Russian fifth-generation fighter takes off - pictures

[UnderAGreySky]

I understand 3D TVC is useful in close combat; but the Raptor's nozzles are designed to minimise heat signature. This will be as useful as super manoeuvrability if not more because they will help it avoid detection and reduce vulnerability to IR-guided AAMs.

[Simon_Jester]

Those, and Soviet AWACs and high-mach MiG-31s.

Minor note: the singular of AWACS is AWACS; the last word in the acronym is "system."

If we want to get all nitpicky here, the acronym AWACS should not be used for anything else than the US designed AWACS variants, which are somehow related to the original USAF Airborne Warning and Control System. The generic acronym is AEW&C for Airborne Early Warning & Control.

I was only partly nitpicky, rather than all-nitpicky. As far as I'm concerned, AWACS is a term so ubiquitous that it becomes generic, like "bandaid" or "kleenex."

[Sea Skimmer]

I was only partly nitpicky, rather than all-nitpicky. As far as I'm concerned, AWACS is a term so ubiquitous that it becomes generic, like "bandaid" or "kleenex."

Problem what that is most radar planes don’t have a very serious control function in the first place. They have to downlink the radar data to ground stations to be able to control a large air battle. AEW is much better catchall term for airborne radar planes and helicopters.

[K. A. Pital]

I must also note that 3D thrust vectoring is apparently an engineering requirement for all Russian modernized 4 generation and 5 generation to be put into production - MiG-35, Su-35BM and the Sukhoi T-50 all share this design requirement. This is a step from 2D TW that has been used on export Su-30X families (MKI, MKK et cetera).

Oh, and by the way - "new generation strategic bomber" project went to Tupolev, as expected. Certainly not the brightest engineering minds, but quite certainly the most capable to bring a machine to production, regardless of how flawed it might be.

[Shroom Man 777]

Stas, what's exactly wrong with Tupolev?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I
Oh, and by the way - "new generation strategic bomber" project went to Tupolev, as expected. Certainly not the brightest engineering minds, but quite certainly the most capable to bring a machine to production, regardless of how flawed it might be.

More interesting question is how Russia is going to pay for new generation strategic bombers... No other nation besides Russia and of course the US no longer has true strategic bombing capability and the current Russian strategic bombers were designed during the Cold War. Most of them were even manufactured back then, although there have been a a few new production Tu-160s. Even China has no plans of getting strategic bombers, as far as I know, and their ability to pay for such extravaganza seems much better in the near future.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, what's exactly wrong with Tupolev?

More down-to-earth designs (read: mediocre designs) of Tupolev usually won against some more groundbreaking ideas (especially damaging for Myasischev, for example). Not that it's bad par se - the eventual pressure made Tupolev's people think of solving a problem with usual means... in unconventional ways (as an example one can bring the Tu-95 turboprops).

More interesting question is how Russia is going to pay for new generation strategic bombers... No other nation besides Russia and of course the US no longer has true strategic bombing capability and the current Russian strategic bombers were designed during the Cold War. Most of them were even manufactured back then, although there have been a a few new production Tu-160s. Even China has no plans of getting strategic bombers, as far as I know, and their ability to pay for such extravaganza seems much better in the near future.

You are mistaken about China - they continue to milk the Badger (as the H-6 family) for all it's worth. They introduced a new version with major modernizations just recently, which can well be called a "true" strategic bomber. And while China has nothing on, say, B-1 or Tu-160 like craft, they quite certainly have strageic bombers.

The new bomber... there are some models, but no one knows for certain. It can be a return to the idea of T-4MS or it can be an evolution of the Tu-160 into a more badass stealthy shit with even bigger bomb bays. Who knows.

As for how Russia will pay for it's development, who knows. *shrugs* Probably in the same way it managed to find money for the PAK FA somewhere.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You are mistaken about China - they continue to milk the Badger (as the H-6 family) for all it's worth. They introduced a new version with major modernizations just recently, which can well be called a "true" strategic bomber. And while China has nothing on, say, B-1 or Tu-160 like craft, they quite certainly have strageic bombers.

The new bomber... there are some models, but no one knows for certain. It can be a return to the idea of T-4MS or it can be an evolution of the Tu-160 into a more badass stealthy shit with even bigger bomb bays. Who knows.

As for how Russia will pay for it's development, who knows. *shrugs* Probably in the same way it managed to find money for the PAK FA somewhere.

The H-6K is quoted to have a combat radius of 3,000-3,500 km, which although fairly impressive for such an old airframe it is class, is clearly inferior to the B-1b and Tu-160 despite the fact that the H-6 is subsonic. The old-fashioned subsonic bomb trucks B-52H and Tu-95MS, which have an airframe design of comparable age, also have vastly better combat radii than the H-6K.

The H-6 definitely can be used for strategic bombing against neighboring countries but then again so can such long range strike fighters as F-15E and Su-34, which nobody calls strategic. Now, admittedly the H-6K in particular has a longer range than them, so perhaps it could be called a poor man's strategic bomber, but a true strategic bomber? Perhaps in the 1960s (its range is similar to the B-58), but not by the standards of this millennium.

As for the new Russian strategic bomber; the PAK FA is precisely the reason I find difficult to imagine where the money for yet another "next generation" combat aircraft project might come. It is conceivable that Russia could have enough money for purchasing a relevant number of PAK FAs, but getting an all-new strategic bomber on top of that seems like a stretch.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well..... Russia somehow managed to find money to pay for its new SSBN and SSNs so...

[Simon_Jester]

The H-6K is quoted to have a combat radius of 3,000-3,500 km, which although fairly impressive for such an old airframe it is class, is clearly inferior to the B-1b and Tu-160 despite the fact that the H-6 is subsonic. The old-fashioned subsonic bomb trucks B-52H and Tu-95MS, which have an airframe design of comparable age, also have vastly better combat radii than the H-6K.

The H-6 definitely can be used for strategic bombing against neighboring countries but then again so can such long range strike fighters as F-15E and Su-34, which nobody calls strategic. Now, admittedly the H-6K in particular has a longer range than them, so perhaps it could be called a poor man's strategic bomber, but a true strategic bomber? Perhaps in the 1960s (its range is similar to the B-58), but not by the standards of this millennium.

I think that has to be figured on a country-by-country basis. For the US, a "strategic bomber" has to be able to go anywhere from a very sparse network of airbases, because we might find ourselves at war anywhere. That requires long-intercontinental range.

If the Chinese don't feel that way, and aren't concerned about having to fight anyone but their close neighbors, then maybe their standards of "strategic bombing" depend more on other qualities (like payload), and less on range. The fact that the Americans (or, for that matter, the Russians) wouldn't accept it as a strategic bomber doesn't mean that it isn't one.

The US Navy doesn't use diesel-electric submarines either; that doesn't mean that diesel-electric boats aren't "real" attack subs.

[K. A. Pital]

H-6 and Su-34 have vastly different payloads. The payload is also a qualifier for strategic bombers.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think that has to be figured on a country-by-country basis. For the US, a "strategic bomber" has to be able to go anywhere from a very sparse network of airbases, because we might find ourselves at war anywhere. That requires long-intercontinental range.

If the Chinese don't feel that way, and aren't concerned about having to fight anyone but their close neighbors, then maybe their standards of "strategic bombing" depend more on other qualities (like payload), and less on range. The fact that the Americans (or, for that matter, the Russians) wouldn't accept it as a strategic bomber doesn't mean that it isn't one.

The US Navy doesn't use diesel-electric submarines either; that doesn't mean that diesel-electric boats aren't "real" attack subs.

Non-intercontinental medium bombers are usually called theater bombers and that's what the Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M have traditionally been considered to be. Now, some people do call tham strategic bombers, I admit that, but in my opinion it expands the definition of strategic bomber too much. As I wrote, long range strike fighters such as the F-15E and Su-34 can also be used for strategic missions if you have airbases close enough or tankers, but they are usually not called strategic bombers. During the cold war almost any aircraft which could carry strategic nuclear weapons could be called a "strategic bomber" in the nuclear role, but that definition is obsolescent, since delivery of strategic nukes is no longer the primary task of most bombers.

I actually would also say that traditional diesel-electric submarines are not "real" attack subs. Their submerged range with batteries is so low and the snorkels are much too easily detected that they are essentially defensive weapon systems. The expression "movable minefield" is often used when referring to them and it fits almost perfectly. AIP boats are a different matter, though, and they can be called real attack subs in the same way as SSNs, although still more limited in many ways. I do recognize that by convention all diesel-electric subs are still called attack subs and I do not seek to change that (it would be futile), but it does not make much sense in a modern context.

[Simon_Jester]

Non-intercontinental medium bombers are usually called theater bombers and that's what the Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M have traditionally been considered to be. Now, some people do call tham strategic bombers, I admit that, but in my opinion it expands the definition of strategic bomber too much. As I wrote, long range strike fighters such as the F-15E and Su-34 can also be used for strategic missions if you have airbases close enough or tankers, but they are usually not called strategic bombers. During the cold war almost any aircraft which could carry strategic nuclear weapons could be called a "strategic bomber" in the nuclear role, but that definition is obsolescent, since delivery of strategic nukes is no longer the primary task of most bombers.

I actually would also say that traditional diesel-electric submarines are not "real" attack subs. Their submerged range with batteries is so low and the snorkels are much too easily detected that they are essentially defensive weapon systems. The expression "movable minefield" is often used when referring to them and it fits almost perfectly. AIP boats are a different matter, though, and they can be called real attack subs in the same way as SSNs, although still more limited in many ways. I do recognize that by convention all diesel-electric subs are still called attack subs and I do not seek to change that (it would be futile), but it does not make much sense in a modern context.

OK, but this seems to be coming to the point where you're saying "even if half the world calls it X, it's not really X because it doesn't do all the things that my idea of X should be able to do."

I mean, if you want to say that the H-6 can't do a B-52's job, let alone a B-1 or B-2's, fine, that's very much true. But I'm not sure you can go and say "it isn't a strategic bomber because it isn't as long-ranged as my strategic bomber, and I would never consider buying a strategic bomber that short-ranged."

[Marcus Aurelius]

H-6 and Su-34 have vastly different payloads. The payload is also a qualifier for strategic bombers.

Yes, I realize that. It's part of the reason I was ready to call the H-6K a poor man's strategic bomber

In any case, that brings me nicely back to the original point; even if we conclude that the H6-K is a strategic bomber, it's still a modernization of a more than 50 year old medium theater bomber design and as such probably not very expensive. This is the Chinese idea of a reasonable (i.e. non-extravagant) strategic bomber for their needs. Russia already has a much more capable and more than 25 years younger bomber design in service and they think is has to be replaced with a "next generation" bomber. Now, if the new bomber turns out to be basically a thoroughly modernized Tu-160, I would kind of understand it, but I can't see how they would justify a completely new strategic bomber design. Another reasonable proposal would be a subsonic bomb truck and cruise missile carrier based on an airliner design to replace the aging Tu-95MS fleet (that is actually something that was some time ago proposed to replace the B-52H).

[Vympel]

*schwing!*

Definitely get a bit of a YF-23 vibe from this angle, even if its obviously much different from other angles.

[K. A. Pital]

Delivering goodness in 3... 2... 1...


To scale!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there a reason why the undercarriage isn't as smooth as the ones on the F-22 and F-35?

[JointStrikeFighter]

It's not finished yet.

[Shroom Man 777]

Seeing as how the X-35 demonstrator first flew in 2000 and to this day the F-35's still a work in progress, does this mean the PAK FA can still have all sorts of modifications done to it and the final product may end up being something that can very well match the F-22 or is at least far stealthier than what has just been shown?

[Kane Starkiller]

But how would significant modifications affect the date of entry into active service? YF-22 first flew in 1990 and it wasn't until 2005 they were introduced and they only received full operational capability status in 2007.
If they go back to the drawing board with PAK FA it could be 2025-2030 before they have any operational fighters.

[K. A. Pital]

YF-22 flew in 1990 and in absence of any initiative to continue that program without the USSR still existing, it's a miracle that program fucking survived to produce some 200 Raptors. America and/or it's satellites as a threat to Russia, on the other hand, never went anywhere.

The basic shape won't be changed, anyway (and there's little need to - actually even some USAF folks with F-22 insider knowledge said that hte frame itself has the potential for the same level of stealth as F-22 with correct RAM, etc. applied). The frame is very good.

Minor details do not require to redraft the entire plane. Once again, the outer smoothness of the hull, outer view of the intakes and radar reflections are very diverging things.

The F-117 looks as crap. But it's a VLO object. Give the engineers some more credit than you give your eye.

[Jim Raynor]

The basic shape won't be changed, anyway (and there's little need to - actually even some USAF folks with F-22 insider knowledge said that hte frame itself has the potential for the same level of stealth as F-22 with correct RAM, etc. applied). The frame is very good.

Can you link to this?

[K. A. Pital]

Can you link to this?

*digs browser hist*
No problem.

Skunk Works ... F-22 nose radome and X-35 flight certification

The guy in question

Opinion:

Pak-FA is a very impressive airplane.

It has all the design attributes one would expect of Generation 5. The size and fuel fraction places it squarely in the OCA role.

I expect it to be expensive when compared to Gen 4, so the question becomes "How many can Russia afford to buy for the VVS?"

Ref.post

[...] Is this your personal opinion or your Usaf colleagues share the same thoughts ?

Its unanimous. The guys who have viewed the pictures and youtube clip were all impressed. Many of us worked F-117, F-22 and F-35.

Ref.post

Don't sell Russia short. They have an extremely mature capability.
[...]
Pak-FA = metal marble (once they take all the flight test instrumentation off and apply the RAM coatings). Yes, IMO, its that good in the forward sector.

Ref.post

It depends on the integration of RAM and small details in the production configuration. Clearly, the first T-50 used some non-stealthy details from SU-30 (such as air data, total temperature, angle of attack, communications antennas, and inlet blow-in louvers) that I would expect to see removed entirely or replaced with stealthy details on the production airplane. Side sector RCS is always larger than front or rear sector, but side sector RCS will be many orders of magnitude less than SU-30. Patriot and MEADS detection ranges will be significantly reduced.

Ref.post

I would expect the airplanes 1-3 to be dedicated to proving flying qualities and propulsion performance, so they wouldn't be coated. Airplanes 4+ should have all the RAM coatings, bells and whistles.

Ref.post

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Hey Stas, quick question, do you have a diagram showing the airflow path to the engines? Seems that fellas in that forum you posted above are rumbling over that bit.

[K. A. Pital]

I do not care for forum rumblings, but there are quite many possibilities to shield an engine fan blades to actually start discussing them (e.g. Rafale), until we find solid info on how the Sukhoi engineers hid the blades. Quite certainly they did, they said so in the press release and it would've been fucking dumb not to do it.

So far there are possibilities:
1) airway bends (certainly present since chassis fold into airways, but amount unknown), realized on F-22, F-35, S-37, Rafale IIRC
2) RAM inside airway (consuming incoming and outcoming reflections) - realized on Tu-160 most notably, many other craft as well
3) blockers inside the airway (realized on B-1)

Any combination of methods is possible, though (3) is unlikely because it might impact performance *shrugs*

Drawing speculative pictures is pointless until we get a good glimpse - next MAKS maybe