Talk:Sukhoi Su-57/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Translation

Quote: Perspektivny aviatsionny kompleks frontovoy aviatsii, literally "Future Frontline Aircraft System"

Even I can fathom that the translation is incorrect. Someone who speaks Russian should fix this please. Maikel (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be a literal translation but it is the common english translation used by western news sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the translation. Change "literally" though since word order is changed to make a smoother transition to English (My Russian is terrible but the literal translation is something like: "Perspectived fly-related complex/system of frontal aviation" which makes no sense...) 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The literal translation is "Future Aviation Complex for Front-line Aviation". The meaning is "Future Fighter Aircraft Complex": in the Russian military, the term фронтовая авиация (literally "front-line aviation") refers to fighters and/or strike aircraft (e.g. see the Russian Air Force article in the Russian edition of Wikipedia). Tetromino (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether it is word for word literal translation, and it's not. I agree that it is completely correct translation, but it has been adjusted to what conventions US military uses from what conventions RF military uses. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that PAKFA was translated to Long-Term Frontal Aviation Complex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.57.88 (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I used Google Translate to find the meaning of "Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации". It came out to be "Long-Term Complex Frontal Aviation". How about we replace the current translation with this one.Sungolf (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Online translators are not reliable sources. What is currently in the article is the accepted translation of the Russian term. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a pronunciation for the acronym "PAK-FA" be added (as many people in the west pronounce it "PAK-F-A" --Hrimpurstala (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the English translation for PAK-FA, which is of course FGFA? Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Change name

PAK FA is a requirement and not the name of the aircraft! The articl;e should be re-named as Sukhoi T-50, in fact it should not have been moved!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint Smoking, er Joint Strike Fighter used to be the name for a project and now it is firmly attached to a specific aircraft. The PAK-FA (English translation: FGFA) is a project that has a prototype called the T-50.

Currently YF-22 redirects to and is covered by the F-22 article. When the FGFA/PAK-FA project results in a single type of aircraft with some sort of designation (say Su-69 or whatever), then we can merge under that term. Hcobb (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cruise speed

“Cruise speed: 1,300 - 1,800 km/h (808 - 1,118 mph)”

This is not cruise speed, but it is supercruise. Der russische Patriot (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Line Drawing

I don't mean to criticize the work of the person who did the four-view drawing, but it is somewhat inaccurate. Right off, it is clear that the nozzles on the actual airplane diverge (point out slightly in different directions). The drawing doesn't display this. Furthermore, the "bays" in the forward section of the wing are drawn as more subdued than they are on the real-life plane. Would it be acceptable to replace the current image with one from a different language Wikipedia article? For example, the Russian one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/PAK-FA_diagram.jpg

75.170.82.115 (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a Commons image? In that case, I say be bold and feel free to use it. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Navalised source questionable

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100406/158454665.html This source talks about upgrades to the Kutzenov aircraft carrier, including replacing its air-fleet with Mig-29K's and PAK-FA's. While I don't have a better source, it does state at the bottom of the article that the views in the article are the authors and before listing the potential upgrades for the carrier he clearly states that he is making guesses based on evidence he doesn't reveal. Some of the guesses make sense and I would imagine would be done irrespective of probability but making a navalised variant of the PAK-FA for such a small air fleet is a pretty big call, with no sources mentioned. I think this should be removed from the article until a more definitive source appears. Does anyone agree?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The russian navy will upgrade the carrier soon, and said that it will be equipped with PAK FA´s (confirmed), the author gives his opinion about this, but is not making guesses, it is all said by the navy. And Russia is building 5 new carriers, so it is probable that they will produce the new craft and equip them with it.--Mr nonono (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest someone provides an additional source for this information or I will delete it. The author states he is offering an opinion, so therefore all of his writing is suspect unless his sources are revealed. I don't mean to say there won't be a navalised PAK-FA. It may have the features neccessary but the text on a navalised variant does not have a link to a source.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen, the russian navy said that it would modernize the carrier. From interviews with russian officials, it is known that it would carry the PAK FA (confirmed). The author gives his opinion about it, but he is not making any guesses. The source is the russian navy, as it is said in the article--Mr nonono (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly does not say that. The article says that all his comments are his opinion and does not reference any sources. Provide credible sources or I will delete the section.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Can´t you difference when he is talking about facts and when he is giving his opinion? The article says: the russian navy is going to upgrade... navy officials say that it will be modernized... and equipped with mig-29ks and pak fas (facts) and then the author gives his opinion: The modernization may finish in 2020 rather than 2017, it may... etc. And the article

clearly saysthat the sources come from the russian navy,And the russian navy is a valid source.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, the article reads that the carrier upgrades are (intended to be, at least) a 'sure thing', but that the navalised T-50 is just a proposal at the time being. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When I have the time I will be editing the section on the Navalised T-50 to more clearly point out that the source for this information is ambiguous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurofigher Typhoon

Someone put Typhoon Eurofigher in to comparable aircraft, sorry but Typhoon is 4.5 generation fighter, it would be ill advised to put it in to 5th generation fighter bracket even though technology inside is comparable to the say Pak-Fa. The fact that Pak-Fa is 5th generation fighter and Typhoon isn't should be reason enough. Mic of orion (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The "generations" thing shouldn't necessarily be a hangup for comparable. What will the main European fighter aircraft of similar performance be when T-50 becomes operational and during at least the first part of its service life? Typhoon. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft should be nothing more then aircraft of simmilar role and ability. For the time being, I'd agree the Eurofigher Typhoon is probably a comparable aircraft, as the Pak FA is listed as a Stealth Multirole fighter, putting it in the same class as the F16, F35, and Eurofighter Typhoon (and probably others I can't think of right now).

As an aside, the whole "Generations" thing is getting a bit overblown at this point; I'm half waiting for a F-15 upgrade to make a 4.75+++ Gen Fighter! (Oh wait, thats what the proposed F15 SE is for!). Seriously, its getting beyond rediculous at this point that we're putting labels ahead of actual ability and role at this point... --Gamerk2 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another RCS ref

I appears that the 0.5m^2 RCS quoted before was a bit off.

Now the Russians are saying around one meter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW0x2EDghbE&feature=player_embedded#

Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/03/airforce_russian_fighter_032210w/ states that "“I don’t know if it’s really a fifth-generation aircraft,” Brady said. “What I do know is that it’s very clear that they’re working on a fifth-generation technology.”" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.16.107 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a bad translation or a misunderstood. According to GlobalSecurity (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-design.htm) the Su-35BM has an RCS of about 1m^2, so it seems illogical to think that the PAK FA has such RCS. And a YT video isn't a source. LHCo (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The video has several errors including the use of "steal" instead of "steel". More importantly it gives 1m^2 as the RCS measure for prospective 5th generation threats (ie. the statement made is that both the T-50 and the F-22 have the same RCS of approximately 1m^2)! There are no official figures on top speed (baring a few mentions of design requirements several years ago) - there most like won't be any figures for RCS for quite some time. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like they're getting confused between wave size and RCS.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength is measured in meters, not square meters. In the YouTube video, the man states that, given a target RCS value of 1m², the radar is capable of tracking it easily (at whatever range).

Yeah, the subtitles in the video aren't the best. Where the text said "thermal dilation," it should be "thermal expansion." Where it said "torque," it should be "thrust." 97.125.49.184 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

also, we never known if they are reffering with or without external payload, which greatly affects RCS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.1.98 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the video he's saying that if both planes have the same detection rate , the T-50 will win, and he uses 1 meter as a simple example. LokiiT (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Note in the new line art the careful attention to detail in order to maximize radar returns, especially to straight forwards. Hcobb (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Never seen a pre-RAM F-22? If you were to make a line drawing of an unfinalized F-22/YF-22 as seen without RAM it would look more or less the same. Most of the visible serration etc. is in the final coatings, the rest is fairly conventional. Refueling gear, landing gear and weapon bays are under serrated covers from the beginning, obviously, which is something seen in both the PAK-FA and the F-22. We have yet to see what the PAK-FA will look like with RAM, the flying "51" prototype wears the standard VVS grey splinter paintjob right now, probably because of some kind of ensuing presentation or something.

A completely irrelevant (and childish) remark on your part, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how some people think it's their mission in life to convince others that the PAK-FA is terrible. It is getting to be rather annoying and is trolling by anyones definition. Zuranamee (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Engines again

Fun new article on the engines to save for after the protection.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/04/26/AW_04_26_2010_p31-221698.xml&headline=Rivals%20Join%20For%20Next%20Stage%20Of%20PAK%20FA%20Engine

Hcobb (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Any reference to the T-50 breaking the sound barrier yet? Is the current prototype even capable of supersonic flight without falling apart in midair? Hcobb (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any point to this spam? Zuranamee (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not usually, as the user is addicted to news releases and sarcastic attempts to be funny in order to prove his POV :) - BilCat (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The T-50 does not have the same construction as the PAK-FA so it's not clear if the T-50 is a supersonic aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for this comment? T-50 is PAK-FA. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Lemme see, engines powerful enough for a short takeoff, sharp angle of the wings, two afterburning jet engines... Yep, i'm gonna wager a guess that it is supersonic capable. Just a thought. Zuranamee (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/02/pak-fa-from-technological-pov.html Nikolay Vymornov, the Chief Technologist of NPK 'Composite' says: "In F-22 and F-35 the use of composites in airframe is not less, then 40%. We are sure, in our PAK FA fighter the use of composites will not fall of this number".

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/03/08/AW_03_08_2010_p34-209244.xml&headline=More%20Sukhoi%20T-50s%20To%20Fly%20In%20Next%2012%20Months The company’s T-50 chief designer, Alexander Davidenko, says almost 70% of the outer surface— 25% of the aircraft’s empty weight—consists of composites.

Therefore there is a difference of 15% of the aircraft's mass at minimum between the T-50 and the PAK-FA. Hcobb (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

...unless, of course, they simply either exaggerated in their original statement, or changed the specification? Also "40% of the airframe" doesn't necessarily mean "40% by weight". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

Quick, someone find a non-copyrighted image to put in. Doesn't matter if you make it yourself! 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC) There are some new (and very nice) images here: http://picasaweb.google.ru/106125363254545602859/T50# Apparently, the author took them himself. No idea if they are considered copyrighted. By the way, they show many details of PAK FA, which were being argued about. 1) The engines have thrust vectoring, 2) The plane is very different from Su-27 in terms of everything (FYI, Hcobb ), 3) Its air controlling planes have more degrees of freedom than those of Su-27 (which implies that it was designed to be not less agile than Su-27) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.142.251 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been more test flights with a PAK FA that is actually painted. It would serve as a better model for the aircraft if used as the main image.Nem1yan (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

G-force

I like how the T-50 can exert g forces that will kill the pilot. As long as it beats the raptor right?--Brainiack16 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They won't neccessarily kill. I'm not entirely sure, but 20+g is instant death if I recall correctly. Maintaining control even with HOTAS though becomes impossible for even good pilots at 10+. But there is nothing wrong with making an airframe that is capable of surviving without damage at higher G's so long as you can afford to waste valuable structural materials. There are probably a few reasons you might do this. Maybe they want the aircraft to be able to program maneouvres beyond the capacity of a pilot, then allow the pilot to recover control afterwards. Maybe they want airframes to survive impacts or crashes or have a higher tolerance for lower G maneouvres, meaning less maintenance / overhauls. Who knows their rationale. The important thing is this is on a quotable source.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not kill the pilot, but he would get a red/grey out. That's where the computer comes in, it plots the course the pilot wants to take so when he blacks out the AI can finish the move for him. Pilot would regain consciousness later and keep flying. This is useful in emergency maneuvers (not dodging missiles) such as trying to regain control in a storm or loss of lift/spin. Besides, it doesn't matter, F-35 carrier variant is supposed to be almost as tough structurally. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But the F-35 is not as capable agility-wise. The Naval variant if I remember correctly does have higher wing loading and span but its still well behind in terms of pure agility so these maneouvres are far less likely. I doubt anyone would be seriously considering using an advantage like this in any tactical situation, but if we're talking reduced maintenance, that would make sense for both the PAK-FA and the Naval F-35.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Avionics Speculation

I removed some pretty serious un-sourced speculation on the IRST and HUD system. Specifically in comparison to the F-22. Just keeping it to the facts for now until more verifiable information emerges. If that should occur, it should be written in a less "could be" speculative manner.

Darthveda (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How many flights?

So this article's header says there were 3 flights in total so far. How many were there actually anyway? Also this - I'm not sure whether it's old footage or the latest flight that probably took place several days ago. Also the article definitely needs a photo of the aircraft with this new gray/silver paint job. --IJK_Principle (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It has flown 16 times so far according to Sukhoi. Not sure if they included the recent flight that government officials witnessed at Zhukovsky. PM Putin took a peek into the cockpit too.

As this is a number that is constantly changing, why don't we note the date of the first flight and indicate that testing is continuing until (spoiler alert) it crashes? Hcobb (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you're still here, trying to push POV on Wikipedia. Haven't you got something more constructive to do?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My cousin witnessed T50 flight outside of Moscow by the sound of a T50 flying by their farm last month. I have heard they are planning 30,000 flights but is that too much for one plan? Or it is 3000 flights? It think the plan is impressive and much better than a F-22. The US government is planning a new 5th generation jet but because the US money problems the plans have been put on hold. The US has 87 F-22 and they really only use 14 of them and have never been used in combat. The Russia government planning to build 450 of them sell 150 to India seems like a lot of planes but if they can afford them as long as they don't sell them to use against them they learned in Afghanistan back in 1988. These plans have a real impressive fire power and sleath technology that any country would want one of these in their military fleet. I am impressed with Russia and the government making new ideas such as the T50. I have seen no other video testflights but I am sure they'll be some to see soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes im sure a farmer can recognize a prototype aircraft simply by sound (assuming there were NO other jets flying in and out of moscows airport at the time). Also maybe you should look at the F-22's page, you may be surprised to learn that there are quite a bit more than 14 or even 87. And how exactly is this a new idea for the Russian government?? Pretty much everyone who even knows what an F-117 is (ALOT OF PEOPLE) has had the IDEA to build a stealth fighter. While i believe Russia is fully capable of producing the plane, they dont have the best history (especially as of the last 20 years) of delivering the planned number of fighters. Check the Su-34 and Su-35 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the company a reliable source for its own products?

if it's not a reliable source then the f-22 article must be deleted due to all the lockheed martin bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.217.195 (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Should this be added up top to show what this one company thinks is a joint product it will be developing with the Indians?

The joint Russo-Indian deal for the development of the PAK-FA was called the Contract of the Year by Vzlyot magazine.

Hcobb (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears that Vzlyot magazine, in common with several other Russian sources, is using the term "PAK FA" to encompass both the Russian and the Indian versions of the aircraft. Meanwhile, Indian media apparently use the name FGFA to describe both versions of the aircraft. In that case, the nomenclature used in Wikipedia perhaps needs to be adjusted to prevent confusion between the two aircraft, and the articles renamed to Sukhoi T-50 for the Russian single-seat version and Sukhoi/HAL T-50UB (reference for the T-50UB name) for the Indian two-seat fighter. Tetromino (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The interesting point is that my source is Sukhoi itself. You would think that they would use the terms for their own products in their own press releases. Therefore the correct split is Sukhoi T-50 for the existing aircraft with PAK-FA and FGFA being used as pointers to an article on the joint development project which has just started and has not produced any aircraft yet. The joint project will need to fix the following items:

• Get the final engines installed and fix the rear body shaping for stealth.
• Get a stealth coating to go over the final shaping.
• Install final sensors and countermeasures, including stealthy EOTS and DAS.
• Write the software for a CIP.
• And test all of that.

I'm just glad the Chinese are holding out, because it would take all three countries to build a competent fifth gen fighter. Hcobb (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb - you're making it very clear that you have a non-neutral point of view on this aircraft. The fact is that we don't know very much. While we tend to use manufacturer's releases a reliable sources, things get lost in translation. I think you're misinterpreting part of that press release. The "Project of the Year" award is for the indigenously developed aircraft. Furthermore, the "contract" of the year award was just for 2008, indicating that the contract between Sukhoi and HAL was made in that year, for the project that has become known as the FGFA. The PAK FA has been in development much longer, and done without Indian help. I think it's safe to say that we're not clear on the exact relationship between the PAK FA and the FGFA yet, so changing any of the articles would be premature.

As for your bullet points, obviously the aircraft we've seen it not a final production aircraft. The production aircraft, and later test aircraft, will obviously include many of the things that you mention (although I don't understand why you think the rear will be significantly reshaped -- as with the F-35, the PAK FA isn't supposed to be all-aspect stealthy). There have been no reports to indicated that those final steps will involve the Indians. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the reliable sources are pointing towards a joint development project. Why is this being rejected in wikiality?

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article102209.ece

India inked an agreement with Russia for jointly developing this aircraft, but the time taken to complete the paperwork meant that 70 per cent of the plane was already developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Now India has planned to enter the project mid-way. It will discuss the development schedule for the coming years and the number of aircraft it requires with Deputy Prime Minister and Russia’s India point man S.S. Sobyanin when he visits India by the middle of this month, senior government sources said.

And yet another ref from www.sukhoi.org

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=3143

Sukhoi plans to further elaborate on the PAK FA programme which will involve our Indian partners. I am strongly convinced that our joint project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening the defense power of Russian and Indian Air Forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market”, - said Mikhail Pogosyan, Sukhoi Company Director General commenting on the launch of the flight test programme.

So why are you rejecting what Sukhoi has to say about their own products? Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're using the name PAK FA to refer to the project as a whole, including both the single and double seater. You're not making a very convincing argument here and to be honest I don't really see what you're getting at. Also, that thehindu.com article also says the fighter's most striking feature will be its stealth. I assume you agree with this since you're citing it as a reliable, knowledgeable source? LokiiT (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the PAK-FA and the FGFA are the same project and the T-50 is as far as the Russians will get on their own. So there is a Sukhoi T-50 prototype aircraft and a Sukhoi/HAL PAK-FA/FGFA joint project that will result in an as yet unnamed final combat aircraft. Every reliable source on this issues states as much. The T-50 is not a stealth aircraft and a large part of the joint project will involve getting to a stealth aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your claims don't match up with any sources you've provided. LokiiT (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(note -- I've fixed the indenting to make the page readable). I'm reading a Jane's Defence Weekly article titled India, Russia close to finalising PAK-FA joint development deal, dated January 8th, 2010. It clearly states that the Russian and Indian aircraft will be related, but different. What is flying now is the prototype PAK FA. What its relationship to the FGFA aircraft is, well, we don't know yet. Like I said earlier, there is a lot of uncertainty out there, and I don't think we should be moving any articles until more is clear. Right now it is all being muddled by the fact that names we're using for the aircraft are very generic, not specific model numbers (Prospective Aircraft Complex [System] of Frontline Aviation and Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). -SidewinderX (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your issue with the quote from Mikhail Pogosyan who is calling the PAK FA "our joint project"? Hcobb (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently nobody has a better source than Sukhoi so this is a clear case to merge the two articles to cover "our joint project", right? Hcobb (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't with the quality of the source but with the interpretation AND the clear bias you have on the issue. This article was semi protected for a reason.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What other interpretation is there for what Mikhail Pogosyan has said? Hcobb (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I stated above, "PAK FA" and "FGFA" are generic terms, generally referring to the design and development of a next generation aircraft for Russia and India, respectively. Both countries *may* end up using the same aircraft, but, as most sources have stated, they will likely end up with two different, but highly related aircraft. Right now, no one, outside of you, know exactly what is going to happen, so until there is WP:CONSENSUS, I suggest we leave the articles as is, and wait for more information to become publicly available. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

imho one of the main differences will be the weapons system of the indian version being compatible with western ones. just like they have for other russian fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.217.195 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And now we have:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/08/13/Russian-nationalist-analysts-assail-JV-aerial-projects/UPI-40981281724776/ Two of the top issues under discussion are the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 fighter, a prototype for the Sukhoi PAK FA fifth generation stealth fighter jet currently being developed by Sukhoi OKB for the Russian Air Force and the Sukhoi Superjet 100 passenger plane. Nationalist critics of the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 fighter have focused on India's involvement with the project, along with the fact that the Sukhoi Superjet 100 passenger plane will be powered by jet engines designed by a joint venture between Russia's Saturn and a subsidiary of France's Safran.

Does anybody have the Russian source article for this? Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel

While my opinion of the project would jump a bunch if Israel signed on, I just don't see it happening.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_israel0723_07_30.asp

So at the moment I think this falls below the threshold to add to WP on any page. Hcobb (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just an opinion/suggestion by a former governemtn official at the moment, but it could be noteworthy, especially as leverage in the F-35 negotiations with the Obamastration, if the israeli government takes the advice and pursues such talks. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

It's a tiny bit more than that...

Russia's Sukhoi was also said to have been wooing IAI for a joint aircraft project. The sources said Sukhoi offered to provide an advanced model fighter-jet for installation of Israeli-origin subsystems.

But not quite well sourced enough to go forwards at this time. Hcobb (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not every teeny-tiny bit of info is encylopedic. WP gives overviews of a subject, not the nitty-gritty details ad nauseum. Once serious moves are made, then those can be mentioned. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My cousin witnessed T50 flight outside of Moscow by the sound of a T50 flying by their farm last month. I have heard they are planning 30,000 flights but is that too much for one plan? Or it is 3000 flights? It think the plan is impressive and much better than a F-22. The US government is planning a new 5th generation jet but because the US money problems the plans have been put on hold. The US has 87 F-22 and they really only use 14 of them and have never been used in combat. The Russia government planning to build 450 of them sell 150 to India seems like a lot of planes but if they can afford them as long as they don't sell them to use against them they learned in Afghanistan back in 1988. These plans have a real impressive fire power and sleath technology that any country would want one of these in their military fleet. I am impressed with Russia and the government making new ideas such as the T50. I have seen no other video testflights but I am sure they'll be some to see soon.

I think Russia would be taking part in promoting a regional arms race if they sold Israel PAK-FA's. I'm not too sure if this is within their strategic interests but what is clear is that over the last couple of decades Israel has been flirting internationally with other major powers, in particular India and China. They are no longer a firm US partner and have come under fire from successive US administrations for their behaviour in this regard. From the J-10\Lavi, to the Patriot, to the Su-30MKI they have paired themselves with other major powers on important defence contracts and perhaps this shows an important willingness of their defence establishment to work with countries most capable of helping them survive. And I guess what that means is that if the US Congress doesn't change their export rules on the F-22 we may very well see Pak-fa's with Israeli components. But until something is signed or a tender is announced I don't think this sort of conjecture is article worthy.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

It's true that Typhoon isn't in the same 'generation' as T-50/PAK FA. However, it fills the same role in the air forces that operate/will operate it, as T-50 (Su-39??) will in Russia's - air supremecy fighter. Were there to be a conflict between Europe and Russia (far-fetched, perhaps, but that's what the big brains are paid to think about) about 10 or so years from now, the 'first tier' of the air war would be T-50 vs Typhoon. Therefore, Typhoon belongs in the 'similar aircraft' section on the basis explained in the template's note. That's my opinion, anyway. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. "Fighter generation" is just peacock term without a real objective meaning, as used in most instances, and next to useless for comparisions as we do them in the aircontent template. But, this type of edit war shows no sign of abating any time soon, and will most likely result fromn the Similar/comparable field being outright removed from the template. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the PAK FA to the Typhoon would be like comparing the Typhoon to the F-4. The PAK FA has far superior engines, thrust vectoring, stealth, and advanced radars. The Typhoon simply isnt a comparable aircraft. Even if both jets fulfill the same roles they are not necessarily in the same league. An Egyptian Phantom II isnt listed as comparable to the Typhoon and you shouldnt put the Typhoon on every other 5th gen aircrafts page just because you like the jet. Nem1yan (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, I don't like Typhoon. Matter of fact, I hate it with a passion. But that doesn't change the facts. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mere technology is not the only factor in combat, and never has been. Speaking of the F-4, it's probably 3rd Gen fighter, correct? Well, the 1st gen MiG-17 held its own quite well in the Vietnam War against the F-4. Oddly enough, a gun-equipped strike aircraft, the F-105, holds the most gun kills against MiGs during the war, while the "last of the gunfighters, the F-8, scorwd less gun-only kills, and most of them with the Sidewinder. In war, anything can happen, and usually does. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'd put similar roles on just as high a pedistal as aircraft generation, until we know exactly what the aircraft is actually capable of in a combat environment. So like it or not, that means the Pak FA's comparision aircraft include the F22 (Generation), F35 (Generation and Role), Typhoon (Role), F-16 (Role), and possibly others I can't think of. --Gamerk2 (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case then practically every other fighter jet back to the Me-262 should be listed as comparable. If the list is going to extend for two pages then its fine, but saying that the jets are similar merely because they perform similar roles generalizes combat aircraft far too much. 98.71.112.182 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I support that in theory, the problem is that, in practice, there are a lot of aircraft available that could fit in that list, which could get quite extensive. Having a long list of comparable aircraft (over 8-10)is not really desireable, which means we have to limit its scope. That's where the continual battles come in, as different users try to apply different criteria to limit the length of the lists. And the criteria will be different for each article, because each aircraft is different. But then that leads to users squabbling that because this aircraft in on one aircraft's list, it must be one another one's too, often based on nationalistic reasons. But since the comparable section is an easy one to edit, requiring no real research or sources, that's one of the first place newbies edit, and they usually don't understnd the complexities and nuances on each page, leading to edit wars. The problem is made worse by regualr editors who insit that things must be done their way only, generally according to their definition of fighter generations, or lack of one, and who thus continually upset the compromises already in place on many pages. If the regulars don't all pull together to support the consensus (whether they agree with the actual solution or not - that is the art of WP consensus), the newbies never will. I wish there was a simple solution beyond "Grow up, and try to be part of the solution, not the problem". - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a very simple rule of thumb I'd like to suggest: Two aircraft are comparable if and only if one has been noted in the media as having been designed or built to combat the other or if both have been compared in a purchase decision. So India and Brazil are looking at the purchase of different 4.5th generation fighters that would then all be comparable to the rest. And the T-50 has been noted as being designed to fight the F-22 and F-35. Hcobb (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that simple. If you'd like to suggest that to WP:AIR as criterion for inclusion, and if it's accepted, then good, we'll use that. But as of now, "See also" sections do not require sources. As to your specific example, the F-35 is in competition with several 4.5th gen fighters in Europe, including the Gripen. By that standard, you won't object to my adding the Gripen to the F-22's F-35's list? - BilCat (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Making it transitive would be OR. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Two aircraft are comparable if and only if one has been noted in the media as having been designed or built to combat the other or if both have been compared in a purchase decision." The Gripen and F-35 have been compared in purchase decisions noted in the media. Simple. How is that a problem? - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so the Gripen and the F-35 are comparable and the F-35 and the F-22 are comparable, but the Gripen is not comparable to the F-22. Nontransitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs)

Or it's just a typo, but you probably already knew that. - BilCat (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the "comparable/puchase decision" standard would be that for lots of older aircraft that would be difficult to determine - and as noted, the "see also" section isn't really meant to require references. It's a bit of a judgement call - but it also would be in a paper encyclopedia that said "see also..." at the end of an entry. Common sense is the guideline. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Common sense can not be the guideline since it is clear everyone disagrees and would therefore have a different guideline. I personally favor Hcobb's proposal. If a typhoon is comparable to a F-22 and a PAK FA then my mustang is comparable to a ferrari and a lamborghini. Two or three references is better than an argument. Nem1yan (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get picky about it this way, one could easily argue that the F-22 isn't comparable to PAK FA either. After all, the YF-22 first flew in 1990, while PAK-FA first flew in 2010. (And Eurofighter in 1994...) And a Mustang Cobra would indeed be comparable to some Ferraris performance-wise. - The Bushranger (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're just proving that "common sense" can not be the guideline simply because personal bias will always interfere. Mustangs were never meant to compete with Ferraris and even though they may have some similar aspects, acceleration for example, one is still far superior to the other. The same goes with the F-22 and Typhoon. And before anyone says "the F-22 isnt a proven fighter" please be aware that the Typhoon has never seen combat either. Can you at least clarify why you feel the Typhoon is comparable? Saying that they "fulfill the same roles" is far too vague and would mean that literally every other fighter jet ever made would be included.Nem1yan (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They fullfil the same roles, at the same time. Were there to be a US-European or US-Saudi war, air combat would be F-22 vs Typhoon. And were the U.S. Congress to release Raptor for the export market, it would directly compete with Eurofighter for sales. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Saying that they 'fulfill the same roles' is far too vague and would mean that literally every other fighter jet ever made would be included." That would be a correct assesment, if "role" were the only criterion in play here. But it's not. Per the guidelines at Template:Aircontent: Similar aircraft are "aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability as this design." (Emphasis mine.) That rules out most historical aircraft from the start, including the older models that still fulfil the same role today. For example, I would not add the A-4KU to any list of modern "Comparable" carrier-based fighter aircraft (F-18, Rafale, MiG-29K), even though it serves in that role on the Brazilian Navy carrier, because it is of an earlier era and design, and is far less capable than the modern aircraft. It's really not that difficult if we follow the guidelines that are already in place. - BilCat (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you lot blathering about. The T-50 isn't comparable to anything yet as there are only two and they have only just begun testing!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop talking rot on discussion pages.Petebutt (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Theres no point to comparing an air superiority aircraft to a bomber or multirole fighter, so I don't think the F22 should even be listed as a comparable aircraft. Likewise, as we don't know the aircrafts capabilities yet, we can't exclude current generation multirole fighters from the discussion. If I had to make a list myself, the comparable aircraft would include all previous generation multirole aircraft that are in active service that have not been replaced by newer model aircraft, and current gen aircraft currently in development that have the same role.

As such, this would be my list of comparable aircraft to the Pak FA: Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, Mikoyan MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-35, F-35 Lightning II, Chengdu J-10, Shenyang J-11 (Stated as an Air Superiority Multirole Fighter, so this one is still up for some debate). As older aircraft get replaced by newer models (Notably the F-35 replacing the F16 and F/A 18 models, and the Pak FA itself replacing the Mig-35 and SU-35), we can start to remove aircraft from the list. If we want to stick to the same generation only, regardless of capability, then the only aircraft listed as comparable should be the F-35. --Gamerk2 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So what you're trying to say, basically, is that the only aircraft currently in development that would be able to compete with the F-22A in air to air combat, if its proposed specifications turn out to be correct, is not comparable? Would you suggest that the Mig-21 is comparable to the F-4? They were both very different aircraft but were from a similar time and competed in the air at many points. Currently, the F-22A and the PAF-FA are a long way from doing this and may never, but the PAK-FA is the only aircraft that has flown that is likely to do this on a comparable basis.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Pak FA's role is to be a multi-role fighter and not an air-superiority fighter, then its direct 5th gen competition would be the F-35, and not the F-22. Also, the Mig-21 was primarily an interceptor aircraft, and the F4 was developed as a Navy interceptor aircraft, so in that case, the comparision (both being interceptor aircraft) between the two is valid. --Gamerk2 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're arguing that multi-role precludes the use of the PAK-FA as an interceptor or air-superiority fighter and that the F-22A cannot be used as a strike aircraft or bomber? I think Air Force planners would disagree with you there. Just because a little more weight was assigned to non-essential components for air combat on the PAK-FA then the F-22A does not mean they cannot be compared. In fact, they are the more comparable to each other in terms of performance and role then any other aircraft they are to any other aircraft, the F-35 included. They are both 2 engined, super-cruising, low observable aircraft with a view to dominating the air, with large, advanced radars, super agility, large internal bays and are the 'peak' of their respective countries aerospace industries efforts. The F-35 falls short on engines, super-cruising, radar, agility, internal bays and the goal of dominating air space. So what if there is an intention for the F-35 and the PAK-FA to both be able to launch guided missiles.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So basically, if I were having an open competition for a multirole aircraft, you're arguing the F22 should win? Stop it. The F22 is designed first and formost as an Air Superiority fighter. Sure, it can drop bombs, but thats not its primary use, and not the spec the plane was designed too. Using that argument, since the F22 is obviously a better strike aircraft [and due to cost overruns on the JSF, price competitive], we should be buying F22's for everything! Whats next, the F15 is a better ground attack aircraft then a A10? Compare strike aircraft to other strike aircraft, interceptors to interceptors, etc. Until there is an agreed upon scheme for classifiying simmilar aircraft, thats the scheme which makes the most sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerk2 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at it this way: The F22 was designed first and formost as a fighter. It has the ability to carry bombs, but that was not the primary design decision in the design of the aircraft. The F35 was designed as a fighter, strike aircraft, ECM platform, and possible AWACS. Different roles for the two designes, although BOTH aircraft retain some form of ability to fuffil eachothers role. But to compare the F22 to a F35 as far as a jammer aircraft goes would just be silly, even though the F22 has that same ability. --Gamerk2 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Senor Freebie is saying is that even though the planes are not designated as performing the exact same role they have very similar capabilities. The F-35 has drastically different designs and capabilities from the PAK FA, but both planes are supposed to perform the same roles. The US already has an air superiority fighter with the F-22, so the F-35 did not need to meet such high requirements. Instead of building two new fighters Russia merely designed one superiority fighter and incorporated ground attack into its designated role. You would be hard tasked to prove that the PAK FA is ultimately better at ground attack than is an F-22; they both simply perform the role that their nations want them too. Nem1yan (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bomb load: PAK-FA > F-35 > F-22. Guns: PAK-FA > F-35 > F-22. IRST: F-35 > PAK-FA, F-22 has only missile warning IR.

Both the F-35 and PAK-FA are stated to be multirole fighters and the F-22 is lacking in ground attack features. Hcobb (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

explain exactly how the PAK-FA and F-35 have higher bomb loads than the F-22. The F-35 has far less internal storage as well as external. Also the PAK-FA has a much lower useful load that the F-22 (assuming that the wiki figures were calculated correctly). BTW someone needs to explain how loaded weight of the PAK FA only increases by 17,000lbs when the fuel alone weighs over 20,000lbs. The thrust to weight ratio is garbage as listed. Also F-22's have air to ground configurations; while it may not be the best platform it certainly can carry the most bombs. The F-35 and PAK-FA have a better cannon but thats about it. Just because the F-22 is classified as air superiority doesnt mean it cant drop a bomb (especially when its quite obvious that it can). Also someone really needs to check the stats on the PAK FA's loaded weight and thrust to weight ratio, I have a feeling my calculations might offend all the Sukhoi fans (check the Su-30mki edits page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* There are no "good" figures for the weights of the PAK-FA or even the engine thrust of the main production model. So I agree on that point. The original sources used for that section weren't good. However, the F-35 and PAK-FA both have air-to-ground avionics. They are also both intended to be able to carry air-to-ground weapons externally. The ATF is designed with neither of these strike features. It is (currently) limited to carrying a relatively small payload of GPS guided bombs, limited by the lack of other targeting systems and by the fact that the bombs have to be carried internally. The PAK-FA likely has larger internal bays and should be able to carry over twice the bombload based on official statements (2x1500kg bombs etc.) The F-22 could be an excellent bomber if it was re-engineered to have larger bays - but it can currently only carry a pair of 500kg bombs for 1/3rd the effective bombload (before taking into account external stores). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrimpurstala (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The thrust to weight figures, so far as I can recall are based on a normal fuel load, which for Russian jets is often below full fuel. They often design their aircraft to hold more fuel internally then they need for their 'normal mission'. Also, it is based on the thrust Saturn claim for their new engines, which is rather high. So the figure is correct for a basic air to air configuration, but not for deep strike or air superiority. This is relatively consistent with articles on aircraft from around the world. In fact, some articles are more generous. I believe the Super Hornet's thrust to weight assumes half fuel despite its very short range and only 2 AAM's.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The F-22 can carry two half ton bombs internally. The F-35 can carry two full ton bombs internally. The PAK-FA is supposed to carry two ton and half bombs internally. Any questions? Hcobb (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

F-22 and F-35 carry up to 8 stand off bombs internally. My take on comparisons is that generation does matter. Yes it's a marketing term, but let's face it, there are criteria behind it. Stealth is better than non stealth, supercruise is better than not being able to supercruise, great situational awareness is better than good SA, etc. The PAK-FA is a stealthy supercruising air superiority fighter, in that way it is similar to the F-22, even if it also does ground attack. I vote for the F-22 being added to the comparable aircraft list. I should also add that the F-22's all aspect stealth and supercruise might make it a better bomber for striking highly defended targets deep in enemy territory compared to the F-35 and PAK-FA.74.94.170.253 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yellow parts of prototype fuselage

Why are some parts of the fuselage on the prototype yellow? I know that it has something to do with the testing, but what exactly?Axeman (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely just unpainted panels. There may have not have been time to paint them before the flight test schedule. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Or no point in painting them. If they are to use RAM and radar absorbent paint, why waste it on a prototype that could crash in testing? Zuranamee (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion here about the yellow parts. They are metal covered in metal primer, and the gray areas are composite material. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?149828-Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA/page303 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.180.188 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Number

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/16948/

The fifth paragraph states that Vladimir Popovkin, the Russian Defense Minister First Deputy, suggests that only 50 to 100 T-50's will be produced for the Russian Airforce. This is significantly lower than the 1000+ and ≈450 aircraft suggested by most other sources. Although this does fall in line with Russia's recent aircraft purchases which have tended to fall short of initial production goals. Nem1yan (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like between the 35BM and the PAK FA, Their air force doesn't have the money for any new planes. Zuranamee (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The only place I've seen that 1k number is in terms of a maximum possible worldwide market with 200 being the maximum for Russia itself. This is about as likely as the F-35 (Baby Seal) selling 5k worldwide. So whatever the F-35 sells, divide by 5 and you'll have the PAK-FA/FGFA number. Hcobb (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The F-35 may still sell nothing and the PAK-FA as well. These programs aren't finalised, the aircraft's specs are far from conclusive and the future geo-political climate is in no ones crystal ball. A few things to take note of though. The traditional purchasers of US gear are only just recovering from recession or throwing fistfuls of money at trying to stave off a double dip while a few of the more independent ones are either starting their own aircraft projects in earnest or making slight rumblings about buying the PAK-FA. Meanwhile the US Congress is debating whether or not to cancel the F-35 and to sell the F-22A to its partners and the PAK-FA is projected to be better in every key area. So we may be looking at a sharper turn around then you're predicting. Of course, that is all speculation on both of our behalf's and has no place here on wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Program costs jump again

See latest add. It's now another $12 billion to get the aircraft ready by 2018-2020. Once the program is actually started the usual schedule slips and price increases can start of course. Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As they will on any modern aircraft. The JSF is a prime example of this. Zuranamee (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Should I update the cost to the $15 billion that's $3 billion for the Russians so far and $6 billion from each partner starting next year? Hcobb (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Naval version confirmed

http://en.rian.ru/trend/fifth_generation_fighter/ The appearance of a fifth generation fighter in Russian naval aviation will not happen before 2020, the outgoing head of the air forces and air defense forces of the Russian Navy, Lt. General Valery Uvarov told RIA Novosti on Tuesday. Previously, representatives of the armed forces command and Defense Ministry had said a new naval fighter based on the Sukhoi T.50 design could enter service around 2016. "It's difficult to say when this aircraft will enter naval service. First it will go into service with the air force, and then be 'navalised.' To build a new aircraft from scratch costs huge money, it's irrational and not competent. Conditions might be suitable by 2020," he said. Uvarov stressed, however, that any new naval fighter would enter service only following a competition in which other designs would participate, including from the MiG, Yakovlev and Sukhoi design bureaus. A new generation carrier fighter should enter service with the fleet not long before any new aircraft carrier on which it would be based, Uvarov said, so pilots would be ready. "The aircraft should come before a ship entering service, so pilots can train first on land, then on a special training area, then on deck," he said. He stressed that the service was still waiting to take delivery of the naval MiG-29K, which is being exported to India. "The first two MiG-29Ks will soon be purchased in order to carry out development of their functions," he said. "I think there should be two squadrons, that is 24 MiG-29Ks and one squadron of Su-33s." The Russian navy is currently reforming its structure, with naval air forces and naval air defense being merged into one branch. Lt. General Uvarov is leaving his post as commander of both branches. MOSCOW September 28, (RIA Novosti) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.16.1 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Update the image

The .ru has a good image, there really isnt a real need for the half-painted prototype to still be used. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Frontal Stealth

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kVBwT28EdRI/S6nd9VWl-eI/AAAAAAAABZs/wEBDxX_o2M8/s1600/PAK-FA-Front2.jpg

The engines are CLEARLY visible which will definitely produce a radar signature. All the original diagrams show curved "S" inlets, but this completely disproves that. --Nem1yan (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the diagrams represent the production fighter, not the prototype. Don´t make that assumptions because it is only a flight test prototype and that is likely to change.--Mr nonono (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Even a flush clean B-2 will produce a radar signature, albeit a small one. That particular image shows a whole array of flight testing equipment, rivets, panels, OLS-dummy and so on that will greatly increase RCS. These things will have be redesigned or removed altogether, and RAM coating applied etc, for the production model - the inlet design is probably no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.207.242 (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty difficult to say as to what the fan like structure visible in the picture is. It can easily be a radar blocker.They are similar in looks. It is also worthy to note that Russians had experimented with Radar Blockers on Su-27 airframes (perhaps one of the least stealthy modern aircraft) with good results. Bill Sweetman (former editor of Jane's) talks about this in his blog: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af423e576-2a68-47c1-9d02-9746754fb493 Parijat Gaur 14:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parijatgaur (talk • contribs)

But it is clear that every single panel that runs straight left to right will have to be redesigned. This "edge alignment" maximizes the radar return to radars straight ahead of the aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's some bad news for Lockheed-Martin, then. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11524.jpg, http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/01/34/65/slideshow_965341_lockheed.0222_ba02.JPG

God knows how many little slices of this and that they glue onto the basic airframe to hide everything. Under the skin it's pretty much as conventional as ever though. Panels intended to be removable during servicing or that act as bay doors and similar sport serrated edges, as on the PAK-FA prototype. The rest are largely "straight left to right" as you put it, but end up being covered in one way or another. I can't tell for certain, but it seems likely that the PAK-FA will eventually recieve a similar treatment. I mean, why the hell not? Considering all the blatantly obvious non-stealthiness of the PAK-FA prototype there are probably some major modifications to be carried out on the future prototypes/pre-production variants. What we're seeing now is more or less a 1:1 scale airworthy wind tunnel model with some extra testing equipment fitted for convenience, by the looks of it. It will be interesting to see what the next one will look like, rumor has it it's taking to the skies this winter.

PAK-FA vs FGFA

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/jdi101029_1_n.shtml

Russia and India agreed to develop a single-seat and a two-seat version of the aircraft by 2016, which will probably be based on the T-50 prototype fifth-generation fighter expected to be in service with the Russian air force in 2015, the report added.

So this is the article for the RAF fighter to be inducted by 2015 and the actual fifth generation fighter discussion should move to FGFA. Hcobb (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another ref for T-50 to enter service as-is (4th gen)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101118/161396851.html The new aircraft will be based on Russia's T-50 prototype fifth-generation fighter, which has already made several test flights, and is expected to enter service with the Russian Air Force in 2015.

Hcobb (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Silent Eagle

The Silent Eagle is clearly the one and only one aircraft that is fully comparable. Large two engine multirole fighter aircraft with stealth that is limited to the forward sector. It's also in about the same spot in the development process. Hcobb (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The F-15SE is only stealthy in A2A configuration. Its also far outclassed in maneuverability. The F-15SE is also designed to be stealthy only from the front, there is no information on its RCS from the top, sides, or bottom. And since the jet does not carry bombs and its stealth is optimized for A2A missions it is unlikely that the fighter is immune to ground based radars. The PAK FA is designed to stealthily deliver A2G munitions. Also since the PAK FA's engines havent even been produced it is a bit early to be commenting on its RCS from the rear. It's a bit much to think that the only stealthy engine design is the one employed on the F-22. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparability is a sensitive issue. At this moment we have not a clear guideline for this. It is also premature to compare characteristics, since the PAK FA is in developement. The only aircraft wich the media has compared to the PAK FA is the F-22, and to a lesser extent, the F-35.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Boeing themselves state that the Silent Eagle is stealthy in both air to air and air to ground operations:

http://boeing.com/farnborough2010/pdf/Bkgd_F15SE_0610.pdf Conformal Weapons Bay – The new sophisticated F-15SE internal carriage capability minimizes aircraft radar signature and significantly increases tactical options. o Equipped with two internal bays (left and right sides) designed for multiple carriage configurations. o Capable of carrying advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions.

Hcobb (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the shape and size of the CWBs guarantee that it wont be able to carry a significant bomb load (or A2A loadout). Its designed to be a low cost alternative to the F-35, not match the PAK FA's performance. While I agree that they will have similar roles its like comparing a late model F-4 to an F-15, the F-15 simply outperforms. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Silent Eagle is a bit faster and has more advanced electronics, but it isn't out of the ballpark of the PAK-FA/FGFA. Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually saying the PAK FA outperforms the F-15.. Supercruise, much larger payload, 3D TVC, much smaller turning radius. The top speed on all 5th gen fighters is somewhat questionable as all of their speeds keep increasing. (Also since the engine intakes probably need to be redesigned for the F-15 are you sure that the top speed is still as high as the one listed?) If anything you should add the F-15SE as comparable to the F-35. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty the F-15SE should be able to dominate an F-35 in an even fight simply because it's built off an existing, proven platform whilst the F-35 is a glorified F-16 with some F-22 parts tacked on to look fancy. Zuranamee (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"But Boeing says the F-15SE is aimed at international customers more likely to use the aircraft for defensive, counter-air missions, rather than offensive strikes in defended airspace where all-aspect stealth is necessary for survival." The F-35 is less susceptible to ground based radars, has a better radar itself and can out-turn an F-16 (which means it can fly circles around an F-15). Its also just as stealthy as the F-15SE for A2A missions while keeping that level of stealth for strike missions. -Nem1yan (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about aircraft in general, but just these two that are in the flying prototype stage and have just about everything, including the pricetag, in common. Hcobb (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a forum. If you would like to discuss what you think about these aircraft, find a forum. Not here. Thanks -SidewinderX (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It ultimately comes down (once again) to the definition of "comparable". The aircraft are undoubtedly similar and perform similar roles, but the PAK FA is from a later era and is more advanced overall. You can add the F-15SE to the list of comparable aircraft, but realize that you will be broadening the criteria for that list if you do so. For instance an F-4E should then be listed as comparable to an F-15 and the F-106 could be compared to the F-16. (BTW: we weren't having this discussion for our own enjoyment, its clearly relevant to the page.) -Nem1yan (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, discussing what is and isn't comparable to the PAK-FA likely belongs in this page. Zuranamee (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how different era can apply to two aircraft whose prototypes flew this year and have zero final configuration models built. Hcobb (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Because its literally just an F-15E with a fancy paint job, weapons pods where the fuel tanks used to be and different tails. Its still a 4th gen design. I do see your point however, so unless anyone else blatantly disagrees to its addition to the list then I'd say just add it for now. -Nem1yan (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropirate to put F-15SE into comperable list. Despite all the specifications its still a derivative of a 4th generation fighter. Usually called 4+ 4++ or whatever not 5th gen. In F-22 page, F-22 is not even found comperable with F-35, (only with PAK FA and F-23), yet PAK FA can compared with F-15SE? If you look at it that way, Su-35BM or MiG-35 can be compared with all these aircraft mentioned including F-22?. Its a prototype, will have supercruise, some low observability, powerful datalink, radar etc.Andraxxus (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record I completely agree with him. The F-15 was conceived over 40 years ago, no matter what upgrades are applied it isnt a true comparison. We might as well put the J-7 as comparable to the F-16 -Nem1yan (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If the F15SE is comperable to the Pak FA, then I submit the Mig 21 is comperable to every Jet Fighter in existence, due to its long production run/upgrade cycle. My criteria is simple: Its primary job is as a multirole fighter, so the F35 is its primary competition. After that, you can debate whether "4th gen" multirole fighters belong on the list as well. (I again stress this whole generation thing has gotten out of hand; by some peoples standards, if a plane was twice as good as a F22 in every aspect, but isn't stealthy, its still a 4th gen fighter.) --Gamerk2 (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The final FGFA may far exceed the F-15SE, but the T-50 cannot before introduction in 2015. Since we already have an article for the FGFA, this is by default the T-50 article. Hcobb (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MiG PAK FA

http://paralay.com/pakfamig.html

Apparently MiG also had a bid for the project and presented some models. Of course Sukhoi won the contract but I think that there is still a good deal of information that could be added. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

India's split buy

All the sources I've seen recently say India gets 50 off the shelf single-seat PAK FAs then starts production of the two-seat FGFA. Has anybody seen differently? Hcobb (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No that seems about right actually. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The engines have nothing to do with reducing weight, drag, or RCS

I can make the countercase, but have no ref handy that is specific to this aircraft, which lacks thrust vectoring in the prototype and has no confirmed thrust vectoring for its final design.

Thrust vectoring engines would allow control of the aircraft with smaller airfoils, which would weigh less than larger airfoils and have lower drag and RCS. Q.E.D. Hcobb (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you refering to? Are you just trying to make a blanket statement about something? Are you talking about wing area? Or airfoil cross section? What is your point? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is in reference to a recent edit comment. The PAK FA is already notable for having smaller vertical tails than other aircraft in its size range. Hcobb (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The tail fins are smaller because they have full maneuverability.(I can source that) Honestly that type of statement should've been sourced from the beginning. While I think you could have a point it needs to be, and should've always been, sourced. I looked for a source but all I've found is some discrepancies with the mig-35 and 29 (the Mig got 3D thrust vectoring and got a lot bigger, but it still weighs the same.) -Nem1yan (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

T-50 does have thrust vectoring. Go to youtube and watch "www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-as2sooJU" from 1.03 to 1.10 when the engines startup. And RCS and drag claim is perfectly valid in terms of aerodynamics: Basically at slow speeds you would need large control surfaces or ventral fins etc. to recieve enough mass flow of air to stabilize the aircraft. With TVC providing some mass flow, this need is partially eliminated.Andraxxus (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

PAK-FA/MI

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr101213_1_n.shtml The programme designation has been changed and is now officially being referred to as the 'PAK-FA/MI' (MI meaning Mnogofunktsionalniy Istrebitel, or Multirole Fighter).

Rename the article? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote for no. The programm designation will be changed once or more times in future and this is only "cosmetics" and "short-term" change. I think if this information will be added in "history" section, is enough.--Hornet24 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote for yes. It's the official name, you can't KNOW that it is going to change. - Heaney555z (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm voting no, at least until we get something official from Sukhoi. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Second Prototype

The Wikipedia article states (with several citations) that the second prototype would not fly until 2011. However, this article [1] from the 22nd of November, 2010, states that the second prototype is due to fly before the end of 2010. It also shows several photographs a more complete version of the aircraft in flight. It is fully painted and no bright yellow sections are seen on the fuselage. Which one is correct? Axeman (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can only see one image at that link and it is indeed painted, but nothing to say it is not the prototype. The references for the delay are newer than the one you give, stuff changes all the time so it is likely that as we have heard nothing that it will fly this year. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Second did indeed fly in 2011. http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/02/24/2021s622432.htm Hcobb (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are two flying "aerodynamic testbeds" now. One flew in January 2010 wearing only a primer coat, was later painted in VVS gray splinter (seen in most subsequent test flights and presentations). The 2nd one flew just now in 2011, and that one is still wearing the primer coat but has a number of differences (the most striking one is that the upper canopy has lost the "spar" along the longitudinal axis). Additionally there is a non-flying testbed called the KNS, so three airframes altogether now. According to most people with insight into the whole thing, these are only meant for basic testing of aerodynamics, engine control and other bottom line necessities. Sensors, weapon systems and stealth features (like absorbent coating, engine inlet modifications and nozzle configuration) won't be tested on these, but rather on the 3rd through 5th (flying) prototypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.168.247 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

One year documentary

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-74895.aspx Some assertions from the documentary:

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Image looks like computer-generated, not a real plane

Hello, I have looked up on image and it looks clearly computer-generated to me, although in the bottom it says:"PAK FA T-50 prototype on the day of its first flight". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.134.157 (talk)

The image is from Sukhoi's website here, and is one of several pics that appear to be from the day of its first flight. Unless we have a reliable source (which you are not) that claims the images are CG, with some sort of proof, we have to assume they are real. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you have not looked into if the image is computer generated or not. Even the site doesn't mention this specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.132.58 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You're the one making the claim it's CG. It's up to you to provide the proof, and all you've done so far is make the claim, wtih no reasons or objective proof. As I said, we have to assume they're real until it's proven otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Flight image in question. You have not mentioned what looks fake/generated in the image. If it were CG, then it probably be a uniform gray color. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The original IP that asked the question has been blocked, and both IPs IP locate to the same country and ISP. I've reported the second IP to the blocking admin, and we'll see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The original IP was blocked for reasons unrelated to this thread. I find interesting whether such image could be CG (I guess it could, though I trust the official site). The shadows of the tail fins (or whatever they are called) are non-trivial. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist:Thank you. Not only they are not related, they are totally different in nature. Like banning someone to take a part in demonstration, because he steal a choclate bar when he was a little kid, etc. BilCat: I have raisde this question, though not because I want to blame someone, but because I want to ask whatever such picture can be CG, though I believe the site and what it says, I still believe that the image can be CG without saying that the plane was not airborne, because you can blame many things that the picture is CG(like there was not a plane available to tale a close-up shot in flight, or they didn't have the right picture and they thought it would be "cooler" to make a CG of a plane). Or it may be that the picture is just "visually enhanced". The thing is CG is so advanced today proving that picture is CG or not is really hard to do. I am not 100% sure that image is CG, I just said that the image looks like CG to me, or at least visually enhanced, this is still a discussion board though. 188.230.132.58 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several images of the aircraft available here. In case you all decide to change images. We could also include this http://paralay.com/pakfasu/a4.jpg since it shows the difference between the first and second prototypes. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to explain for me alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.132.58 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the colours, the outline, and the lighting on the aircraft do *NOT* look real to me. I am no expert in fighter aircraft by any means, but I am an expert photographer and I'm quite experienced with photo editing - the aircraft looks too clean and sharp. The website link to the original image is down, so I can't do any more investigation. But the first thing I thought when I saw this article was, "That aircraft is NOT real!". Are you guys going to ban me too? :-/ 96.30.141.136 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's real. The photo has only been fiddled-with since it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Look at the file's history: someone edited the image with the summary "removed color cast". Here's the original photo [2]. Here's the original wiki-upload [3]. Here's the current wiki-version [4]. The original photo is 1,000px × 667px and 189.96 KB. The original wiki-upload is 400px × 267px and 133.26 KB. The current wiki-version is 400px × 267px and 52.8 KB. The original photo has been scaled down and compressed because it is a non-free image. The original is just a washed-out shot, and someone has tried add some contrast and colour and whatnot to improve it. It seems to have been sharpened somewhat, since the leading edges of the control surfaces are much more defined in the current wiki-version. When pictures are scaled there are pixelation issues, due to compression and whatnot, and that could have been exaggerated when the colours were adjusted. Look at these two videos on YouTube of the first flights; they almost show the exact shot [5][6]. I suspect the photo is merely a still-shot from that flight; a view from a chase-plane. All the images on the source-webpage look to be from the maiden flight [7]. So it's real. Maybe we ought to revert our image back to the version it was originally uploaded, and just leave it be.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Flunks out of fifth generation

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=5753&h=First public flight of Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter in August The Initial batches of the T-50 prototypes will come equipped with a passive electronically scanned array radar Time to delete any connection between this aircraft and the 5th gen fighters? Or even 4.5th gen for that matter. Hcobb (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) You're the most persistent troll I've ever come across on wikipedia. LokiiT (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Hcobb, your own source continues to call this a fifth generation fighter, and says that only the early aircraft will lack AESA. For us to decide to exclude it based on early aircraft lacking AESA when the sources still say it's fifth generation would constitute original research. LokiiT, try to keep your comments about content, not editors. If you have a specific problem with Hcobb, take it up either directly with him, or take it up using proper channels, such as an administrator or a notice board. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Again, I argue this whole "generation" thing is getting a bit contrived now. I fail to see how any figher that is [alledegly] more manuverable then the F22 could NOT be considered a next-gen fighter. If there was a figher that was twice as manuverable then the F22, could carry a higher payload, was twice as fast, but was not stealthy, would it only be a 4.5 gen figher, despite it outclassing its competition? I'm sure if we nitpick enough, we can find reasons to kick both hte F22 and F35 out of the 5th generation club as well. --Gamerk2 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC) What you personally think is contrived or not isn't relevant anymore than Hcobb's assertion that this drops it out. We write based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. If the sources call a fighter that is faster and more maneuverable than the F-22 a 4.5 generation fighter, then so do we. I'd point out that failing in a specific area can still make you a grossly inferior and less survivable design. Take the example of stealth; in an age where accurate radar guided weapons have proliferated, carrying more weapons and flying faster and having more maneuverability may still result in your falling out of the sky if you lack stealth. Take, for example, early versions of the MiG-21. They were comparable in speed to the F-4 Phantom, but they were more maneuverable. They were still considered second generation aircraft for their lack of advanced avionics, BVR missile capability, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I would like to point out that this hcobs brilliant article refers to mig-29 and su-30 as third generation fighters.I mean cmon everybody in the world knows those are 4 gen fighters.Besides this article is more like us airforce propaganda pamflet than a real and comprehensive article about a fifth gen stealth fighter like pakfa.Besides didnt hcobb even deny thath pakfa was even a real aircraft.?jealousy is an a ugly thing.HAWK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.18.76 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 100% agreed with Hcobb. The Pakfa is comparable to the F-15A and as such is a 4th Generation aircraft at best. It is indeed the successor to the 3rd generation Su-27 and Mig-29 which were an equal match to the F-4 but surpassed by the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. Indeed I believe that Pakistani experts determined that the F-7PG was more than a match for the Su-30MKI and would be capable of countering the PAK FA in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.11.101 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC) How old were those pakistani experts,10 or 11.F-4 was a third gen just like mig-21 and mig-23,mig-25...Su-27 was an answer to f-15,while mig-29 was an answer to f-16 and f-18.While su-35 has no equal in air to air combat except f-22.HawK HawK you are a juvenile troll who is full of communist red propaganda. The Mig-21 cant even fly, look at how many fall out of the sky when the Indian air force fly them. Thats the typical standard of Russia. Russia can not make planes that are effective. The F-16 and F-15 can easily beat this PAK FA. Only the Pakistani JF-17 4.5++ gen fighter can be a match for the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-35 and Typhoon and Rafale. The Pakistani F-7PG can easily defeat the Su-30MKI and Su-35. It is a well known fact. It is better made, uses western avionics and has better BVR performance. The PAK FA is a Ruski attempt to catch up to a 1970's F-15A and even that is failing. This plane isnt stealth, it doesnt have a bvr radar even. It is the soviet trash. Cant wait to see them lose every combat ever like all the Russian jets. F-15 has 102-0 win ratio. How come no russian junk ever can beat it? Cause russia fails at fighter jets. The PAF will shoot down the whole of the IAF in 15 minutes in the next war they have. Wait and see.

File:Sukhoi T-50.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sukhoi T-50.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

South Korea shortlist

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/21/359800/south-korea-to-evaluate-pak-fa-fighter-reports-claim.html South Korea's Defence Acquisition Programme Agency has shortlisted Sukhoi's PAK-FA/T-50 stealth fighter among the competitors for Seoul's FX-III fighter contract, according to local reports.

I like the source, but it doesn't seem quite solid enough yet. Hcobb (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110725/165379702.html The T-50 offered to Seoul is most likely an export version of the aircraft being developed by Sukhoi and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) under a $6-billion joint project.

I like this source less. Hcobb (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110720000961 "The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said it has narrowed down the candidates to four fighters: the F-15SE Silent Eagle by Boeing, F-35 Lightning II by Lockheed Martin, Eurofighter Typhoon by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) and the T-50 PAK-FA by Russian firm Sukhoi."

Can't seem to find any official statement from DAPA (then again, the newest "news" listed on dapa.go.kr are from 2009), but considering that a variety of newspapers are writing about it and claim to be quoting officials chances are it's indeed determined.

Why argue about it? The claim is referenced. Just let the reader decide whether to believe it or not. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Twin 30mm cannon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no fighter produced after 1955 in the Soviet Union had more than one internal cannon. The GSh-301 is considered to be very effective, but is largely a backup for the WVR missiles. The prototypes also have no provision for a second gun. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the two-cannon rumour is.

If no information from official sources (or high quality analysis) appears to backup this suggestion, I'm going to propose removing all references to two guns (on the grounds of the unreliability of the source and the lack of provision in the prototypes).--Hrimpurstala (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Indian PAK-FA/FGFA split order

http://www.livemint.com/2011/10/03235755/IAF-likely-to-induct-5thgen-f.html?atype=tp The IAF will procure 214 FGFAs, of which 166 aircraft will be single seaters, while the remaining will be twin seaters. “The twin-seater variety would be assembled at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL),” Browne said.

So that's 166 PAK-FA and 48 FGFA, right? Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's 214 FGFA's. Follow the source, don't synthesize. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Stealthy data link?

Any more details on the datalink? Does it include the LPI features of the F-22 and F-35? Hcobb (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

T-50-3

Differences noted so far are AESA and lack of pitot tube.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/11/video-first-flight-of-sukhoi-t.html

Does it have a working IRST? I only caught a glance of it in the video and it looks a lot more complete than the earlier aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Digital Flight Control

Digital Flight Controls are still a big deal for even American aircraft (c.f. Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle) and especially so for Russian aircraft. So why not mention the use of them in this aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To establish what you are talking about (something it'd be nice if you started doing), you are referring to this edit that was reverted. In that case, your addition did not seem to be about the fact that the PAK FA simply has a digital flight control system, but rather this weeks news headline of some claim from the company regarding an ability of the system to "reconfigure itself." That falls into the realm of "we're not the news." It may be notable to state that the aircraft has a digital flight control system. I would point out that this is generally not considered a big deal for new aircraft designs, including American ones. Most frontline combat aircraft since the F-16 have had digital flight control systems. In the case of the Silent Eagle, something of a "big deal" is made about it because it represents an upgrade that sets it apart from traditional F-15s. F-15s were designed when digital flight controls were not yet the norm, and doesn't have one. That makes it a notable difference for the Silent Eagle. If, say, the F-35 did not have a digital flight control system, that would be considered unusual. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

F-35 already in the initial production...how about Sukhoi PAK FA?

When it will be produced?119.85.245.21 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources say by 2012 with IOC in 2015, see this article for details. Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Oh! Just got a new ref. It says 2025, so let's update this page with this latest info! http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/22/62704394.html (Actually it's quite clear that the writer confused the situation and is actually writing about the PAK DA. Which is why we need both sources and editors and can't go all automated like Google.) Hcobb (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RVV-BD

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012/01/31/65019117.html "The RVV-BD missile will replace the R-33E long-range air-to-air guided missile which is the basic weapon of the MiG-31 interceptor, Obnosov explains. As for the new missile, it will also be carried by the PAK FA fifth-generation fighter jet.

Is this a new name for the R-37 (missile) of the early 1980s? Hcobb (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RCS

The RCS of the PAK FA was released quite some time ago, at 0.5m2 http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-russia-close-to-pactnext-generation-fighter/381718/ Should this be added to the article? - Heaney555z (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear if the source was talking about the FGFA and if the source knew what he was talking about. Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your first point is valid, but your second is just speculation. - Heaney555z (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It isnt pure speculation. Sukhoi has stated that the PAK FA should be in the same RCS range as the F-35/F-117. The Su-35's RCS is reportedly only 1m2 and there would be no point in developing a new fighter that offered so little improvement. -Nem1yan (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See you information is wrong already, no offence. The Su-35BM is rated at 3m2, and the Su-35 (normal version) more than this. The PAK FA is not specifically designed for stealth. You base your ideas on ideology, and that's why it's speculation. - Heaney555z (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? (I do) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35bm-design.htm There is only one known jet in testing right now so everything is speculation best to use common sense. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nem1yan you read it out of context. The Su-35BM is rated at 3m2. BUT, there is a prototype version being tested with RCS reducing materials. It's likely never to go into production, just a lab test. - Heaney555z (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It isnt taken out of context, its referring to the modernized Su-35BM that was improved over the original (the one with canards and such). The entire article is clearly on the Su-35BM's improvements over the original. Also do you have a source saying there is a new prototype being lab tested, or one for the RCS of 3m2 from before? -Nem1yan (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"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.”

[That means that while a Su-30MKI would be as visible to enemy radar as a metal object 5 metres X 4 metres in dimension, the FGFA’s radar signature would be just 1/40th of that.]" it says.

First, I dont think "a ministry official" is not a valid source. Who is the official? Someone knows RCS of the most recent Russian fighter, and yet he doesnt even have a name? And secondly I have to say the writer really does not know what he is talking about. A 20 sqm RCS does not mean 5x4 meter metal plane.

First what you THINK doesn't matter whatsoever for wikipedia. you are full of usa bs. usa military articles on wikipedia account ministry officials as VALID SOURCES but a russian official is not VALID?!?!?!?!??????

it's a good source, they are the ones who are making it. if you don't believe in the specs they say then you have to delete all the military articles which are based on OFFICIAL papers. who are you to say who's official should be accounted as a valid source?!??? keep a NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.80.141 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It quotes an official which may or may not exist, It makes a scientific claim that is clearly wrong, and it talks about a Sukhoi FGFA prototype which doesn't exist either. And we call it a source? Andraxxus (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The RCS of the existing aircraft must be huge. Just look at all those exposed rivets. So until an actual prototype of a stealth fighter is built nobody will know the final RCS. Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am an aviation expert. This plane has an RCS comparable to the RAFALE. Its dead meat infront of a Raptor. Ivan failed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.200.42 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No aviation expert is going to make a quantitative statement like that with no supporting evidence, data, or tests. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

cant tell you anymore. Its classified information. This project has failed to meet its desired attributes.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.200.42 (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your IP address is in Spain, not Russia. You are not involved in Russian aviation. You have no basis for the statements you are making. Please troll elsewhere. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I told you I have full knowledge about this issue. The T-50 failed to meet its desired stealth requirements. This is for a number of reasons including a lack of funds, know how and time constraints. If you do not like these facts, dont insult people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.200.42 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody in the world knows the RCS of the PAK-FA, because it does not exist yet. The T-50 is in American terms a "Y" class aircraft. It does not have the final coatings or hardware of the combat aircraft. All anybody has are computer simulations and the best of those are Americans, but the Americans do not have the final design plans for the PAK-FA. So this is a known unknown for everybody. Q.E.D. Hcobb (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would second that (distinguishing between prototypes and production airplanes). It is also important to realise that there are different algorithms and assumptions available for measuring radar cross-section. The RCS of an aircraft will change depending on flight regime, the type of radar following it (eg. wave-lengths) etc. --Hrimpurstala (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Early production PAK-FAs will be largely along the lines of the current prototype non-stealth aircraft while the follow on FGFA might actually be somewhat stealthy. But as usual, nobody knows yet. Hcobb (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Then how do you know, and why are you making such statements? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the quoted schedule. First field, then develop. Hcobb (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Flight schedules don't talk about RCS and you said, I quote, "but as usual, nobody knows yet." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hcobb is 100 correct. The T-50 at the moment is a non-stealth aircraft, it needs to be further devoloped to enter the same sort of league as the Rafale and Eurofighter and SuperHornet. Maybe the Russian 7th gen fighter will come close to the stealth of an F-35 and the 8th gen will come close to the F-22. Indeed I suggest that we revise this whole article as this is not a fifth generation fighter, but rather a foruth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.162.28 (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A 5th generation fighter is a fighter supposed to be stealth even while armed, have a Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), have high performance airframes, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements in the theater of war to achieve situational awareness. The F-22 is the first operating 5th generation fighter. From what I know -and please feel free to correct me- the original concept of the PAK FA was to incorporate all of these things. The T-50 is an early prototype and is very open to improvement. Also, since the generation of a fighter categorizes how advanced it is, and the F-22 is a 5th generation, for all we know, an 8th generation will have self powered SCRAMJETS capable of moving the aircraft from a standstill and will be able to fly to Mars and back in one hour. User:Thomasmason417 (User talk:Thomasmason417talk) 14:30, 13 Feburary 2012 (UTC)

Nobody in the world knows rcs of f-22,f-35,j-20 and pakfa.So if anyone claims otherwise either he is psyhic or simply a TROLL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.17.19 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. We know the RCS of the F-22 and the F-35 (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-4408.html). 93.97.255.48 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(^_^) Well, phrases "metal marble" and "metal golf ball" are good for poem but not for encyclopedia. RCS depends on wavelength, on angle of irradiation and on a shape of an object. And finally, metal marbles and golf balls are not hard target for modern radars. Special radars are tracking metal debris in outer space at range about 400 km. XaHyMaH (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RCS is NOT a number. It is a function of angle, wavelength and polarization. Hcobb (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I will explain to you aviation fans the RCS of the various aircraft. I usually would not waste time dealing with teenagers who simulation games and consider themselves experts, but on this occasion I will educate you all. The following are the RCS estimates of aircraft in my expert opinion. I deduced these numbers taking into consideration the front of the aircraft and where logically any talented designer would use RAM (radar absorbent materials) to obtain better performances. These numbers are based on clean configuration from a head on aspect and are computed using my own formula and calculations and as said earlier they assume application of RAM in the most logical places. They are in no way official and may be wrong by as much as 12%. To those who say that people can not estimate the RCS from having model details, surface angles and logic, grow up. Maybe you cant in your ignorance but thats why you are only able to post on wikipedia, because you have no expertise or employment in the industry.

F-16: 1.42 m^2 F-18E: 0.18 m^2 Rafale:0.3 m^2 EF: 0.15 m^2 Su-35: 2.17 m^2 F-22: 0.0007 m^2 F-35: 0.0019 m^2 Pak Fa: 0.021 (first model), 0.013 (second model) J-20: can not calculate yet, have not collected enough data.

You are all most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.44.9 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)