The new Russian fighter: shown today, here tomorrow

The Indian Express ^ | Aug 17 2011 | Manu Pubby

[sukhoi-30mki]

The new Russian fighter: shown today, here tomorrow

Manu Pubby Posted online: Wed Aug 17 2011, 03:08 hrs

Zhukovsky, Russia : For the past two weeks, Sergey L Bogdan has been missing out on his favorite hobby, playing ice hockey with friends in Moscow, a 45-minute drive from this testing facility. It has been difficult to keep away from, he says with a smile, but that is the precaution required to be able to pilot Russia’s new fifth-generation fighter and India’s future mainstay warplane on its first ever public appearance before the world. Bogdan, who is the lead test pilot for the Russian T 50 fighter, will fly the new-generation aircraft at the Moscow Air Show on Wednesday. Till now, it has been a highly secretive project to create a futuristic aircraft to match the capabilities of the American F 22 “Raptor” and F 35 fifth generation fighters.

The public appearance marks a milestone also for India, which is partially funding the fifth-generation fighter programme and will co-develop a custom made version for the Air Force with induction planned by 2018. India, which signed a contract with Russia in December last year, has described it as the “biggest defence programme ever in the history of India”. The total deal is estimated at over the $30 billion mark.

Now, Bogdan, who has flown 70 of the 80 test sorties that have been undertaken by the T 50, has for the first time come on record to say that Indian pilots will not find it difficult to fly the new-generation fighter.

“It will not be hard to master the aircraft. Each new generation of fighters are easier to fly. While the tasks and missions handled by the aircraft will be more (than previous fighters flown by IAF), we are working to make the man machine interface better,” Bogdan said, in his first ever interaction with the Indian media.

While work on the Indian version of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) has just about started, Bogdan says that the first public appearance of the fighter is significant for the Indian programme as the platform is common. India has placed additional requirements that include having two pilots for the fighter that is currently flown solo by Russia. An HAL team, led by MD Ashok Nayak, is also at the air show to check on the progress of the Indian program. The FGFA will be a leap ahead of the current generation of fighters flown by the IAF and incorporates stealth technologies that will make it invisible to radars.

Bogdan, who has 4,500 flying hours to his credit and has flown most types of Russian fighters, says that two prototypes of the fighter have been developed and currently test flights are being carried out to expand the flight envelope of the fighter.

“We are currently not taking it to a stress beyond 5 g but that will start once static tests are completed. The aircraft has flown at an altitude of 15,000 metres,” says Bogdan, who underwent 400 hours of training before he undertook the first flight of the fighter in January 2010.

Russia is planning to start serial production of the fighter by 2015 and is initially expected to get 70 of the modern fighters. India has come on record to say that it is expecting induction to begin by 2018 and is planning to induct 250-300 of the fighters, making them the mainstay of IAF’s strike fleet. There is a sense of urgency within the IAF to expedite the program, given that China too has flown the first prototype of its own fifth generation fighter, the J 20, in January this year.

(The correspondent is attending the Moscow Air Show on the invitation of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation)

[Red Steel]

Yes, sloped armor.

[Dapper 26]

The Chinese have launched their first aircraft carrier with plans for more futuristic ones on line. The Russians and Indians are building new 5th generation fighters. Meanwhile, we’ve got the “hole in the wall” gang of 12 looking to cut our military spending, shutting down research and building our latest. You can bet not a cent saved by gutting the military will go to the Treasury. We never learn from history.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The Indians have been snookered.

Maybe, but what are the alternatives? We aren't going to sell them the F-22 and there's always the threat of the US State Department and Congress shutting off the supply of spare parts and technical support for the F-35 if they get into a shooting war with Pakistan or China. Apparently Russia will give them the ability to manufacture their own copies of the T-50.

[Captain Rhino]

Buran made only one unmanned flight in 1988 before the program was shut down. It wasn’t an EXACT copy. The Soviet design incorporated remote control for landing and,IIRC, jet engines to allow atmospheric powered flight after reentry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

As for the T-50, WOW! they are now up to two. (Although I suspect some Photoshopping might be going on in the photo at the head of the comments column.)

The US is building/has built what? ...about 200 F-22s (wish it was more) and will be building several thousand F-35s.

Yeah, those two Russian T-50s have me sleepless at night. (Same thing for the PRC stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

[Yo-Yo]

However, the Russians did come up with a few original ideas since the T-34. One is the Kalashninkov designed in 1947 where the original idea was to use part of the air pressure from the fired bullet’s shockwave to lock the next bullet in place for firing.

Many rifles prior to the AK-47 used gas piston operation. The M1 Garand of the US, adopted in 1936, is but one example.

[Gen.Blather]

“The slanted hull eventually became the standard in all future tanks.”

Until we got to the recently killed Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles. They had slab sides to fit all the complicated electronics and still fit on a cargo plane. I asked about the slant and the virtual absence of armor for the front line vehicles. I was told: “We’ll have complete control over the battlefield and nothing that could damage them would get close.” That view of the battlefield probably comes from WWI. FCS was a case where politics and money overrode logic, reason and any battlefield practicality.

[JadeEmperor]

"You have to wonder how many Russian Cosmonauts were sent flying off into the depths of the Solar System to never be seen nor heard from again, crashed into the Moon, or just left to float around in orbit. We could only guess..."

Actually, both sides watched each other very closely during the Cold War. Radar tracking the launches, monitoring communication, HUMINT sources. It would be impossible to hide stuff like that. Any major bluff would become known to the other side. For example, we through intelligence gathering, knew about their N1 moon rocket failures (they finally gave up.)

[JadeEmperor]

"Actually, the T-34 tank had it’s body & tracks designed by an American. So, maybe the Ruskies NEVER have had an original idea..."

Sometimes the arrogance of Freepers gets me. I could name a few Russians with original ideas. Mendeleev, the discoverer of the periodic table of elements. Timoshenko (arguably of Ukrainian descent, but educated in Russia, culturally Russian, spoke Russian), and was forced to emigrate after the Communist revolution. Igor Sikorsky, also raised, educated and started his design career in the Russian Empire. In fact, throughout history events like Pearl Harbor and the launch of Sputnik show how dangerous it is to dismiss your potential adversary as primitives, capable only of emulation.

[JadeEmperor]

I forgot to say Stepan Timoshenko was the father of modern engineering mechanics.

[Jeff Head]

Compare:

F-22 - Nozzels do not protrude, they are highly angled on the ends and protected from IR signature, also made of very advanced material to further reduce IR signature:

T-50 Nozzles protrude far back where their IR signature is not hidden or protected. Ends not angled, round all around. IR Missle magnets.

I have no doubts that the T-50 has good radar stealth...I do not think it will be as good as the F-22 in that regard...and from what I see with my own eyes, it will be far less stealthy from the rear in IR.

[Steely Tom]

“...big fat engine nozzels in the back...those are missile vacuums...”

LOL! Nice observation on your part.

I’m not an aeronautical engineer, but I said the same exact thing about the vaunted Chinese “stealth fighter” (or bomber?) when the pics were posted on FR back in December 2010.

I remember that discussion thread. Someone made the point that the Chinese airframe may have been a test bed for certain stealthy components; that they knew full well that other parts -- like the engine air intakes and exhaust nozzles -- were not stealthy, and that they would come along later. I thought that was a good thought.

My observation would be this: look at the pictures of the Chinese and Russian stealth aircraft. The parts that are obviously not "stealthy" are a map of what elements their espionage assets have been tasked to get from us.

[AppyPappy]

The T-34 was based on a failed American design. The US Grant/Lee tank had sloped armor as did the Sherman. The T-34 was simply fast and used in a way that took advantage of the slope. T-34’s didn’t slug it out with German 75’s and 88’s. They charged at them while 122 and 152 pounded at the Germans from long range. To quote an adage from the time “The more tanks you have, the less you lose”

[ltc8k6]

What you see on the F-22 are the movable thrust vectoring nozzles. They are not for hiding the exhaust signature.

The F-22 hides it’s directly aft exhaust heat signature in the internal engine design and by mixing cooler air with the exhaust, and with a longer than necessary let pipe, which evens out the temp of the plume.

Exactly the way the T-50 hides it, as you can see. The protrusions you commented on are likely for reducing the heat signature aft.

Both jets hide it from the side and front the same way as well. By locating parts correctly to block the engines from view.

Only a very old heat seeking missile system would need to see the engine exhaust to detect the plane anyway, and both jets will easily defeat such.

Modern missiles don’t rely on detecting the engine’s exhaust plume.

[ltc8k6]

Correcting some bad writing in prev post...

The F-22 hides it’s directly aft exhaust heat signature in the internal engine design and by mixing cooler air with the exhaust, and with a longer than necessary outlet pipe, which evens out the temp of the plume.

Exactly the way the T-50 hides it, as you can see. The long nozzles you commented on are likely for reducing the heat signature aft.

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[plenipotentiary]

Hi Jeff

Thanks for the pic. Is it possible that the T50 shown does not have the full stealth superstructure over the engine as it is a test model not necessarily the final article?

[plenipotentiary]

Stalin’s plan in the 20’s and 30’s was to militarise the Soviet Union by buying or stealing or being given by traitors, the best plans for all types of military equipment. The Red Army was the largest and best equipped in 1939. Ref Viktor Suvorov ex Colonel GRU.

[Tucker39]

The one time I saw photos of it, my first impression was that is was “prettier” than ours, in that they had rounded off some sharp corners, etc. But.....copying the APPEARANCE of something, as opposed to duplicating the PERFORMANCE of something, are orders of magnitude apart! Here’s a link to an article and photo of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

[Draco88]

“Many rifles prior to the AK-47 used gas piston operation. The M1 Garand of the US, adopted in 1936, is but one example”

Yep, you got me there, I meant siphoning the gases from explosion used to fire off the bullet. If this was developed earlier, why was the idea subsequently ditched? On the point of the double hull in submarines, I remember now, this was invented by the Germans at the end of WW2 i.e. Type XXI had one, but vastly refined by the Russians. Besides the military inventions, the Russians made many scientific discoveries as well in the last 70 years, i.e. the Cerenkov radiation etc., so you cannot simply dismiss them outright as plagiarists, although they did copy a lot without bothering to obtain the permit from the original inventors.

[Captain Rhino]

Couldn’t agree more.

Buran flew once with no crew. 100% success rate but other than that no accomplishments.

The Space Transportation System (STS)(Space Shuttle) flew 135 times with crew. As you no doubt recall, there were two losses of craft and crew; Challenger and Columbia. Still, 133 completed missions equals a success rate of 98.5%, pretty good by most measures of performance. And let’s not even get started on the string of STS accomplishments. We did a lot and learned a lot albeit sometimes very painfully.

Unfortunately, once we finally got it figured it out, the aging system was very expensive to fly and we chose to retire it vice design STS II as its replacement. I understand and somewhat agree with the logic behind the decision but, in all probability, I won’t see another airplane planform space shuttle (government or commercial) before I die. (Which, God willing, isn’t going to be the day after tomorrow.)