Military Review

Heir to Su-27: Air Forces Monthly about T-50

52

Despite the huge amount of speculation that surrounds the Sukhoi T-50 fighter, something can be said with certainty. This plane is guaranteed to cost more, it will appear in the troops late and will initially have more ambitious capabilities than originally planned. This is typical for all projects of the fourth and fifth generations of fighters, believes the Air Forces Monthly.

According to the former Air Force commander A. Zelin (currently advisor to the Minister of Defense), another 11 pre-production aircraft should join the tests before 2015. The fourth prototype should be completed by the end of 2012. 2), and state trials are scheduled to begin in 2013. Eight of the 14 aircraft will be pre-production variants, not prototypes.

Although the estimated date of entry into service is 2016-2017, this period is likely to "go right", given the recent Russian experience in the development of military aircraft. It remains unknown to what extent the Russian Air Force plans to use the Su-35S as a response to the delay in the development of the T-50, but almost 90 Su-35S should be purchased in 2012-2020. Although this aircraft was originally intended solely for export, the decision of the Air Force to purchase this aircraft will give them the opportunity to receive the urgently needed multi-functional fighter - provided that there are no more delays in this program. That is, it is not clear how much more the Air Force will keep in service with the "classic" Su-27 fighter. It is logical to assume that in the medium term, the Air Force plans in the field of fighter aviation will include T-50 (Su-XX), Su-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30SM, MiG-29SMT and MiG-31BM fighters, while the rates of cancellation of early modifications of the MiG-29 and Su-27 will be accelerated.

Similar to their American counterparts, albeit under more harsh conditions, the plans of the Russian Air Forces of the Soviet model for the transition to fifth-generation aviation turned out to be unrealizable from an economic point of view. Even though the United States Air Force initially planned to purchase 750 units of a promising tactical fighter (Advanced Tactical Fighter, F-22), and then this number was reduced to 195 units, the aircraft nevertheless went into series and entered service for combatant units.

History technical specifications

Attempts by the Sukhoi Design Bureau to make a PAK FA in accordance with the requirements of the Air Force are often dismissed by supporters of the “copying” theory - a term of the Russian expert community regarding similarities with the F-22 Raptor. When the general scheme of the aircraft was declassified, the PAK FA in some circles began to be called “raptorsky”, but “quiet Su-27” would have sounded better. The T-50 is the second, if not the third, attempt by the Russian Air Force to solve the problem of creating a fifth-generation fighter. If the terms of the TK F-22 are designated as the main likely opponent, he is still not alone, and this in turn does not mean that the task was to reproduce the Raptor. The F-35, like the Chinese J-20, was also taken into account in the Russian plan, along with fourth-generation European fighter jets.

The F-22 project is ten years older than the T-50. The United States Air Force technical assignment, which stated requirements for the replacement of the F-15 fighter, appeared at the end of 1981. The YF-22A was first introduced in 1990. Russia seems to be seeking to take into account various requirements for increasing survivability, but with less emphasis on the decline in ESR.

Moscow’s first response to Washington’s TK to the successor to the F-15 in terms of winning air supremacy can now be observed on the territory of the LII. Gromov. The development of Mikoyan's design bureau "1.44 product" is located at the design bureau of the design bureau, and the prototype was lifted into the air twice. The first flight was made in February 2000, almost ten years later than the originally scheduled dates. Developed at the beginning of the 1980's. in accordance with the requirements for the MFI (multifunctional fighter), this project was frozen due to the fall of the Berlin Wall (for example, note P. 2). Although Mikoyan Design Bureau continued to fight for the project during the 1990s, there was no necessary funding to complete the first stage of development at the level of the demonstrator, not to mention the creation of the aircraft in the serial "face".

Modern Russian Air Forces emerged in 1992 on the wreckage of Soviet aviation. To a large extent, they inherited the problems of their predecessor, and all of the 1990s. they were allocated insufficient funds for the cardinal solution of those issues that were undermining their combat capabilities. Russian aviation, both military and civil, all 1990-ies. was dying. Colonel-General Abrek Ayupov, who at that time held the post of deputy commander-in-chief of the Air Force for armaments, and is currently an advisor to the Sukhoi company, believes that this was a "period of stagnation." Rough numbers only mask the real situation in the Air Force in the first post-Soviet decade. When the total number of aircraft began to fall, and the first modifications of the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters became obsolete, there was nothing in nature that would even remotely resemble an acceptable and coherent program for the practical purchase of new or upgraded types of aircraft.

During the 1990-ies. You can count many points of the greatest fall of the Russian Air Force, but 1998 was the year, perhaps, the year when the bottom was reached - then the Air Force did not receive a single aircraft. In 1980-s. deliveries of new technology were calculated in hundreds of aircraft. And although throughout the 1990's. residual ambitions for the purchase of the fifth-generation fighter remained, and even some work was done, but insufficient funding was allocated for this.

In 2002, the Sukhoi Design Bureau of the T-50 won the proposals of the Mikoyan and Yakovlev Design Bureau in the competition of the Russian Air Force for a multi-role fighter, designed to change the Su-27. It is believed that the State Armaments Program for the period to 2020 provides for the purchase of 60 fighters. The technology demonstrator from Sukhoi Design Bureau with a backward-swept wing, which is known as C.37 and Su-47 “Berkut”, most likely began as a TsAGI research project, which in 1980's. was known as C.32. In some key areas, such as the increased use of composite materials and the internal suspension of weapons (a concession to reduce EPR), the demonstrator brought significant benefits, although he could hardly claim to be a replacement for the Su-27. The conceptual work on the next generation fighter project was also carried out in various Air Force laboratories, including the 2 Central Research Institute of Defense and GosNIIAS. 2-th Central Research Institute of Defense is one of the leading centers of competence in the field of EPR assessment and its reduction. In 2000-s. He was engaged in research on passive and active approaches to stealth technology applicable to combat aircraft.

Reduced visibility

The Sukhoi design bureau is notable for an attempt to significantly reduce the visibility of the aircraft in the radar range, which is characterized by various characteristics related to the second generation of low-incantation technology. The extent to which the aircraft will be equipped with passive and active systems reduce visibility, time will tell. However, in Russia, for a long time, there has been an interest in research in the field of a plasma cloud that absorbs radio signals. The project called "Marabou" is associated with a closed program to create a cruise missile 3-25 / X-80 "Meteorite". As part of this project, it was intended to use plasma to conceal the ventral air intake, which is a large reflector of radar radiation. The frontal and nasal sector of the T-50 airframe is clearly designed to significantly reduce the EPR. However, the same can not be said about the back of the prototype fighter. The design of the rear fuselage and engine nacelles seems to have less designer attention to reducing visibility in the radar range. However, it should be borne in mind that the T-50 is a prototype, and in the past, the Sukhoi Design Bureau, if necessary, did not stop in front of significant rework of the project. The most striking example is the almost completely redesigned T-10 (Su-27) fighter, when serious (and in fact - fatal) flaws were discovered during the initial phase of flight tests. As a result of redesign, controllability and flight characteristics improved significantly and led to the first production fighter, and ultimately to the Su-35C. Although it is difficult to assume that in the case of the T-50 there will be a similar radical reworking of the project, it is not possible to exclude certain improvements to the project.

The third prototype of the T-50-3 is already distinguished by separate airframe improvements, although the basic elements of the avionics are still to be established. The fourth prototype should join the tests at the end of 2012. It is said that the aircraft will have serious changes in the glider in order to correct the deficiencies found on the first prototype of the T-50-1. The first prototype was not observed from the time of flight tests in August 2011.

Although the Russian military and the aircraft developer remain silent even with respect to the basic characteristics of the T-50, the project clearly belongs to the same class as the Su-27. Interestingly, initially the program to develop the heir to the MFI from the Mikoyan design bureau at the end of the 1990s. some authoritative experts associated with the TTZ to the Light Front-line Fighter (LFI). A hot debate broke out among the Russian expert community as to which category the new aircraft would be in, and those who were in favor of a heavy fighter came out victorious. But both of the leading fighter developers are likely to continue to consider the possibility of a intermediate-class fighter between light and medium. Representatives of the Russian industry have recently admitted that this direction is of interest, although the amount of funds and production capabilities have left it in the field of good intentions.

The third prototype of the T-50-3 was the first on which the on-board equipment was tested. It is equipped with a radar with AFAR developed by JSC "Research Institute of Instrument", and the rest of the radar have a different aperture. In addition to the main X-band H-036 radar, it is planned to install two additional X-band radars on the aircraft (front and two side-mounted radars, that is, a circuit originally developed for MFIs (and F-22)). The MFI should also have been equipped with a smaller rear-view radar, although it is not currently possible that a similar scheme will be used on the PAK FA. L-band radars are also likely to be installed in the slat.

In addition to the radar, the aircraft will be equipped with an optical-location system. On the T-50-2, an infrared optical-location system was installed at a traditional location, and what was designated by some experts as a system to counter and direct infrared interference was behind the pilot's cabin. Additional electro-optical devices, including at least two ultraviolet "windows", are considered as equipment of a production aircraft. A complete optical-electronic complex can be tested on T-50-3.

Along with gaining experience in the use of composite materials in a glider, the C.32 / C.37 "Berkut" gave the Sukhoi Design Bureau the first experience in the design of internal weapon compartments. Although the internal suspension of weapons provides obvious advantages in terms of reducing EPR, it also creates many problems. Among them are the interaction with the environment and temperature, installation and removal of weapons, as well as the issues of cleaning these volumes. Most likely, the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the Air Force research organizations investigated the internal suspension of the weapon and its use using C.37.

Used weapons

Scheme T-50 includes two compartments of the armament of tandem layout in the space formed by the engines, as well as compartments for one type weaponsthat are behind the inner edge of the front horizontal tail. Photographs of the T-50 weapons bays can be made during the tests, but it is unlikely that they will appear in the West.

A wide range of modernized and new air-to-air missiles is being developed for arming the aircraft, and in some cases the work has been re-initiated. In Soviet times, the development of a new aircraft was often accompanied by simultaneous work on new air-to-air missiles. Many of the systems that could potentially be used with T-50, have been developed for MFIs.

Being a reflection of the problems faced by the aircraft designers, the development of new aviation weapons in the 1990s. practically ceased - work on the armament complex for the MFIs was put on the shelf, and programs for upgrading existing systems included missiles with active homing P-77, with IR-GOS P-73, and also upgrading the long-range missile P-33 (P- 37) were almost suspended. In the middle of 2000's. increased activity was observed. The long-established rocket modernization program P-77 (“the 170-1 product”) was finally approved by the government, or even re-initiated in 2003.

At least ten prototypes of the upgraded version of the P-77 were released, and the practical tests were started several years late, as it is believed, due to the lack of the required platform. The 170-1 product is currently in production for the Russian Air Force and is analogous to the RVV-SD export version. But in its current form, 170-1 is currently not planned to arm the PAK FA.

The best insight into the weapons planned for the PAK FA is an article by Gennady Sokolovsky, former CEO of Vympel and one of the leading developers of Russian aircraft weapons for a whole generation, published in 2006. A number of programs are mentioned, including , medium, long and ultra-range, which is planned to adopt the Russian Air Force.

Further upgrading of the P-77 family of missiles may be intended for the PAK FA: the 180 / K-77М and 180PD products. Official representatives of Vympel confirm the existence of developments for the further modernization of the rocket, not counting the 170-1 product, but are reluctant to talk about details. Both of these versions of the P-77 rocket will presumably be equipped with lattice rudders instead of the usual cruciform vertical shortened rudders.

In general terms, the Sokolovsky article talks about a new medium-range missile, and it may be related to the “270 product” index. This designation appears in the document relating to the e-T-50 ejection seat system. The document also mentions the “810 product,” the extended-range missile for the PAK FA.

During Soviet times, the task of super-long interception was assigned to a MiG-31 fighter armed with P-33 missiles, and then developed by Su-27М / MFIs. These aircraft also had the ability to use ultra-long air-to-air missiles, and the PAK FA follows this trend. It seems likely that before the “810 product” the aircraft was equipped with a “610M product”. This rocket is supposedly a kind of RVV-BD rocket, shown at the MAKS-2011 cabin.

Russia continues to lag behind in the field of infrared vision technology, and what specific type of short-range missile will be used with the PAK FA remains unknown. Today, Vympel representatives assume that the company will focus on further refinement of the P-73 rocket design, which means that the K-30 maneuvering melee combat project related to 1980 has been closed. The “760 product”, which is a variant of the P-73, can become a short-range “first stage” missile for the PAK FA.

The development of air-to-ground weapons is also underway. The X-38 modular missile, the supposed heir to the X-25 family, is in development. The tail and main rudders of the rocket are made folding for the possibility of internal suspension, in addition there are several targeting options. In addition to optical guidance, it is proposed to install a semi-active laser seeker, radar seeker, as well as a version with guidance using the GLONASS system. The successful separation of mass-dimensional missile models was reportedly carried out from the Su-34 fighter-bomber.

The PAK FA also gave a new life to the relatively outdated X-58 rocket in the form of the X-XNUMHUSHK. This modernized version of the X-58 is distinguished by a passive high-frequency homing system and, apparently, is intended to add a long-range anti-radar weapons (PRR) to the arsenal of the aircraft. The choice in favor of the X-58, and not a rocket with a ramjet X-58, can be explained by the size of the weapon compartment. The X-31PM rocket is an upgrade of the basic X-31 with a passive gos extended by the fuselage due to the presence of an additional solid propellant accelerator and fuselage-insert compartment. The length of X-31P is 31 m (X-4,7PM-31 m). X-XNUMHUSHK has a length of 5,3 m. Smaller PI X-58P can also be used from an aircraft, although the status of its development has not been explicitly voiced. A wide range of guided bombs will also become part of the arsenal of the new fighter.

Program risks

The program to create a PAK FA fighter has made much greater progress compared with its predecessor, which led the Mikoyan Design Bureau. She also has financial support from India, which also strengthens her position. Sustainable and sufficient funding for T-50 should remain a priority if the program claims high chances for its implementation. Until now, the Ministry of Defense and the government have failed to fully finance arms purchases, but there is reason to believe that the situation with the LG-2020 will be different, although it is still too early to give any definitive answers.

Being a very ambitious program, T-50 is still not at all what was planned in 1980. in the form of MFIs, but at the same time it has the advantages of significant developments that were used in the implementation of the program. Engine development can be a significant technical risk.

The requirements for the development and integration of radar and avionics are very high, and in the past this area has caused considerable trouble. The integration of avionics in the cockpit of the Su-27M fighter (Su-35 first with that name) was criticized by test pilots, who believed that it only left the choice between controlling the aircraft and conducting combat, but making it impossible to combine both of these functions.

Apparently, the production of T-50 will be carried out at KnAAPO, in the same place where Su-35С is produced. Serial production has already become difficult for other enterprises of the Sukhoi holding, especially NAPO, where the Su-27 shock version is produced in the form of the Su-34 front-line bomber.

T-50 has the potential to become a worthy successor to the Su-27, provided that the development program will have the necessary funding, along with the creation of weapons and avionics systems. But the T-50 already carries the features of a very advanced combat aircraft, which will allow Russia, India and other export customers to get into service a very advanced fighter over the coming decades.

Original publication: Air Forces Monthly, August 2012 - Douglas Barrie
Author:
Originator:
http://periscope2.ru
52 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. alexng
    alexng 17 December 2012 11: 38
    +10
    Aw! Specialists! Need your feedback on this topic. hi I do not get stuck, as an amateur in this matter, but the topic is interesting.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 17 December 2012 11: 44
      +10
      We should not have expected the laudatory speeches from the Western magazine, wait and see what kind of aircraft it turns out ...
    2. wow
      wow 17 December 2012 12: 35
      +13
      It will certainly cost more, it's a fact! As in any business, if you planned something, calculated and made a decision, then, in the end, multiply by 3. But what is worse than the "planned" he will not be this - a fact! I served in the Air Force, in the IAS, for more than 25 years, a new AT constantly came to us (every 5-7 years), and so it was constantly "refined". There were a lot of bulletins on the revision of this AT from the MAP following the results of the leader operation of this AT. And the "combat" life of aircraft constantly accumulated problems that influenced the safety of flights and the effectiveness of its combat use. Now (I take off my hat) Sukhoi Design Bureau is in no hurry - and it is doing the right thing. As the Air Force used to say in our country, "it is better to go over than not to go through."
    3. VAF
      VAF 17 December 2012 14: 59
      +9
      Quote: alexneg
      Need your feedback on this topic.


      Alexander, I welcome you +! Article ... SHIT! AUTHOR MINUS!

      If you don’t know, then do not write anything at all!

      Did the author see the food? Let it look!
      September 2012!

      1. sashka
        sashka 20 December 2012 10: 06
        +1
        Quote: vaf
        Did the author see the food? Let it look!
        September 2012!

        The photo doesn’t change the NATURITY .. I’m sorry ... Beautiful. (No arguing) Will they order music ..? Or again billions for rings .. Brotherhood ... I wonder Whose ... I DO NOT BELIEVE.
  2. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 17 December 2012 11: 38
    -1
    I will express the most seditious and heretical (for the open spaces and pages of our site) thought:
    In general, was it necessary to rivet this T-50, spend far from small funds, efforts and time on it? .. Wasn't it more practical to continue work on fine-tuning the machines of the Su-37 line? .. And wouldn't our new fighter turn out to be the fifth generation as a kind of analogue of the advertised, but absolutely useless "Sukhoi-Superjet-100"? .. However, the last kag-bae is unlikely - a buyer for it has already been found. Our Air Force ...
    Anyway, all this fuss with the so-called. The "fifth generation" (as a global phenomenon) reminds me more of a kind of marketing campaign than a real desire to put into operation a really reliable and really effective machine that actually works in a real war ...
    1. Sergh
      Sergh 17 December 2012 12: 28
      +2
      Quote: Chicot 1
      But in general, was it necessary to rivet this T-50, to spend far from it on small funds

      Well, the question is certainly not a bad one, but the fact is that the military people around the world have already swallowed the bait of the "fifth generation" and are increasingly beginning to demand such a toy for themselves. So what to make a "toy" will have to, and then even though the Indians, even if Hugo (if he buys) hang it even on the tree. And the sooner we concoct it (T-50), the more we will be "held in high esteem", and it doesn’t interfere with having money, and someone where will attach it, is the fifth thing!
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 17 December 2012 12: 53
        -7
        You are certainly right, dear Sergh... But in the war they do not boast of devices. They kill (or die from them). And whose device makes it more effective, then he won ...
        And everything else - "honor" there, "respect" or "respect" - is a verbal husk ...

        As a result, our (Indian or Venezuelan does not count!) Air Force will receive a car that will be more technically difficult (both in production and in service!), More expensive, more capricious (like any "newborn"). But in terms of its real (and not theoretical, paper and advertised!) Efficiency, it will be on a par with the same machines of the so-called. "fourth generation" (studied, mastered both in production and in the troops standing in series and brought to a certain degree of perfection, that is, more reliable and less capricious) ...
        So what is our real win? .. Only "honor", "respect" and long speeches of sickly Hugo with thanks? .. Not a lot, however ...
        1. urzul
          urzul 17 December 2012 13: 02
          +18
          But in terms of its real (and not theoretical, paper and advertised!) Efficiency, it will be on a par with the same machines of the so-called. "fourth generation" (studied, mastered both in production and the troops standing in the series) ...
          I’m curious about where you got the data from !? Or so thinking out loud?
          As a result, our (Indian or Venezuelan does not count!) Air Force will receive a car that will be more technically difficult (both in production and in service!), More expensive, more capricious (like any "newborn")
          Well, with such reasoning, one could stop at the weapon depicted in the photo:
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 17 December 2012 13: 25
            +15
            In the photo, a promising weapon of the 4th world! soldier It's time for them to stock up ....
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 18 December 2012 11: 34
              +1
              Mounting will be more promising for the second generation after that ...
              1. engineer74
                engineer74 18 December 2012 20: 41
                +1
                We will not have experience in operating a new generation combat system (mount); development will hit the budget. Plus the lack of infrastructure and trained personnel. But you are absolutely right, it is necessary to work in this direction. bully
          2. Sergh
            Sergh 17 December 2012 13: 31
            +4
            Quote: Chicot 1
            So what is our real win? .. Only "honor", "respect" and long speeches of sickly Hugo with thanks

            You are respected from the part in something right. I understand that we have a lot of pensioners and children requiring urgent surgeries, and just proper treatment. Other social good for the population in the sense of providing and cheap food, BUT we do not forget to repeat that the world is still not perfect and a vivid example of a well-fed and well-off Libya and with the subsequent continuation, where it is not an idle question that arises, but at least protect what is, what has been done today. What will we do if the enemy is arming himself to the teeth? And we went through this in 41-45 years, when the equipment lagged behind, the military thought became dull and we had to go cavalry to tanks ... maybe it’s enough to repeat mistakes. Military progress is always in close contact with civilian progress. Lagging behind like death, this is no longer a fairy tale, but a sad reality!
            1. Chicot 1
              Chicot 1 17 December 2012 13: 58
              -4
              The experience of operating the world's first fifth-generation fighter (venerable "f-two-two") showed that he was utter crap. I'm afraid that the whole concept of this very "fifth generation fighter" is also crap. So, should we step on it? .. Or are we where we are, but we don't have our own head on our shoulders? ..
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 17 December 2012 14: 11
                +10
                The non-serial nuclear submarine 661 of the "Goldfish" project was also not very successful as a warship. Here are just the equipment and systems worked out on it later became the basis for the creation of the 2nd generation of nuclear-powered ships (which proved to be very successful)
              2. patsantre
                patsantre 17 December 2012 16: 48
                +2
                And why did he suddenly because the little screen fluttered? Yes, the fighters are broken, and this applies to all aircraft, and not to the F-22. And there are a lot of new technologies in this aircraft, and it’s quite logical that there will be problems with it. If you judge how you , then in general it is necessary to hammer on the development of a new generation of technology and wait for the enemy to develop 8 generations and spread our 4 +, which is simpler, more developed, cheaper and blah blah.
                1. patsantre
                  patsantre 17 December 2012 17: 10
                  +1
                  And why did he suddenly shit? *
            2. arnulla
              arnulla 17 December 2012 15: 51
              +4
              Cavalry did not go to tanks. Do not repeat liberal myths ...
              1. Sergh
                Sergh 17 December 2012 19: 48
                +2
                Quote: arnulla
                Cavalry did not go to tanks. Do not repeat liberal myths ...

                Oh, and even in this case I don’t want to argue with you. Read documentary or, at best, dock. movies 41-45 go watch.

                Military Log 4 TG (Göpner)
                Record from 16.11.41

                ".. It was hard to believe that the enemy intended to attack us on this wide field, intended only for parades ... But then three ranks of horsemen moved towards us. Through the space illuminated by the winter sun, riders with shining blades rushed to attack, bending down to the necks of the horses .. The first shells exploded in the midst of the attackers .. (skip naturalism) The few surviving horsemen were finished off by artillery and machine gun fire.
                And now a second wave of horsemen rushes from the forest to attack. It is impossible to imagine that after the death of the first squadrons, the nightmare performance will repeat itself ... However, the terrain has already been targeted, and the death of the second wave of cavalry happened even faster than the first. "

                The scene is the Western Front. The commander is Zhukov.

                17th and 44th cavalry divisions, arrived from Central Asia.

                Yes, a literary gift to German generals is no stranger (tea is not three classes of central schoolchildren), but it does not get any easier on this ..

                The more I immerse myself in the history of the war, the more I become convinced that it will never be completely open: One is not profitable, but the second does not want to know ...

                I can only add, it suddenly turns out later that 17 44 cavalry divisions did not exist at all, but there was a mountain cavalry and a separate squadron of chemical protection. These are the grouts of history today.
                1. Sergh
                  Sergh 17 December 2012 22: 26
                  0
                  Quote: arnulla
                  Cavalry did not go to tanks. Do not repeat liberal myths.

                  From the ninth minute, slow down.

                2. ikrut
                  ikrut 17 December 2012 23: 42
                  +1
                  At the beginning of World War II, according to the media, the Poles attacked German tanks in horse formation. I even happened to see Polish pictures of Germans. Leaning out of the tanks, they raise their hands, fearing the cavalry attack of the Poles :))) And there are even such stories. I am sure there are some (especially among the "Pepsi generation") who believe this kind of nonsense. Although the very fact of Polish horse attacks on German tanks took place. Since the Polish propaganda of the time claimed that most of the German tanks were made of plywood and cardboard.
          3. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 17 December 2012 13: 52
            -7
            Do not exaggerate, dear urzul. This is due to the image of the stone ax of the late Neolithic era that you provided ...
            As for the rest ... Yes. Reasoning. For what data can there be about a car that is not that it did not participate in hostilities, it has not even entered the series yet ... So all data about it can only be exclusively (and a priori !!!) declared (that is, paper , theoretical and advertising). And you shouldn't have any special illusions here. Suffice it to recall "f-two-two" ...
            But real combat effectiveness very often diverges from the numbers announced by the manufacturers. After all, it’s smooth only on paper. Well, in advertising too ...
            1. Joker
              Joker 17 December 2012 15: 22
              +8
              So is it worth us to step into it? .. Or are we wherever and everything, but there is no head on our shoulders? ..

              T-50 is appropriate to compare with F-22 only in terms of 5-x generations, and so the concept is completely different. T-50 is essentially a redesigned SU-27 concept using the latest technology. This is an over-maneuverable invisible fighter, but in the first place we have maneuverability, and amers have invisibility. So the approaches and application will be completely different. This fighter is needed because many elements in it were created from scratch, and even if, God forbid, the T-50 is unsuccessful, many of its successful components can be used to create other aircraft or to modernize old ones. So the creation of the T-50 is a necessity, and not a pursuit of someone, new ideas are needed.
          4. Bashkaus
            Bashkaus 17 December 2012 18: 47
            +1
            Listen, but if you think for a second. What difference does it make for breaking your skull with two or three strokes of the ax shown above in the photo, or scattering the pieces of your body hundreds of meters from a half-ton bomb? The result is equal to one - death.
            Can toga to hammer on arms, and the released resources to spend on satisfaction and a standard of living? )))
            If there is no difference between how a person is killed, but there is a statement of death. then why pay more?
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 17 December 2012 19: 38
              +1
              To think, you need to have a brain. Desirable not obscured by pseudo-religious beliefs and thirst for profit.
            2. bddrus
              bddrus 18 December 2012 07: 51
              -1
              I am also amazed how much money and effort mankind spends on means of its destruction, on armies, tanks, ships and planes
        2. patsantre
          patsantre 17 December 2012 16: 53
          0
          Quote: Chicot 1
          But in terms of its real (and not theoretical, paper and advertised!) Efficiency, it will be on a par with the same machines of the so-called. "fourth generation"


          Why suddenly? You contradict yourself. If this machine is a new generation, then by definition it is more efficient and more technologically advanced than the previous one, therefore it is as follows. If it were at the same level of efficiency, it would be the same 4th generation.
          Or do you think smart and knowledgeable people will develop and purchase a more expensive and complex aircraft that will not be more effective than what is?
    2. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 17 December 2012 14: 50
      +4
      Quote: Chicot 1
      But in general, did you need to rivet this T-50, spend far from it on small means, effort and time? ..

      Of course it is necessary, this is the development of technologies, new productions, a new level of setting goals and their implementation, the probability of using this machine in a war with a less equal opponent is certainly not high, but if this machine does not exist, then the war will be closer
    3. leon-iv
      leon-iv 17 December 2012 15: 37
      0
      Here is what PR is for the broad masses of people who are watching the time program.
      For those who are in the topic, this is a set of technical characteristics in the technical specifications that are necessary for our military to complete tasks.
      Moreover, the T-50 is so far only a platform. The T-10 (which became the Su-27) was exactly the same platform.
      A continuation of the Su-37 found in the Su-35S
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 17 December 2012 16: 46
        -5
        Duc, why is the platform based on the Su-27 line not satisfied with? .. The fact that it no longer allows you to "master" money from the budget? ..

        Further on invisibility (stealth) and maneuverability (over-maneuverability) ...
        Create an invisible or type of inconspicuous aircraft is impossible a priori. If you marry him in one range, they will look out for him in another. They will find a way out, do not even hesitate ...
        The maneuverability is good. This is an indicator of the perfection of the car and its aerodynamic completeness. But let me ask you - will you wind a lot of aerobatics on a "super-maneuverable fighter" at speeds exceeding the Mach number? .. I think not ...
        Where is the way out? .. Make the filling and armament appropriate to the present and the foreseeable future. And you can use any platform for this. And the same mentioned Su-35S including. I don’t think that the serial T-50 (or whatever it will be called there) will be better than it in its aerobatic qualities ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 17 December 2012 16: 54
          +1
          Where is the way out? .. Make the filling and armament appropriate to the present and the foreseeable future. And you can use any platform for this. And the same mentioned Su-35S including. I don’t think that the serial T-50 (or whatever it will be called there) will be better than it in its aerobatic qualities ...

          You shouldn't think so. If I agree with invisibility, then I'm ready to argue about maneuverability. At speeds above 1M, no one is going to twist the loops - a person simply cannot withstand overloads. Maneuverability is needed in close combat, avoiding missiles, low-altitude flight, etc. This is where supercritical aerodynamics is needed, it is vitally important and it does not work on the "old" platform, the glider does not give, no matter how much electronics shove there.
          We do not know anything about the aerobatic qualities of the T-50. But I think, with the new glider, there will be new aerobatics, as happened with the Su-27 / MiG-29 series.
          1. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 17 December 2012 17: 12
            -4
            Nah ... Not in vain ... Alright, dear Wedmak... smile
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 17 December 2012 17: 21
              +4
              No ... I didn’t find anything convincing for myself in your arguments. But it's not just about the car. Already, modern combat aircraft can fly at modes and overloads with which a person is physically unable to cope. No matter how prepared he is. The flow of information for the pilot is huge. There is only one way left - to introduce at least some kind of intelligence on board, leaving the person deciding on the use of weapons in non-standard situations.
              Aerobatic performance directly depends on the aerodynamics of the airframe and engine power (and here new developments give their advantages), and whether the pilot can take advantage of this, is another matter.
        2. ikrut
          ikrut 17 December 2012 23: 55
          +1
          Another important concept of the fifth generation is weapons hidden in the compartments. It is this factor, along with others, that makes it possible to reduce visibility and improve aerodynamics (and this is efficiency, increase in power density, speed, reduction of thermal and other loads on the glider) and maneuverability. But this factor completely changes the entire design of the aircraft and significantly affects the design of the weapons itself. "Old" machines are not suitable for this constructively. In addition, they strongly influence the design of the aircraft and the placement of modern avionics. Well, if we add new engines with variable thrust vector to these factors, then conceptually little of the old platform can be used at all (except, perhaps, the laws of aero and thermodynamics).
          When a certain design and technological "threshold" in a product is reached, it is cheaper and easier to create a new product, in which it is easier to take into account all new trends than to modify old designs. This is a technological axiom
    4. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff 17 December 2012 16: 41
      +2
      If you don’t create a new one, you lose technology, you cannot forever modernize.
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 17 December 2012 17: 11
        -1
        And so much has been lost with us. And now it is lost too. So I repeat once again - do not delude yourself ... Especially in those areas where "effective managers" a la Poghosyan lead ...
    5. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 17 December 2012 18: 42
      +4
      No, you correctly said that you expressed a stupid idea.
      judge for yourselves: engineering always goes forward, fundamentally new approaches to solving certain problems and actually new problems constantly appear. including aviation.
      The basis of the product glider T10 (Su27) was created on the basis of a) the technical and scientific capabilities of that time and b) the tasks set by the military.
      So, for example, in the 3rd generation they achieved supersonic sound and good armament with missiles, and the trick of that time was "let it go and forget" it was believed that the planes would no longer enter into close combat. And Vietnam showed "broken off guys" missiles with missiles, but they do not always hit and all the same the planes converge in close combat, and the designs of those years, to put it mildly, were not designed for this epic. So a new generation No. 4 has appeared (although the glider is only one of the facets) We have created Su27, they have F15 and 18. Everything is fine, we scratched our turnips and decided to "chase invisibility, multifunctionality and super-maneuverability" New requirements appeared, besides, scientific progress by this time had also stepped forward, therefore, fundamentally new technologies and philosophy of air combat were being worked out on the 5th generation aircraft. How good or bad it is, time will tell, but what the military will say "men, we need ...." is a fact. Everything that can be survived from T10 (su27) has already been squeezed out, the deepest modernizations are indeed many times superior to the firstborn, but I repeat, new tasks require new solutions. Therefore, T50 is essentially a platform based on new technologies and principles, which will be modernized and improved for another 10-15 years, it has a backlog. and in Su27 it is already yesterday. In fact, the T50 is also today, and the views of scientists are already in the 6th generation, but what will it be?))))
  3. bereg
    bereg 17 December 2012 11: 41
    +2
    Original publication: Air Forces Monthly, August 2012 - Douglas Barrie. and that's it
  4. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 17 December 2012 11: 43
    0
    We should not have expected the laudatory speeches from the Western magazine, wait and see what kind of aircraft it turns out ...
  5. SSR
    SSR 17 December 2012 11: 43
    +2
    But the T-50 already carries the features of a very advanced combat aircraft, which will allow Russia, India and other export customers to get into service a very advanced fighter in the coming decades.

    Such words from let's say so are not quite different ... inspire respect for the PAK FA.
  6. boris.radevitch
    boris.radevitch 17 December 2012 11: 53
    0
    The best plane and better not. This is the most instant Mig in the world !!! good
  7. askort154
    askort154 17 December 2012 12: 03
    +1
    Hotelka - quickly and cheaply does not pass. Really - long and expensive, like the F-22?!. It's a pity. It remains to hope and wait.
  8. jagdpanzer
    jagdpanzer 17 December 2012 12: 33
    0
    it is necessary to create competition for dryers, otherwise they will become monopolists
    1. Retx
      Retx 17 December 2012 13: 17
      +1
      So they are so monopolists - SU is always a heavy class of fighters, there are no competitors in this field.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 17 December 2012 13: 38
        -1
        Compare Su-47 and MiG-1.44 hi Another thing is that there is no money for 2 projects yet. Let's see what the next generation will be. There should not be a monopoly.
        1. Kyrgyz
          Kyrgyz 17 December 2012 14: 57
          0
          Quote: engineer74
          Compare the Su-47 and MiG-1.44. Another thing is that there are no money for 2 projects yet. Let's see what the next generation will be. There should not be a monopoly.

          We don’t even have a market for two projects, we won’t buy so much ourselves, and aviation importers are wealthy countries which we don’t have a lot of friends with, we’ll see how to turn around in Asia there you can trade if you go wisely, as the European market is closed for a long time the African market is poor, the arms market of South America seems to be not so poor, but some kind of sluggish aviation is not fighting there, and we are far away, the North American market is generally from the realm of fantasy.
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 17 December 2012 15: 08
            0
            I did not mean two SERIAL cars, but two projects. Enough money for them. Think of the YF-22 and YF-23. The lack of competition does not lead to good, either expensive, or for a long time, or all together. sad A good example of an engine for the T-50.
          2. Zabvo
            Zabvo 18 December 2012 08: 42
            0
            Don't you think that the next MIG will be sharpened below deck? hi
  9. iSpoiler
    iSpoiler 17 December 2012 13: 52
    +3
    A bit of a twinkle is a fact
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 17 December 2012 15: 20
      +1
      in this photo you can’t guess which one is the 5th generation car, Mig is a super airplane ...
  10. Stiletto
    Stiletto 17 December 2012 15: 14
    +1
    It is logical that the respected authors of the article howled - the T-50 is a good machine, even taking into account a possible increase in its cost (however, in the course of the analysis they were probably guided by their shit-rapper, ours are not stupid, and they seem to go a little stealthy, and that's right) .
    Do we need a PAK FA? the answer is definitely yes. Which, however, does not exclude the possibility of building other machines - simpler, but also in quantity more.
  11. sniper
    sniper 17 December 2012 15: 41
    +6
    In my unenlightened opinion, I unfortunately do not orient myself well in aviation, the most important thing is that within the framework of the PAK FA, a very serious funding of R&D has begun, which has not been around for many years. And the fact that part of the expenses for the development of our science was undertaken by India is also good. The fact that all four prototypes are different from each other means that the work is going on and going fast ... It doesn’t matter how much the prototypes look like the final product, the main thing is that new solutions are rolled in, some of which will form the basis of modernization, part of the basis for the design of new aircraft ... The main thing is that the designers work and gain experience ...
  12. Locksmith
    Locksmith 17 December 2012 17: 56
    +5
    The article clearly listens to such a bewildered, envious tone wink It seems like they did not expect that these drunken bears can play not only on "babalaikas". Damn this eternal mentor tone, everything is not so, everything is not according to them, all attempts to steal technology from them, but in fact it turns out the thief is the loudest yelling of all! Their chryaptor will have to drag on for a long time to our female. laughing
    One only integrated into the PGO wing is what it costs !!
  13. Averias
    Averias 17 December 2012 18: 19
    +5
    Yes Yes. I did not expect anything else from these "experts". In the absence of complete performance characteristics, they make predictions and, as always, not in our favor. Well, how else, the T-50 is a formidable rival for the F-35 (with which they still have hemorrhoids, despite the bold statements about production, and the price has increased). First, it means that Western agencies (at the first show) screamed and wrote boiling water from PAK FA and now they "analyzed" and made a conclusion. The toad strangles them. The S-500 complex immediately comes to mind, it was said about it in the West (the same are the agencies) that it is only in the theoretical future that Russia will be able to make such a complex. And his performance characteristics are generally overestimated by the Russians. And what we have in the end, but the fact that the S-500 is put into service. So it is with the plane. In the ideological war that is going on now, disinformation is a very powerful weapon. And we use it perfectly.
  14. Nymp
    Nymp 17 December 2012 19: 43
    +3
    If the enemy's propaganda pours mud on our equipment, then it is across their throats. Laudatory stealth was originally created visible to our radars (since the technology was stolen by the hands of a traitor in the Soviet Union) and no one hinted about it in the Western media and until now they continue to scare them with their fucking "invisibility". How can you take on faith the Old released from the den of lies ?! It is clear that this is anti-advertising, and it is clear on whose order! But they are trying in vain, the NATO countries will be afraid of a threatening shout from Washington anyway, and they will not buy our plane. If only this handsome man served his native Air Force.
  15. rocketman
    rocketman 18 December 2012 03: 06
    +1
    Quote: Nymp
    and until now they continue to frighten with their fucking "invisibility".

    Not so invisible - meter radars are well observed. interesting, but what about the T-50?
  16. Magadan
    Magadan 18 December 2012 10: 42
    +1
    The development of something new must be done at least for the sake of the development itself. Even unsuccessful designs prove useful later.
    And we have already heard all this crap about "first feed the pensioners and the kids". We will feed the pensioners, the children, and build new planes, and most importantly, sooner or later we will remember all the good things to the West.
  17. Marconi41
    Marconi41 19 December 2012 06: 30
    0
    Of course, initially, the serial PAK-FA will be damp, but the Su-27 did not turn into the SU-35 right away. The T-50 must be done, but there is no need to declare that all our aircraft need to be closed to it. The air force needs different planes, even amers have come to this too. Therefore, instead of seven hundred, they made only two hundred raptors. All in good time, comrades! And maybe in 20 years the SU - ** (T-50) will be the best airplane in the world.
    1. igor36
      igor36 16 January 2013 20: 01
      0
      20 years later, the next generation should go into a series