# Sukhoi Fighter Starting Flight Tests



## seesul (Jan 29, 2010)

The prototype of Sukhoi’s fifth-generation fighter, known as PAK-FA or T-50, has started taxi trials with an aim to make first flight early in January, industry sources say.

First taxi trials were successfully performed at Sukhoi’s Komsomol-on-Amur KnAAPO manufacturing facility, where prototypes are being built. The PAK-FA development is still classified, so images of the stealthy fighter are expected to appear only after the first flight.

Earlier this month deputy prime-minister Sergei Ivanov also confirmed to media that flight trials of the T-50 were expected to be underway by the beginning of January.
Sukhoi Fighter Starting Flight Tests | AVIATION WEEK


----------



## seesul (Jan 29, 2010)

Just read in the local news they succesfully tested it today during its very first flight.
Don´t have any link in English yet.


----------



## seesul (Jan 29, 2010)

Here it goes- first videos of the Russian Raptor

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5jTVMVylIw_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDPHAMC6WU_


----------



## imalko (Jan 29, 2010)

Roman you beet me to it. I was about to start a thread on the same topic...
Never mind, here are couple of photos of T-50 on take off to its maiden flight which took place today. As I understood it's planed that this aircraft should enter service by 2015.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPHzCqSJ5xY_


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 29, 2010)

Damn
we can't send Clint Eastwood again, they'll recognise him...

Edit: I know zippo about stealth but aren't those intakes a little boxy?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2010)

Great info.

Reminds me of the F-23.


----------



## Torch (Jan 29, 2010)

+1,,looks real original


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 29, 2010)

Convergent design evolution...Beautiful aircraft!


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2010)

She is a good looking machine, no question and as FJ said it has a similar look to the F23


----------



## imalko (Jan 29, 2010)

Official announcement from Sukhoi regarding today's test flight:



> Sukhoi LAUNCHES Flight tests Prospective COMPLEX Frontal Aviation (PAK FA)
> 
> Moscow, January 29. Today in Komsomolsk - on - Amur hosted the first flight of an experienced aviation complex of the fifth generation. The plane was piloted honored test pilot Sergei Bogdan Russia. Prototype PAK FA spent 47 minutes in the air and landed on the runway of the factory airfield.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

I think the top profile of the aircraft looks really interesting.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2010)

Combo of YF-23, F-22 and Su-27.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Combo of YF-23, F-22 and Su-27.



I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 29, 2010)

Spot on!


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 29, 2010)

A little bit surprised at what appears to be conventional exhaust nozzles...those articulated turkey feathers are a major concern for stealth design.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 29, 2010)

twoeagles said:


> A little bit surprised at what appears to be conventional exhaust nozzles...those articulated turkey feathers are a major concern for stealth design.


I'm not going to pretend I got those specifics but the back end did look a bit 'ordinary'
What about those intakes, are they a bit boxy or am I imagining it?

Anyone hazard a guess as to how able the electronics suite is likely to be?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2010)

Methinks that people in Lockheed-Martin are jumping with joy as we speak.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

I am thinking the same thing about the exhaust. Maybe it is just part of the prototype?


----------



## Waynos (Jan 29, 2010)

On the face of it yes, twoeagles, but the 3d TVC nozzle of the T-50 (as opposed top the 2d alternative favoured by the US) allows for the use of smaller tail surfaces which reduces signature. These are also prototype nozzles and further refinement is naturally in the pipelin.

The intake design is very close to the F-22 and is one area I might call copy, however as the simple box design of the F-22 has been proven to be the best for stealth and efficiency, why wouldn't you 

I think the top view looks quite dramatic.

Tomo, do you think Sukhoi don't know their stuff? I think that Lockheed will be impressed, and a little concerned. Remember, thuis is a first prototype. Look how feeble the YF-22 looked compared to the production version. It looked like a child had drawn it


----------



## The Basket (Jan 29, 2010)

Looks like a Draken from the top.

But very similar to. The F-23...talk about imitation being best form of flattery.

Maybe the Soviets sacrificied a little stealth for some real world cost saving or usability.

But it does look very cool.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 29, 2010)

I should also add that the F-22 makes no attempt at IR stealth from its nozzles, don't be fooled by the cool design. That is a product of the requirement to vector the thrust. It is still very hot gas coming out of the back


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 29, 2010)

The engines used are the same for the Su-35. Indigenous engines are still in development. I have read that the intro date is 2018+. Given the Su-27 development, I suspect that is conservative.

Also note that the inlets are in direct alignment with the engine fan blades. Not too stealthy now is it. Even with inlet diffusers.

She is a beauty. Does remind one of the F-23... which should have won on sheer beauty alone against the F-22.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 29, 2010)

Torch said:


> +1,,looks real original



Bingo.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 29, 2010)

Yea, I agree - but the plane is good looking.


----------



## imalko (Jan 30, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Methinks that people in Lockheed-Martin are jumping with joy as we speak.


 
Give the Russians some credit. There are similarities between this two aircraft, but T-50 is far from being simply a copy of YF-23.


----------



## imalko (Jan 30, 2010)

Here's one more interesting photo I found...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2010)

imalko said:


> Give the Russians some credit. There are similarities between this two aircraft, but T-50 is far from being simply a copy of YF-23.



 Never stated that T-50 was copy of YF-23... 
BTW, there are two (2) Russian jets in my posts, so I'm giving the credit .

The 'jump for joy' phrase was pointing out that LM is now more likely to receive more orders for their planes.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2010)

Don't think we is saying its a copy.

Don't think that at all.

But it does look very good...the below view looks Sweeeeeet.

But early doors as we say and let's see if the thing goes into production.


----------



## imalko (Jan 30, 2010)

No problem Tomo, I've simply misunderstood your post... 
I agree, it will be interesting to fallow the further development of this aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2010)

I think it is a great looking bird. I wonder what her capabilities are like. Good job to the Russians.

Give credit where it is due guys.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2010)

Judging from the latest Igor's photo, there are 4 'doors' in lower hull. It would be cool to know if the R-37s could be carried there.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 30, 2010)

Not trying to be argumentative (though people tell me its natural gift I have) but, supposing all goes to plan of course, I would think it would be more likely to sell better than the Lockheed alternative. If only because Sukhoi wont be squeamish about exports and they tend to be a lot cheaper. In this area the 'similarities' might well prove an asset.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 30, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Judging from the latest Igor's photo, there are 4 'doors' in lower hull. It would be cool to know if the R-37s could be carried there.



Yes, that does look like two internal tandem weapons bays doesn't it? If so, that would allow for a decent internal load without compromising the stealth. We obviously need, and crave, a closer look


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Not trying to be argumentative (though people tell me its natural gift I have) but, supposing all goes to plan of course, I would think it would be more likely to sell better than the Lockheed alternative. If only because Sukhoi wont be squeamish about exports and they tend to be a lot cheaper. In this area the 'similarities' might well prove an asset.



On a related note, the trio of current Western European fighters would be looked as obsolescent in many eyes now. Guess we could see new designs pretty soon, at least as Photoshop jobs.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 30, 2010)

lol yes, but on a positive note, this should do wonders for Eurofighter and Eurojets request for AESA and 3d TVC in the next lot of Typhoons (and as retrofit to existing frames), supported by the RAF and Luftwaffe as far as I know, but not YET by HMG.

In fact if these measures are not adopted as standard on every Typhoon built we deserve everything we get.

I think the 'Super Typhoon' is the most we can hope for, there will be no European manned 5 gen fighter imho. All energies are now focussed on making such as Neuron and Taranis into operational realities and buying as many F-35 as we can afford between us.

I think the 'full spec' Gripen NG is still competitive, Don't know what plans exist for the Rafale in the future


----------



## red admiral (Jan 30, 2010)

> In fact if these measures are not adopted as standard on every Typhoon built we deserve everything we get.



Money is always going to be the issue. It's quite easy to improve capability by retrofitting 3D thrust vectoring nozzles and CAESAR, both of them already exist and even give cost savings over the aircraft life. The problem comes when you realise there's no capital available to make the investment for these retrofits (at least currently). Retrofitting EJ270 engines would be nice as well but its unlikely to happen. It's unfortunate that the probable date for a Typhoon mid life update also coincides with the time when we're going to be spending obscene amounts of money buying F-35s.

5th generation European fighter designs already exist, they just don't have any chance of flying. Still, Typhoon and F-35 are going to be around for the next 20-30years and it's difficult to guess what the threat will be at that point. Most interest is going into UCAVs for increased capability and lower costs - there are a lot of issues with air-to-air combat and UCAVs but we don't really know what the level of technology will be in another 20-30years.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 30, 2010)

Must remember that the Su-27 protoype looked nothing like the operational fighter and that other Sukhoi superfighters like the Su-35 and Su-47 Berkut didnt go anywhere.

Looks more a proof of concept.


----------



## imalko (Jan 30, 2010)

Su-47 Berkut was build only as a experimental aircraft and technology demonstrator similar as the German-American X-31. It wasn't intended to enter series production.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 30, 2010)

.....and the cost for this aircraft will be?


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2010)

imalko said:


> Su-47 Berkut was build only as a experimental aircraft and technology demonstrator similar as the German-American X-31. It wasn't intended to enter series production.



Sukhoi did attempt to give the Su-47 a production role as the desgin was flying...came to nothing.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't want to sound complacent but Russia seems to have a long way to go. India who have a major share in this aircraft seem to be after some major changes already even wanting it to be a two seat aircraft. This throws up some question marks as to its systems as the only reason I can think of is pilot workload. 
Also this is the first public flight and Russia has a history of first class designs that don't make it into production in any numbers.
Finally Their budget is under huge pressure and these will not be cheap. US and European budgets are being cut but at least a number of the aircraft are in production.
I read the other day that the Russian Navy only added one surface warship in the last five years, even the RN did better than that


----------



## The Basket (Jan 31, 2010)

The Indian backing and money gives the T-50 a chance,

I wonder if a two seater will be less stealty...


----------



## Torch (Jan 31, 2010)

As far as i can see again, how many times have the USSR copied and modified an existing design, yeah looks nice, sure it will work pretty well but its nothing original. As for India being a part of it, it pisses me off, thousands of USA jobs have gone to India and they are in bed with Soviets, sorry BS! We are dropping our shorts and losing a ton of jobs to India, more BS!. Not trying to post political, just reality.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

Torch, we don't know for sure how original or not the T-50 is because all we have seen are pictures of the first prototype. The Russians have been eveloping plasma stealth for many years and one thing we are waiting for is to see if they have got it sufficiently developed to put it on this aircraft. If they answer is yes, then that is one very original and unique feature. But as I said, we don't know yet.

India - since they became independant from the UK in 1947 they have fiercely protected this independance and are unaligned. They are not in bed with anybody. Look at their Air Force in the past, Mig 21's and Sukhoi Flankeres operating alongside BAe Sea Harriers and Sepecat Jaguars = Good for them, I say.

Whatever is happening to US (and British!) jobs is not THEIR fault, its OURS. They do not have to feel beholden to America or anywhere else.

Addressing a point made earlier - The Indian input into this aircraft is mainly financial in return for a future order, changes requested by them should not be viewed as a failing of the design, every customer of every type makesw changes that suit their needs - hence the argument over the UK and Israel getting source codes for the F-35.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2010)

Torch said:


> As far as i can see again, how many times have the USSR copied and modified an existing design, yeah looks nice, sure it will work pretty well but its nothing original. As for India being a part of it, it pisses me off, thousands of USA jobs have gone to India and they are in bed with Soviets, sorry BS! We are dropping our shorts and losing a ton of jobs to India, more BS!. Not trying to post political, just reality.



If by jobs-going-overseas you mean 'outsourcing', well, the blame lies to the corporations, not to the Indians like. 
As for purchasing planes, are you sure US would sold them F-22?


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Addressing a point made earlier - The Indian input into this aircraft is mainly financial in return for a future order, changes requested by them should not be viewed as a failing of the design, every customer of every type makesw changes that suit their needs - hence the argument over the UK and Israel getting source codes for the F-35.


You certainly could be right but if we are honest, the jury is out until we know a little more. My thinking was along the lines that India must have a reason for making what is quite a significant change.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

You are certianly right that we don't yet know enough to call it accurately, however I note as well that India's Flankers are also two seaters while the majority of Flankers in front line service in the world are not, so I'm thinking there is a local operational reason for this. I admit I have not looked too deeply though.


----------



## Torch (Feb 1, 2010)

Points taken and understood, Found out my company is doing layoffs again, just was in a po'd state of mind. The process is your told your layed off, you have to train your replacements(Indian) or no severence or any bennies, then when they are up to speed it's ba bye...And Tomo your probably right bout selling F-22's. I also know they're looking to buy C-17s and the latest howitzer units from the US.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

Right You are Torch,I see where you were coming from because ....


> The process is your told your layed off, you have to train your replacements(Indian) or no severence or any bennies, then when they are up to speed it's ba by



Been there, done that. it is NOT a nice feeling.

BTW India has already ordered the Boeing P-8 (good choice) and is considering the F-18 (but I'm still holding out for the Typhoon on that one, MiG 35 has to be favourite though)


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

I wouldn't write off the F18 or Typhoon quite yet. India has often balanced its aircraft between East and West and right now the balance is towards Russia.
There are good political and defence reasons for not wanting to put too many eggs in one basket.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2010)

Torch said:


> As far as i can see again, how many times have the USSR copied and modified an existing design, yeah looks nice, sure it will work pretty well but its nothing original. As for India being a part of it, it pisses me off, thousands of USA jobs have gone to India and they are in bed with Soviets, sorry BS! We are dropping our shorts and losing a ton of jobs to India, more BS!. Not trying to post political, just reality.



You do know that the Soviet Union is gone right? You also know that India is a sovereign country and can buy from whoever they chose right?

Edit: I now have read the rest of the posts in the thread. Hope you don't get laid off and hope your day gets better!


----------



## red admiral (Feb 1, 2010)

Waynos said:


> BTW India has already ordered the Boeing P-8 (good choice) and is considering the F-18 (but I'm still holding out for the Typhoon on that one, MiG 35 has to be favourite though)



News from last week was that Typhoon was the current favourite. It really just comes down to cost/benefit; is the increased capability worth the extra unit cost?


----------



## Waynos (Feb 1, 2010)

I suppose it depends on India's long term aim. In the RAF/LW etc the Typhoon is directly comparable to the Sukhoi T-50 because it has to be.

If the Indians want it to be their medium fighter, fitting inh below the T-50, then maybe not?


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2010)

It wouldn't be the first time. India had/has both the Mig 23 and Jaguar in the strike role.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 2, 2010)

True,and that did seem an odd choice at the time.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Feb 3, 2010)

The cost of one airplane will be 100.000 000 dollars. This makes it cheaper than F-22. I really like how it looks, but engine exhausts could use some more work if we want a stealthy airplane. 

Here are the characteristics for both the T-50 and F-22:

T-50

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 22 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.2 m (46.5 ft)
Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft)
Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft)
Empty weight: 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)
Loaded weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb)
Useful load: 7,500 kg (combat load) (16,534 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 37,000 kg (81,570 lb)
Powerplant: 2× New unnamed engine by NPO Saturn of 175 KN each[38],[44]
Performance
Maximum speed: 2,600 km/h (Mach 2.45) (at 17,000 m altitude) (1,615 mph (at 45,000 ft altitude))
Cruise speed: 1,300 - 1,800 km/h (808 - 1,118 mph)
Range: 4,000-5,500 km (2,500-3,100 miles)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,616 ft)
Rate of climb: 350 m/sec (1184 ft/sec)
Wing loading: 330(normal) - 470(maximum) kg/m² (67(normal) - 96(maximum) lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.4
Armament
Guns: 1x30mm
Hardpoints: 10 internal, 6 external for R-74M Archer and R-77M Adder missiles
Avionics
N050(?)BRLS AFAR/AESA

F-22
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.90 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A?05.92 root, NACA 64A?04.29 tip
Empty weight: 43,430 lb (19,700 kg[3][178])
Loaded weight: 64,460 lb (29,300 kg[179])
Max takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans
Dry thrust: 29,300 lb[citation needed] (130 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 35,000+ lb (156+ kN) each
Fuel capacity: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally,[3][178] or 26,000 lb (11,900 kg) with two external fuel tanks[3][178]
Performance
Maximum speed:
At altitude: Mach 2.25 (1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h)[85]
Supercruise: Mach 1.82 (1,220 mph, 1,963 km/h)[85]
Range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 410 nmi[177] (471 mi, 759 km)
Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
Wing loading: 77 lb/ft² (375 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.26 with loaded weight 50% fuel)
Maximum g-load: -3.0/+9.0 g[85]
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing root, 480 rounds
Air to air loadout:
6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
Air to ground loadout:
2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder for self-protection, and one of the following:
2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs
Hardpoints: 4× under-wing pylon stations can be fitted to carry 600 US gallon drop tanks or weapons, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg).[180][181]
Avionics
RWR (Radar warning receiver): 250 nmi (463 km) or more[94]
Radar: 125-150 miles (200-240 km) against 1 m2 (11 sq ft) targets (estimated range)[92]


T-50s characteristics are preliminary so yet to see them for real  Can't wait to see the production model. Russians did it good.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 3, 2010)

you can't make stealthy exhausts on a fighter. F-117 and B-2 have them, F-22 and F-35 do not. The YF-23 tried stealthy exhausts but they were relatively inefficiant and impossible to vecor, and offered no protection at all from IR. You cannot disquise an afterburner, especially when detection systems like the Typhoon's PIRATE and missiles like the AIM-9X and ASRAAM can home in on the heat caused by skin friction at high speed.


----------



## imalko (Feb 4, 2010)

Few more photos I found on the internet. Not significant in the terms of aircraft performance, but I find interesting that this aircraft apparently has aft sliding cockpit canopy. Not a feature you can see often on modern fighters.


----------



## Glider (Feb 4, 2010)

Also the control surfaces seem to be on the small side


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2010)

Waynos said:


> you can't make stealthy exhausts on a fighter. F-117 and B-2 have them, F-22 and F-35 do not. The YF-23 tried stealthy exhausts but they were relatively inefficiant and impossible to vecor, and offered no protection at all from IR. You cannot disquise an afterburner, especially when detection systems like the Typhoon's PIRATE and missiles like the AIM-9X and ASRAAM can home in on the heat caused by skin friction at high speed.



AIM-9L was capable to home on aircraft from any angle (all-aspect, as they say), a quarter a century ago.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2010)

imalko said:


> Few more photos I found on the internet. Not significant in the terms of aircraft performance, but I find interesting that this aircraft apparently has aft sliding cockpit canopy. Not a feature you can see often on modern fighters.



I'd venture to sat that inner volume is huge, so the decent combat range weaponry carried will not dictate external carriage of items, which compromise low observability.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2010)

What I think is neat is that no matter how you look at it, it looks like a Sukhoi. Someone who has no clue what the aircraft is, will know that it is a Sukhoi.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 9, 2010)

Interesting pics from her first flight in AvWeek. But what is most noticeable are the stright engine intakes, forward canards, separated engine inlets from the fuselage, nose mounted IRST and wing accessories.

She's a beauty! But looks like an amalgamation of an F-15 wing, Su-27 planform, F-22'ish inlets with F-18 pedigree.

And that cockpit canopy is not too stealthy now is it.


----------



## imalko (Mar 8, 2010)

Some new photos found on the internet...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2010)

Fully movable vertical control surface(s)... Not too-often seen feature.
Looking at wing vertical surfaces sizes shapes of two Sukhois, seems that supercruise was the goal all along.


----------



## Butters (Mar 8, 2010)

Thanks. imalko!

I haven't seen the two lower pics. They're the first I've seen where you could make a good comparison of the size of the T-50 vis the Flanker. It's clearly not only much smaller in OA volume but also looks to be much cleaner aerodynamically, which considering that it will be pumping out as least as much dry thrust, suggests that it should be able to supercruise with ease.

With it's big AESA X-band radar, twin AESA L-band leading edge search radars, and an advanced IRST, it's looking to be a very formidable adversary for the JSF.

JL

BTW, somebody scoffed the engines from that Flanker

EDIT: This guy's site has some great pics and info on the T-50. And lotsa speculation, of course...

http://www.paralay.iboards.ru/viewforum.php?f=5


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2010)

T-50 features another novelty - movable LERX. Those could be seen at 1st 2nd picture from latest post by Imalko.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Fully movable vertical control surface(s)... Not too-often seen feature.
> .



Like the 1960's SR-71 perhaps (not fully articulated but damn close)

I'm waiting for vertical control surfaces that can articulate anhedral/dihedral to vary stealth effects. Say full 90 degrees (F-15) for maximum vertical control surface effect to 10-15 degree YF-23 maximum stealth mode. Would be a flight contro lprogrammer's mechanical system engineer's nightmare but certainly worth it.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 10, 2010)

or even the 1950's A-5 Vigilante Matt, I'm sure there are others too (TSR 2 was another) but it is still quite rare.

I don't think the engine intakes are as straight as they first seemed either. The head on view seems to show plenty of opportunity for the expected stealth considerations to be applied.

This is, of course, only a prototype too. The almost cartoony YF-22 was a very very different machine from the F-22A.


----------

