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

[Air Force Brat]

Air Force Brat, i love many aircraft, P-51, F4U Corsair, Ar-234, He-177, F-16, F-15, Tu-22M, and many others like F-14 or F-18, but as a Christian i love only civil aircraft, and the military toys just for their speed and agility, but like POPEYE, Christ and peace is first, so i can say PAKFA is only one of many cool jets i like, but i hate war.

I find B787 or E-190 more beautiful as peaceful machines, i see warplanes more like sport cars rather than weapons of war.

But yes PAKFA seems to be on schedule.

Well, B787, I can without any reservation say that I completely agree with you on every count, and as a fellow Christian, I am very proud of your stand for peace, as the AFB, I believe that parity and strength can go a long way to keeping us all safe. Thank you for sharing with us, and God's richest blessings on you and your's in this new year, I have to give this post, my AFB post of the month, maybe even post of the year award. If you find your way to Central Obamstan, we will go look at those Mig-29s together, LOL!

 

[Deino]

there is video of bort 55 flying at 36:50 over a village after the medical test of the Sukhois test Pilot Taran. (can we date the video footage? no we can not because Bort 55 has pictures since November 2013 )
you can keep your opinion, i do not agree with it because there are pictures of bort 55 from June 10th 2014 before the accident, and Sukhoi it self gave the news of the accident thus they were honest about it so i have confidence their statement reflects the truth

The problem is simply that a video without any given date and the absence of hard fats of 055 flying again does in fact not rule out it is flying again, but in the same it does not proof it since these videos can easily be older ones. IMO such a video regardless the date it was broadcasted is a proof for nothing.

No it is not, there is a difference between an official statement and an opinion. only that, you can keep your opinion, but until an official statement is released about bort 55 being officially written off, rivers of ink can flow but they will not really mean anything unless it is officially confirmed as written off

Yes, but like AFB said it seems indeed as if You are trying very hard to defend the T50 even if there's no attack against it.
Fact is it crashed/crash-landed, fact is also that Sukhai stated it will be repaired ... but fact is so far we have not seen it any more, even well respected Russian analysts say it is a "dead bird" but simply Sukhoi does not officially confirms it - why so ? - therefore my "problem" simply is the way You argue; it's not a scientific way:

The absence of a proof does not in the same moment proves anything ... and with each day that bird is not seen again the probability that it is indeed a write-off are growing.

But You are correct everyone can have its own opinion ...

Deino

 

[A Bar Brother]

Do You have images of real missiles ??

Russia doesn't reveal actual weapons until many years after manufacture. We are yet to see the real RVV-SD, RVV-MD and RVV-BD, let alone weapons made for PAKFA. We know the K-100 has already reached production too (rumors), but all we have seen are mock-ups in air shows.

They may provide more information during AI-2015 or maybe 2017.

 

[aksha]

 

[Air Force Brat]

what are we looking at here Aksha? T-50 mock-up of FGFA?

 

[A Bar Brother]

what are we looking at here Aksha? T-50 mock-up of FGFA?

Just a pretty fan made CGI.

 

[b787]

The problem is simply that a video without any given date and the absence of hard fats of 055 flying again does in fact not rule out it is flying again, but in the same it does not proof it since these videos can easily be older ones. IMO such a video regardless the date it was broadcasted is a proof for nothing.



Yes, but like AFB said it seems indeed as if You are trying very hard to defend the T50 even if there's no attack against it.
Fact is it crashed/crash-landed, fact is also that Sukhai stated it will be repaired ... but fact is so far we have not seen it any more, even well respected Russian analysts say it is a "dead bird" but simply Sukhoi does not officially confirms it - why so ? - therefore my "problem" simply is the way You argue; it's not a scientific way:

The absence of a proof does not in the same moment proves anything ... and with each day that bird is not seen again the probability that it is indeed a write-off are growing.

But You are correct everyone can have its own opinion ...

Deino

As a matter of opinions yes we are in the same predicament, we do not know who is right or wrong, as a technical matter, Sukhoi has information that at least me i do not have, to know if Bort 55 will ever fly again you need the data Sukhoi has, data about the origin of the fire, the structural limits of the airframe, i do not know the T-50 internal structure in detail, the temperature the fire got, the torsional and mechanical limits of the bulkheads, the steady state heat transfer (including temperature-dependent material properties and radiation) thus i hold a conservative approach, i believe Sukhoi, you can go the path of the conspiracy theory and think they lie, but unless you have that data to back up your opinion, you have no real knowledge beyond a personal opinion, you need to be an expert in aircraft structure, know T-50 from an engineering point of view very well and have the data Sukhoi has to know if PAKFA bort 55 will ever fly again, otherwise you are just betting your luck upon a 50% statistical odd it might not fly again.

Sukhoi engineers do not even know the T-50 well yet, because the jet is still in flight tests, therefore i know without the data Sukhoi has is almost impossible to know Bort 55 will or will not ever fly again, and that explains my very conservative view and opinion and why i believe their statement

 

[A Bar Brother]

The absence of a proof does not in the same moment proves anything ... and with each day that bird is not seen again the probability that it is indeed a write-off are growing.

It is too early to conclude that. You yourself said the damage was extensive. If the damage was extensive then the inquiry into the accident, the feasibility of the rebuild and the decision to rebuild will take far more than just 6 months, let alone the rebuild of the airframe itself, which should take at least a year, maybe even two years if reconstruction is required.

On the one hand people here say Russia can't do this or can't do that, but on the other hand people are expecting miracles from Russia by assuming they can rebuild airframes in just 6 months, that's why I gave the example of the Mig-29 upgrade which took far more than 6 months.

 

[Deino]

It is too early to conclude that. You yourself said the damage was extensive. If the damage was extensive then the inquiry into the accident, the feasibility of the rebuild and the decision to rebuild will take far more than just 6 months, let alone the rebuild of the airframe itself, which should take at least a year, maybe even two years if reconstruction is required.

On the one hand people here say Russia can't do this or can't do that, but on the other hand people are expecting miracles from Russia by assuming they can rebuild airframes in just 6 months, that's why I gave the example of the Mig-29 upgrade which took far more than 6 months.

Agreed, but again I do not question that a rebuild (I would not call it a simple repair due to the extensive damage) could be done and Your argument is valid; also I do not question that Russia can't do it ... my point is - and here Your argument that it might last longer than I would like to accept - is that it might not be economical usefull. In this case an additional prototype might be cheaper and earlier available.

Again I do not say that it can't be done and maybe regardless of cost they simply want to do it only to test if it is possible ... but let us wait and see.

Deino

 

[Brumby]

It is too early to conclude that. You yourself said the damage was extensive. If the damage was extensive then the inquiry into the accident, the feasibility of the rebuild and the decision to rebuild will take far more than just 6 months, let alone the rebuild of the airframe itself, which should take at least a year, maybe even two years if reconstruction is required.

On the one hand people here say Russia can't do this or can't do that, but on the other hand people are expecting miracles from Russia by assuming they can rebuild airframes in just 6 months, that's why I gave the example of the Mig-29 upgrade which took far more than 6 months.

In the absence of official information, each of us is making a case over this issue and the judgement is formed in the public domain (as in this forum) based on the merit of the case being presented. The decision tree for Sukhoi is simple in my view. Is a replacement required and if yes is it more economical to rebuild than a new built? Cost is just not confined simply to a replacement but how it impacts the timeline and hence on overall program cost. Aircraft development is incredibly expensive and you just have to look at the cost for the B-2 and F-22 program for the numbers. In the short term, Sukhoi can re-schedule some activities but eventually the critical paths would have to be addressed. Development staff are specialist and by nature very expensive to sit around waiting for a replacement. Having to wait up to 2 years replacement is crazy talk having regards to the program clock. I would venture to say if they need a replacement they should be able to get one within 6 months because a prototype is basically a bare bones plane without some of the electronics. The Chinese are able to get a new J-20 prototype out in short succession.