in this area. Will they compromise stealth performance for cost?

 

[jack412]

taking over from where the f-111 left off with a nice burn, although not intentional

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

taking over from where the f-111 left off with a nice burn, although not intentional

Sweet! Bet I wont see that next time I go to Avalon unfortunately. I saw the Su-30 years back, wish we had Russian kit every year.

 

[jack412]

yeah, we are off the beaten track alright and our air shows dont bring many of the other fast jets which is a shame

 

[PCShogun]

Hello everybody!
I`m not skilled in air force technology at all but i`m very interested in the new fifth generation Russian jet fighter developed by Sukhoi. Since i cant find any articles about its stealth abilities i decided to put this topic in here hoping i`ll be answered to all my questions. I`m yet curious about have Russians made real breakthrough by this aircraft or it is just a bluff sent to the world.
I`ll be glad to have your opinion to this matter...

The T-50 must be pretty darn good. I tried to see it flying at the Moscow Air show and never saw it take off:

It remains to be seen if Russia can even field enough of them to make a difference. Same for China. You can have the best technology in the world but if you can only afford to build 12, you essentially have an expensive hanger queen that you are afraid to put in the air.

That said, even some stealth technology is better than none. Every mile closer you can get before being detected is another mile closer to your target before you have to worry about things like . . . death. Russia and China has always bet on quantity over quality. They feel that even if the technology is not as good, quantity will make up the difference, even if only for a short time. You simply could not destroy them fast enough. In early World war III scenario's, the Red Army expected to have contested air superiority over Europe for two weeks at the onset of hostilities despite having inferior technology. The advantage of numbers was such that NATO aircraft could not destroy them fast enough to take control of the air over the battlefield. Soviet aircraft would achieve air superiority over parts of the battlefield for at least the beginning stages of the war, which they felt was long enough.

 

[Feanor]

The T-50 must be pretty darn good. I tried to see it flying at the Moscow Air show and never saw it take off:

It remains to be seen if Russia can even field enough of them to make a difference. Same for China. You can have the best technology in the world but if you can only afford to build 12, you essentially have an expensive hanger queen that you are afraid to put in the air.

The VVS can afford to acquire the bird in quite large numbers. In fact they have so much money, and nothing to spend it on, that right now they're forking up money for Su-30SMs (essentially a domesticated MKI) for the airforce and AVMF (Black Sea Fleet to replace Fencers) and Su-35S. If they could have the PAK-FA, they would not be buying either one of those. Both are stop-gap measures.

That said, even some stealth technology is better than none. Every mile closer you can get before being detected is another mile closer to your target before you have to worry about things like . . . death. Russia and China has always bet on quantity over quality. They feel that even if the technology is not as good, quantity will make up the difference, even if only for a short time. You simply could not destroy them fast enough.

That's a stereotype at best, and more like a misconception.

In early World war III scenario's, the Red Army expected to have contested air superiority over Europe for two weeks at the onset of hostilities despite having inferior technology. The advantage of numbers was such that NATO aircraft could not destroy them fast enough to take control of the air over the battlefield. Soviet aircraft would achieve air superiority over parts of the battlefield for at least the beginning stages of the war, which they felt was long enough.

When coupled with insane numbers of SAMs and SPAAGs it would suffice, provided that Soviet land forces could do their part and break through. But this is no longer the mentality or the concept for the modern Russian military.

 

[Haavarla]

Lets keep it simple.
Mr Pogosyan says The Pak-Fa will be conciderable cheaper vs the F-22 but more expensive vs any 4th gen fighter out there..

From this it is possible to make some thought on the matter.
Pogo has never directly compaired the Pak-Fa with the F-22 in term of stealth afaik.

 

[Feanor]

Lets keep it simple.
Mr Pogosyan says The Pak-Fa will be conciderable cheaper vs the F-22 but more expensive vs any 4th gen fighter out there..

From this it is possible to make some thought on the matter.
Pogo has never directly compaired the Pak-Fa with the F-22 in term of stealth afaik.

Actually they're pretty careful about making comparative statements. The most solid thing I've read them saying is that it will be no worse then the F-22, whatever that means. :

 

[HKSDU]

The T-50 must be pretty darn good. I tried to see it flying at the Moscow Air show and never saw it take off:

It remains to be seen if Russia can even field enough of them to make a difference. Same for China. You can have the best technology in the world but if you can only afford to build 12, you essentially have an expensive hanger queen that you are afraid to put in the air.

That said, even some stealth technology is better than none. Every mile closer you can get before being detected is another mile closer to your target before you have to worry about things like . . . death. Russia and China has always bet on quantity over quality. They feel that even if the technology is not as good, quantity will make up the difference, even if only for a short time. You simply could not destroy them fast enough. In early World war III scenario's, the Red Army expected to have contested air superiority over Europe for two weeks at the onset of hostilities despite having inferior technology. The advantage of numbers was such that NATO aircraft could not destroy them fast enough to take control of the air over the battlefield. Soviet aircraft would achieve air superiority over parts of the battlefield for at least the beginning stages of the war, which they felt was long enough.

How do you explain that China is making its forces smaller and smaller than? Why do they wait so long for platforms to come out, and only introduce a couple and then moving onto the next platform?

You can't have all quality and no quantity.

Russia has and still is in serious mess. They are still stuck with Soviet Era pass down equipment. They offered more advance Su-30 for export, but their own forces still had the antique radar/avionic Su-27.fftopic

 

[ADMk2]

Ares blog on aviationweek took a peek at Pak-Fa sensors at MAKS. The frontal and rear IRST are still spherical but with "RCS reduction" (??) AESA radar, L band wing mounted radar and other electro optic sensors to be embedded in the structure for F-35 like EO-DAS.

I have been informed several times that L-band is not good for tracking fighter sized objects and is used primarily for meteorological radars, so does the L-band radar function as some sort of maws-like "LO platform warning system" ?

No, they took a look at some mock-ups and some marketing literature... With all due respect to the Russian manufacturers they are every bit as guilty of 'hype' as any other contractor...

L Band radars (1-2Ghz frequencies) are typically used in long ranged air search radar systems. They are not typically employed in "small arrays" but in ground or AEW&C sized radar applications.

The range that relatively small fighter wing sized L Band radar array could possibly have seems rather limited to me and a curious insight into the merits of Russian fighter based fire control radar arrays and their overall effectiveness...

Having as many active radars as the PAK-FA is supposed to have is also a curious thing for a supposedly "Low Observable" aircraft to possess, with "emissions control" and LO working hand in hand in the more traditional "stealth" aircraft. How "stealth" and 5-6 blaring active radars per platform are meant to integrate together and result in "capability" seems rather difficult to comprehend...

These radars (if they are included in the aircraft) are no doubt intended to act as a "trip wire" and are meant to cue other more precise sensor systems onto a platform that has been detected by these means, but how they expect to shield these extensive radar emissions from enemy radar warning recievers ESM systems etc, is beyond me. Might as well fly around the sky blaring out on civilian frequencies, "here I am"...

It's also an interesting insight into what modern airforces and aircraft manufacturers think about the capabilities of low observable aircraft, as opposed to what some journos and fanbois think of them...

 

[ADMk2]

That said, even some stealth technology is better than none. Every mile closer you can get before being detected is another mile closer to your target before you have to worry about things like . . . death. Russia and China has always bet on quantity over quality. They feel that even if the technology is not as good, quantity will make up the difference, even if only for a short time. You simply could not destroy them fast enough. In early World war III scenario's, the Red Army expected to have contested air superiority over Europe for two weeks at the onset of hostilities despite having inferior technology. The advantage of numbers was such that NATO aircraft could not destroy them fast enough to take control of the air over the battlefield. Soviet aircraft would achieve air superiority over parts of the battlefield for at least the beginning stages of the war, which they felt was long enough.

Lucky for them it never came to a head then, because they would have been mightily surprised. Ironically enough, most aircraft in modern wars haven't been destroyed by air to air combat, they've been destroyed on the ground, or captured.

There's also more to combat than "who has the most". Quantity has a quality all of it's own sure, but it's quantity at the right place at the right time that counts. Sortie generation is more important than sheer numbers of platforms and I doubt few would argue which side had the superior, sustained sortie generation capability...

 

[jack412]

raptor2019, can you put your post all in one and not multiple, you can edit and then add more if you wish, it will be much easier to read