First flight for the Russian "F-22"

[PanosGR]

Historical day for the Russian Front Aviation. The new fifth gen aircraft PAK-FA flew today for first time (at least that is what the Russians say) and is suppose to be the new main front Russian fighter for the next two decades. In rear resembles allot with the YF-23.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCQsN8O_Q4&feature=player_embedded

[skopro]

Here is the first flight video of the sukhoi t-50.. looks like a mating between a f-35/yf-23 and the butt end of a su-35..


bbc link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8486812.stm



russian tv link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDPHAMC6WU

[CyranoAH]

Looks like a modified Su27. I like it! 

[Mace2004]

Very interesting plane...of course this is just the initial developmental prototype and isn't a "full up" round (no weapon system, different engines, and probably not all of the planned stealth features).  

The F22's first flight was in 1990 and it didn't reach IOC until the end of 2005.  Even though the Russians claim it'll be ready earlier there will be unavoidable delays and I doubt we'll see siginficant numbers of them until 2020-2025 so we'll have to see if the Russians can keep such an expensive and difficult program going that long.  Also consider that the Russians intend to develop a whole series of new weapons to equipe the plane.  The program is shared with both India and Brazil unlike the F22 which is not for export so it may possibly have a better economic future but having partners can be both a blessing and a curse of course.  The Eurofighter's first flight was in 1994 while its IOC wasn't until 10 years later with arguements between European partners over everything from radars to its name and the Eurofighter isn't even stealthy which adds a completely different level of requirements.  

The Pak FA is intended to be produced in large numbers to replace both the Flanker and Fulcrum which is quite ambitious. Russian high technology programs have had a pretty abysmal recent history although they certainly have the capability if they can afford the setbacks.  It will also be interesting to see how this is affected by existing Russian aircraft infrastructure.  Typical Soviet designs focused on tough aircraft designed for relatively rough and fairly primative environmental conditions with stuff like mud flaps and the FOD doors of the MiG29 while stealth requires expensive infrastructure like environmentally controlled hangars and precision maintenance in order to maintain their stealthy characteristics.  This infrastructure is also extremely expensive to develop/maintain so that adds to the overall operating costs and the Russians can't even keep their existing air fleet at decent operational readiness levels so this will be a big problem for them.

Theoretical Air-air performance is superior to the F35 but not quite up to the F22's level so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export.  Of course that's me.  Many in Washington think we should dump all our money into combatting evil CO2 vice people that may actually want to shoot at us.

The rear isn't at all like the 23 except for the use of moving slabs.  This has distinct horizontal and vertical tails and conventional nozzles while the YF23 had a V-tail and engines mounted and exhausting over the upper surface.  Both the Pak FA and 23 do have flying tails (i.e., a single moving slab vice fixed surface and rudder) but the essential design is very different.  For you big-gun queens it's supposed to have two 30mm internal cannon :-)  

Overall it will be interesting to see where this goes.  

[68Wooley]

...so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export...

If the Raptor was to be cleared for export, it would be interesting to see who would buy it? Australia mght dump their F-35 program if they could get Raptors, but most of the major European air forces are committed to the Typhoon / Raphael. For them, the Lightning is mainly about replacing Harriers and other ageing Carrier based aircraft.

Who else is out there that could afford to buy and maintain it, and would be allowed by the US government to buy it?

Japan, South Korea and possibly Isreal (although that would do nothing for the Middle East peace process) are the only names that immediately spring to mind.

[Mace2004]

If cleared for export the biggest drawback for a F22 / PAK AF competition could be mission.  Does a foreign purchaser need air-to-air, air-to-ground, or both?  Since most air forces couldn't afford a high/low mix of dedicated fighters and ground attack then they'll need an airplane for both.  The AF is supposed to have the F35's air-to-ground capabilities with near F22 air-to-air but the F22 has little air-to-ground capability.  Just 2 1k bombs I believe.  The AF would potentially be a better option but they won't really know what it'll actually cost until near the end of the development and they know what it can actually do and how many orders there could be.

[oakranger]

I wounder how close their technology is from ours. Nice looking bird and also look like our F-22. 

[Anaxogoras]

(at least that is what the Russians say)

Spare me the skepticism.

Theoretical Air-air performance is superior to the F35 but not quite up to the F22's level so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export.

This would not be the conclusion of a friend of mine who flies the F-16 for the Air Force.  Radar, stealth, and weapons systems considerations are more important than dogfighting ability. 

[Shifty]

Video here.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/russia-tests-5th-generation-fighter-jet-17874356

Made in partnership with India...

[Angus]

And then, they will be swatted with swarms of drones who run on a mixture of AI and AH sticks 

[PanosGR]

Spare me the skepticism????????

wtf are you talking about? The russians says that its her first flight, but the point is that is very possible the first flight is already done in summer 09 just after MAKS, and this is the first public first flight. So where is your problem?

[Anaxogoras]

Why are you so excited?  Be a little more careful with your language and your meaning will be more clear.  Your original post made it sound like you suspected the Russians of lying.  I'm a child of the '80s, and so when I hear that kind of insinuation I say to myself "here we go again!"

[trax1]

Yeah I thought you were saying that the Russians were lying about it being a 5th gen fighter, not that it was her first flight.

[PanosGR]

I'm not excited at all. Really. I think i was clear enough about my hypothesis, thus it is very possible T-50 have already made its first flight back in summer. That is all. Afterall this aircraft is the 2cond prototype. I'm not implying that the Russians lying about anything. If that is the case then it is my mistake. My skepticism has to do only for the  first flight, nothing else.

[Mace2004]

This would not be the conclusion of a friend of mine who flies the F-16 for the Air Force.  Radar, stealth, and weapons systems considerations are more important than dogfighting ability.  

LOL.  First off, "theoretical air-to-air performance" doesn't mean just turn performance, it's the entire weapon system (radar, missile, airframe, pilot).  The PAK AF should not only be able to out-turn the F35 but it will be faster and carry a more capable, longer range weapon system.  But you do raise an interesting point about our priorities and what will matter.

Which is/are the most important factors for a fighter has always been up for debate and the debate continues even now.  Your friend would be foolish to make such a blanket statement because he doesn't know where, when, and how the airplane will be used.  It's like the old argument of whether the F14 was better than the F15.  The F15 turns better at altitude but the worm turns at low alt.  The F15 is almost as fast as the F14 was but the Tomcat carried a better missile.  But, in the end, these arguments really don't matter if you're operating off an aircraft carrier then the F15 is completely blown away.  So, as usual in fighter comparison the correct answer is "it depends".

Remember when speed and radar missiles were "more important" than dogfighting?  Turning and burning were "so 1940's" and we ended up with the Century series of lead sleds with no guns and no ACM training and that didn't work out great.  Radar IS important but then there are radar countermeasures.  Stealth IS great but then there are stealth countermeasures (and we don't fly just at night).  Advanced weapon systems with BVR missiles ARE great but then there are Positive ID and other very restrictive Rules of Engagement which frequently deny BVR.  The real answer to which of these capabilities are more important depends on the mission, tactical environment and ROE.

Consider a future war with F22 and F35's against the PAK AF.  All of their weapon systems will be extremely limited, in fact almost useless so guess what that leads to?  In some ways, we could be back to WWII or Korea, fighting in an almost strictly visual arena. Wouldn't that be interesting?  You can bet your little booties that maneuverability will matter.