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

[Air Force Brat]

You mean like this?

View attachment 18658

...or this?

View attachment 18659

Thank you master Jeff, I was rather certain that I had seen pictures, but not positive, I would add that structurally, opening the doors does place additional loads on the door attach points, as well as additional "air loads on the weapons bay walls, sides, fore, and aft, in addition to the doors themselves. As to the lack of apparent supporting structure, (which I noted in an earlier concern) I do note that both the upper and lower center-section skins appear to be rather heavy compound curved sections, which bonded together are quite capable of bearing those loads, the engine nacelles are also a part of that supporting structure, and also appear to be bonded into that superstructure.

So after a more thorough inspection, I would say the actual structure is likely more than sufficient, it is nice to see 051 has been rebuilt and is once again in the flying que, I was rather disappointed that the re-fuselaged 055 was not first flighted during MAKS 2015??? So its looking like we will soon be back up to 4 to 6 flying proto-types, once 055, and 061 are launched??? It really is past time that the Indians were brought into flight test??? and hopefully they soon will be, I guess we'll have to wait and see??

Well?? I still think I recall seeing picture of at least the front bay open?? but I am not positive, thank you blitzo for keeping it real bruda, and Jeff keep looking for those pics bub, I think they are out there somewhere, but get your beauty sleep tonight bub, I had a nice nap this afternoon before evening worship.

 

[Hyperwarp]

T-50 prototypes cannot carry 3 AAM in weapons bay. It can carry 4 R-77 type and 2 R-73 type missiles internally. I think this will change with the newer blocks 2025+ time-frame.

This was posted by Deino long time ago. Su-47 modified with a T-50 weapons bay:

Another CG. More accurate AAM load:

 

[Deino]

T-50 prototypes cannot carry 3 AAM in weapons bay. It can carry 4 R-77 type and 2 R-73 type missiles internally. I think this will change with the newer blocks 2025+ time-frame.

This was posted by Deino long time ago. Su-47 modified with a T-50 weapons bay:

Yes, quite an older image (no longer know the source !) but YES, the Su-47 was modified with a T-50-weapons bay some time ago ....

Regarding Su-47 & T-50, here's another interesting recent image ...

 

[Hyperwarp]

oh boy......

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Dang good CGIs too then.

LOL!

Of a truth, I thought the missiles looked a little too clean or something...now I know.

yep, I have seen that many times in other forums and knew it was CGI, that's why I am here to ask

 

[taxiya]

Sukhoi has never ever made any statement about the PAKFA structural problems officially,

A friendly advice, please read my post again.

I clarify again if I was not clear enough.

My post meant "Sukhoi see the structural strength as an design challenge early on in design phase", I did not say Sukhoi stated the design is a problem. Challenge does not equal to problem, but a challenge turned out to be under-estimated will turns to be a problem, however, it is only my suspicion that it is a problem, but I did not say it is proven or admitted by Sukhoi.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I know some people here don't like Dave but take it easy, I'm posting because I found the Russian translation:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of
America's F-22 Stealth Fighter vs. Russia's PAK-FA: Who Wins?

This year marks a decade since the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with the U.S. Air Force.

Billed by many as the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

fighter ever built, the Raptor only recently proved its mettle in combat over

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. But the jet wasn’t used to annihilate a Soviet air armada over the Fulda Gap or rip apart an advanced enemy integrated air defense system as its designers had envisioned. Instead, the Raptor has most been relegated to the role of a flying sensor platform.

Nonetheless, the day is coming when the F-22 could face a foe that might have a chance of going toe-to-toe with it and winning—albeit a small one. Russia and China are hard at work developing the Chengdu J-20 and the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. Of these two machines, the PAK-FA is probably the more serious challenger. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has somehow managed to retain a more or less credible defense industrial base—even if it’s just a shadow of its former self.

Everything about the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

—being optimized as a fast, high flying and stealthy air superiority fighter. However, as one might expect, the Russians put more emphasis on certain characteristics and less on others.

One good example is stealth. The T-50’s design places far less emphasis on all-aspect low observables. Instead, it focuses on frontal aspect stealth—thus it has a so-called “Pac-Man” signature where as the F-22’s signature looks more like a spider if one were to look at it from a God’s eye view. Stealth is where the F-22 holds a huge advantage over the Russian jet.

In terms of sheer kinematics, the T-50 and the F-22 are probably comparable—especially once the PAK-FA receives new engines. The Russian jet’s current Izdeliye 117 engines are decent, but ultimately the plane will need to reequipped with the developmental Izdeliye 30 motors to fully exploit the capabilities of its airframe.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

I take Hyperwarp's photo to show my concern about the structural challenge. J-20, F-22 and S-47 all have their engines installed closely. PFAK-FA has a big empty box without any enforcement inside due to apparent reason, of course it is a big challenge, simple physics. On top of that, the box is only half attached to other fuselage structure. It is a challenge for anybody. So far, Sukhoi only mentioned that the two side walls are made of very strong titanium plate to secure the stiffness, I am not very confident in that. Of course, Sukhoi is probably not telling everything due to secrecy, so I have wait and see.

BTW, I think it is S-47 not Su-47.

 

[Hyperwarp]

I take Hyperwarp's photo to show my concern about the structural challenge. J-20, F-22 and S-47 all have their engines installed closely. PFAK-FA has a big empty box without any enforcement inside due to apparent reason, of course it is a big challenge, simple physics. On top of that, the box is only half attached to other fuselage structure. It is a challenge for anybody. So far, Sukhoi only mentioned that the two side walls are made of very strong titanium plate to secure the stiffness, I am not very confident in that. Of course, Sukhoi is probably not telling everything due to secrecy, so I have wait and see.

BTW, I think it is S-47 not Su-47.

It was originally called S-37 and then given the designation Su-47

 

[aksha]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Walking the static display line at the MAKS air show in Moscow is a reunion of sorts, with aircraft designs that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about. There’s the Tupolev Tu-22M, touted by U.S. Air Force intelligence as a B-1 equivalent, which involved a well-to-the-right-of-Genghis-Khan senior officer dictating that the bomber had 20 tons more fuel than its physical size allowed. Here in the historical section is that masterpiece in welded steel, the MiG-25, that some assessed as a dogfighter. Those were two lessons in the analytical trap of “mirror imaging.”

The most widely mirror-imaged system at MAKS was the Sukhoi T-50, which far too many people still see as an F-22 analog. This idea began to look out of touch with reality two years ago, when Tactical Missiles Corp. (TMC) showed images of the big (1,400-lb.) Kh-58UShKE anti-radar missile inside the fighter’s fuselage bays. The T-50 can carry four weapons of that size internally versus two 1,000-lb.-class bombs on the F-22.

This year, TMC unveiled three new or modified T-50-size weapons: the Grom winged bomb, with or without rocket boost; the Kh-59MK2 stealth cruise missile; and a Kh-50UShKE variant with terminal infrared guidance. Nothing new was said about air-to-air missiles, and what has been shown so far indicates that the T-50’s air-combat armament comprises straightforward updates of in-service weapons.

This suggests almost conclusively that the T-50 is designed to kick the door down against surface targets (including ships) as much as to defeat fighters and threaten high-value air targets. As such, the fact there may not be a lot of T-50s around in the near future is less comforting than it might be.

Another major difference, confirmed by defense electronics conglomerate Kret (Concern Radio-Electronic Technology), is that the T-50 has a full-featured active, electronic warfare system; the philosophy behind the F-22 and F-35 was that stealth made this unnecessary. But together with the T-50’s speed and agility (and the absence of Western equivalents to Russian long-range surface-to-air missiles) it has apparently allowed the beam and rear-aspect radar cross-section specification to be relaxed.

That saves weight, and also makes it easier to use Sukhoi’s elegant thrust-vectoring system. The nozzles move only in one axis—but by separating the engines, rotating the vectoring planes inward, and blending aerodynamic and thrust-vector controls, Sukhoi obtains three-axis vectoring.