Sukhoi PAK FA News

[andrew]

Are those wing-root bays an assumption, or do you actually know they exist? If they exist, that's kind of interesting. Though not sure, what could fit in it. It seems a bit too small.

It’s a consensus on Russian aviaforums.
The bays are for small short-range air-to-air missiles whose sensors must have a lock on a target before launch. There is an old speculation which turned out to be a leak.

[Versus]

How so? F-22 isn't for sale...unless you mean the F-35, which already has made a fairly strong sales from its the initial orders.

Things change.

[andrew]

It looks better on big image – the gray flap of the side bay.

[Jimmy]

i bet the f22 tooling will stay on standby now,after they get done with the last 20 or so.till they see how the pak/fa ends up, i heard 10 are off the roster,i think 2 destroyed ,4 or 5 retired couple in testing never to be used ,another one something else.i read off f16.net off f22 forum, i think so does that mean were just gonna end up with 170..oh yeah i just read"pak /fa probably gonna be well over 100 million a copy..

The F-22 tooling will be mothballed, it was tacked onto some bill in 2008 or 09 (I think 09).

[highsea]

Thanks for the better pics and bottom angles Andrey.

A couple things stand out- they maintained the major edge alignment on the inlets, but only halfway down, then the shape goes cylindrical. Cylinders are good reflectors. And the faceting on the front adds angles.

Wasn't expecting a finished surface, but am surprised to see stretch formed skin panels on the fuselage- I expected bonded composites.

No sawtoothing on panels or gear doors, etc. Lots of little bumps and things sticking out, alternate air inlets with louvers, etc.

No attempt to hide the nozzles with the vertical stabs.

No serpentine inlet ducting, engine faces not hidden.

I think I would have tried to fill in the area between the engines and lower the weapons bays. Three reasons for that-

1. I could maintain the edge alignments all the way aft and eliminate the cylindrical sections, and the corner reflections inboard where they meet the bay doors.

2. I would be able to eject the weapons into a less turbulent airstream by avoiding the high pressure area inboard of the inlets, and it would put them farther away from the aircraft faster.

3. I would gain valuable real estate inside for ECM/EW goodies.

[andrew]

No serpentine inlet ducting, engine faces not hidden.

The engine face is clearly above the inlet.

[andrew]

Another view. It’s the wing line. As you see the inlet is completely under the line and the engine is half above it.

[andrew]

Besides, the bay for the landing gear is noticeably eating into the shaft.

[Stitch]

To me, it still looks like an Su fuselage with some stealth treatment, not a ground-up stealth platform. highsea pointed out a lot of "non-stealth" features on the aircraft, including the faired-over aileron actuators. Yes, the engine face (turbine) IS above the inlet, but not by much, not enough to make a difference.

[tu160mblackjack]

I'll admit, they haven't changed the fuselage much. Apart from the wings and stabilizers, and the addition of the internal bay, it seems exactly the same as the Su-27 series. Kind of disappointing. The more I look at it, the more of the same I see. I was really excited when I saw it, but not too much anymore. Like Highsea said, I noticed the large high pressure region created because the engine ducts/nozzles weren't flush with the weapons bay, as it is in the Raptor. That should spoil stealth quite a bit. Same thing with the upper fuselage centerline, especially the characteristic Sukhoi spine. Just a big spoiler.

[wellman]

so does that means the russians made a turkey?

[Inst]

It's truly a beautiful plane.

[Versus]

so does that means the russians made a turkey?

Well it can be three things.
Either the whole design is half done, with neglecting the details which is the traditional Slavic mentality treat, that is than mistaken for ruggedness and sturdiness, or the whole stealth story is vastly overrated. Or, the Pak Fa is just stealthy enough that it can come to the opponent undetected by the time when the lock is all ready acquired and the missiles are on their way to the target. And when it comes close, but this time detected, its maneuverability will make up for the lack of stealth.

[citanon]

Well it can be three things.
Either the whole design is half done, with neglecting the details which is the traditional Slavic mentality treat, that is than mistaken for ruggedness and sturdiness, or the whole stealth story is vastly overrated. Or, the Pak Fa is just stealthy enough that it can come to the opponent undetected by the time when the lock is all ready acquired and the missiles are on their way to the target. And when it comes close, but this time detected, its maneuverability will make up for the lack of stealth.

I suspect that the answer is the first scenario. Sukhoi has been operating on a limited budget that does not allow for extensive treatment of materials production and more difficult shaping/aerodynamics issues. What they have built here is a preliminary concept and it is going to take a lot more development work to make it into a real fighter.

Also, the top side seems more extensively treated than the bottom. Does this imply something about the tactics and flight profile? IE, unlike the F22, which is designed to fly high and fast, this plane seems more suited for a frontal engagement from an altitude equal to or lower than the opponent?

[Silent Hunter]

Well it can be three things.
Either the whole design is half done, with neglecting the details which is the traditional Slavic mentality treat, that is than mistaken for ruggedness and sturdiness, or the whole stealth story is vastly overrated. Or, the Pak Fa is just stealthy enough that it can come to the opponent undetected by the time when the lock is all ready acquired and the missiles are on their way to the target. And when it comes close, but this time detected, its maneuverability will make up for the lack of stealth.

It's a prototype, so a lot of the problems will be ironed out on production aircraft.

The third seems a good reason.