According to flateric over at Secret Projects, the RVV-BD is not intended for the T-50, even if it might fit dimensionally. As far as I can tell, the current plans are 2 izdeliye 180 missiles in each main bay and an izdeliye 760 missile in each LERX bay, which makes for a current air-to-air loadout of 6 missiles. Is it possible to pack 3 izdeliye 180 missiles in the main bay by staggering them like the F-22 does with the AMRAAM?

T-50 wingspan 13.95 m, F-22 front view 9.25 м2.

I agree! Fighter F-15 does not fit in the statistics, the reason I do not understand.
Needless to say, the density of steel aircraft layout will differ from aircraft duralumin or titanium 290 kg/m3 vs 250 kg/m3

Which frontal view of the F-22 did you calculate that area from? I’m using this one and clipped away the landing gear, and my frontal area analysis keep on giving me 8.893 m^2, assuming 13.5636 meter wingspan. The wingspan of the F-22 is 44 feet 6 inches, or 13.5636 meters.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227915[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227916[/ATTACH]

topspeed, the drawings on Wikipedia aren’t entirely accurate. My frontal profiles are directly from the PAK FA patent and Lockheed Martin, so they’re as accurate as you can get. Also, I assumed 13.95 meter wingspan for the T-50, and 13.56 meter wingspan for the F-22.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html

And here’s a higher resolution one straight from USAF.

http://www.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-060705-005.jpg
http://www.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/AFG-060705-008.jpg

As for the T-50 empty weight, Piotr Butowski cites 18,000 kg, though this may have increased slightly due to some of the structural reinforcements we saw after 2012.

Out of curiosity, have there been any leaks regarding the T-50’s empty weight? Most commonly mentioned figures place it slightly over 18,000 kg (wikipedia claims 18,500 kg).

I’ve been trying to fix up the PAK FA Wikipedia page and try to put as accurate information as I can. I’m admittedly getting most of my information from Piotr Butowski articles.

Problem with these UHF arrays is that they are far too big to be mounted on a fighter unless you’re talking about a fighter the size of a 747. Ground installations would be rather difficult to conceal and move around. F-35 is a platform, but platform does not equate to capability, and there are platforms other than the F-35 to handle the VHF threat, like the B-2 and LRS-B. Not only that, the F-35 has never entirely relied on radar stealth. There’s a reason that the avionics, sensors, and software are so expensive.

Regarding Bill Sweetman, I’m getting the vibe that he is drawing the conclusion before doing the analysis. He appears to construe any news regarding the F-35 as negative and seems to outright ignore any positive aspects. It’s hard to be objective when you already have the mindset that the F-35 is a flop no matter what. In this regard he is really no better than his pro-LM counterparts like Loren Thompson.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2014-04-24/mig-aviadvigatel-confirm-mig-31-development

Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG and Aviadvigatel have confirmed that work continues on “radical modernization” of the MiG-31 Foxhound, with the focus on extending the performance of the aging, out-of-production Mach 3 interceptor so that it can carry out not only air-defense duties but also serve the recently established VKO, the Russian acronym for the country’s Air and Space Defense (Command). Under a directive from the Russian defense ministry, RAC MiG is working on new versions of the aircraft more capable than the current MiG-31BM.

Speaking to AIN at the Engines-2014 exposition held April 15 to 17 in Moscow, Aleksander Inozemtsev, executive director and general designer at the Aviadvigatel aero-engine design house, said that although the MiG-31 has been in service for more than a quarter century, “it remains a unique weapon; no other country possesses anything of the kind.” He described the aircraft as “the world’s only interceptor that can loiter for a very long time while on airspace patrol thanks to the low fuel consumption of the Aviadvigatel D30-F6 bypass turbojet, which enables the airplane to accelerate to 3,000 kilometers per hour [1,620 knots/1,864 mph] when attacking an aerial target.”

The Russian government has decided to support MiG-31 development and modernization following heated discussions in parliament and the defense ministry’s think-tank. Aviadvigatel and industrial partner Perm Motor Plant have submitted reports about the current status of the D30-F6 fleet, the equipment used to manufacture it and the supply of parts. Inozemtsev commented: “Nothing is lost. There were 1,500 engines [and 500 airframes] built. The existing MiG-31 fleet has amassed a moderate number of flying hours and their engines have a long lifetime remaining. There is a stock of engines and spares. We informed the government that we can support MiG-31 fleet operations for a long time.”

Studies by defense ministry think-tanks assert that neither the recently developed Sukhoi PAKFA fifth-generation fighter nor the Tupolev PAKDA can replace the MiG-31 for a number of vital defense roles, such as protecting Russia’s vast northern territories against attack by U.S. cruise missiles and warplanes, according to Inozemtsev. “We must carry out some work to refresh our stocks. We have submitted modernization proposals that are influencing the decisions being made. I think the MiG-31 fleet will undergo refit and modernization,” Inozemtsev said.

He declined to elaborate, citing the classified nature of MoD programs. “All I can say is that this unique weapon will be further improved. After refit, the aircraft will be employed not so much on air-defense duties and more in the interests of the Air and Space Defense [Command]. This will be possible through exploration of the high potential of the airframe and powerplant.”

Russia currently has 180 MiG-31s. The aircraft first flew in 1976, and the follow-on MiG-31M first took to the sky in 1985. The MiG-31D appeared in 1987 and demonstrated its ability to fly at Mach 2.83 with six long-range air-to-air missiles on a typical 3.5-hour intercept mission. During a trial in 1994 a developmental MiG-31 destroyed a low-flying target from a distance of 162 nm (300 km).

The most recent variant, the MiG-31BM, is a multirole aircraft with the redeveloped Zaslon-M passive phased-array radar, capable of detecting up to 10 targets simultaneously at a range of up to 175 nm (324 km). It can employ the RVV-BD active radar-guided weapon, with a firing range of 108 nm (200 km). The MiG-31BM can also carry R-77 infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, Kh-31 air-to-surface missiles and KAB-500 EO/IR-guided bombs. The Sokol plant in Nizhny Novgorod continues to upgrade in-service aircraft to the MiG-31BM configuration at a rate of 15 aircraft per year. The facility has a Russian MoD contract for about 60 MiG-31BMs for delivery between 2011 and 2018.

On a related subject, issues were raised during parliamentary hearings on the role of United Technologies and Pratt & Whitney in “destroying” military production capability at the Perm Motor Plant. The U.S. firms had been shareholders, but after some controversy Russian government entities bought back their stock holdings “two to three years ago,” according to Inozemtsev. This has enabled Perm to sell PS90A advanced turbofans to Iran to power Tupolev Tu-204 jetliners, a move previously opposed by the U.S. State Department.

So what will the new variants of the MiG-31 be called? MiG-31BM+?

From ‘aaam’ at f-16.net

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24124

Regarding the Harrier, Marines already had a program starting for that, when they were told to join JSF.. They didn’t complain too much, because a STOVL JSF gives them more than they asked for, yet they don’t have to foot the entire R&D budget (although given what the F-35 is costing, maybe they really didn’t save that much).

For USAF, F-16 replacement wasn’t that critical. Their Multi Role fighter program had already been scaled back and pushed out. Eventually it, along with ASTOVL and SSF from the Marines, got merged into CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter). At this point you might have ended up with a joint aircraft, you could look at an F-35B as a STOVL F-35A, but it would have been substantially different from the F-35.

It was the bringing in of the Navy’s (somewhat compromised) requirements that drove a number of the basic design choices. The basic things you have to do to an aircraft to make it carrier compatible bled over into the other versions and that made it into the F-35 we know. If there had been an A/FX, Navy would not need the F-35C, USAF would have an F-111 replacement. Even if USAF/Marines had a merged program it would have been lighter and simpler than the F-35 of today.

The way Lockheed tells it, the whole process that lead to the JSF started when one of their engineers realized that they could use the same airframe for CTOL and VTOL variants of a light fighter by swapping a lift fan and a large fuel tank.

DARPA really pushed that concpet. MDD’s original proposal originally used the other version of the concept, driving the fan via diverted gases from the engine, but they changed over to lift + lift/cruise. Regardless of its origin, it’s a very elelgant way to meet both needs.

Basically, JSF was ,”Take the AF model and modify accordingly as much as you can”. The B is basicaly an A with the STOVL system, whcih suits the USMC just fine, and the C is an A that can operate from a carrier and go a bit farther. Capability-wise, the A can do everything the C can except those two things [takeoff and land on a CATOBAR carrier]. But the design constraints necesssary to have an airplane that can be modified to do those two things that penalized the other models.

A separate thread that also had this in mind.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=248251#p248251

The Navy was the odd man out in the reconciliation of three service requirements. Coming out of A-12 and AF/X concept development they wanted twin engines, more range, more signature control, and more internal weapons carriage. The biggest USAF constraint was unit cost; the bigger the jet, the more it was going to cost. They needed something to replace the preponderance of their force structure — Vipers — which they had purchased at enormous rates in the 80s. Rule of thumb at the time was you buy jets buy the pound, and the going rate was $1500 bucks a pound. They wanted a jet in the 20K# class…do the math. Marine Corps wanted STOVL — size and weight are anathema to STOVL jets due to propulsion system technology and the laws of physics. Thus, “smaller and lighter” was common to both the USAF and the USMC. Certainly wasn’t what the Navy was looking for.

In the early requirements development USMC aligned with USAF on big arrow requirements; they said we’ll take what the USAF wants, we just want it to hover. The Navy spent most of JAST trying to grow the requirements to meet their needs and in the process put a stake in the heart of STOVL. Were it not for the power of the shaft driven lift fan propulsion system, they would have succeeded.

Navy likes STOVL like Superman likes kryptonite. Hence all the Navy/Boeing dudes pushing the “it’s all the fault of STOVL…”, and other fantasies like ‘just as good as,’ ‘effective stealth,’ “that special stealth sauce doesn’t matter but don’t forget we’ve got some’ (Gen 4.75) and so on.

With regards to what an F-35 with only USAF and USMC involved might be like.

20-25K# OWE. Internal bays sized for 1K GBU plus the 120s. OWE reduction reduces size of propulsion system (diameter of lift fan and LPC), which begets aero benefits like slicker fineness ratio etc. Reduction of internal volume devoted to weapons bays can be used as trade space for lotsa different things in the design, including structural weight reduction (empty spaces are heavy), or more fuel fraction.

And of course, ‘smaller, lighter’ is generally cheaper which would meet the USAF imperative and the USMC desire.

Also, according to JSF ORD document, both the USMC and USAF were satisfied with 2×1000 lb bombs, while USN wanted 2×2000 lb. In short, things would’ve been better if there was an F-35A and F-35B to replace the F-16 and AV-8B, while the Navy got their A/F-X to replace the F-14, and the USAF get a land-based version of the A/F-X to replace the F-15E and F-111. Though these two programs combine may be even more expensive than the JSF is currently, so who knows.

No comment on the physics but that ~150kN thrust figure is only for the interim 117A engine.

I believe the goal for the second stage Izd. 30 engines is something like 175 kN afterburning. Though here’s hoping that the plane doesn’t experience too much weight gain like the F-22 did. If I recall, didn’t T-50-1 and T-50-2 have to be structurally reinforced due to cracking?

As a side note, it makes me wonder if they’re pursuing variable cycle for the second stage engines. The US is putting quite a bit of research and money into the AETD and ADVENT, it’s very possible to see a re-engined F-22 and F-35 with variable cycle technology in the 2020s.