Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/Archive 1

PAK-FA's Role
I'm editing the part that references to the F-35. Without further official information, is pure speculation at this partand besides, as many users have indicated below, a fighter with the intended characteristics of the PAK-FA would be more in a F-22 class. Axel Vant 5:48, 25 July 2006 (EST)

Although there are articles on the internet that claim the PAK-FA to be in the same class as the JSF, those reports are all outdated. It is now known that the PAK-FA will be a large-sized twin-engined aircraft, slightly smaller than a Su-27, which makes it a direct equivalent to the F-22. There are also reports that Russia is developing a second, smaller, 5th generation aircraft, one in the class of the JSF (possibly in cooperation with India), but there is no information about it yet. Edrigu 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found today some evidence that there is a second 5th-gen plane in development by MIG. This information was given by the Russian Airforce (VVS) commander Vladimir Mikhailov to RIA news agency. He said that the development of the "medium" fighter [PAK FA, I am assuming] is going according to plan and is fully funded. He also said that there is a parallel development of the light fighter done exclusively by MIG. I added the link to the article (it's in Russian) to the PAK FA article. Profhobby 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The PAK-FA is a fighter / air-supremacy. Russian's equivalent to the F-22 was the MFI project, which was dropped, because of a lack of funding. The PAK-FA is being designed as a light fighter aircraft, which is in direct competition to the f-35. It's size will be between a su-27 and a mig-29. [] Starcraftmazter 10:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem in using these classifications to compare the PAK-FA with the F-22 or F-35 is that Russia and the US do not necessarily designate their fighter jets the same way, so what the US terms a "tactical fighter" might be called something else by Russia. The PAK-FA was never refered to as a light fighter (Russia had another project for that called the LFI). Even the Mig-29 is too big to be called a light fighter, yet the PAK-FA will be bigger than the Mig-29. Given that the PAK-FA is a twin-engined fighter larger than a Mig-29, I think it is accurate to say it is a direct equivalent to the F-22, not the F-35. Edrigu 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't entirely agree. Did you have a look at [|this] this? Anyway, the thing about the F-22 is, it's not really clear what it's role is. It is getting produced in small ammounts, and appears to be a tactical fighter. The PAK-FA and JSF on the other hand are going to be frontline fighters, which will be produced in much larger numbers than the F-22. Personally, I think the F-22 is a plane for politics rather than actual useful military use. Starcraftmazter 03:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation
I think it should be removed. Russia has a spare $50Bn in the budget and $181Billion forex, as well as some of the smartest scientists in the world....so what possible problems can they have developing this plane? Starcraftmazter 10:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this article has way too much speculation. I think the article should only include information which has some basis, for example things that were revealed in interviews with Russian officials. And everything else can be left out, and added when more information is available. Edrigu 18:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I got rid of it. Starcraftmazter 03:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"so what possible problems can they have developing this plane?" Simple, Russia lacks the indigenous capability to produce AESA T/R modules and its most prominent export aircraft rely heavily on European avionics. Also, Russia's aviation industry has been pretty stagnant due to a great period of inactivivty during the 1990s. While yes, the Su-47 and Mig 1.44 were built, these projects were merely glorified test beds with no real future. Overall, this left their industry with only one thing to do... and that was modify existing designs.

The other thing is a funding issue. While yes, funds have been earmarked, they are nowhere near the funds needed for such a project.

The fact we havent seen a prototype fly yet is testament to the slow development process they are experiencing. While America is producing 5th generation aircraft with 4th generation stealth tech, the Russians have been pretty behind in this area.Skrip00 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge of the Russian aerospace industry is lacking. Phazotron has produced an AESA radar, so the T/R modules are obviously not a problem. Even China and India can make them, and they lag far behind Russia.


 * The PAK-FA project was only started in 2002, so the fact that a prototype hasn't flown yet is hardly surprising.


 * Russian export aircraft don't use European avionics. The Indian Su-30MKI came with a mix of western, Indian, and Russian avionics because India was able to get a better deal that way due to agreements they had with Israel and several other countries, not because Russia wasn't capable of providing good enough avionics. Edrigu 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The very first fighter aircraft in the world with electronically steered beam nose radar was the MiG-31 in the early 1980s. So the russians know this high-tech. On the other hand, russian fly-by-wire systems reportedly run on several Intel 486DX33 CPU, or at least the Sukhoi-27's original analogue FbW system was replaced by such computers during late 1990's modernizations. Also, the russians use the american mil-spec 1553 databuses themselves in their new designs. So they copy a lot from america, the russians are well known for their almost religious adoration of american industry and tech might, a long tradition from tzarist times.


 * "First we study, then we imitate, after that we innovate"

Pictures: rather hard to believe
Russian mainstream fighters always had a focus on close range air combat with autocannon and hyper-agile small AA missiles. Even the big iron like Su-27 had to be highly agile. These images currently included show a clear-cut copycat of the F/A-22, which would not be very manouverable, they do not even have canard wings for dogfight! Thrust vectoring alone is not enough.

Traditional russian thinking dictates the PAK-FA will be something like the S-37 Berkut, a sky ballerina with awesome aerobatics. Big clumsy fighter airplanes, e.g. an F22-copycat, could only have a specialized role in the russian airforce, like become a MiG-31 successor. The true next-gen mainstream fighter will not look like that, as you cannot make an F-22 copycat in MiG-29 size and russians demand dirt strip operation for frontal aviation fighters, which is impossible with heavy fighters.

The article and the images are thus highly speculative! 195.70.32.136 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also very surprised not to see the canards in the pictures. Given that latest versions of both Mig-29 and Su-27 (as well as Mig 1.44 project) have canards, I would guess that the next plane would have them as well. Of course, no one knows for sure. I don't know what is the basis for these pictures. The original website does not explain it. I think we should remove them.

Regarding the canards: su-35bm OVT doesn't have canards for its high maneuverability. check:

Profhobby 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing them is fine by me. I think the pictures were drawn by some airforce enthusiast and have nothing to do with Russia. Let's wait until Russia releases pictures of their fighter which will probably be pretty soon. A lot of other speculation in the article that can be removed, like the entire exports section. The information can be added when it is actually known. Edrigu 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the fictional plane 'XFA-36' from the game Ace Combat 3 (It looks like it anyway). That should definitely be removed.Xfa 27 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. This image was featured on the site of Saturn design bureau, the maker of PAK FA engines (the much suffered AL-41F, namely), and it is as official as it gets. It's highly controversial indeed, and at best shows an intermediate configuration, but we certainly won't get anything better, given that the plane is still completely classified. Maybe they'll put a plywood mockup the next MAKS, if the stars would be right. ;) --Khathi 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At least they have certain official backing, while other don't have even that. --Khathi 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it's not F/A-22 anymore. ;) And second -- given that supercruise is one of the requirements -- I'm definitely not surprized that canards had to go (if they did, really). Canards increase agility, but introduce pretty much of a drag, which is a no-no for sustained ~1.5M flight without afterburners. BTW, dirt strip operation is really the matter of engineering, rather than weight. All Russian stratolifters (including humongous An-225) are required to operate from dirt stips, and 300 tons aren't 30, y'know. ;) --Khathi 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

first flight this year
Although this deadline should be taken with a grain of salt, I would expect that some fresh information and even pictures about the project should be coming out really soon. Has anyone been hearing anything new yet? --Skyler Streng 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrm never mind, I'm hearing that the maiden flight date has been pushed back to 2009, what a bummer. --Skyler Streng 08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its first official flight won't really be its first flight. For all we know it has flown already. Edrigu 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blueprints were delivered to production plant in the beginning of August. If there won't be any problems, I believe we might expect the rollout of the prototype by the end of the year. --Khathi 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspect
I'm not sure the v wing proposed by the pak fa could handle the g loads of dogfighting the JSF. Secondly given the lack of quality control and the high aerodynamic stresses associated with v wings could be a dangerous combination. Lastly the geometry of the aircraft doesn't strike me as very stealthy though they may have been able to replecate the RAM of the f117 shotdown over kosovo. The plasma sheath may be good at defeating radar but the it would be easy to track the ionization path, infared emmissions, and magnetic emmissions generated by the plasma sheath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androm (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC). The Russians already have produced aircraft with RAM coating. They did so long before the F-117 was shot down over Kosovo. They were the first country to put large fighter aircraft on the production line with sub-1 square meter RCS's. As for the V wing ... the Su-47's G loading is rated as higher then the F-35 and unlike the F-35 the Su-47 is ready for the production line. Onto plasma stealth ... show me some hard scientific facts that show that you can detect a system like this at ranges equivalent to radar vs. a non-stealth aircraft. Modern Russian radars can detect fighter sized objects at well past 200km and their infra red systems can detect targets at around 40km assuming line of sight. This is a vast gulf so unless this ionisation path you speak of has some property which is detectable by something akin to a radio wave it is HIGHLY unlikely that plasma stealth is as easily detectable as you claim.

Development Cost
It always amazes me to find out that the Russians only need more money to have the kind of weapons US have. They recognized they need a stealth fighter back in the late 80s, about the same as the US.

I'd like to know how much the Russians need to spend to have a 5th generation fighter. Rad vsovereign 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard numbers in the vicinity of $5-10 bn. Not included is the sunk cost of research and prototyping done by Sukhoi and MiG in 90's on their own money, and production cost as well. --Khathi 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)


 * OK, get this. The PAK FA is NOT a Russian version of the F-22. It is an anti-F-22. It is the maestro of maneuverability and speed, also especially advanced in anti-stealth avionics, although it is not a stealth fighter. It is meant to become the air superiority fighter, not a fighter/bomber or a stealth fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newnar2004 (talk • contribs)

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 wikipedia 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  User talk 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 що? 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 [real] 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 Wikipedia 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 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia).
 * 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/wiki/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)