Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Note for all

An aircraft does not need to look like an F22 to be stealthy. The invisibility to radar is achieved through various techniques and materials that does not necessarily needs this or that format to work. So, is stupid to say that one aircraft is not "invisible" just because it does not seem like a copy of the F22.

And another note: F-35 comparable? Stupid too. The PAK-FA is much larger and carry more fuel and weapons internally than F-35, the correct comparison is with the F-22.

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)

It's not very productive to accuse users in (almost) good standing of trolling. - BilCat (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought at the time of this comment, that he was making his remarks at the same time as the user(s) who have been insisting this is synonomous with gen 4 aircraft. I skimmed and over-reacted.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:35, 14 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 Wikipedia, 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 wikipedia 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.[1] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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 wikipedia 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)

The RCS of this plane in clear configuaration has been cited by an Air Marshall of the IAF as being 0.5m^2. I insist we add this information as it already has existed for some time on the Eurofighter page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.223.63 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me toss a complete curve ball into this discussion.

The T-50 RCS has been stated to be 0.5 m^2 and NOBODY has ever given an RCS for the PAK-FA, because...

It does not exist yet.

So the T-50 could be around the level of the Eurofighter while the fully developed PAK-FA/FGFA with Indian help could get the RCS down around F-35 levels. (And if so the F-35 does start to look a bit like a baby seal in the headlights of a snowmobile.)

So if the given RCS value is attribed to the right person and noted as being for the T-50 and NOT the PAK-FA, would anybody have any objections to this? Hcobb (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a source floating around somewhere of I think the chief science adviser to the Kremlin where he said that the PAK-FA will have at most 1/40th the RCS of the Su-35BM. However, considering that this is also classified and could be anywhere between 2 and 0.5 square meters and the figure is a maximum for the PAK-FA reductions in an unspecified radio wave length, for an aircraft not yet completed ... I think if this is mentioned in the article it should be with careful attention to the above ambiguities.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to bring the rain down on the troll party, but the 0.5m^2 RCS has been stated for the FGFA. For those ignoramuses who don't know what that is, that is an export model made for India for funding 25% of the project; the FGFA is not the Russian version. For those of my fellow Americans who know nothing about the Soviet/Russian militaries, it has been a legacy since the end of WW2 for the Soviets/Russians to export what are known as "Monkey Models," export variants completely incomparable and incompetent to the Soviet/Russian version. The RCS is given for the proposed FGFA for India, as for the one for PAK-FA, that is strictly confidential. However, as long as its 'skin' doesn't corrode in flight (those 100 minutes before the F-22 reaches "Critical Failure" level) and any sort of humidity/precipitation doesn't almost literally wash off the 'stealth' skin, then you can count it to be stealthier than the Raptor even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.239.140 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the Russian government source stating 1/40th of the RCS of the Su-35BM is about the best we have. The Indian source could've been taken out of context and/or misinformed and/or being merely a maximum for the design's acceptance by India. At present this aircraft is being built in Russia, and their parliamentary science adviser is likely to be a better source for information on these kinds of things then any member of the Indian government.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:23, 27 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/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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. [2]

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/wiki/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)

While its too early to talk about Naval version of PAK FA, I can say this, its *possible*. In fact, one of the reasons YF-22 was chosen instead of YF-23 was that YF-22 was more adaptable to naval fighter program, which was cancelled. Considering PAK FA will be far cheaper, and Russia needs to produce only 24 naval PAK-FAs (instead of 400 naval F-22s for USN) its perfectly possibile. Mig-29 and Su-27 were designed BEFORE Kuznetsov carrier was laid down, so your point is wrong. Any fighter with certain aerodynamic capabilities and powerful engines can be made naval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.23.94 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While the short field characteristics make it a lot like the Su-33, there is something missing that would need to be added in to land and not just take off from a Russian/Indian/Chinese style aircraft carrier.

To quote the Goon:

http://ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

The PAK-FA has an unusually robust undercarriage design, more typical for carrier based naval fighters than land based fighters. This is consistent with the intended STOL capability to operate from short field FOBs, or MOBs with damaged runways, but also fulfils the intent to deploy a navalised carrier variant in the future. The latter was the subject of some discussion during the public debate in Russia, at the time the PAK-FA program was launched, but not a feature of the more recent debate. The configuration of the existing design would require that the tailhook be carried in the aft centreline weapons bay.

Hcobb (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So they at worst sacrifice the capacity to carry a missile or 2 to produce a naval version. Have you seen how thin the hooks are on the Su-33?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:26, 27 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 wikipedia 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)