It is clear now, thanks!

@rpgtype7v:

That is a cool slide! See XB-70 comments of weight vs area. The PAK-FA is almost totally composites in its surface, so probably above Typhoon values in that regard. And BTW, metals are quite OK for some uses, for instance landing gear has been “humble” steel for many decades and it doesn’t seem this is going to change any time soon. The same for Alu or Ti alloys. Science moves forward in the field of metallurgy too, while cost / effectiveness always rules.

The only important point I would make is, that you cannot change the basic technologies of a fighter while you test it, period. Otherwise you never finish with your development, as previous results in your test program get voided because you changed such basic things as materials an structure of the plane, and you have to start again. This is simply incompatible with any development process. Once you settle for a design, it is frozen and it gets old. So is life! 😉

Regarding the engines… I know the pangolin but thanks for the picture 😀
Izd. 30 seems to address LO design issues both in rear and frontal aspect. Cannot comment on that specifically because:

1) Only known features of Izd. 30 in that regard are composite compressors + radar blocker at the front and serrated nozzles and “other technologies” at the rear, plus unidentified IR signature reduction measures. We know essentially nothing (at least myself)
2) Weight of stealth in Russian doctrine and angular aspects of interest are questionable at best. You don’t get crazy to develop something you don’t fully believe in to start with (or believe only in certain circumstances to be more exact)

All I can say with some certainty is LO design is addressed with izd. 30. Don’t know to what extent and with what results.

@bring_it_on:
thanks once more. According to my project background this approach would be considered “risky” and rather a mitigation of unsuccessful planning /risk management efforts, the goal being that planned “buffers” allows to accommodate deviations during development. Of course in programs with this size, duration and complexity (and political weight too!) compromise can be necessary, it all depends on the proportions of concurrency being kept within reasonable. In any case 1.4 billion USD is no small amount, even diluted in the huge global costs of the program.

I am aware BTW that upgrades are not covered in concurrency, fully agree that is the sensible approach. In fact I think it could have been used to a bigger extent as discussed and leave out of the program things like the HUD-less cockpit and other IMHO non critical features, for later modernizations. That reduces risk due to introduction of new, unproven technologies and complexity during SDD phase and gets the fighters earlier with the services, at the same time that gives continuity to the industrial effort.

There have been claims (see for example below) that the earlier planes are not going to be 100% combat capable any time soon or even never, is there any merit to those reports? Sometimes I think the program is “over-reported” and it is difficult to get neutral information about it…

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/187563/cost-of-unfixable-f_35s-may-reach-%2440-billion.html

One question from someone without deep knowledge of this project:

I understand Tempest has been proposed as a 6G aircraft, is that correct? Based on what differential features?

Thanks!

@bring_it_on:

great post as usually. One question, maybe you can help here:

are there many open issues still in the program for which no solution has been found or no root cause analysis is ready? I am not aware in what conditions they are now in that regard, since this could (theoretically) be a major cost driver.

Thanks!

@paraly:

Interesting, do you have any reference or picture of the tanks in the weapons bays?

@haavarla:

increase over range of the same plane with the first stage engine.
I also think the PAK-FA is a great design but internal fuel is a little less than Flanker (Su-35) and the plane is a little heavier, probably due to internal weapons and other compromises due to LO design. Of course, internal carriage has a positive effect on range in real conditions. In regards of L/D and other aero parameters, I have no hard data, apart from a slight reduction of the cross sectional area compared to the T-10 platform.

Interview to Yuri Slyusar from UAC:

http://www.interfax.ru/interview/626416

Another expected soon, the plane is su-57. Since the start of the program was more than 15 years, when the military will have experienced, and serial fighters?

– We signed a contract with the defense Ministry, and begin to deliver planes in VCS already from 2019. It directly to the serial car, which will not take part in the trials, and are already in operation. All we have in the short term, 15 cars will be delivered.

– Aircraft delivered under Arrow (development work), are now in experimental troop operation and has already been in Syria. How they performed in combat?

– Indeed, proved. Was in Syria, received a so-called baptism of fire, all problems were solved and the aircraft and armament that was used. Inherent features confirmed. We certainly got a large amount of information – the nuances and subtleties that would be difficult to obtain during the tests and flights here in Russia, in a peaceful environment. This amount of data intensified.
– That is, in serial form will have some changes according to the results of the Syrian experience?

– Change of the aircraft are always. The plane, which has ceased to change, has ceased to modernize – it’s a dying plane, even if it is not already entered service. There are new weapons, new versions of the software and other various systems. In this way, the meaning of modularity. It suggests the possibility of modernization without replacement of large amounts of iron.

Su-57 is a plane highly intelligent, automated, to a large extent this flying artificial intelligence, which solves for the pilot a large number of tasks and allow him to focus on combat tasks, where a person is difficult to replace.

So the plane evolving in time, and during these 15 years, he has greatly evolved. Well, then stop it will not. Su-57 is a promising platform for creating new aircraft in different versions.

– It was stated that mass production of the su-57 is not planned, apparently it’s limited to a small party. This is due to its high cost?

I think the best answer is given signed a contract with the defense Ministry. But, of course, su-57 has an entirely other possibilities. This requires a smooth transition from fourth generation aircraft to the fifth.

We are now at the stage of a replacement aircraft of the third generation the fourth aircraft – the su-35, MiG-35, su-30SM, su-34. At a later stage, they will more and more be replaced by aircraft of the fifth generation. To break this sequence from the mass shipments of fifth generation aircraft is probably not quite right. In our opinion, the question here is not so much financial as in ensuring this smooth transition.

And, in General, we believe that the fifth generation fighter, the su-57 and a light fighter MiG-35 are the best offers in its class in terms of flight performance of aircraft combat capabilities and prices.

– And what after all is the fundamental difference between the fifth generation from the same su-35, for example?

– Well, it’s very different planes. In the first place – the stealth due to the different aerodynamic layout, the other glider, which is quite well-designed, plus unique, we have developed a radar absorbing coating. This new avionics (avionics – if), the new communications system, new on-Board defense system, new radar that allows you to “see” enemy planes at a greater distance than the fourth generation aircraft, which gives the advantage of launching rockets – they are all new!But most importantly, of course, is new weapons, new missiles, which also have excellent performance.

– Are there any plans to create a deck version of the su-57? Or an entirely new fighter, vertical takeoff aircraft for the promising Russian aircraft carrier?

– Some ideas we have on the aircraft vertical takeoff and landing – and from the Soviet era, and for the last time. Work on the ship options continues. From the military need to clear the task that we will perform.