Russian fifth-generation fighter takes off - pictures

[K. A. Pital]

RIA Novosti

(Newest image from Sukhoi - the RIAN article uses old image of another machine)

Russia's prototype fifth-generation fighter made a 45-minute maiden flight on Friday in the Far East, Russian television reported.

The flight had been postponed for 24 hours due to poor weather conditions in Komsomolsk-on-Amur where the prototype is being tested.

"The plane showed a superb performance. It has met all our expectations for the maiden flight," said Olga Kayukova, a spokesperson for the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer.

Russia has been developing its newest fighter since the 1990s. The country's top military officials earlier said the stealth fighter jet, with a range of up to 5,500 km, would enter service with the Air Force in 2015.

Russia's fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor, so far the world's only fifth-generation fighter, and the F-35 Lightning II.

The PAK FA is to be equipped with the most advanced technology and armed with next-generation high-precision weaponry.

India, which has a long history of defense relations with Moscow, remains Russia's sole partner in the project.

India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) was reported to be seeking a 25% share in design and development in the project. It has also sought to modify Sukhoi's single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter India's Air Force wants.

MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti)

More photos in Pilot's blog.

A photo with chassis retracted.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh my god. It is beautiful! Is that picture real? Because, holy shit, that's just a wonderful airframe. Those intake nozzles are HUEG, but wow, momma. The form is very similar to a Sukhoi, but also looks like it has 5th generationy angles and curves. Wonderful.

But I don't know about that picture without the landing gear. It looks shopped. Do aircraft retract landing gear THAT close to the ground?

[tim31]

Su-39? Does NATO still give reporting names/numbers? Or will we know it by its real name?

[K. A. Pital]

It's T-50 so far because it's a prototype. It will get a real name once a serial machine is produced.

[Twigler]

The BBC has a short clip of it flying. Very beautiful lines.

[Kane Starkiller]

Kind of looks like a crossbreed between YF-23 and F-22. Beautiful craft in any case.
I've got to admit I half expected the PAK FA will turn out to be yet another modification of Su-27.

[UnderAGreySky]

Looks beautiful, but I doubt its stealth capabilities. Initially I thought that the intakes were wider than the exhaust, but the clip shows otherwise. Which means they aren't S-shaped. Not good for reflectivity. Having exhausts wide apart helps when it sustains battle-damage, I guess.

Even though I think the original Sukhoi - the Flanker - is drop dead gorgeous, I have a soft spot for the Raptor. And I still think it looks prettier than the PAK-FA. But purty nevertheless!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Looks beautiful, but I doubt its stealth capabilities. Initially I thought that the intakes were wider than the exhaust, but the clip shows otherwise. Which means they aren't S-shaped. Not good for reflectivity. Having exhausts wide apart helps when it sustains battle-damage, I guess.

Even though I think the original Sukhoi - the Flanker - is drop dead gorgeous, I have a soft spot for the Raptor. And I still think it looks prettier than the PAK-FA. But purty nevertheless!

It's likely coated with Radar Absorbent material regardless. Most aircraft even the F-22 have RAM for that area.

[K. A. Pital]

I have a soft spot for the Raptor. And I still think it looks prettier than the PAK-FA.

Aesthetics are... a subjective field to say the least I always found the YF-23 more beautiful than the F-22.

I've got to admit I half expected the PAK FA will turn out to be yet another modification of Su-27.

Most of us here in Russia did, and frankly it would've been the greatest letdown. Well, there was some insider clues that it's going to be a real 5 gen. design, but an insider can't leak much more than "well, I'm working on this and it's a good plane" without hitting jail.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is it totally sure that the intakes AREN'T S-shaped at all? Perhaps the intakes are wide, but inside it narrows and makes an S-curve?

[Vympel]

STARSCREAM! TRANSFORM!

Looks awesome.

Hi-Res picture

[K. A. Pital]

*looks at photos* two bays
http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?a ... 1264751405

Any guesses as to how many R-77 can one fit inside?

[hongi]

I've always liked the aesthetic of Russian planes. They're just so purty.

[phred]

Very cute. I approve. From the front it looks almost like a F-22 with the Su-27 nose and cockpit tacked on.

I wonder if they'll be able to get it to do that 'standing on its tail' trick that the Su-37 can do.

[TimothyC]

Other than the tail, it really looks like a YF-23.

Maybe now we can get President ZerObama to increase F-22 procurement, but I trust him to get stuff right slightly less than the rest of you trusted President Bush.

[UnderAGreySky]

It's likely coated with Radar Absorbent material regardless. Most aircraft even the F-22 have RAM for that area.

How effective is RAM, anyway? I've heard that it can drop RCS by 50%, but that is not much considering the fourth-root relation between detection range and RCS. Granted, Shroomy is right when he says we don't know if they snake inside or not, but any snake inside a straight line would need three bends ( _/\_ ) versus two ( _/¯ ) for the Raptor.

Stas, if all the area is for weapons, I'd say 6 Adders or four and two Archers.

Still, happy to see a new plane in the fighter world.

Other than the tail, it really looks like a YF-23.

Maybe now we can get President ZerObama to increase F-22 procurement, but I trust him to get stuff right slightly less than the rest of you trusted President Bush.

And what would increasing the number of F-22s achieve? The same plane that needs 40 hours of maintenance per sortie and can't fly more than two hours before the risk of a significant failure? And this from a country that has been making stealth fighters for years. Lets see how Russia handles stealthiness. They don't have much money anyway; and if it is not stealthy it will be easily handled by whatever you currently have with the awesome networked airspace the USAF carries along with it.

[UnderAGreySky]

Another observation... the leading edge slats on the T-50 are pronounced. Wonder how that affects Stealth. The Raptor has them along the entire leading edge, which means it has to deal with only one joint parallel to the airflow, not two.

Also, I see the tell-tale hump of an IRST just off the cockpit. Good old Sukhoi, some traditions don't change

[TimothyC]

Other than the tail, it really looks like a YF-23.

Maybe now we can get President ZerObama to increase F-22 procurement, but I trust him to get stuff right slightly less than the rest of you trusted President Bush.

And what would increasing the number of F-22s achieve? The same plane that needs 40 hours of maintenance per sortie and can't fly more than two hours before the risk of a significant failure? And this from a country that has been making stealth fighters for years. Lets see how Russia handles stealthiness. They don't have much money anyway; and if it is not stealthy it will be easily handled by whatever you currently have with the awesome networked airspace the USAF carries along with it.

The F-22 is the US's high end air dominance fighter, just as the F-15 before it. It will be used for battlespace dominance, and in the longer term, for precision attack missions using SDBs. This combined with the fact that current Air Force Doctrine requires that we be able to match an adversary anywhere in the world, means that the current number isn't enough to maintain a force in the face of attrition over the next 30+ years (the ATF program's roots start in the early 80's).

Plus once you shut down a production line, it is a pain in the ass to get it back up and running, plus you run the risk that the people who worked on the project have gone on to other things, and you thus lose the institutional knowledge.

I would also like to see references to the maintenance requirements and the "Two hour limit" you mention.

[open_sketchbook]

Wow, that pilot sits right out there, doesn't he? Visibility must be pretty good; the cockpit is practically hanging off the aircraft.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh my god. It is beautiful! Is that picture real? Because, holy shit, that's just a wonderful airframe. Those intake nozzles are HUEG, but wow, momma. The form is very similar to a Sukhoi, but also looks like it has 5th generationy angles and curves. Wonderful.

But I don't know about that picture without the landing gear. It looks shopped. Do aircraft retract landing gear THAT close to the ground?

Oh yes they do, and I'd like to see this baby put through the same sort of paces, too.

[UnderAGreySky]

Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

Not to say it is a bad plane - when it works, it is spectacular.

Maybe the F-35 will make a decent interceptor, to field a high-low mix. I'm not just worried about the T-50.

Now, what China may put out, is a different story, but my gut feeling - no scientific backing, of course - says quantity, not quality.

Edit: Duchess, Thanks for an epic video. Love the Bucc!

[MKSheppard]

Because I'm awesome

[MKSheppard]

Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

Not to say it is a bad plane - when it works, it is spectacular.

So? This is the Washington Post, known for being incompetent on Defense Issues; plus, they don't mention that the same issue occured in the late 1970s, when the F-15A replaced the F-4 Phantom.

OH MY GOD, THE EAGLE COSTS X TIMES MORE TO FLY AN HOUR THAN THE PHANTOM!!!

Eventually, the costs for the F-15 came down as more experience was learned -- that's what a huge buy of shitloads of them -- not a mere 185 do.

[TimothyC]

Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

Not to say it is a bad plane - when it works, it is spectacular.

That article also makes the following claim:

Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.

The plane does not cost 350 mil a pop, unless one splits sunk costs into the producition run. The unit cost of the plane is just 120-140 mil. If we doubled the production run, the sunk costs would be cut in half per unit, briging the costs down to 240 million per plane, if you insist on using an outright fraudulent accounting scheme.

Got any other sources because this one has a bias.

[Simon_Jester]

The reason the cost is upsetting is not because of the cost-per-plane, but because of the net result. We have a super-interceptor, wonderful, but the question of whether we needed it to begin with is still there. Sure, we could have reduced the unit cost by 2/3 by building twice as many, but what would we do with twice as many of them? Not intercept twice as many nonexistent enemy fighters? Base them in the continental US to counter possible flying saucer attacks? The unit cost would go down, yes, but we'd still be spending more to get (for now) a similar net result (no combat deployment of the F-22 fleet).

Now, I'm not a total idiot; I understand that you need weapons designed to meet the enemies you might have, not necessarily the enemies you actually get. But like it or not, the Raptor is a counter to a threat that is much smaller than we thought it would be when we commissioned it. That makes it a reasonable target for at least some annoyance when it turns out to be an expensive countermeasure.