PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

[410Cougar]

It was more of a sell job to the British public than anything else.

Ah yes, the imfamous job of selling a plane to the public. Wish we could have done that with the Arrow!

Oh wait...it lives on in every Mirage that flies...:

Planes should only be reported on when they break new records. With all the designers and engineers who go to work on these things, you know that they'll all be successful at some level for some purpose.

The ideal is to make one plane that can do everything perfectly. Ya right.

Attila

 

[onslaught]

A big jump form SU-37 to SU-47 where are the others?????

the only one i can think of is the Su-39(Su-25TM) which is basically an upgraded version of the Su-25

Su-39 has improved attack systems, better survivability,

 

[swerve]

Ah yes, the imfamous job of selling a plane to the public. Wish we could have done that with the Arrow!

Oh wait...it lives on in every Mirage that flies...:
...

Attila

Not really. Mirage development began first, in response to a requirement issued months before that for the Arrow, & the Mirage III (and there were Mirages I & II before that) flew 15 months before the Arrow. Can't see how there could have been any influence.

 

[alexsa]

Slightly off topic but the british did a lot of dleta wing work in the 50's in an effort to advance their quest for a supersonic aircraft. much of this flow across to the french. have a look at the fairey delta 2 if you want to see a distinctly Mirage like arrangement. This aircarft acheived 1132 mph in 1956.

http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/Aviation history/flying wings/images8/16.jpg

The first protype of this aircraft was modified to the BAC 221 which was used to conduct wing testing for concorde.

 

[Salty Dog]

PAK-FA / Su-T50

Russia & India agreed on the joint development of PAK-FA fighter which is derived from the technology of Su-47 but unlike Su-47 its going to have swept forward wings. Su-47 is a 5th Gen Tech Demon & PAK-FA is the future 5th Gen fighter.

The last post in this topic was some time ago, . . . so what is the status of the PAK-FA or Su-T50?? I´ve only seen airbrush renderings that are all different and not even a wind tunnel model. I find it interesting that Russia still does not have 5 Gen fighter (the Su-47 doesn't count) even in RDT&E whilst the F-117 is due to retire in 2008.

 

[funtz]

Plenty of threads around this internet if one wishes to look for them.
As for the 5gen figther thingy, well if they had the money, probably it would have been a crowded market up there (not talking about the capabilities here).
How is F-117 a 5th generation aircraft?

I doubt if anything on the project will come out till it eventually does, i bet they will market it to everyone but the martians.

As for the capabilities of the platform, predicting them is tough, as it is to predict things that do not exist, i doubt matching the americans should be easy (after all they are made out of money). If the plane becomes too expensive then there will be the problem of affording them.

What could be the Russian approach towards the design?

 

[Viktor]

I find it interesting that Russia still does not have 5 Gen fighter (the Su-47 doesn't count) even in RDT&E whilst the F-117 is due to retire in 2008.

Dude they had no money. Remember 90-ies?

 

[Salty Dog]

Dude they had no money. Remember 90-ies?

Thanks, quite obvious about the $$$.

I also feel Russia does not have the requisite level of computing/design power for a flyable stealth configuration. Computational advances is what made stealth possible on the F-117 and to evolve to the B-2 then F-22 (and F-35). The real challenge is to drastically reduce the RCS from all aspects whilst keeping the airframe flyable. The evolution from the faceted stealth design of the F-117 to the smoother B-2 and into a highly maneuverable F-22 is truly commendable.

I believe Russia also tried other stealth solutions such as plasma technology, but I haven't see any RDT&E examples.
-

 

[Viktor]

Thanks, quite obvious about the $$$.

I also feel Russia does not have the requisite level of computing/design power for a flyable stealth configuration. Computational advances is what made stealth possible on the F-117 and to evolve to the B-2 then F-22 (and F-35). The real challenge is to drastically reduce the RCS from all aspects whilst keeping the airframe flyable. The evolution from the faceted stealth design of the F-117 to the smoother B-2 and into a highly maneuverable F-22 is truly commendable.

I believe Russia also tried other stealth solutions such as plasma technology, but I haven't see any RDT&E examples.
-

Dont know about stealth but there are some writen evidence such systems has being tested in the presence of europens and achived 100x RCS reduction ... so dont know but we will have to wait and see.


Russia has computing power to construct stealth plane at the level of F-35 and even Raptor perheaps witch btw does NOT have all aspect stealth.

 

[funtz]

What is the computing/design power needed to produce a flyable stealth configuration?

How much are the F-117 - B-2 - F-22 - F-35 projects connected with each other?

Didnt the europeans do some work on this RCS redeuction to LO standards? without making flying irons

Is this thread about 5 gen platforms or all out LO platforms?

 

[Chrom]

The last post in this topic was some time ago, . . . so what is the status of the PAK-FA or Su-T50?? I´ve only seen airbrush renderings that are all different and not even a wind tunnel model. I find it interesting that Russia still does not have 5 Gen fighter (the Su-47 doesn't count) even in RDT&E whilst the F-117 is due to retire in 2008.

F-117 by all means is not even 4th gen, it is 3rd gen at most. The only 5th gen aircraft in the world is F-22.

As for PAK-FA... nothing new here. We'll see if it will fly by 2010 (at least prototype) as promised.

 

[Chrom]

Thanks, quite obvious about the $$$.

I also feel Russia does not have the requisite level of computing/design power for a flyable stealth configuration. Computational advances is what made stealth possible on the F-117 and to evolve to the B-2 then F-22 (and F-35). The real challenge is to drastically reduce the RCS from all aspects whilst keeping the airframe flyable. The evolution from the faceted stealth design of the F-117 to the smoother B-2 and into a highly maneuverable F-22 is truly commendable.

I believe Russia also tried other stealth solutions such as plasma technology, but I haven't see any RDT&E examples.
-

Yes, basically, one dont need such great tech to make almost unflyable, awfully expencive LO aircraft like F-117 or even B-2. But F-22 (and future F-35)is a whole another matter. BTW, computing power is NOT a big problem here - even 1000 $ commercial computers now provide more power than 10 000 000 $$ ones 10 years ago which were used for F-22.

 

[Salty Dog]

What is the computing/design power needed to produce a flyable stealth configuration?

Sorry mate, I do not know. My comment was based on present day computing capability which is not only impressive as compared to ten years ago, it is cheap and off-the-shelf. I feel that since the 1st posting on the PAK-FA which was a few years ago, that we would have seen something new by now.

How much are the F-117 - B-2 - F-22 - F-35 projects connected with each other?

They are connected in the sense that as stealth technology evolved, lessons learned were passed on. This is just a natural and logical progression of technology development.

Didnt the europeans do some work on this RCS redeuction to LO standards? without making flying irons

Is this thread about 5 gen platforms or all out LO platforms?

I do not know of any European work on stealth, but it could have been possible for a computer modelling, hence no "flying iron". I have no seen anything on a strickly European 5 Gen fighter, however they are a few countries participating in the F-35 project.

Very simply, I thought stealth also meant LO. Not the other way around. LO can be as simple as putting camouflage paint on an aircraft which goes way back. Stealth takes into account RCS.

Also the distinction between Gen 5 fighters and the rest is that Gen 5 has stealth.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

 

[Chrom]

Also the distinction between Gen 5 fighters and the rest is that Gen 5 has stealth.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

No, stealth is only 1 component of Gen 5 aircraft, it is even not absolutely required component. In fact, no single component is absolutely required for "5 Gen" title - required is enouth of these components. To name few of them:

Supercruise, LO, ESA radar, digital RWR, ESA EW, HMS / off-boresight missiles (F-22 surprisingly fall short here), very good manueverabilty, long-ranged (100+ km) AA missiles, IR/FLIR automatic detection & targeting (again F-22 lacks), datalink, etc.

Basicaly, you can throw off any 1 or 2 components and still rightfully call it "5-gen".

 

[funtz]

- Sorry mate, I do not know. My comment was based on present day computing capability which is not only impressive as compared to ten years ago, it is cheap and off-the-shelf. I feel that since the 1st posting on the PAK-FA which was a few years ago, that we would have seen something new by now.

- They are connected in the sense that as stealth technology evolved, lessons learned were passed on. This is just a natural and logical progression of technology development.

- I do not know of any European work on stealth, but it could have been possible for a computer modeling, hence no "flying iron". I have no seen anything on a strictly European 5 Gen fighter, however they are a few countries participating in the F-35 project.

- Very simply, I thought stealth also meant LO. Not the other way around. LO can be as simple as putting camouflage paint on an aircraft which goes way back. Stealth takes into account RCS.
Also the distinction between Gen 5 fighters and the rest is that Gen 5 has stealth.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

- It certainly is however, that is a encouraging factor, and not a limiting one. The Russians should have a reason to show it to the people, however it is very strange that Indian government went for something that did not exist after the presentations and negotiations, i think they have something in the papers, now the time the project takes and the actual capability is something that is hard to comment on(as it does not even exist i public domain as of yet).

- With-out knowing anything about the level of technical complexity (financial-technical) involved in these projects (the two bombers and two fighter), it is near impossible to comment on them. As in how big a technological "progression"/"development" it was.

- No flying iron but this was a nice mock up
http://home.xmsnet.nl/hdejong/curious/Lampyridae.htm
or perhaps a flying UAV like that Barracuda. It is said that Even the British did some work on this, before going with the USA they must have saved some money doing this.
i never knew all of this was happening.

- LO-VLO-Stealth...... how do you define this, is there a RCS/IR cut-off that must be crossed to enter?
How do you define a generation of aircraft?
I thought anything that comes out of the Russians will be their 5th generation, u know like the Mig-9/15/17 to Mig-19/21 to Mig 23/25 to Mig-29.
This PAK-FA project must have some criteria to meet LO/VLO, super maneuverability, new weapons, new radar - avionics, new EW program-systems etc. etc. who knows what they will come up with or what will be their priority, that will be all too clear in some time, as they say best to wait. It is however about time they started working on this.

 

[swerve]

...
I do not know of any European work on stealth, but it could have been possible for a computer modelling, hence no "flying iron". ....

There's been a lot. As one German said in the 1990s, talking about the 1980s German Lampyridae project (got as far as tethered flying of a 3/4 size manned demonstrator in a wind tunnel) "Maxwells equations have been around for over 100 years". Lampyridae used similar faceting to F-117 (note that it was developed independently, without any knowledge of F-117), but was aerodynamically superior. Designed later, computing was cheaper, I presume.

The British Replica low-RCS fighter project of the 1990s wasn't really meant to end up as an aircraft (that was the back-up option), but as a lever to get level 1 participation in JSF, which worked.

Since then, European stealth (well, what's been published, & both those were secret until years after cancellation) has been limited to improving the RCS of existing aircraft, & UAVs. There are more stealthy UAV & UCAV projects in Europe than you can shake a stick at.

 

[Salty Dog]

No, stealth is only 1 component of Gen 5 aircraft, it is even not absolutely required component. In fact, no single component is absolutely required for "5 Gen" title - required is enouth of these components. To name few of them:

Supercruise, LO, ESA radar, digital RWR, ESA EW, HMS / off-boresight missiles (F-22 surprisingly fall short here), very good manueverabilty, long-ranged (100+ km) AA missiles, IR/FLIR automatic detection & targeting (again F-22 lacks), datalink, etc.

Basicaly, you can throw off any 1 or 2 components and still rightfully call it "5-gen".

Thanks mate. So even with out stealth, as long as some of the state-of-the-art goodies are present like supercruise, AESA, TVC, etc. then you have a Gen 5 fighter.

What's up with the F-22 off-boresight capability? Are you talking about the F-22 HMI. I guess it's an advanced version of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks mate. So even with out stealth, as long as some of the state-of-the-art goodies are present like supercruise, AESA, TVC, etc. then you have a Gen 5 fighter.

What's up with the F-22 off-boresight capability? Are you talking about the F-22 HMI. I guess it's an advanced version of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)

Sorry, I disagree with the prev summary by some margin.

I attended a LO "Stealth" concepts Conf for Aircraft and UAV's in the UK about 18 months ago. It was attended by all the major tech advanced nations and included Russian and Chinese represenatatives.

Everyone universally agreed that 5th Gen aircraft were those that were designed from the outset with LO minimisation and network fusion capabilities.

TVC steering aircraft and off boresight are not standard evolutionary features - and are countered by other solutions such as all aspect TVC missiles. Supercruise is not a generational feature and its been about for 30 years.

The fundamental acceptance is that LO management is the core feature as it defines fundamental design and operational capabilities.

 

[Chrom]

Sorry, I disagree with the prev summary by some margin.

I attended a LO "Stealth" concepts Conf for Aircraft and UAV's in the UK about 18 months ago. It was attended by all the major tech advanced nations and included Russian and Chinese represenatatives.

Everyone universally agreed that 5th Gen aircraft were those that were designed from the outset with LO minimisation and network fusion capabilities.

TVC steering aircraft and off boresight are not standard evolutionary features - and are countered by other solutions such as all aspect TVC missiles. Supercruise is not a generational feature and its been about for 30 years.

The fundamental acceptance is that LO management is the core feature as it defines fundamental design and operational capabilities.

LO "minimization" doesnt mean much Basicaly, it only states what designers should respect such fundamental propery as RCS - it, however, doesnt tell us how "low" is enouth. Becouse particular RCS itself is not the defining property - the defing one is relation between LO and other, exatly as important properties. "Lesser" LO can be compensated with better radar, faster speed, longer range, etc...

 

[gf0012-aust]

LO "minimization" doesnt mean much .

it does actually. it refers to an aicraft where the primary design intent is to make an oder of magnitude RCS reduction to commonly accepted 4th gen platforms such as F-15nn's and Su-27/30nn's.

the conf included aviation engineers, air force personnel, design houses (incl Sukhoi) etc.... I'm much more inclined to agree with professional peers rather than unprofessional assumptions.

you don't have to like it, esp as you're not designing planes and counter systems anyway....