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

[Air Force Brat]

This is a very pretty airplane, and the planform of the fuselage, wings and tail is just very nicely done, and I have said it before, this is the most beautiful of all the fifth gens, this picture shows that the powerplants are very closely cowled in what appears to me to be titanium, just as we note on the J-20 this section is obviously not carbon fibre and is a little less "slick" than the rest of the airplane.
Also note that the weapons bays are very narrow, and the aft bay is separated from the front bay by a very short partition? There is a reason that this aircraft is the only one with a fore and aft weapons bay, and I would suspect that is one reason we may have had structural issues with the aft fuselage, this is just the AFBs eyeball engineering.
Now this is simply my own speculation, but those weapons bays are not load bearing, and what I mean by that is that those large bays are devoid of supporting structure? those doors help that when they are closed, somewhat??
This leads me to believe that the T-50 has a larger longeron or more likely lots of larger longerons running down the top of the aircraft in order to provide the necessary rigidity to this structure to support those large bays and that this is largely dependant on the structural integrity of the carbon fiber "backbone", which is "bonded" to the carbon fibre skins to create a semi-monocoque structure.
This is all conjecture on my part and no I don't do the math, this is farmboy engineering, but let me tell you I have "broken" lots of stuff, airplanes, bicycles, cars, and I have seen a bunch of it broken,,, lets just say while I love carbon fibre, I also understand that any insult, impact, abrasion, fire, etc, may break those lovely carbon fibres, or cause them to "delaminate"?
The beauty of carbon fibre is that when you know what you are doing, you can lay in a little additional carbon fibre and resin and with-out a lot of additional weight greatly increase its strength and load bearing where it is needed...
The T-50 appears to be largely carbon fibre, which seems to be where they are hoping to reduce the RCS, not sure how that will play out in real life, but we shall no doubt see soon enough?

 

[A Bar Brother]

I will today and have always conceded that the T-50 will be a very agile aircraft, and may indeed "edge out the F-22 in super-maneuverability.
However, I no longer hold supermaneuverability to be as critical as I did, but also for the record, it is a wonderful attribute to have if in fact you do somehow get drawn in to a WVR scenario

The only air forces that do not hold supermaneuverability in high regard are the ones who do not have it yet. The USAF and IAF are the only two air forces with operational TVC and the USAF version is quite limited in most respects. The Russians are still putting their TVC aircraft through the paces.

Technically, only IAF has true operational TVC aircraft, and the IAF is the only air force with requirements for TVC in all future jets as well, the AMCA comes to mind. The ones who nay-say it are ones with no experience on TVC except for watching air shows. Anyway, technicians here say TVC goes far beyond air shows and leans into the actual realm of warfighting. How do they do it, only the IAF knows. The others will come around after they actually decide to get it.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Also note that the weapons bays are very narrow, and the aft bay is separated from the front bay by a very short partition?

Weapons bays on the PAKFA are wider, deeper and longer than the ones on the F-22. The ones on the F-22 are 0.9m while the PAKFA is expected to be ~1.2m wide. This is so the aircraft can eventually hold 4 BVR missiles in each bay versus 3 on the F-22.

There is a reason that this aircraft is the only one with a fore and aft weapons bay, and I would suspect that is one reason we may have had structural issues with the aft fuselage, this is just the AFBs eyeball engineering.

The structural issues were due to the wings. They strengthened them.

The T-50 appears to be largely carbon fibre, which seems to be where they are hoping to reduce the RCS, not sure how that will play out in real life, but we shall no doubt see soon enough?

It serves to make the aircraft lighter. The T-50's airframe is said to be lighter than the Su-35's. IAF wants more composites because they want to eliminate titanium as much as they can. That's why even the control surfaces will be made of composites.

 

[kwaigonegin]

The only air forces that do not hold supermaneuverability in high regard are the ones who do not have it yet. The USAF and IAF are the only two air forces with operational TVC and the USAF version is quite limited in most respects. The Russians are still putting their TVC aircraft through the paces.

Technically, only IAF has true operational TVC aircraft, and the IAF is the only air force with requirements for TVC in all future jets as well, the AMCA comes to mind. The ones who nay-say it are ones with no experience on TVC except for watching air shows. Anyway, technicians here say TVC goes far beyond air shows and leans into the actual realm of warfighting. How do they do it, only the IAF knows. The others will come around after they actually decide to get it.

Which IAF aircraft has true TVC capabilities?

 

[A Bar Brother]

Which IAF aircraft has true TVC capabilities?

The Su-30MKI.

Btw, if you are referring to 3D TVC, the Russians figured there is no major advantage between 3D and 2.5D TVC. The MKI has yaw control.

 

[b787]

The only air forces that do not hold supermaneuverability in high regard are the ones who do not have it yet. The USAF and IAF are the only two air forces with operational TVC and the USAF version is quite limited in most respects. The Russians are still putting their TVC aircraft through the paces.

Russia has around 80+ operational Su-30MS and Su-35S, thus you are not correct, plus TVC is used on Harriers, therefore your assessment is pretty wrong

 

[Brumby]

Anyway, technicians here say TVC goes far beyond air shows and leans into the actual realm of warfighting. How do they do it, only the IAF knows. The others will come around after they actually decide to get it.

This is what I read into your statement. The IAF knows of the value of TVC in warfighting that somehow others failed to appreciate. However this special knowledge only resides with the IAF but because it is a secret it can't be revealed, proven or discussed since after all it is a secret. Effectively, this is a passport to claim anything under the umbrella of secrecy.

You should note that claims without proof can be dismissed without proof.

 

[A Bar Brother]

Russia has around 80+ operational Su-30MS and Su-35S, thus you are not correct, plus TVC is used on Harriers, therefore your assessment is pretty wrong

The Flankers are brand new. It takes time to make everything operational. It takes years to become a warfighter. TVC on Harriers is not used for warfighting, it is used for landing and take-off, so it's actual use is different.

 

[A Bar Brother]

This is what I read into your statement. The IAF knows of the value of TVC in warfighting that somehow others failed to appreciate. However this special knowledge only resides with the IAF but because it is a secret it can't be revealed, proven or discussed since after all it is a secret. Effectively, this is a passport to claim anything under the umbrella of secrecy.

You should note that claims without proof can be dismissed without proof.

So IAF wants TVC on FGFA as well as AMCA for "fun?" The IAF has accepted greater weight on the engines along with more complexity in the FBW, with lesser availability for the sake of TVC, the nozzles require overhaul every 500 hours compared to 1000 hours for the enginem while also having paid extra for the full development and certification of TVC from their own pockets. That choice doesn't come easy.

And yes, IAF is currently the only air force that operates an all-round TVC aircraft at full capacity, no other air force. The Raptor's TVC is pitch only, unlike the MKI's which controls pitch, yaw and roll. So IAF is the only one equipped with enough knowledge to say whether TVC works or not. Considering they want TVC on AMCA too, it means TVC is going to be an important part of the fleet. If TVC doesn't work, it wouldn't be required on the AMCA at all.

The grapes are sour.

Does secrecy only belong to the US? Why would IAF show-off technologies the others do not yet have in an operational capacity? The tactics they employ while using TVC is theirs alone, not the Russians or anybody else. It is logical to expect such tactics will be closely guarded. The IAF has a 15-year lead on employing TVC, the IAF is not going to give that up by talking about it. And it is obvious they want more out of TVC.

An aircraft that's able to turn in the horizontal plane to 180deg at 600 Kmph is not something to be scoffed at. Oh, and it can return to forward flight without losing speed. This is one of the maneuvers which is not a secret. Not possible on the Raptor. Basically a 360 deg turn without losing speed.

 

[Brumby]

An aircraft that's able to turn in the horizontal plane to 180deg at 600 Kmph is not something to be scoffed at. Oh, and it can return to forward flight without losing speed. This is one of the maneuvers which is not a secret. Not possible on the Raptor. Basically a 360 deg turn without losing speed.

I am simply re-stating what you have just said and that is India's MKI can do a horizontal 360 degrees turn at 600 kmph without losing speed. Do you have evidence to your claim?