They will add the Al-41 later.

No they won’t. The AL-41F was specifically designed for the heavyweight MFI/MiG-1.44- so it won’t dimensionally fit in the T-50.
The challenge is to scale-down/replicate the ’41F’s tech so it fits in the PAK-FA.

NPO Saturn AL-31F @ 12.5t (thrust) for Su-27
NPO Saturn 117C/ AL-41F-1A (117S) @ ~14.5t for Su-35BM (engines already ordered)
NPO Saturn 117 @ 15+ t for prototype PAK-FA (tbc)

MMPP Salyut AL-31FM1 @ 13.5t for Su-27SM, Su-30(?), Su-33 & Su-34(?)
MMPP Salyut AL-31FM2 @ 14.2t (R&D only)
MMPP Salyut AL-31FM3-1 @ 14.5t (nominal), 15.3t (claimed max. achieved, R&D)
MMPP Salyut AL-31FM3-2 @ 15t (nominal) has new hp compressor with 6 stages instead of AL-31F’s 9 (R&D).

NPO Saturn AL-41F @ 18+ t for defunct MiG MFI/1.44 programme

PAK-FA definitive 5G engine @ 16-16.5t (projected), iIrc, MMPP Salyut is now the lead developer.

Nice find Quadro, just some Qs.

The ill-fated Su-35 b/n 904 was rumoured to have had an uprated ‘117C’ engine, was that the ‘117’? Has T-10M b/n 710 assumed the engine test duties of ‘904’?

Is the ‘new’ 117 a MMPP Salyut product?

So we can assume PAK-FA’s first-flight will be with standard 117Cs, then it’ll switch to the 117, which leaves ~5 years to get the new 5G engine ready.
Having said that, the uprated 117 must approach 5G performance- as the 117C isn’t far off…….it’s all getting far too exciting……..

Kovy !!! please do a PS of Sojvet PAФAЛ !!! :D:D

😉

Fwiw, website of Russian [private sector] RAM plates & prefabricated panels, manufacturers ‘Vympel Engineering’ (may need google-translate):

http://innovaci.ru/content.php?content.3

If (unconfirmed estimates) of unit cost are $100m for a production run of 500, I wonder what would have been the approx. unit cost of the F-22 with the same number produced?

Also, regarding the 25% Indian workshare, is that 25% of the RuAF PAK-FA then increasing to a 50% jv for the 2-seater FGFA?
200 (redesigned & customised) 2-seaters aren’t going to cost the same as 300 single seaters, eh?
As JET would say- ‘…the numbers don’t add-up!!’

…or, its just a simple typo by the aughtor. Perhaps he forgot a “0” there. In the next passage he calls it ” is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar”, so its a bit contradicting. 0,5 sqm RCS, thats about equal to a modified F-16 or Gripen, right? And noone call them stealth.

Or, its a figure for the over all RCS signature. And that would actually make sence.

Having read the Russian MoD document detailing the precise & rigorous testing for just the canopy and the cockpit ‘furniture’ to ensure the maximum ‘malo-zametnost’ (stealth), the 0.5m^2 figure makes no sense whatsoever, the MKI figure points further to a flawed article- I even doubt they got the investment figures right.

The IAF/MoD would have known about the anticipated RCS figures some time ago before any contracts were signed, and if the above figure were true a company called LM would had done it’s upmost to usurp the deal.

Like you said the reporter has probably missed out (at least) a zero, either through misreporting or misquoting…….either way when we see the aircraft in reasonable resolution pics, expert/informed opinion will flood the net about how many ‘V’s come before LO, or non at all.

I bet the MiG 1.44 would have attained a figure close to 0.5m^2 (a more advanced design than its contemporary Eurocanards) and yet the RuAF deemed that aircraft not fit for purpose.

It’s Russian holiday season until the 10th of Jan, so lets not go into hysterical overdrive as all Russian PAK-FA forums seem to be doing…

Senior Air Force officer touched the plane in silence, almost in disbelief. It was the fighter T-50 – the first technology demonstrator of the fifth generation.

:D:eek::cool::diablo:……;)