Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[b787]

Indeed ... but regarding that record I'm still more than sceptical.

I am a bit skeptical but not to the level of not believing it is not possible.

I am more surprised, in the same way i am surprised to read in the UAC that Su-30SM has an AESA radar

PJSC “Irkut Corporation” as the main contractor of state defence order provides serial production of Su-30SM highly maneuverable multirole fighters. The aircraft was developed by Sukhoi Design Bureau and is produced at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant – branch of PJSC “Irkut Corporation”.

The Su-30SM two-seat fighter is supermaneuverable, equipped with active phased array radar, thrust vectoring engines and canard surfaces.

The fighter can use modern and advanced precise air-to-air and air-to-surface armament.

The aircraft can be used to train the pilots for advanced multirole supermaneuverable single-seat fighters.

The Su-30SM multirole fighter is the further development of the Su-30MK combat aircraft family. The fighter was designed in accordance with the requirements of the Russian Air Force in terms of radar system, radio and recognition system, weapon structure, ejection seats and a number support systems.

The first contracts for delivery of Su-30SM fighters were concluded by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and JSC “Irkut Corporation” in 2012. It has been delivering the aircraft since December 2012. Data on the SU-30SM performance is not disclosed, as the aircraft is delivered for the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If that is the case, Russia`s first operational AESA is not going to be on PAKFA but it is already operational on Su-30SM

 

[b787]

 

[b787]

 

[plawolf]

How much would filling out the space between the nacelles of the PAKFA have likely reduced lift/Increased drag?

I suppose that would have made it look more like the Mig1.42 than Flanker, but would have allowed an S-duct and more conventional weapons bay layout.

 

[taxiya]

How reliable is this picture? It does not show the supposed weapon bay at the wing root. Since this picture is an illustration of capability, it should not have omitted these two bays if they are there.

Not sure if this guess has been proposed, but if I am going to put two bays there, I would use a push-out solution instead of a rolling-out solution. A push out solution will utilize the space inside the thick fuselage box, two or three bars going through the frames. The outside covers will be attached at the lower side of the inner covers which are fixed to the fuselage by hinges. The outside covers/hinges will be connected to the push bars, they will rotate when the bars extend outwards.

 

[Air Force Brat]

How much would filling out the space between the nacelles of the PAKFA have likely reduced lift/Increased drag?

I suppose that would have made it look more like the Mig1.42 than Flanker, but would have allowed an S-duct and more conventional weapons bay layout.

PAK-FA has been designed as a high lift, flying fuselage, fill that middle space would reduce lift at least 30% probably more, and it would be UGLY, and that would be the unforgivable sin, since we have compromised so many other areas of this bird???

 

[Air Force Brat]

Flanker is still the mo-purty bird! lots of nice curves, but the T-50 is straight as a string!

 

[b787]

Flanker is still the mo-purty bird! lots of nice curves, but the T-50 is straight as a string!

there are more beautiful aircraft than PAKFA

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

PAK-FA has been designed as a high lift, flying fuselage, fill that middle space would reduce lift at least 30% probably more, and it would be UGLY, and that would be the unforgivable sin, since we have compromised so many other areas of this bird???

Exactly the break between the nacelles is like a third wing adding additional lift. Its also a natural location for a weapons bay.

 

[Air Force Brat]

[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="b787, post: 390552, member: 11555"

[/QUOTE]

I'm not the Mig Fan I was, for the reason Wolfie suggested, I like the engines separate from the fuselage, and the Flanker is more to my liking, but I would confess to a love affair with the Mig-29 until I saw the Flanker. Now if you look at the lower picture, the PAK-FA has a beautiful wing/fuse planform, it has a mid-mounted delta, the only place it suffers is the Flanker has a voluptuous forward fuselage kinda like the F-14.