Russian fifth-generation fighter takes off - pictures

[MKSheppard]

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?

900 of them would be a good start to replace the 613 F-15s we have, and a good portion of the F-16 craphole fleet.

[Jim Raynor]

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!

This new plane is indeed gorgeous looking. Regarding its capabilities, there's an Indian news article (don't worry, it's written in English) that's being quoted all over various military forums.

Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”

[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]

A RCS of 0.5 square meters (if in fact that stat is accurate) is far less stealthy than the F-22 or F-35 (claimed to have RCSs in the ballparks of 0.001 and 0.0001 square meters respectively). A normal 4th Generation fighter has a RCS of 1 to 10 sq m, IIRC. The general rule of thumb is that reducing RCS by an order of magnitude should cut detection range in half. So 0.5 sq m isn't anywhere near "a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar." It's still very good, and I would probably put money on the finished Russian plane to beat out Eurofighter or the other advanced late-4th gen fighters. But if this statement is correct then all the people predicting armageddon because F-22 production got capped can breathe a little easier.

[Jim Raynor]

Now, I have to admit that I'm divided on the Raptor issue. On one hand, I love the plane's capability; it's wank made acceptable because it's completely real. That, and it's fully operational already, unlike it's alternative. On the other hand, the F-35 is supposed to be an incredibly capable plane as well, and valid arguments can be made that it's more versatile in ground attack while being cheaper.

I just hate the amount of bullshit arguments that went around in the mainstream public debates. Like boxing the F-22 into a pure air-to-air role when it can drop JDAMs and SDBs while supercruising and laughing at enemy air defenses. Or that it hasn't fought in Afghanistan or Iraq (conflicts in which major operations ended years before it became operational). On the other side, F-35 haters box the plane into the air-to-ground role and make it out to be an ungainly bomb truck, while Lockheed has defended its dogfighting capabilities and its stealth should make it second to the F-22 anyway.

The one thing that gets to me is that they're shutting down of the fully-operational F-22, a known quantity, in favor of the F-35 which still hasn't been fully tested and won't be in service for years. The US Military is putting nearly all of its eggs into the F-35, since in 20 years that single design will comprise most of the US fighter fleet. Why not get both fighters, increasing the F-22s to a less tiny number (that would deal with attrition over the years and stretch out the fleet's service life) while scaling back some of the thousands of F-35s? Meanwhile, new cost increases and development problems have been reported as recently as the last few weeks, which undercut the very purpose of the F-35 which is to be cheap. Can anyone tell me just what is the F-35's cost is up to these days, anyway?

[Vympel]

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

Well by the time its in service it'll be RVV-MD, I imagine.

This site says four each

It also says something about bays mounted outboard the engine intakes, but I don't see where they could be from the current shots.

With separated engines and a wide body, the T-50 designers have been able to install dual front and rear weapon bays. Added to this are side bays outboard of the engines. Flateric reports that each bay is designed to hold "at least two" missiles and that the outer bays are designed for short-range AAMs. The centerline bays could each hold two large weapons (like R-33s) or three-to-four of the newly announced RVV-MD. The latter has folding wings, as does the RVV-SD development of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer) family - the latter explaining why the underwing bays are small.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now, I have to admit that I'm divided on the Raptor issue. On one hand, I love the plane's capability; it's wank made acceptable because it's completely real. That, and it's fully operational already, unlike it's alternative. On the other hand, the F-35 is supposed to be an incredibly capable plane as well, and valid arguments can be made that it's more versatile in ground attack while being cheaper.

The current estimated costs of the F-35 are now only marginally cheaper then follow on F-22s, about 87 million vs. 110 million. Its will probably be MORE expensive by the time it hits production.

[Vympel]

ROFLMAO. So the mainstream news are carrying the story, and who do they get to comment? 'Independent military analyst' and professional no-nothing gain-saying fucktard, Pavel Felgenhauer!

"It's a humbug," said independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar. It takes new materials to build a fifth-generation fighter, and Russia lacks them."

What a shock. Every upgraded fighter Russia produced for over a decade, they had this assclown saying "they're just warmed over Soviet designs". New design comes out, "its a humbug". With some nonsense about "new materials".

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Now, I have to admit that I'm divided on the Raptor issue. On one hand, I love the plane's capability; it's wank made acceptable because it's completely real. That, and it's fully operational already, unlike it's alternative. On the other hand, the F-35 is supposed to be an incredibly capable plane as well, and valid arguments can be made that it's more versatile in ground attack while being cheaper.

The current estimated costs of the F-35 are now only marginally cheaper then follow on F-22s, about 87 million vs. 110 million. Its will probably be MORE expensive by the time it hits production.

Isn't the F35 much less maintenance intensive, though, making it cost much less over the aircraft's lifespan?

[Sea Skimmer]

Isn't the F35 much less maintenance intensive, though, making it cost much less over the aircraft's lifespan?

That entirely remains to be seen. They claimed theF-22 would take less maintenance then an F-15 and the F-15 would need less then theF-4 Phantom II and none of it was true. What’s more the F-35 is projected to be nearly as expensive as the F-22 and yet it has enormously higher production numbers, which is not a good sign at all. The 110 million price for the F-22 assumes we bought 100 more, for a total of 279 vs. over 2,000 F-35s.

[UnderAGreySky]

there's an Indian news article (don't worry, it's written in English) that's being quoted all over various military forums.

*cough*I'm Indian*cough*



Shep, I'll defer to you about the Post, I am not familiar with the paper. However, this is just one source of many.

Now I agree that the F-15 and others started out with low reliability rates - fairly normal, I'm sure. But material-wise and tool-wise, they weren't all that different from those they replaced, were they? It's maintaining the L/O stuff that is causing them to be called (unfairly) 'hangar queens'.

I also disagree with your statement on replacing the Eagle and Falcon *both*. Isn't the per-hour cost and turn-around time for the F-16 significantly less than the F-15? So what would the USAF use for interception, interdiction and CAS (unless they ordered a few hundred A-10s, which dammit, they should have!)?

However, Shep and Timothy: I withdraw some of my statements pending on whether you believe a senate report or not. Here's a link with some figures. The fly away cost is similar to the Eagle, the maintenance hours are low. The MTBF is not yet there but it will, in the future.

That said, lets see the Russians get anywhere near that. Stealth *is* expensive.

Vympel, are there any specs - size, at least - for the RVV-AE-PD?

[Edward Yee]

Vympel, that ventral photo is beautiful, even if I would have called it "a repainted Raptor" had I already not heard of the T-50.

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.

This is why I tend not to get involved or pick a side with regards to military hardware debates.

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

I believe that's "Pugachev's Cobra"?

[Razorgeist]

Very nice...wish I was more of an aviation buff though.

[Count Chocula]

Okay, I just saw Vympel's post of the new Russkie fighter's ventral aspect, and I'm less than impressed. The nose, landing gear and engine tunnels just scream "SU-27!," and the intake hoods, wings and tailfeathers shriek "I'm an F-22! Fear Me!"

Bah. Stealth on the cheap. Fail. It may be a handful against an F-16, F-15 or Eurofighter, but against an F-22 1-on-1 or even an F-35 head-on? With AWACS support? Don't make me laugh.

For my $0.02, the PAK-FA looks more like this:

Than this:


Don't get me wrong, it's a step in RCS reduction beyond the SU-27 and MiG-29, but there's no way it will evade American detection if it's deployed on a battlefield. Shit, from the looks and late 4th-gen RCS, we could probably engage it with standard AIM-120Cs, and F-22s or F-35s carrying AIM-120Ds could pot targets without ever entering their lethal envelope. That is, of course, if the rules of engagement allow for it.

To what Shep implied: we'd be better served with more F-22s that took advantage of the F-35 program's stealth material improvements, and fewer single-engine 4 1/2 gen bomb trucks. I've seen and heard the F-35 prototype on test flight in Texas, and it's not anywhere near the plane the F-22 is, in my opinion. It has the advantage of more recent EOTS and AN/AAQ-37DAS, plus a better helmet-mounted display and easier-to-maintain Stealth coatings, but those features are easily integrated into the existing F-22 airframes (OK the Stealth coatings would have to be new build)...if the will in DC is there. The F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in supercruise, maneuverability, side and rear aspect RCS; its sole advantage over the F-22 is its ability to carry 2,000 lb. bombs internally. Yes yes, the Marine version is V/STOL, but at a price in range that negates its stealth. They'd have to be staged from forward bases to actually use V/STOL, and the Mark One eyeball plus radio gives a 40+ mile alert radius for the enemy. Shit, the most successful Harrier (closest equivalent) usage was during the Falklands conflict, and those were ALL STOVL launches from ships. We have enough tankers and AWACS coverage that STOVL isn't really needed for the missions our air force or navy do, IMO. And on the attrition side, we need something to replace our aging F-15 fleet; the F-35 sure as shit won't fit the bill as an interceptor, and 145-180 F-22s is nowhere near what we'd need to replace the 400+ Eagles we have in service.

V/STOL aircraft are great for close air support, which is why our Marines have more Harriers than the AF, but their effectiveness is predicated on US possession of air superiority. We need more F-22s than we do F-35s, again IMO, and you can bet your sweet bippy there's a reason the Russians are developing Raptorski in favor of Lightning IIsky.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Are you kidding? Those Uglies are not even purpose built aircraft per se, but rather cobbled together scrap. The difference is so stark that I'm not even going to give a decent reply to the above.

[K. A. Pital]

Chocula, are you an idiot? The fighter is supposed to fight in the Russian IADS network, on thousands of km of friendly soil.

So what "american detection"? It's a machine that would heavily rely on environment. Of course, deploying it to Venezuela or the like would negate any advantages of homesoil, but to say that this machine is designed for the same tasks as US fighters is kinda silly.

And frankly, I don't know who offered the comments on the stealth, but the Russain AF said that the serial 5 gens should have an RCS of a 5-rouble coin (a circle about 2 cm across). So let's see if they can make it so.

[Count Chocula]

I'm thinking forward-deployed US forces against whoeverthehell you sold the PAK-FAs to; could be Venezuela, Cuba, China, whoever. We DON'T go for air superiority without AWACS, that's just not cricket from our perspective, being the short-attention-span, info-craving big-picture C4I anal retentive types that we are. Besides, our battle plans don't have us penetrating thousands of square kilometers of Russian airspace with air superiority fighters to do battle, so fuck that analogy. A better question would be, how effective is Russian ground defense radar and PAK-FA fighters at intercepting 20 B-2s at altitiude and 90+ B-1s on nap-of-the-earth thunder runs? Your stealth don't mean shit outside 20 miles' range if the hostiles are looking to avoid you.

To Fingolfin: here's a pic of an F-22's belly:


Now the Su-27:


OK, maybe not a kitbash. How about plagiarism via hardware? Happy now?

EDIT: changed "inside 20 miles" to "outside 20 miles" oops.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm thinking forward-deployed US forces against whoeverthehell you sold the PAK-FAs to; could be Venezuela, Cuba, China, whoever. We DON'T go for air superiority without AWACS, that's just not cricket from our perspective, being the short-attention-span, info-craving big-picture C4I anal retentive types that we are. Besides, our battle plans don't have us penetrating thousands of square kilometers of Russian airspace with air superiority fighters to do battle, so fuck that analogy. A better question would be, how effective is Russian ground defense radar and PAK-FA fighters at intercepting 20 B-2s at altitiude and 90+ B-1s on nap-of-the-earth thunder runs? Your stealth don't mean shit inside 20 miles' range if the hostiles are looking to avoid you.

What your rant above even fucking means is beyond me. It sounds more like tantrums. And Russia does have AWACs, and OTH radar etc. which has some effectiveness against stealth.

So if Stealth aircraft with SDBs aren't supposed to penetrate air space, what are they supposed to do? Sit around and place nice? The US has been experimenting with using stand off munitions for SEAD for a while, along with a new AA missile with dual use. It sounds like you don't even know what your own military does!

To Fingolfin: here's a pic of an F-22's belly:

OK, maybe not a kitbash. How about plagiarism via hardware? Happy now?

Like what? I don't get even what you are ranting about! It seems you are more like ranting that someone had the nerve to mimick the F-22 and you aren't happy about it.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm thinking forward-deployed US forces against whoeverthehell you sold the PAK-FAs to; could be Venezuela, Cuba, China, whoever.

It's extremely unlikely we would sell the PAK-FA to Venezuela or Cuba. China has the J-XX program. The only real PAK-FA customer so far is India. And that nation is large and would also hardly fight any wars outside it's homesoil.

Besides, our battle plans don't have us penetrating thousands of square kilometers of Russian airspace with air superiority fighters to do battle, so fuck that analogy.

So yeah, it means that the one-on-one characteristics of the F-22 do not do much weather anyhow - a large conflict with Russia will go nuclear, and you won't be doing it with fighters anyhow.

how effective is Russian ground defense radar and PAK-FA fighters at intercepting 20 B-2s at altitiude and 90+ B-1s on nap-of-the-earth thunder runs? Your stealth don't mean shit outside 20 miles' range if the hostiles are looking to avoid you.

With the PAK-FAs, they are sure as hell more effective than with fourth and modernized four-generation machines, nes pa?

[Count Chocula]

What your rant above even fucking means is beyond me. It sounds more like tantrums. And Russia does have AWACs, and OTH radar etc. which has some effectiveness against stealth.

So if Stealth aircraft with SDBs aren't supposed to penetrate air space, what are they supposed to do? Sit around and place nice?

Dude, F-22s and F-35s are tactical aircraft. The Stealth characteristics are designed into them to defeat hostile tactical aircraft and ground-based air defense systems. They're not strategic bombers. F-22s and F-35s aren't meant to drop SDBs or JDAMs on Moscow, for fuck's sake. Don't you get it? GlamourStas posited that the PAK-FAs are designed for defense of Mother Russia. Fine. OK. In that case, their natural opponents are our strategic bombers, not our fighters or tactical fighter/bombers.

Going back to the 1950s, the US NEVER had plans to deploy tactical aircraft into Soviet defenses; our strategy was to send BUFFs and missiles, which is what the Soviet fighters and SAMs were designed to defend against in case of war. NOT TACTICAL FIGHTERS. The only NATO tactical aircraft (F-104s IIRC) that were tasked to drop nukes on Moscow were to be sent on suicide runs, not hit and return strikes. Get a fucking clue.

[Count Chocula]

Stas: your government wouldn't sell PAKs to Venezuela? Come on...they're (for now and the near future, anyway) hostile towards the US, Socialist which meshes well with Russia's in-power Communist remnant, and sitting on an oil reserve which may equal Ghawar from recent stories. Ideology? Match. US as an opponent? Match. Fuckton of currency and ambition to become a world player? Match. If Venezuela asked, you'd sell them all the PAKs they could afford...and the advisors to maintain them. OK, China would just buy a dozen of your planes and then replicate them on the CNC mills Boeing sold them. Conceded.

In case of war, you're right, the balloon would go up and the WHORES WHORES WHORES shrooms would bloom. In that, hopefully NEVER to happen, environment, PAKs would still not be facing our fighters, but trying to shoot down our bombers. B-2s and B-1s don't have offensive radar fits as far as we know, and if they did, would sure as shit not be radiating on the way to give Potemkin Village a megaton parting gift. Your PAKs' effectiveness in intercepting our bombers, along with your surface search radar, would be the deternminants. PAKs would give off less backscatter from ground-based radar for our bombers' ECM to detect, but in this doomsday scenario the PAKs would also have their radar sets on and emitting. If you count on GCI, we get through; if you go active, we see you and avoid. Win-win for us. Bad overall, because megadeaths suck. In an air defense scenario, the PAKs would probably down more U.S. bombers than Flankers or Fulcrums would, which makes it a win for your side. And that's OK in my view; after all, two guys who are equally strong are less likely to bump fists with each other, because the odds for victory are less certain.

But if you're gonna copy our stuff, at least try to match us. Field an Su-47 Berkut, for God's sake:
Now THAT'S an opponent!

[loomer]

It's also an unworkable design thanks to the forward sweeping wings. Too much twisting on the wings at extremely high speeds - we don't know the exact figure at the moment, but it's a serious issue for a high-speed combat aircraft.

You may recall that America tried the same basic wing design with the X-29, and it didn't work well enough to be put into service for its high-maneuverability benefits - benefits we are now getting from thrust vectoring.

[Count Chocula]

Point to Loomer. Composites have gotten a lot stronger since the X-29, as has their lifespan, but vectoring can point on as fast or faster than aerodynamics.

The future for tactical combat seems to reside in the combination of stealth, advanced passive detection, and missile technology. Thrust vectoring is cool as shit, but I'm starting to hold the opinion that if you're at dogfight range, you've lost control of the fight. Low observable tech and extended-range missiles seem to be the future for tactical aircraft, with LO at first place on the list of requirements.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas: your government wouldn't sell PAKs to Venezuela? Come on...

Even selling modernized Su-33s to China raised problems of epic proportions. Contrary to what you think, even sharing late-1980s tech remains a problem for Russia. Because some of it is damn good, and yet-to-be replicated by less advanced nations.

In an air defense scenario, the PAKs would probably down more U.S. bombers than Flankers or Fulcrums would, which makes it a win for your side. And that's OK in my view; after all, two guys who are equally strong are less likely to bump fists with each other, because the odds for victory are less certain.

So that makes the plane well warranted. That was not what you said a few posts ago. You went on HAR HAR how the Raptors are still superior - how the fuck is that even relevant?

But if you're gonna copy our stuff, at least try to match us. Field an Su-47 Berkut, for God's sake

Why should we field that machine, which does not have VLO characteristics, forward-swept wings and an airframe that is very limiting on weapons that could be placed (no internal bay, overall far less weapons to boot)? Makes no sense.

The PAK is a huge machine with (a) obscenely powerful engines, and even more powerful in the future (b) internal weapons bay for many missiles (c) more endurance and speed than the Su-47, which was a tech demonstrator after the Navy killfucked the Su-27KM project.

Seriously, man.

[Count Chocula]

Stas:

The F-22 is a tactical fighter. In that role, I think HURR HURR that it would spank the PAK-FA, especially with AIM-120Ds. If what you say about foreign sales is true, though, the two would most likely not meet in the air. Given the missions, especially if the PAK is a Russia-only plane for defense, you'd be gunning for bombers and a PAK and F-22 would never go nose-to-nose. My first posting was based on my thinking in a "Spy vs. Spy" scenario (Google the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show for context) match against fighters. Strategic realities are, of course, different. Which is why I put forth bombers in my subsequent posts.

I put out the Su-47 pic because it looked kick-ass; I didn't know its tactical limitations. Maybe I should have posted an image of the XF-108 Firefox instead:

[K. A. Pital]

The F-22 is a tactical fighter. In that role, I think HURR HURR that it would spank the PAK-FA, especially with AIM-120Ds.

But the main way (so far) of the fifth generation, surprisingly, is to fight the fourth generation which is the most ubiqutous fighter in the world and will remain so for 20 something years, not to fight it's equals.

Essentially though, a match between the F-22 and a T-50 is a much more even contest (even if it's not 100% even) than that of an F-22 and any fourth-generation or modernized fourth-generation fighter - despite the unlikelihood of any "mano-a-mano" matches. And VLO is not the only characteristic of a fifth generation warplane; endurance, range, speed, and other factors do not just vanish, leaving only stealth. As far as now I see that the Russian fighters have a range advantage over the US ones; especially over the F-35. So when there is principal low observability against radars in two planes (even if slightly different), there can be much space for pilot skill do decide the outcome of a battle.

As you said, the US principal strength is the long history of it's airforce combined operations; the F-22s would not be operating alone and will always have AEW&C units, support units from fourth generation fighters and the like to cover their back.

As for AIM-120D, I do not see a principal difference between that missile and R-37 or extended range R-77. Care to enlighten me?

Oh, and the Firefox is even uglier than the Su-47, and it's four (?) intakes pose lots of problems, observability wise.

[UnderAGreySky]

It's extremely unlikely we would sell the PAK-FA to Venezuela or Cuba. China has the J-XX program. The only real PAK-FA customer so far is India. And that nation is large and would also hardly fight any wars outside it's homesoil.

And our version is going to be more of a bomb truck than a fighter. We're insisting on tandem configuration and we'll be filling it up with our own jammers and probably mission computers - maybe, like the Su-30MKI we'll ask for open architecture and hang Israeli stuff inside them bays. We've been going for twin-seaters ever since Kargil 1999 when the Mirage pilots found out that single-seaters trying to do precision bombing in confined air space at multi-thousand metres was asking for too much. Spoke to a guy who flew in the war then and he said it was close to being a nightmare trying to look at maps + EW + weapon system while flying with intention to bomb at 15K metres. Those mountain ranges are bloody high.