Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 8 February 2010

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Russia Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India's Role

Could someone people confirm if the PAK FA is being jointly developed by India? if it is to be commissioned into the russian air force by 2008/09 will it be part of the IAF in the same time frame also? If yes, this means that india will now have the option to secure say 375 Gen 4.5 Mutlirole Fighters (150 Su 30 MKI's, 126 MRCA (Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter, F/A-18 or Mig-35)), Gen 4.5 Air Superiority HAL Tejas, Gen 5 MCA's and Gen 5 PAK FA's. Its a rapid modernization, no? sachinnichani

It is NOT being jointly developed by India. India has absolutely nothing to do with the PAK-FA despite a few not-very-credible sources claiming it wanted to participate in the project. If an export version of the PAK-FA is ever sold to India, it will likely have some Indian components much like the SU-30MKI but that is the extent of any Indian involvment with the PAK-FA. Edrigu 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some talk to create a joint project of a lighter frontlinne fighter, in the lines of F-16 and MiG-29, and there were some reports that such agreements were actually signed, but the result of is is yet to be seen. These rumors also speculate that MiG will be tasked with development on the Russian side. --Khathi 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some users have recently edited the article by addiing frankly a completely irrelevant piece. PLEASE REMEBER THAT THIS IS NOT A MAGAZINE but an encyclopedic article. An entire news piece added as a section had completely discredited the article's encyclopedic nature.

Plus, please keep some facts in mind before any such edits are added to this article:

• PAK FA project is nearly complete. The first plane will fly in 2008.
• It will enter service between 2012 and 2015 with Russian Air Force
• India and Russia have only just signed a deal to develop a new 5th gen. figther
• Both country will have 50/50 partnership on this new deal. the PAK FA project has been developed entirely by Russia.
• Take the F-22 and F-35 (US) fighter jets for example. Both aircrafts are 5th gen, but one of them was built with international partnership.
• Common sense, logic and hard facts thus indicate that the Russo-Indian project will be a completely new aircraft project with new designation
• Plus, the last edits have drawn a very detailed picture of the Indian air force's future requirements, etc. Why on earth is that relevant to an aircraft specific article is beyond me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash sul (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE READ ALL HARD DATA and consider the logic before adding any speculations to the PAK FA article. Please remember, this is an encyclopedic site and NOT a news or magazine site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash sul (talk • contribs) 07:54, October 20, 2007

Thanks -- 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hey chill. All I know is what someone else added as a reference, which is this article from the Times of India. That author seems to be under the impression that the Indian aircraft will not be a "completely new aircraft" but some form of the Sukhoi PAK FA. He states " IAF wants the FGFA, which is being called T-50 by the Sukhoi Design Bureau" and "Russian officials, however, have put the overall development cost of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA project in the region of $10 billion." Tabercil 03:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

SU-30MKI is said to be having less similarities with SU-30, rather it is customized version of the SU-35 experts say! WHERE IS THE CITATION FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT INDIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAK FA??? ...IF YOU FIND ANY;) - samar 15:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PAK FA IS A JOINT VENTURE OF RUSSIA AND INDIA! OR ELSE WHY SHOULD THE RUSSIANS SAY THAT THEY HAVE SIGNED TO JOINTLY DEVELOP IT??? India and Russia are designing a fifth-generation fighter jet, Russian ambassador Vyacheslav Trubnikov revealed in media reports Thursday. LINK: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/intelandterror/article_1130437.php/India_Russia_designing_fifth-generation_fighter

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?tp=on&autono=47196 - samar 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ONE MORE SOURCE FOR INDIAS ROLE BY PAK FA: http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=73&task=view&id=16398&sectionid=4&Itemid=1 - samar 22:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar60 (talk • contribs)

JUST ONE MORE... http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071206/91196743.html - samar 17:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar60 (talk • contribs)

"*PAK FA project is nearly complete. The first plane will fly in 2008." nice joke. There's not even a prototype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.39.107.209 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe it takes time till 2012/14... so what? by then PAK FA/FGFA will be an aircraft with more advanced tech. than F-22 or F-35!!! better right???Samar60 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparability with F-22 and F-35

This plane is the Russian equivalent to the F-22. What's all this comparison with the F-35? The PAK FA will kill the F-35. They're not in the same league! If russia develops a VTOL fighter then that can be compared to the F-35!

Also the plane will eventually be called the Sukhoi Su-50. T-50 is the codename during development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs) 13:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

This plane WONT kill anything untill it's actualy flying. so far we see rather poor quality 3d renders, while f-22 and f-35 are actualy FLYING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.61.201 (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"The PAK FA will kill the F-35" Oh yeah. The one has not even left the drawing board, the other is still preproduction with several classified details. I just love these well founded pro-russian pukes in military articles.--Amanitin 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the data that is out there regarding these aircraft? The F-35, according to the USAF would lose against a modern Sukhoi variant in a fair engagement. The Russians plan on replacing the current Sukhoi's AND Mig's with the PAK-FA ... do you honestly think that if they can already produce an aircraft with existing technology and capabilities which can shake the USAF's confidence in a fighter that hasn't even been delivered yet that they'd be building a new aircraft to compete with it?

Think of it this way; 1970's Russia designs Su-27, it becomes best fighter aircraft, 1990's USA designs F-22, it becomes best fighter aircraft. 2000's USA develops F-35 to fit all purposes the F-22 doesn't fit ... eg. not air to air combat. 2000's Russia develop PAK-FA ... what for?

It's program requirements are higher speed, payload, radar range and lower RCS then the F-35 ... the exact things the F-22 has over the F-35. Its not that hard to see what this is ... the F-35 comparison crap is pure propaganda that gets raised any time someone mentions the PAK-FA by US 'patriots' (as opposed to US servicemen). Its to shield the ego's of people who like to think that the F-22 is so far ahead that no one in the world can attempt to match it, let alone actually match or beat it. I'm not saying the Russians will ... but the whole source of the PAK-FA = F-35 argument comes from this emotive concern of patriotic fools. --58.178.202.40 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The F-22 *is* that far ahead. The Russians (or anyone else, for that matter) have absolutely zero hope of approaching the Raptor's capabilities at any time in the forseeable future...and that's only speaking of those capabilities which are not classified. The "emotive concern of patriotic fools" is only coming from those Russian fanboys who deny themselves the objective truth. Dream all you want, but the facts are the facts. To think otherwise is to display your own ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.207.211 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dream all you want, bur the facts are the facts" Which facts are you referring to? Do you have, by some chance, those facts that say that no one can at least TRY to match raptor's capabilities? If so, then lighten us up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.79.198 (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they can try, that's true. They can try all they want. The facts that were referred to are that the Russians do not have the infrastructure, financial means, and most importantly the technology to match the F-22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.249.77 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I want solid proof that the Raptor *is* that far ahead. Unless you have a good reason to speak so, to the extent of considering other nations as inferior, you better have a solid fact(other than USAF claims) to back you up. Otherwise, you are just talking garbage. 211.207.64.116 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's delete every scrap of information from this article that hasn't been verified by having the fighter actually show up someplace so somebody can look at it and recreate the article when the Russians have got something that can go toe to toe with the Super Hornet. Agreed? Hcobb (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what capabilities does the F-22 have? It's still plagued by structural and maintenance problems, its "stealth" is in question, it can't stay in the air too long (not more than an hour), and is plagued with other mechanical and electronics problems that have skyrocketed the price (over $350 million per unit in 2005 according to GAO) and made the plane not even combat-worthy yet. So, what capabilities exactly, besides its use as a propaganda tool? The F-22s stealth, its only advantage, is said not to be that much better than the F-117. We saw the F-117 in 1999. 2 shot down, one so badly damaged that it was scrapped. So much for stealth against 1950s-60s-developed radars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.239.140 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Development of Su-47?

If pictures are correct, then it is development of Su-27/30 and not Su-47. Su-47 has forward-swept wing and Pakfa_india34.jpg shows conventional swept wing or maybe even delta wing.--Tokul 07:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The matter of wing sweep doesn't truly determine the design heritage. While PAK FA as it is seems to be a delta, S-37 might serve as a platform for development of avionics or simply a composite wing testbed -- two completely different wings might well be built by the same technology. --Khathi 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

it is only a composite wing testbed, the rest of the plane is the same as Su27. 218.186.8.10 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

S-37 is a technology demonstartor -- that is, a plane that isn't intended to be mass produced, but used to showcase and test some advanced technologies. In this case forward wing sweep and composite wing construction is most obvious ones, but it doesn't mean thet they are only ones. And about its relation to T-10 line -- it uses some major building blocks from Su-27, like undercarriages and such, but its mostly a cost-cutting measure, it has completely different airframe and other stuff. --Khathi (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft - Eurofighter

Eurofighter is not fifth generation aircraft. EF is maximum 4+ generation --Matrek 08:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jet fighter "generations" are marketing, while we don't even have a flying PAK-FA yet its a bit early to say what is comparable to it trash80 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

while it's marketing (and I do agree that the "generations" of fighers should be deleted or completely re writtin in wikipedia) the PAK FA is indeed a 5th generation aircraft. These kind of comparations just demonstrate the whole american bs that military articles in[REDACTED] have. If I added the eurofither as a comparable aircraft to a F-22 there would be a shitload of rants and it would be removed in seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.86.78 (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-50

Is there a source for "Su-50" being the official designation for the PAK FA? If it's not an official companny or Russian AF designation, it should be removed. - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. Fighters are (almost) always issued odd numbers in official Air Force designations. Even numbers are for bombers and ground attack planes -- with some exceptions like Tu-95 (which is factory designation that became official) and Su-25 (same story, IIRC). T-50 is Sukhoi's internal design name, because its wing is a delta, and official designation most probably would be Su-41, as Su-39 seems to be already taken. --77.35.19.137 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's entirely possible for them to re-use designations, like they did for the new Su-27BM by using "Su-35" again. The Su-37 was a one off variant and I dont know if Su-39 was ever made official. Then again, sukhoi doesnt exactly follow the naming system faithfully, so it's pretty much impossible for us to predict it's name at this point. --24.119.105.32 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Su-35 is not reused. Those planes built in 90-es are still Su-35, while the new ones are Su-35BM, and its a different designation by Russian standards. Only real case when Sukhoi reused designations was with Su-9, and earlier Su-9 wasn't really produced in quantity, unlike Su-35. Also these designations aren't given by the producer -- Ministry of Defence awards it to types adopted to service. But, anyway, I agree with you, the point is moot indeed -- it's really still too early to argue about it. --Khathi (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the "T" isn't the same as "Y" in the USA? I mean, we have Y-22 or YF-22. T-50 will be SU-50? does this make any sense?84.39.107.209 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "T" is an internal designation used by Sukhoi company for all their delta-wing designs. They also have "S" index, which is used for swept-wing planes, like in S-47. Neither Soviet Unior nor Russia use or have used any "official" designations for prototypes -- they are just called as their developers see fit. That's why Tu-95 got its "fighter" index -- the internal prototype number just kind of stuck, and when official designation was conferred upon adoption to service, as usual, the plane (referred by Tupolev -- and, at this point, by everybody else -- as simply "95") got designated Tu-95 instead of Tu-20 as it should've been. --Khathi (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-50 Introduction

Interesting information from an e-mail I recieved:

DATE: December 17, 2007

     PUBLICATION/PAGE: Chosun Ilbo / P. 20

     TITLE: Russian Su-50 will outrun F-22

     The Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation Air Force,
     Gen. Aleksandr Zelin, on December 15 said at a press conference held
     with the Ria Novosti, "Russia's Sukhoi Su-50 will be the 5th
     generation fighter that will exceed the performance of the F-22
     Raptor. We have completed the design for the fifth-generation fighter
     and passed it to the production plant." Gen. Aleksandr Zelin also
     announced that Russia plans to launch the fighter starting in 2010
     following test flights in early 2009. The Russian fifth-generation
     fighter program started with the co-production agreement between the
     governments of India and Russia last October. Sukhoi and India's
     Hundustan Aeronautics Ltd. are jointly developing the Su-50 to
     manufacture it in the Komsomolsk-on-Amu region.

     The Su-50 features supersonic cruise capability without additional
     engine propulsion and a low radar signature called stealth. It is
     designed to fly at a maximum Mach 2.5 at Mach 1.8 at supersonic
     cruise, outpacing the F-22 Raptor's maximum speed and cruising speed
     of Mach 2.42 and 1.72, respectively. Unlike the F-22, which uses
     stealth paint, the Su-50 introduces low-temperature plasma laser
     technology to absorb radar waves. Similar to the F-22 Raptor, the
     Su-50 also integrates weapons and fuel systems internally. Both the
     Su-50 and the F-22 have very low observable stealth capability that
     differentiates them from 4th generation fighters including the F-15
     and the Su-35.

Link to photo: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/photoshow.php?slang=0&id=29 Karlbatig (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a photo. It's an artist's impression based on a leaked early drafts. Similar pics were already deleted from here. As for aircraft's designation, I've already written that fighters are assigned ODD numbers per tradition. "Su-50" is just a confusion between official service designation (that would be Su-41, most probably) and its design number T-50. To complicate things further, the aircraft is much better known under the design theme description -- that is, PAK FA, or "И-21" for Istrebitel'-21 or Fighter-21, as it's a 21'th jet fighter design (I believe) that is officially approved for production. --Khathi (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the plasma stealth technology is not proven technology. there has yet to been any successful demostration that it could maintain the field when flying at high speed, atm you need to be flying at the speed of a bus for it to work effectively. it is largely still speculation and largely dismissed after the mig 1.42 project, i still expect conventional stealth technology to be employed by Sukhoi. 218.186.8.10 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumors of project cancelation (April 2008)

Hi. As you may have seen in the past few edits, there have been some speculations that the Russians have canceled the PAK FA project. Here's an article I found about the subject:

Russia's next-generation fighter project cancelled

MOSCOW, April 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russian air force commander-in-chief Aleksandr Zelin has announced the cancellation of the $20-billion PAK-FA program after 20 years of escalating costs, technological glitches and redesigns failed to produce a single prototype aircraft.

The PAK-FA, once billed as Russia's next-generation fighter, had consumed $13.9-billion. The estimated cost of each aircraft had soared to $87.2-million from an original target of $30-million.

"It's had a long and troubled history," said Alexei Arbatov, a senior Duma official who heads the lower house committee for defense.

The PAK-FA, a new generation fighter aircraft concept, was designed to be comparable to both the American F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II and has been overtaken by the need to strengthen Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

Acknowledging that the PAK-FA no longer fit into the requirements of Russia, the Air Force said it would rather spend the money on an overhaul of its aviation system. If approved by the Federal Assembly, the funds would be directed instead to buy over 400 additional SU-34, SU-35 and other aircraft and to upgrade and modernize 1,400 aircraft already in service. Surface-to-air missiles also would be a priority.

"It's about having an effective deterrent force," said Air Force Colonel General Alexander Zelin. "It's a big decision. We know it's a big decision, but it's the right decision."

The end of the PAK-FA also reflects an acknowledgement by the Ministry of Defence that it simply cannot afford all the programs it wants. The move underscores the fact that the Ministry of Defence must begin economizing as the cost of new weapon systems increase and demands on military spending grow, industry analysts said.

The Air Force would have spent $20-billion on the PAK-FA program through 2012 without getting aircraft significantly more capable than the upgraded SU-35 it already plans to buy, Air Force officials said.

Some officials of the State Duma reacted angrily to the cancellation.

"I am outraged by the decision to terminate the PAK-FA program given that the Air Force has long argued that it is a critical weapons system that plays a pivotal role in our defence," said State Duma deputy Vladimir Medinsky. "What has changed? And how does the military plan to make up for the lost capabilities?"

Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee of the State Duma, said the decision "reflects the difficulty that the services are facing with the cost of modernization requirements now coming to the fore."

The cancellation was a blow to the PAK-FA's prime contractors, Sukhoi and NPO Saturn.

A senior Duma official said the Ministry of Defense expects to have to pay a $450-million to $680-million termination fee to Sukhoi and NPO Saturn.

The program's elimination, however, could benefit the two companies. The Air Force now plans to pour more money into the SU-34 and SU-35, and ramp up the upgrade of aircraft already in service which would keep both companies busy for the foreseeable future.

• http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7655
• http://www.indiandefenceforum.com/index.php/topic,11563.0.html
• http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1238724
• http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3177396&postcount=12

I think, since this article was written in early April, that it is an April Fools joke (if the Russians observe April Fools Day at all). What do you guys think? --Henrickson 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm that this is an actual "RIA Novosti" press release? I seriously doubt that they would so bluntly announce a cancellation such as this. Bogdan 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. My contact there says that there weren't anything like that, so it indeed must be a April Fools joke that somebody took much to seriously. Just today, as Su-35BM did a demo flight, it was announced that PAK FA is still in the works and prototypes are being built right now. --Khathi (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if it is true. If the program was cancelled, how come they signed a deal with brazil for participation in PAK FA program? I think this information ( or misinformation ) should not be added until it is confirmed. At present, perhaps it cannot even qualify as a speculation.necromancer (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the RIAN report, and it explicitly says that development is on and prototypes are being assembled. --Khathi (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Program don't canceled only transformed. PAK FA for Russia and on 70 % similar FGFA for India. Founding 50/50 % with India, and tech for FGFA 70(R)/30(I). For PAK FA 100% tech russian. For international market only FGFA(Su-40). For Russian only PAK FA(Su-41). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomsovet (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Saturn Image?

You might recognize this image (http://defesabr.com/FAB/T-50_03.jpg), the "official" image of the PAK FA as released by the Saturn Design Bureau. I know it's controversial, but considering how much attention it's received and since it came from a credible source, it's the closest thing we have to any definite image. Of course, it could turn out untrue, but do you think it deserves at least some mention in this article? We already have at least two possible configurations in the article anyway... --24.119.105.32 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Better be safe than sorry. I've heard rather outlandish claims from rather dependable people -- the military analyst of aforementioned RIA Novovsti, for one, -- but i'm not rushing to put it into the article, specifically because they are quite outlandish. --Khathi (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The engine

I am a layman in aeronautic engineering, but I would like to understand one thing that seems contradictory to me: In the same article, the aeroplane is said to be able to supercruise. Later, the engine is defined as using an afterburner. Are not the two mutually exclusive? Besides, the article on the AL-41F specifically says it is designed to supercruise. I know the specifications come from warfare.ru, but, if my assumption is correct, either that site or the article on the engine is wrong. Besides, I think the engine used in the Su-35BM should get its own article, even if it is a derivative of an earlier model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.16.64 (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The key to supercruise is not "no afterburners" but "no afterburners needed to break the sound barrier." The Concorde (the first plane with practical supercruise) used the afterburners to break the sound barrier since it was more efficient than slowly accelerating past the sound barrier, but it maintained supersonic speed without them. Almost all other supersonic aircraft have to keep the afterburners lit to stay at that speed. Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

117S already demonstrated its ability to put the plane to supercruise -- in the latest tests it was reported that Su-35BM got 1.1M on nominal power and continued to accelerate, but as it was a controllability test, they didn't push with the speed further. Engines tests should show how far it would get, and whether it's possible with full weapons loadout, but already it seems promising. --Khathi (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I recall reading in another article in Misplaced Pages that the only fighter jet that is effectively able to supercruise routinely is F-22. Is its engine equipped with an afterburner - even if it does not usually resort to it - or does it rely solely on supercruising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.19.127 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It has afterburners. See Pratt & Whitney F119. SDY (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well. The issue of the afterburner being settled, I would like to know whether anyone can dispel the ambiguities surrounding the AL-41F engine. In this article, it is described as having 152 kN of power; in the Project 1.44 article, it is said to be much more powerful, about 176 kN, which would make it comparable with the F-35 engine. I know much of it is speculative, as the specifications have not been officially disclosed, but which number seems more credible to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.88.203 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MiG 1.44 picture

As I've stated in that article, the image currently used for this plane isn't that accurate (intake shape is off). There's a 3-view in that article that might be cut up to supply a useful image. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of this article

Having searched internet and Jane's database for articles on T-50/PAK FA, in my opinion this areicle has very little substance and is mostly composed of rumors gathered from Internet or far reaching speculations based on some limited facts. I would suggest that somebody cleans it from speculation, pictures and technical details, as most of these are silply made or irrelevant up in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazil section

I do not understand why there's so much written in the article about Brazil being officiall out of this project and even listing down the names of the shortlisted aircrafts by Brazil. This section, clearly, does not add anything to the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I WOULD SAY "DOSENT MEET WIKI-STANDARD"Samar60 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I deleted the section? Seems kind of a waste of space to have a whole section on something that isn't going to happen. Maybe it can be mentioned in one small sentence somewhere else: "Brazil was thinking of joining in on the project as a joint effort, but chose not to" (I know that's bad wording, but something of the sort) LokiiT (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DOES PAK FA HAVE 3D THRUST VECTORING???

IF YES, WOULD BE NICE IF YOU COULD GIVE A LINK TO SOURCE! THANKS:)!Samar60 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes have Saturn AL-31FP and AL-41FP have thrust vectoring but all docs and info only on russian. You understand Russian language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomsovet (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo of PAK FA

I just got hands on foto, which is claimed to be a foto of PAK FA model in aero-tunel . Source is . I think it should be interpreted or at least mentioned in the article. So what´s your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllsworthSK (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the preliminary configurations and unlikely to get into producton variant. So I don't think it should be included in the particle itself -- anyway, several speculative confgs were removed from it already. --Khathi (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No this is preproduction variant only small edits maybe include in final version.

Do you have anything to support this? --Khathi (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnomsovet uploaded this to commons , but it is not his own work and not licensed under CC. We need to use resized version of this photo. `a5b (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the relationship between the model depicted in this photo and the real PAK FA is unclear. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that is the real design, because it's unstealthy and subsonic. Just look at the leading edge angle of the wing... Hcobb (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little bold to call a metal wind tunnel model subsonic and unstealthy for the full aircraft... -SidewinderX (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's physics at work. Read the article on Swept_wing#Supersonic_behavior to see why the angle of the wing indicates the maximum speed of the aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The F-104 proves that false, as stated. - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The F-104 has much thinner wings, but the most important angle is between the tip of the nose and the tips of the wings. The F-104 has very short wings that are mounted way back from the nose so this angle is much greater than shown in this photo. Hcobb (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, as it needed to be. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am very familiar with supersonic aerodyanmics. While, in general, you are correct that supersonic aircraft like to keep everything within the Mach cone, there are many other ways to do things. One way is have a fairly limited top speed; at M1.4 the Mach angle is 45 deg, so in a supercruise condition, those wings might be within the cone as is. Secondly, based on both the photo and general design principles, it is very likely the wings get thinner as you move to outward spanwise stations, so the outside edges of the wing may use supersonic airfoils (infact they do look rather thin in the photo). In that case, having the wingtips outside of the Mach cone isn't as big of an issue; the wings are designed for it. I'm not saying that this is what the aircraft is designed to do, I'm just suggesting that these are ways to get "around" highly swept wings, and making that judgement from these photos is a little premature. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS A PHOTOSHOPPED IMAGE, IT WAS ORIGINALLY A PAIR OF SU-47S!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dultsev pictures

I suggest removing the picture at the top of the page, i searched Aleksander Dultsev and he appears to be a artist with no discernible connection to the Russian government. His website (*http://www.duler.ru/design.html) has some industrial design work on it including a render of a Peugeot concept car he calls the "x-ray"; but google it, and you get nothing.

It's possible the PAK FA images are commercial work for Sukhoi, but I doubt it. If someone can get a source showing that the pics are official, then so be it. But as it stands now it just adds more speculation to an article that already has way to much. --Alonso de la mancha (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw those pictures on a blog a few days ago and people were saying the designs were based off already existing prototypes and models (not even Russian designs). So yeah I'm pretty sure his art doesn't represent what the actual aircraft looks like. It's just supposed to be what he as an artist thinks it will look like, but he doesn't actually know. LokiiT (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case I see no reason to keep the pictures, so if no one has an objection I'm removing them. --Alonso de la mancha (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I say remove it. It doesn't look like it's anything official. Nextgenerationliberty (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PAK FA (Su-41) and FGFA (Su-40)

PAK FA for Russia and on 70 % similar FGFA for India. Founding 50/50 % with India, and tech for FGFA 70(R)/30(I). For PAK FA 100% tech russian. For international market only FGFA(Su-40). For Russian only PAK FA(Su-41).Gnomsovet (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, show links to your sources about Su names (Su-41, Su-40). `a5b (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash continues

If we're not going to include the most solid information we have about the project then why not just delete the page until it's unveiled? Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are you talking about? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an Indian doing a one-handed edit war on the page. He's attempting to cover up just how far behind the joint project is. Hcobb (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relation with PAK DA

what is the relation of this Sukhoi PAK FA with the PAK DA "The PAK DA (or PAK-DA), is a next generation strategic bomber which is being developed by Russia. It stands for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Dalney Aviatsyi (Перспективный авиационный комплекс дальней авиации in Russian) which means Future Air Complex for Strategic Air Forces. The PAK DA is going to be heavily based on Russia's current supersonic bomber Tupolev Tu-160 and is expected to have its maiden flight by 2015." http://en.wikipedia.org/PAK_DA ? 84.39.107.209 (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no relation. PAK FA and PAK DA are just names of the governmental contests that got initiated at about the same time by the same people and thus have similar names. --Khathi (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are both with lowered RCS, there the similarity ends. PAKDA is extremely long range, all weather, stealthy strike craft comparable to a stealthy white swan. PAKFA does not have anywhere close to the range of the PAKDA and is used more similar to fighters. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

CITATION FOR UNIT COST

Hi, the article says "Unit cost:US$50-65 million depending on model" can anyone give a citation for the sum? thank you. Samar60 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Since I'm positive that $50-65M cost is wrong, I've removed it. If someone has a cost of it, they need to cite it. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Tests already started

First ground-based test started on December 23 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. They tested acceleration and brakes. The plane should fly in January 2010. All this according to this article which in turn cites Interfax. --IJK_Principle (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is what the aircraft actually looks like can we remove it from the 5th generation fighter list already? Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The legend beside the picture says "a possible visual appearance of PAK FA", so no - it's not an official picture. --IJK_Principle (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture shows nothing. Besides, FYI, altering an article based on your analysis of a picture will be qualified as an 'orginal research' (banned in Misplaced Pages).

I'd like to point out that the western sources have been saying 2010 for the first flight of the prototype that is equipped with only current generation gear so taxi tests in Dec 2009 are broadly in line with that. Hcobb (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Nevertheless, qualified Western sources still consider this plane as 5th gen. 2) As it was stated many times already (by the Sukhoi specialists and officials), the 4++ gen engine (which is in production) is meant just for initial tests, while the 5th gen engine (which is being tested) will be installed on the production planes. 3) Not less than 3 aircrafts are being tested now, the taxiing one not necessarily being intended even for the maiden flight. 4) Even if an engine is called '4++ gen' by its the designers, it doesn't mean that a plane equipped with such is 4th gen. Example: although F-35 does not supercruise and is equipped with a 4th gen VTOL system, it still is qualified as 5th gen.

An IR sensor is not attached to the outside of a stealth aircraft with rusty screws. Hcobb (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the sensor displayed at MAKS-2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/File:OLS-for-Su-aircrafts.jpg)? 1) I can't see a sigle rusty screw there, 2) I can't see a stealth aircraft on this photo (or maybe it's too stealthy to be seen even in the optical range? Wow! :D ) 3) All we know about the sensor on the photo is that it's intended to be installed on Sukhoi planes ("OLS // optical radar station for Su aircrafts" written on it ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.142.251 (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hcobb, I've noticed you've been attempting to troll the discussion posts here and I'd like to mention a couple of counter-points. The engines on the PAKFA that flew in January were more powerful then any other 4th or 5th generation aircraft, had variable inlets, provisions for 3d thrust vectoring and other advanced innovations. The 'rusty bolts' on the PAKFA to are standard issue on other 5th generation aircraft, and are flush with the airframe. Both of these facts come from official sources. Stop trolling.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Already flying! Already flying?

Alleged mobile phone pic of the airborne T-50 on reheat:

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6866/j13.jpg

Although if it's Mother Russia and turn of the year, where is the ground coverage of General Winter? Some say the vertical stabilizers bear chicom red stripes. 87.97.99.99 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good fake, but stealth aircraft do not have wingtip hardpoints. Also note the lack of heat from the afterburners.

Also the star is Chinese as this was used a few years ago to fake a Chinese aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the 'Exit' sign on the window is, apparently, in Chinese. Also, even though Mother Russia is big enough not to have snow somewhere on a certain winter day, a tree with large green leaves outside (at the left of the photo) is a bit too much :D Also, apparently, there's no shaddow on the ground under the plane where it should be, according to the position of the source of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.162.212 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are places where green leaves could be observed in January in Russia, but then neither of them is called Zhukovski or Komsomolsk-na-Amure -- the two places where the alleged flight could take place. In fact, in both places there would be lots of snow. ;) And then there's the matter of a Chinese star, Chinese sign and poor Photoshop skills of a faker. Plane's model, on the other hand, is known -- 've seen it once in a discussion of a future Chinese 5'th generation fighter.

Why were the specs removed?

Warfare.ru is a legit source for military hardware specs. LokiiT (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one who removed them, but the last time I looked at them, the source was nearly 3 years old and seemed like a a bunch of guesses (and very detailed ones at that). I didn't have much faith in them, and I'm not unhappy that they are gone. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did it because they copy and pasted the specs from the MiG project onto a Sukhoi. And then recently somebody pointed out that the specs matched. Hcobb (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, both good enough reasons I suppose. LokiiT (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RCS of the PAK-Fa

The article claim that the RCS of the FGFA will be 0,5m² not of the PAK-FA. Edit this pls. The article claims nowhere the RCS of the PAK-FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.65.120 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And also this can't be true cause Su-47: "0.3 m2 class", declared by Sukhoi in 2002.

And no one called it "stealth"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.65.120 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the newspaper said 'the RCS of PAK FA is X m2', I wouldn't recommend to post it, cause, a priori, there would be no real source of such information, but just a fantasy. The true RCS (as well as the exact values of almost all other numerical characteristics) of PAK FA is strictly classified. The same applies to F-22, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.162.212 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to a defence ministry official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metre as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”

This all seems to be about the Russian, not Indian, aircraft. This pushes it up to the Eurofighter levels of RCS and hence back into the 4.5th generation fighters. And this is the best and most recent information available on the subject. Hcobb (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But it's not PAK-FA any way. FGFA has it's own page in Misplaced Pages, and this info belongs to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.162.212 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some one read that the Su-47 got a rcs of 0.3 m2 ?? That is just silly to post things like 0.5 m2 and write stealth a Rafael got 0.1 - 0.2 m² —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.65.120 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the quotation about the RCS is plainly wrong. Here the author refers to a 'Russian ministry official', while in the newspaper it's said 'a defence ministry official', referring to an Indian ministry official (see the context of the article '...a defence ministry delegation to Sukhoi’s flagship aircraft facility in Siberia became the first Indian...'. So, I suggest to delete this quotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.162.212 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover he is writing about the FGFA which should fly in some weeks ?! That is also not true he means in reality in my opinion the Pak-Fa cause no version of the FGFA is ready so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.65.120 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Indians recently just started to call PAK FA FGFA, regardless of whether it's a Russian single-seat vrsion or Indian two-seater. The matter is further complicated bu the fact that current agreement seems to stipulate that Russians will buy some two-seaters to use as trainers, while Indians would buy some single-seaters for special ops. So for the sake of our sanity we should treat "PAK FA" and "FGFA as the same thing, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.23.236 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA and FGFA are not the same thing, because PAK FA has been built and FGFA is being designed. The problem is that the information in Indian newspapers is very controversial. 'The Times of India' contradicts itself announcing 50/50 contracts in the beginning of 2007, 25/75 in 2009 and quoting the Russian Ambassador in India (in the end of 2007) doubting even a possibility of Indian participation in this project. Moreover, since several PAK FA prototypes have been already build, so it would be unreasonable to expect any future participation of India in its design. Therefore, any information in Indian newspapers should either refer to the FGFA project, or turn out to be an empty gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.142.251 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but try to tell it to them Indians! ;) If I could be spared for some speculation, I suspect, personally, that after several major failures at DRDO and such (like the whole Arjun snafu), Indians need some good news as soon as possible, and that's why Indian press started to call Russian prototypes FGFA, while the whole Indian involvement with them would be purely financial -- read, Indians would shoulder some of the development cost. So, indeed, any info in Indian press should be treated with a crain of salt. However, from what I've heard, the difference between current T-50 and what was called FGFA some time ago wouldn't be all that radical and amounts generally only to the new cockpit and forward fuselage section (and avionics, but it's a different matter). And that, I believe, is what allowed Indians to justify this shift in the naming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.23.236 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Saiga12 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've seen it, it's clearly not a stealth aircraft. So can we move it from 5th to 4.5th generation now? Hcobb (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we cannot. All reliable sources are referring to it as a 5th generation fighter with stealth features. Moreover your logic is inconsistent considering the F-22 is not a true stealth fighter, yet it is still considered a 5th generation fighter. LokiiT (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By your definition, LokiiT, either no fighter is a 5th generation fighter, or Super Hornets, Typhoons, and Rafales are all 5th generation fighters as they possess stealth features, as well as advanced avionics suite.

What do you mean my definition? I didn't attempt to define what qualifies as a 5th generation fighter, except that it must have reliable sources stating as much. Which the T-50 does, and those other fighters you mentioned don't. LokiiT (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

These reliable sources got this one wrong apparently. PAKFA, from what has been observed in these videos are CURRENTLY well within the domains of a 4.5th generation fighter, however, it is possile that in the future, the program would eventually evolve into a full fledged 5th generation fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're the one whose got it wrong my friend. This is exactly why[REDACTED] has policies forbidding original research and requiring reliable sources. All one needs to do is listen to what the professionals and bloggers alike are buzzing about. LokiiT (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Professionals and Bloggers were working with Rumors, and released goals until now. Give it time, I am sure more and more professionals would change their opinion. I am ot saying you should change anything on wikipedia, I am merely stating that from observation, this plane looks somewhat similar in terms of ideals, as the F-15SE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It clearly has stealth features (all the hallmarks are there), awaits engines with thrust vectoring and supercruising ability (already achieved on test aircraft and the latest Su-27 series aircraft utilizing similar engines or prototypes of the T-50 engine, such as the testbed that flew a few weeks ago), a high performance AESA multimode radar, sizable internal weapon bays (hell, actually looks like it can carry more than the Raptor internally!) and it awaits RAM-coating and probably a heckload of final polishing (as it isn't a production model, lots of test flight instrumentation is present and something that appears to be an IRST dummy placeholder, too). How this is 4.5 gen beats me, anyway. You can't seriously mean you'd put a heavy air superiority fighter with these attributes in the same category as say Typhoon or Rafale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. It is clear a 5th generation fighter aircraft. Even your Lockhead Martin guys was very impressed of the stealth design.

As stated making comments on an aircrafts RCS based on images rather then reliable sources is conjecture and doesn't belong on wikipedia. Additionally, the discussion section of articles on[REDACTED] is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not for trolling or pushing views that belong on forums. Keep it clean, cite sources and suggest ways to improve the article or visit another discussion page.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maiden flight and appearance info

This states that the date of the maiden flight would be announced this week, and the flight itself would be in January, as the taxiing tests are apparently successful.

There's also a rumor circulating on the Russian aviation forums that PAK FA external appearance is officially declassified and the formal presentation would happen soon, which insiders generally support. Still no fotos though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.23.236 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It will fly on January 29 in Komsomolsk on Amur (it's more safe there than in Zhukovsky near Moscow). Also some eyewitnesses say that it's shape is similar to F-22, but we'll see for ourselves on Friday. Source --IJK_Principle (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From the insider info it's closer to YF-23. -Khathi (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, it will fly tomorrow (well actually today, since it's January 29 already in Moscow). Source --IJK_Principle (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "source" is showing a photo of an Eurofighter Chengdu J-10.(talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're both wrong, it's a MiG MFI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.232.140 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in the air. Sources are KnAAPO employees. Though they say that there won't be official news till the landing. -Khathi (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now Lenta.ru confirms it. -Khathi (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RIA Novosti says the same. Flight took approximately 40 minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A Sukhoi official confirmed publicly on the news channel Vesti 24. People are talking about some sort of press conference or similar within the next 3-4 hours. More details about the aircraft will hopefully surface then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with SH9002 about the V-tail. AFAIK, aircraft tails are considered to be v-tails if they have inclined surfaces and no additional horizontal or vertical tail at all:http://en.wikipedia.org/V-tail That isn't what the PAK-FA has, but is what the YF-23 had. Does anyone else have an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.66.237 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not about v-tail, I have changed the text. But the vertical tails of PAK-FA is really special, mechanically similar to the V-tail of YF-23. the replaced video (at 1:55-2:09) shows how it works much clearly. --SH9002 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

APAA?

What is this? It's never explained in the article or anywhere else on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation for "active phased-array antenna." In the body of the article, the abbreviation AESA is used. I think this should be changed for consistency, or linked to the "active electronically-scanned array" page. 140.211.132.201 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA/SU-27

I have found a good sceenshot from the news video, showing the PAK FA and a Su-27 flying side by side and have uploaded it. If the image and and licensing are OK, perhaps it could be used in the article to illustrate the differences between the two aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PAKFA_SU27.JPG D2306 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox - "introduction" vs "introduced"

I left a note at the template talk page to this effect, and it may just be that I don't understand the available parameters. But it seems to make sense to say "Introcution 2013 (planned)" than "Introduced 2013 (planned)". Can this be changed? TheGrappler (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is available and I have changed it - unless anybody objects? MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replace "Promising" with "Concept"

In my opinion the better equivalent of Russian word "перспективный" is "conceptual". Concept car, i.e. would be "перспективная модел." in Russian. Same idea. I suggest changing "Prospective (Promising) Aircraft Complex (System) of Front line Aviation" in intro to "Conceptual Aircraft System for Frontline Aviation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealander (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "promising" is a poorly-chosen word. But in Russian, the word "conceptual" has a cognate -- "концептуальный." More common translations for "перспективный" would be "prospective," or "advanced." I don't know what the rules are on Misplaced Pages for translations, but it seems that a phrase like "перспективный авиа комплекс" should convey the original meaning clearly. A verbatim translation does seem confusing in this case. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is interesting. Thesaurus gives two definitions of two similarly sounding words: "perspective" is a way of regarding situations or topics or a mental view or the state of one's ideas; and "prospective" which describes something concerned with or related to the future. In Russian, however, there exist synonyms "перспектива" meaning future and "перспектива" meaning a view or a state of idea.

Russians do like to use synonyms. Space station Mir, for example. In Russian, "mir" (rus. "мир") means "peace" and it means "world (society)" - a great word to name a space station. But in the case of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" however, when the same word had to be translated into English, "mir's" double meaning was lost. As my Russian literature teacher once pointed out, the title of the novel should've been translated as "War and Society" to really reflect the contents of the book. There is no peace in "War and Peace", the whole book is about war, how war changes people and society's response to war. It is obvious why Tolstoy chose this title. The two opposites create catchy title for those who haven't read the book yet, and the slow realization of title's real meaning once they've read it.

I think, as well as in this case, we have to look past the literal translation and try to capture the most satisfactory meaning. "Перспективный" should either be "perspective" or "conceptual" as this aircraft represents the Russian aviation industry's view and state of their ideas with regards to future fighter jets. Zealander (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello my English friends. I'm Russian and I think that our word "перспективный" it is better to translate in english as "future", because in russian "перспектива" = "взгляд в будущее" = "sight in future". We do like to use synonyms. ;) Ty3uk (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I confirm this. I'm Russian too. The correct translation in this context is 'future'. PAK = Future Aviation Complex. FA = Battlefront Aviation. So, 'PAK FA' should be translated as 'Future Battlefront Aviation Complex'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.142.251 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Naval variant?

Hi.

Over on the page for the Flanker-D, its' noted that the Su-33s flown from the Admiral Kuznetsov will need to be replaced by 2015.

Has there been any word on whether or not a navalised version of the PAK FA is being considered as a potential replacement for said craft - or will the Fulcrum-Ds they are already gonna get make do?

Or rather, that a (insert whatever is the proper NATO callsign here)-D might perhaps one day replace the MiG-29K itself? --Nerroth (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Too early to actually say anything, really, the prototype that flew yesterday is really just an airframe testbed lacking radar and half of other internal systems, but I see nothing that could prevent it. The STOL (in 300m range) was a requirement from the start, and it clearly visible from the video that it's been fulfilled even without afterburners. Plus, the oversized landing struts show that there wouldn't be any problem putting this bird on a catapult too. In fact, guys at bharat-rakshak.com are already pretty enthusiastic about it. But it's still a thing for the future -- the most optimistic date for plane's readiness is three years as stated by Putin, and there are all reasons to expect it to slip. Again, the naval mod will be most probably developed together with India, and there's still ongoing haggling about the joint project. So, there won't be aby navalized variant until at least 2013-2015 even in prototype stage, and Fulcrum-D it is for a moment. -Khathi (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read many stupid things on wikipedia, but saying that the PAK FA could have a naval variant is just plane stupid. It's like thinking in a naval F-22 variant. It doesn't even make any sense. Completely absurd. About the Su-33, the replacement will be the Mig-29K, which India already ordered too. http://en.wikipedia.org/Mikoyan_MiG-29K#MiG-29K_for_the_.22Admiral_Kuznetsov.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.18.12 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually its not a stupid assumption at all. One of the requirements of many Russian designed aircraft is STOL and the ability to land on poorly prepared strips or roads. Why is this relevant to a high tech, 5th generation replacement to their upper echelon aircraft like the Su-27 & Mig-31? Well, there is no slated replacement being talked about for the Mig-29 which fits the next generation niche nicely. Additionally, the moveable LERX's, large wing area, high thrust etc. were all part of an actual STOL requirement for the PAK-FA. I'm not sure if that came from the Indian's or the Russian's but it was a requirement of the project and one that they didn't seem to ignore. Take a look at most carrier aircraft and compare them to their purely land based brethren. The F/A-18 has LERX, the F-35C has larger wings and high thrust & the F-14 had an older, solution for high lift (swing wings). The PAK-FA MAY have exhausted all its options already, and with its weight plus the burden of most stealth aircraft, non-aerodynamic surfaces, it may have trouble ever taking off something like a sky jump, but the STOL capability might also be a part of the requirement for it to replace the Su-33. I guess only time will tell though.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the Mikoyan MiG-29K is in production for India's carriers, it's been reported that the Russian Navy is looking at ordering them to replace the Su-33s, as they would probably be available by 2015, and another order would lower the production costs for both users. There could be longterm plans for the PAK-FA to supplement the MiG-29K, and replace it later on, but again, only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

you are just debating without any kind of information. Russia as never ever required that the pak-fa would have a naval version. it just required to be STOL which as nothing to do with being carrier capable landing. That was NEVER a requirement or either will be one. you are just arguing. Russia ALREADY ORDERED MIG-29K TO REPLACE SU-33. They are not THINKING or whatever. Mig-29 is a completely different case. it always had a naval variant, the prototype as more then 20 years. it just has never been built until now. PAK-FA will never have a naval variant that is pure speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.69.229 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

User 93.141.117.171 has modified the aircraft dimensions without providing a source. Unless a source is given, the edit will be undone.D2306 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'd move that we remove all specifications drawn from Warfare.ru - This website admits that the specifications are estimated and they really aren't that reliable (as can be seen by their contradiction on several points by information coming from official source - eg. announcement of the reduced speed specification several months ago, and the details on the two weapon bays that were reported shortly after the first flight. The time for speculation and estimation is over. Making a clean sweep of the specifications section will allow us to fill in information from multiple, non-speculative sources now that such information is available. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, right now it's just spreading misinformation. Too many people unwisely use[REDACTED] as a reliable source. LokiiT (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Warfare.ru does not appear credible to me (for one thing it says it carries two cannons), and Jane's AWA (I'm a subscriber to the constantly-updated online version) does not yet have information on armament. The specifications should be removed for now. It's not ok for an encyclopedia to publish highly suspect data, even with an asterisk. 74.100.178.116 (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the specs Jane's currently lists:

Dimensions, External
Wing span	15.5 m (51 ft)
Length overall	23.0 m (75 ft)

Weights and Loadings
T-O weight: normal	24,000 kg (53,000 lb)
max	33,000 kg (72,750 lb)

Performance
Max level speed	M2.0
Supercruise speed	M1.6+ 
Radius of action	647 n miles (1,200 km; 745 miles)
Ferry range	2,159 n miles (4,000 km; 2,485 miles)

Article last updated 31-Dec-2009. 74.100.178.116 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thrust to weight ratio odd

I just did some 'original research' so naturally not suitable for[REDACTED] but it seems that, if saturn's 'amazing' claim of 175kn of thrust per engine for the PAK-FA is correct, its thrust to weight ratio is of rocket like proportions (exaggerating). With 6 tons of fuel and 4x aam's it would have a T/W ratio closer to 1.5 / 1 then the currently listed number. I suspect the reason for this difference is while there is new sources for information on the engine, there isn't on the aircrafts performance. But if someone runs into that kind of information maybe the page should be updated?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a sort of point. Even with 117S engines (with their 14.5 ton thrust) T-50 has a thrust-to-weight ratio >1 in most loadouts except the maximum overload. In conformal stealth loadout with 6 AAMs and 26 tons takeoff weight as speculated in this very article, it would have TTW ratio of 1.2. That's pretty high, true, but notice that 300m-range STOL was a requirement from the start, and high thrust-to-weight ration is a most obvious way to reach it. With those hagh claims about 17-ton engines that would be even higher, but it still most probably just a reflection of a STOL and maneurability requirements. -Khathi (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats a fair point and maybe it was part of a 2 way design sacrifice. One group of engineers saying "you can't have the aerodynamic layout you need for STOL if you want stealth" and the other group saying "well we can give you more bang for your buck with the engines, but it will cost you fuel consumption." Who knows the reason ... but they are making the claim and the figure on this article is now I think, incorrect.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no new engines for this fighter. Its all russian BS. "Some experts expressed scepticism, however, that the T-50 really represented a great leap forward for Russia’s Air Force. Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst, said that it relied on old engines and the only major advance was the shape of the airframe, which made the fighter less visible to radar." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7007913.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)] (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To the above user: The opinions of two-bit "dissidents" like Alexander Golts or Pavel Fengenhauer do not prove or disprove anything. I noticed your addition to the article. While I support addition of different views, and these individuals have the right to have their voices heard, it is hardly appropriate to say that the Sukhoi and Saturn design bureaus are spouting "russian BS," based strictly on the highly-biased opinions of these two persons.

You do realize, I hope, that Felgenhauer is a constant critic of the Russian government, to the point of being obsessive. The only reason anybody's ever heard of him is because he is supported by a hard-right American (anti-Russian and anti-Putin) NGO. For the majority of people who know about his work, Felgenhauer is not credible. Calling him "independent," or a "military analyst" for that matter, is misrepresentative.

By the way, Golts also has a stake in putting down this project. He is a member of the opposition movement which uses every opportunity to lash out at the current Russian governmental order. It's clear that a defense project breakthrough (such as the PAK FA) makes the current government look competent, which is why it sticks in the throat of the opposition so. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

24.243.2.132 Do not add large bodies of text that are uncharacteristic of pages like this without consensus from the editors. No only are they not useful or informative but they go against previously established guidelines for articles about aircraft like this. Furthermore, your choice of source was poor. "Analysts" quoted on foreign news sources that are typically known for rhetoric and propaganda against one cause are not considered an impartial or complete picture and are better suited for reactions to contemporary, local events then matters of international affairs or military history.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You sound like you are a shill for the Russian government. This aircraft is crap. The only new thing is the design; the engines and electronics are 'old'. While you may not like the two guys that I used, they are credible enough that the American media is quoting them. I have never heard of those two guys before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)] (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Biggus, way to open with an ad hominem insult. Are you a head-engineer in the Sukhoi design bureau? If not, there is no way you can judge this aircraft at this point in time. Moreover, your personal dislike toward it doesn't belong in the article -- an encyclopedia is supposed to hold facts, not bias.

It has been publically announced that the airplane is designed for an engine which is still in development. Regardless, it is obvious from the video that the craft accelerates very quickly with the existing engines without the afterburner.

It is clear that you hold a sharp bias on the subject. I'm fine with including viewpoints which criticize the plane. But including a section titled "Military analysts unimpressed" is downright dishonest. Besides the fact that the two quoted clowns are deeply biased politically, they aren't even qualified to talk about military affairs. Felgenhauer is a biologist by specialty, whose primary income is from the Jamestown Foundation, a hard-core anti-Russian (previously anti-Soviet) NGO. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not just downright dishonest, it is contrary to ALL similar[REDACTED] articles. In fact, I don't recall even seeing a 'criticism's' section in any aircraft article, even with a consensus that it is needed on the discussion page first. Additionally, quoting insults, fit for fluff pieces on the news is not suitable for wikipedia. Add to that, the name you choose for your userpage and this is looking far more like vandalism then appropriate editing. You add one piece of deliberately insulting fluff, from a trashy US TV channel, and some outdated news from The Times when MANY other sources completely discredit what is said in either and you resort to personal insults, offensive usernames and edit warring without discussion. I have put a warning on your userpage. After your next edit, I'm going to suggest this article be semi protected and I'm going to give you another warning.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A new piece of Russian military hardware comes out - the patriots flock to the article to try and discredit it using non-expert opinions/government funded propaganda like the Jamestown Foundation. Hmm, it only happens every single time. It's sad that some people feel so threatened by a little competition as to fill[REDACTED] with such blatantly biased, dishonest tripe. A criticism section in a fighter aircraft article? Give me a break. LokiiT (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with criticizing an aircraft, any aircraft? The only hard information about the plane is what was found in the Russian PR release. Its not a question of me discrediting the plane. I only heard of this thing just a couple of days ago, like most people. I then googled its name and found this[REDACTED] entry. But I did not stop there. I also read what other news organizations had to say. I have personal experience with the USSR / Russians from being in the U.S. Army. Most of their PR releases are BS. Since they live in a closed society with no freedom of the press there is not counter-viewpoint from what the state controlled media says. Yes, I know that the US military also releases some bogus information from time to time, too. But at least in America we have a free and independant press to challenge any such statements.

Who says the guys I quoted are clowns? Just because they are against the Russian government means that they are clowns? What kind of college degrees do you have? What experience do you have in matters of the military? I have some knowledge of this subject. I don't trust my own government any more than I do the commies. But at least when my government gets caught doing something wrong I know that I am free to talk about it and that if enough people feel as I do, there will be changes made. In communist countries that is simply not possible.

And in case you did not realize it before, the user name that I took is the name of a very famous, high-ranking Roman centurion, who was also best friends of Pontius Pilate, the guy who had Jesus Christ crucified. He is well known in certain historical circles.

In the end, I don't really give a fuck about this one way or the other. So I am not going to lose any sleep if you Russian shills decide to keep the article however you want. But anybody who is in the know knows that this plane is BS, just like the so-called Russian "space shuttle" was BS, too. Yeah, I remember that one, too. The commies were running around hollering how great their space shuttle was and how much ours sucked. Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Biggus, as I explained on my discussion page, Biggus Dickus was a fictional character in a Monty Python film. They used Latin names as a cover for a comic name in an era where terms like that were still somewhat controversial. Also, most countries outside the USA don't have the same education system you do. We go straight from High School to Universities. I did International Studies. And so I could tell you a thing or two about the "commies" but I'm not going to bother as you seem to be stuck in an eternally looping version of Red Dawn. But in future, when editing[REDACTED] articles try to follow the guidelines I gave you on your discussion page. See what the other editors think of adding a new section and try to justify it in a rational debate, without lowering yourself to using insults, swear words and racial insults. IF your argument is superior, you will get consensus and your suggestions will be implemented.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1st test of 5-Gen fighter in Russia

Rajat Pandit | TNN New Delhi: As New Delhi and Moscow inch closer to inking a detailed commercial contract for joint production of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), the advanced stealth jet tore into the skies for the first time in Russia on Friday. The 45-minute maiden flight of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA, the first “technology demonstrator” of the FGFA, at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur facility in Siberia was dubbed “successful” by Russian officials. “It’s a very encouraging development,” said a senior IAF officer. The IAF has reason to cheer as it hopes to induct 250 fighters for building an “expeditionary” aerospace force. The fourth-generation fighters typically revolve around multi-role capabilities, but the FGFA incorporate stealth technology, composite materials, supercruise, thrust-vectoring and integrated avionics as well. Though the Russian military-industrial complex is still to recover from its steep downfall after the Soviet Union break-up, the Sukhoi T-50 is being billed as a rival to the American F/A-22 Raptor, with a unit cost of over $140 million. While Raptor is the only operational FGFA in the world, the F-35 “Lightning-II” is being developed jointly by the US, the UK and seven other countries. While the Indian FGFA will be based on the Sukhoi T-50, it will be built according to IAF specifications already handed over to Russia. “The detailed contract is being worked out... It has been in the making for some years now,” Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) chairman Ashok Nayak said on Friday. Defence minister A K Antony had said India wanted the development of its FGFA to be completed by 2016 to ensure the IAF could begin inducting it from 2017 onwards. India,of course,will have to share the FGFA development cost, which is expected to touch $8-10 billion, with Russia. Apart from the single-seater T-50 being developed by Russia, the IAF wants a twin-seater version of the FGFA also. With a potent mix of super-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities, the FGFA will also have “a very high degree of network centricity” as well as multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems. The IAF’s most lethal fighter is the Sukhoi-30MKI, which can be placed a little over fourth-generation, along with others like Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and F/A-18 “Super Hornets”. The IAF is banking on the 230 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia at an overall cost of around $8.5 billion to be the mainstay of India’s combat fleet till well past 2020.

Derivative project section removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sukhoi_PAK_FA&action=historysubmit&diff=341765076&oldid=341681097

BilCat removed the section on the derivative project under development for India. While I don't disagree I thought this might be worth noting and perhaps discussing. The section seemed bloated in comparison next to what was there regarding the PAK FA. Perhaps the contents of the section should be reduced and explained under the introduction or design sections.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The derivative project for India has its own article at Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, which is linked a couple times in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I'm not against a single sentence in the Lead, or a mention in the variants section, if there was one. But generally, the variant articel's info is left to the variant article. To tell the truth, it might be better to merge that article here for the time being. - BilCat (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any conclusive statements that these are different aircraft? As far as I can tell both airforces will be fielding both 'variants', albeit with different avionics and the like. This seems to me to be more like a 1 seat 2 seat variant issue more then separate aircraft. But I haven't read enough on it. Also, wasn't there a debate on a merge already? Is another one justified after the PAK-FA took its first flight? Is there really that much more information?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read at bharat-rakshak fourums, there's quite a lot of internal bickering on the Indian side and the whole question looks in no small matter political. There's a strong lobby for supplying the domestic armed forces by domestically developed weapons, so the whole naming issue is quite sensitive for Indians. In its current form the PAK FA/FGFA project is 100% Russian-developed from the engineering standpoint, with Indians having a financial participation only -- they either already paid their share, or gonna do it soon, but it's only money, and this situation does little to appease a "domestic weapons" lobby. So government-leaning Indian press tends to refer to PAK FA as if it's already a "joint-developed" FGFA, while this joint project, while real, is still in the preliminary haggling for responsibilities stage. --Khathi (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft Role

I added the Eurofighter as it has all the same features as this PAK FA. Similiar RCS, flight performance, size and weaponry, supercruise, external weapons etc. Also dont you think it should be edited to be called a 4th gen fighter, cause it lacks stealth etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.76.60 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this...

• We don't know about the RCS, other than the people involved themselves said that it's "very low"
• PAK-FA is substantially larger than the Typhoon and carries the main weapon load internally.
• It has clearly visible stealth features.
• Sukhoi/KnAAPO call this a 5th gen fighter, the time and style of development is chronistically 5th gen, its general features fall well within the whole 5th gen thing and most media, aviation experts and so on have called it 5th gen.
• Russian aerospace engineers aren't little babies in desperate need of a stealth lecture from an internet forum expert. We've had this going on Misplaced Pages several times and on a whole bunch of forums discussing the aircraft... "it lacks stealth" or "the inlet design just isn't stealthy" or so on. It's the same thing as assuming that the ruskies are completely retarded and did all these performance and arnament compromises for stealth purposes in vain. It doesn't need to look like an F-22 to be stealthy, it doesn't need to follow the exact requirements that lead to the F-22 or F-35 to be called 5th gen etc.

So, with that said, it's still a fifth generation fighter as far as we know until some credible analysis or similar says otherwise. The same goes for its stealth characteristics.

--78.70.211.86 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ok look son, dont get leary or try to act smart with me cause its pissing me off. This thing is a 4th Gen jet at best. It has no visable stealth features. Thats like saying a mig-31 is stealthy etc. Now listen up Ivan, this thing is not a fifth gen cause it lacks stealth, aesa etc. I commend the reds for coming up with a plane that can give the F-15 a challenge, but dont go crazy praising it and calling it 5th gen cause it aint. And yea they do need a lecture in stealth development cause they clearly got no damn clue. 0.5M^2 rcs? You call that very low? Your having a laugh son. This piece of crap wouldnt last 2 mins against the typhoon yet alone the raptor. Now stop undoing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.76.0 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What is pissing you off and what is not is not mine or any other concern. If you can´t have a civil discussion or at least have some real arguments just leave. So about stealth features - can your highness tell me where it doesn´t have any stealth features? That is complete non-sense, than by yours judging method we can edit F-35 to 4th gen because it doesn´t look as cool as F-22. What is important is not your baised personal feeling but avaliable facts. For example, your expertness, completely forgott on materials and RAM painting which is aircraft made of. Next thing - PAK FA will have AESA radar based on Irbis-E, it was presented on MAKS 09 and is also mentioned in the article. If you can´t even check these simple facts I´m starting to belive that I am wasting my time here. And about that 0.5 sqr meters BS, check your facts and than write ANYTHING here. Now, I WILL NOT start undoing your edits and you, mister, stop acting as smart-ass. Thank you. With the deepest respect --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not undone any of your edits. Your violent approach here leads me to believe your edits were non-NPOV and thus changed or deleted by other Wikipedians who understand the way this wiki works.

Now, the aircraft DOES possess visible stealth features. It has large internal weapon bays, it has serrated edges where necessary and the overall shaping is clearly made to deflect radar waves away from the reciever. It awaits a RAM-coating and new engines which will have supercruising capabilities and also a low IR-signature (these goals have been reached on prototypes already) and quite possibly some nozzle shaping/coating to decrease their RCS. Additionally, Russia has AESA radars on their latest fighters/prototypes, and the radar intended for use by the PAK-FA is already undergoing testing, so it exists.

Again, the 0.5m2 RCS figure is not official, it's an amateurish estimate at best. Until we get our hands on an in-depth analysis from a credible source or something, I'd say we better not assume things. If you are an aerospace engineer, physicist, defense analyst or if you know alot about electromagnetic scattering, please feel free to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal so we can use the information here.

The information we have states that this is a fifth generation aircraft with prominent stealth features, whether you like it or not, sir. I'm not praising it, my name is not Ivan and I'm not Russian either, whatever that has to do with anything. Stick to the known facts and stay away from bias, it's as simple as that.

--78.70.211.86 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you people high or is Putin paying you to call this fifth gen? It is not. It has old engines (FACT) it has a HUGE RCS (FACT) it has external weapons (FACT). This thing is an F-15ski or eagle-ski. Dont be fooled for one moment. Russian air force cant afford to make 5th gen jet. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing had strings holding itself up on the test flight. Stealth = F-35 or F-22 which have an RCS 2500 times lower than this piece of junk, 0.0002 compared to 0.5. Look at it from the back and sides? Its got 0 stealth features. If you believe all this bollocks i got volcano insurance to sell you. This is a 4th Gen fighter which would do a good job against the F-15A etc and nothing more. 81.153.57.68 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I might as well ask you the same question, are you high or just extremely biased towards a pro-Western viewpoint?

• Yes, the prototype flew with "old" engines (Saturn 117S, first flown in 2008, oooold), but that's not uncommon in Russia, nor anywhere else. The Flanker prototype flew with old Al-21F3 engines, the one found in Su-17 and MiG-23, for example. The engines to be installed on the PAK-FA are undergoing testing at present so they already exist. As for features such as supercruising, low signatures and so on, that's old news in Russia.

• Huge RCS? According to who? Nobody knows the RCS of this aircraft. The 0.5m2 figure is highly speculative at best, and is probably not worth squat. You people have failed to produce any sort of reliable sources regarding this.

• External weapons? Yes, it can carry external pylons in addition to the internal weapons load. I hate to break it down to you but the F-22 and F-35 have this option as well.

• The Russian Air Force is not making the aircraft, they are purchasing it. Sukhoi/KnAAPO is an aircraft manufacturer that has developed and produced an aircraft to meet requirements the RuAF set up. They may or may not afford to buy it in any numbers, but that's a completely different issue. In that case Sukhoi might as well downgrade it or simply sell it elsewhere (as they have done with the vast majority of Su-30MK's etcetera). On top of that, the Russian economy and general growth isn't all that bad at present. Please check up on some facts, we're not talking about a third world country here. Russia has a higher literacy rate than the USA, it's the eighth largest economy in the world and so on. But that's irrelevant right here, IMO. This is not a discussion forum.

Again, all media reports, preliminary evaluations and official announcements have stated this to be a fifth generation fighter with stealth characteristics. Stop acting so god damn childish. If you have some facts to the contrary, please publish them as you make edits.

As for the F-15E, F-18E, F-16E/F/b60+, Typhoon, Rafale etc, it might be worth noting that the latest Flanker versions (Su-30MKx, Su-35/BM) and the MiG-35 match or surpass these in most, if not all fields. The PAK-FA is not designed to simply meet those requirements, as Russia already has a fleet of aircraft able to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK now I know you are pro Russian. The Russian air force doesnt have a fleet period. Its got like 40 rusting mig-29s which fall out of the sky everyday. This F-15 clone will be no different, it cant hope to beat the F-15C yet alone the F-15E. I can see I have a lot of work to do to undo the damage you pro russian fanboys have done on this website. I better get started on editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.58.103 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

40 rusty MiG-29's? Last time I checked the RuAF had a fleet of over 700 fighter and attack aircraft, many of which have been highly modernized, or are undergoing modernization. The latest aircraft in this park are generally referred to as gen 4++ by independent observers and many possess AESA radars, supercruising ability, highly efficient BVR combat weapons and so on. That puts them on par with pretty much everything the West has to offer apart from the F-22, the F-35 and perhaps the F-15SE.

Wait a second. PAK-FA being an F-15 clone? Give me a break man...

By the way... Did you just make the edit saying "it will directly compete with the F-15 and the Harrier" ? What does the Harrier have to do with anything, it's a S/VTOVL attack aircraft with limited air-to-air capability. Not only do you seem to be out of your mind but you are also vandalizing this article with highly biased, unfounded claims. I will report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Idiot, you clearly know nothing. The Russians dont have a single AESA in service. Not a single one. Their planes cant fly, their pilots fly 10 hours a year and over all they fail as an air force. This plane is another example of how Russia is 30 years behind the west. Even the IRIAF could beat the russians with their dozen rusting tomcats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.56 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Zhuk-A in MiG-35. And now begone, troll. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a troll/vandal. If you see obvious vandalism (there are like 45 obvious vandalisms in the article history), find their talk page, do a WhoIs and report them for vandalism. A mod will take care of it when they have the time. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they're using some kind of IP spoofing service as well. I think this means we should get this article semi-protected.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Freebie. At least temporarily while the buzz over the first flight dissipates. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You just confirmed my point. You said they have a whole fleet operational etc. The only AESA, zhuk A is not in service in the Russian Air Force. Neither are ANY super cruising flankers etc. With your lack of knowledge and operational systems you shouldnt be editing here as you have no knowlegde. Look these paper designs dont exist its all Ivans wet dream. The Su-27 was an F-4 counter 20 years too late etc. Even the Pakistani air force with a handful non BVR capable F-16A's are confident they can overpower loads of Mig-29s and Su-30MKIs etc. The Russian weapons do work sure, but they work at a level of sophistication tthat you would find on an F-4 etc.. TO this very day the Russians cant make something as good as an AIM-9 or AMRAAM. They ccant even make something as good as the AWG-9.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.176.205 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, you are in a state of aggravation. Your posts evidence this clearly. Why do you get bent out of shape just considering that Russian engineers might be capable of making a modern aircraft? I think that a person who is angry or in some other affect shouldn't be making changes to Misplaced Pages. Cool, rational heads only.

Your "argument" (actually, intense personal desire) that this aircraft has a huge RCS is irrelevant. As was stated before, the real RCS values are as of yet unpublished. So unless you're on the inside in the Sukhoi design bureau, please quit bringing this up now. Only time will tell.

However, greater men than you have already commented on the visible stealth-purposed features on this prototype. I'm amazed at you, how you simply sweep aside all of the actual experts' preliminary evaluations, and stubbornly insist that it doesn't exhibit any stealth properties. Again, we will know in due time. At this point, it isn't known exactly how stealthy it is, but I doubt that the Russian Ministry of Defense would give a positive evaluation on the aircraft if it didn't meet its requirements to the fullest.

Great job on making yourself sound ignorant by insulting people when their views diverge from yours. The fact that you call people "Ivan" or "Reds" demonstrates that you have significant growing up to do. And it's the oldest maneuver in the book to say that if someone holds any kind of pro-Russian (or simply not anti-Russian enough) viewpoint, they are paid by Putin and Lenin and the KGB to spread vicious Red propaganda. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

97.125.51.63, don't encourage this pathetic individual. If you argue with it, it will just fuel the silliness. Obviously it craves attention. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't find any faults in my argument so you insult me? Nice strategy Ivan. They teach you that in the Kremlin? Listen up and learn something. This jet is a pile of bollocks. Do you understand son? The Eurofighter is leagues above this and ill be damned if some reds are gonna have a better machine than the RAF in this world or the next. Infact I did a simulation of this thing against the Tornado and the skyflash equipped Tornado won 80% of the encounters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.119.209 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you made a simulation of a plane whose full performance and general characteristics are not known, whose production goals and evaluation results are classified, a plane that only exists as a number of unfinished prototypes hidden away on a remote location in the Russian Far East? And you pitted it against the Tornado ADV armed with Skyflash missiles, an opponent that the R-77M-armed Su-30's (that PAK-FA is intending to replace, among others) would eat for breakfast. How did you gain access to the full specifications of the production version of PAK-FA, if I may ask? Hell, how did you gain access to the full specifications of the Tornado ADV and its systems?

Well, it's safe to say that you are trolling your moronic ass off.

Maybe I am not the right person to say this, but I would remind everyone that the top of this page clearly states that this page is not a forum. There are plenty of them on internet. To the zealous editor with IPs like 86.147.119.209, I would like to also remind that Misplaced Pages Article Policies include: No original research and Verifiability. Any edits that clearly do not follow these guidelines will of course be removed. Finally, no personal attacks. This is also a Misplaced Pages policy. D2306 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Missiles

It says:`it will be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles´, but in specifcations it is said that the six external hardpoints will be equiped with the r-74Adder and the r-77Archer missiles. Will it use both missiles or this is just an estimation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The loadout of archer and adder is both external and internal. Besides, the internal bay itself is not complete. All the aircraft is by this time is a flyable prototype (not combat ready) so there may be changes. For example, stealth pods or stealth expansion of the airframe like in the Silent Eagle with RAM like in the Tu160 may be added (Russian Air force has been eyeing stealth pods since MiG1.44) 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

two guns and low price source odd

"Later, it was suggested that PAK FA will receive two 30-millimeter cannon." according to the article used as a source for the low price estimate; http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2010/01/29/pakfa/

Additionally, the low price estimate seems to be based, not on the actual cost of manufacturing an aircraft but the development cost per manufactured aircraft. In other words, before you actually build the aircraft, its already cost $20-40 million to design. I think perhaps because of this it can be taken out of use in the infobox.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• C-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Start-Class aviation articles
• Start-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Start-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance Start-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles