Talk:Sukhoi Su-57

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)

Project Scrapped?

News going around that the project has been scrapped as India are not impressed and not putting in any funding. Instead they will order the F-35. I guess this means that Russia wont be able to afford to continue the project. Maybe they will order some second hand F-15 or some new rafale? What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.3.217 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the British should have higher standards for for visas and that you need to provide a ref. Hcobb (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not British, I'm an American studying aeronautical engineering in the UK at Warwick university. I thought that these rumours could be true, afterall superior platforms which can be bought already exist. e.g. F-15 (2nd hand), Rafale etc. So if the Indians cut off the money to the Reds, then surely they wouldnt waste money developing an outdated 1980's platform? 86.147.72.252 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard of the UK of late, it's completely possible such nonsense could come from a Brit too! - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that news which you´re talking about is a rumour in Indian newspapers which said that Americans offered a partership in F-35 project if India will choose for their MRCA competition F-16. However, this is just and only rumour, uncofirmed by both Indian and American side. No mention about scraping FGFA project but than few peoples sites like f-16.net and so catched on this and the new rumour was born. That´s all there it is. --EllsworthSK (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah they said this came from an insider at Sukhoi. The same inside source that told us all about the Yf-23 type shape etc.

Nice try, but the information about YF-23 shape came from ostr_ov, the technic at KnAAPO which said about it on his livejournal page [1]. What you´re talking about is this [2]. That should settle it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

this is absolutely false!!! india is a 50% partner in the developement of the t-50, and there is no source for the lie stated above.. stop spreading rumors.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All were seeing here is unsourced heresay fom both anons. The PAK-FA is a Russian program, and will continue without India's participation. All that would happen is that the per-unit price would go up, because india wouldn't be contributing to the development, athough that could have repercussions too. But it'ss silly to say that India pulling out mean's India cancelled the PAK-FA - It's not India's program to cancel! They can only cancel the FGFA. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources please?

Try Janes - I'm sure your University has a subcription somewhere. - BilCat (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

India is a 20% partner in the PAK FA. The T-50 itself is as far as the Russians have managed to get on their own. It's a Sukhoi, it flies, it has some LO features and it's going to take a lot of work to get its RCS down anywhere near F-35 levels.

I agree. At the moment it probably has the same RCS as the F-16C.

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=55484 "But with the new Indo-US strategic partnership, the US government feels it is appropriate to keep India abreast of the latest technology. It augurs well for future cooperation." Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this entire discussion unless someone can produce a source that confirms OP's claim. These trolls are getting ridiculous and this discussion isn't at all helping the development of this article. LokiiT (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

'These trolls' are fairly distinctly 1 or 2 different individuals coming from multiple IP addresses. As he said, he is at a university so it is highly likely he is using different PC's with different IP's each time he connects, or is using an IP spoofing service. Each of his original posts seems to contain another deliberately opinionated comment about the aircraft in question but as he continues, the posts follow the same pattern such as claiming this aircraft is synonomous with 1970's US aircraft. These posts are all irrelevant and should be treated as such. In fact, if anything their only relevance should be their relation to edits by the same IP's, intended to vandalise the actual article. And only then in context of the above discussion on semi protection.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In support of LokiiT's comments, I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM. This is not a discussion forum, find one if you'd like to argue about what you think the airplane is and leave the talk page for discussion how to improve the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to difer Ivan, it helps contribute to the article a lot. When we know exactly what is happening, we will be able to edit to article to say "Project abandoned in favour of second hand F-15A's which were deemed to be more capable" etc.... If you vandalise this highly appropriate discussion, I will have you reported for vandalism and trolling. 86.147.72.168 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion is about reports of reports in the Indian "media" that the project has been/will be cancelled, and that is a legitimate topic for discussion here. India's participation in the project, and how much that percentage actually is, is also legitimate. That some, including all the IP's (yes, 99. too!) have made unhelpful remarks, does not negate the legitimacy of the topic. (I'm not including smart-alec remarks by myself and a few others - that's common among WPAIR editors.) Wholesale removal just opens the door for it to be brought up again, though new or incompe=tant users will do so anyway. Of course I don't condone "vandalism and trolling", but "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" isn't the solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing the comments of others

Per WP:TPO: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

There are better methods for dealing with problems editors, but wholesale removal of entire discussions is not the way to do it. Archiving disscussions is permitted, and I did so today to reduce the size of the talk page, as it was getting long again. Further unjustified removals of anyone's comments, including your own if another person has responded, will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard, such as ANI. If you've said somehting you regret, strike it out, like this. The regular editors will understand. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy you cited states that it is sometimes justified to remove comments of others, including trolling. That's exactly what the discussion above is (and those responding seriously to the trolls: Stop feeding them.) Keeping such nonsense on the talk page is not required by policy nor is it necessary for any practical reason, and it does not contribute anything productive to the article or discussion of the article. Hence there is no reason to leave it intact, and much reason to delete it. If you want to start reporting people for deleting troll threads and the irrelevant discussions/arguing that follows, good luck, but you're being counterproductive. LokiiT (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not trolling is involved here is a matter of opinion. Disruptive, yes, but "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Removing the posts of longterm productive editors is even less productive than your deletions. Please do not do it again. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting irrelevant replies to a troll is productive. It removes clutter and distractions from the discussion page. "Longterm productive" editors don't get special treatment. Their farts stink just the same as everyone else's, and there's nothing productive about arguing with anonymous trolls.LokiiT (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And calling my comments "farts" is supposed to be productive?? Please be civil. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind editors to be civil and remember it is more normal to close or archive discussions rather than deleting them. So I think this discussion is closed - no further comment needed. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd flight

According to RT the plane made it's second flight. Although only footage from the first flight was shown. Source --IJK_Principle (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And according to Interfax this time the flight was 57 minutes long, the plane was once again piloted by Sergei Bogdan and the plane had a new paintwork - grey-white camouflage (the colors of the VVS). Also several more flights will take place in the near future after which the plane will be relocated to Zhukovsky near Moscow where the main phase of the test flights will take place. Source--IJK_Principle (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The T-50 made its SECOND FLIGHT on the 12th Feb, not the third. The aircraft only taxied on Feb 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.34.133 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to all

Can I remind editors that this is a discussion page for editors to discuss changes to the associated article, it should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Also note when writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Characteristics

You should look this (If you understand russian) http://www.rian.ru/infografika/20100212/208888584.html It shows some characteristics of the t-50 and it compares it with the f-22. I think it provides some useful information. And what are those engines? --Mr nonono (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

TRDDF is just your normal turbojet bypass w afterburner. I think it was already said the Su35 engines will be improved with new materials and knowledge to boost the stress they can take with afterburner, to make available 3D thrust control and to give the ability to speed with supercruise for the T50. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dueling unit costs

I've removed the dueling unit cost figures until a consensus can be reached on which figures to use, if not both, and what type of costs these are. Assuming the sources are accurate, both figues being added could likely be legitimate and correct - it depends upon how the costs are being calculated. Types of costs include flyaway cost, procurement cost, and program acquisition cost. Please see User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs for a basic treatment of the issue by an aerospace professional semi-active on WP. This will help to make sure everyone understands the terms being used so we can all be talking about the same thing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the IPs feel they are exempt from discussion. Time for that article protection. - BilCat (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just getting ridiculous. This needs to be resolved in the above discussion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Those "IPs" called for article protection before you. I'm just returning article to pre-vandalism state by IP 88.---. Good faith first. Thank you. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right version" in an edit dispute. Another problem is that the sources are in Russian. It's difficult to discuss what one can't read. Non-english sources are permitted, but translations need to be provided, which hasn't been done here.- BilCat (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said right, I said previous. As in preserve the thing you are disputing about until the dispute is complete. As for the Russian... it's pretty easy to make out what "20 до 40 миллионов долларов" no matter if you speak Russian or not. If you seek translations do it on your own time, do not delete a piece of information because it is in another language (that is done nowhere on Wikipedia). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You picked the previous version you think is right, not the other version that has also been removed. Why not show good faith and restore the other one in place of the one you've restored first? It has as much right to be there during the dusccusion. I decided not to favor either one, and remove them both, but you still haven't addressed the actual issues here (not very surprising).

I do wish users would read the guidelines on WP before making statements such as "If you seek translations do it on your own time, do not delete a piece of information because it is in another language (that is done nowhere on Wikipedia)." Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources POLICY:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline." (Emphasis added) - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I should have said "If you want the translation of the FULL text, do it on your own time," I wasnt aware nitpicking was the course of action here, although it is internet arguing.... The relevant text/phrase of interest has been translated for you in the article and I even did it in the comments . I'll be happy to translate the entire article if three or four people request it (I am not going to do it just for you and nowhere does it say I should translate the entire article, just the relevant text). Besides, I'm not preserving the article because it's correct (if you look far enough you'll see it wasn't me to even put it in there) but because it is the last state of the article before myself and a few people noticed that a vandalism problem cropped up. Work on being less patronizing please, it's practically oozing out and obviously intended to cause friction and internet arguing (we all know how that ends). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a google translate of the source a while back and from what I could see they were talking about the development cost per planned aircraft. Basically they were stating that the pre-production costs per aircraft were $20-40 million. However, google translation is not that reliable or indeed valid for use on wikipedia. I think it would be best to either wait for a third party translation of the article or for a Russian wikipedia member to translate it before using it as a source. But thats just me.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Number built

So far, there is only 1 PAK FA unit that actually flew (twice, on Jan 29 and Feb 12). This page (in Russian) has the details about the different PAK FA prototypes that have been constructed:

• 1 or 2 T-50-KPO unit(s) (also known as T-50-0): airframes for stress tests etc.
• 1 non-flyable T-50-KNS prototype: designated for various ground tests. This is the one that underwent widely publicized taxiing tests in December 2009.
• 1 flyable T-50-1 prototype: prototype engines, no radar; has had two test flights so far, and is scheduled for many more.

In addition, a flyable T-50-2 prototype (closer to the final PAK FA) is currently under construction. IMHO, the infobox should not list non-flyable units, so the "number built" field should read "1", or perhaps "1 + 1 under construction". Tetromino (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on WPAIR arircraft project is to only include the number that have actually flown for aircraft that are under development. It's difficult to keep this article in line when even the good editors keep going against established consensus. The hidded notes I've added aren'e ones I've made up, but are from Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin. Please don't remove these and make up your own. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

In that case, the number is 1. If you cannot read Russian, here is a scan of a page from a French article (La cinquième génération russe prend son envol) by Piotr Butowski and Guillaume Steuer in Air & Cosmos saying basically the same thing. Tetromino (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree then, if there is a solid source for the above information. I simply assumed that the one that undertook the taxi test was another flyable prototype. Seems odd to me to build an aircraft with all the neccessary components to nearly lift off, then to not take the extra steps to be able to put it in the air. But I don't really know that much about aircraft development so maybe they have their reasons.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Insiders like groomi and nemetc said that this was done to save on time and costs, as for the non-flying prototype the less tight tolerances might be used, and even some substandard and/or refurbished parts would do, thus eliminating waiting for replacements. --Khathi (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That might even explain the different sting on the taxi test prototype then.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the taxiing tests were done with the T-50-1 airframe, not T-50-KNS, all the insiders were pretty much insistive. The rear sting is actually the same, the perceived difference was due to the different lighting condition and filmimg angle.

The matter of the engines on T-5-1 is rather uncertain. Some sources say that it's article 117S -- an updated Al-31F, used on Su-35. Other say that it's article 117 (without S) -- a further update of the same engine. Then, Saturn brass talks that it used article 127 (or 129, it escapes me now), a new unrelated engine developed from Al-41F. And everybody in this mess is, of course, "speaking on condition of anonimity"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.29.168 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

I have protected the article from editing for the moment can I ask that users discuss the contents and come to some consensus rather than continual reverting of edits. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you have the time to clear up the trolling in the talk page too? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Add this to the end of design please.

The T-50 has wing leading-edge devices above the jet engine intakes that have been called a challenge for for signature control.

Hcobb (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Added as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparable to YF-22

The comparable aircraft should note that the T-50 is about at the same level of development as the YF-22's first flights. Hcobb (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that? The YF-22 was a "one-off" (or two, I guess) demonstration aircraft designed to compete in the ATF competition. Once the F-22 had been selected, there were many test and evaluation aircraft prior to the operational F-22s that were more than the YF-22 was. Now I'm not saying I know what state the T-50 is in, but I think you'd need a source to make that claim. Additionally, this article is about the PAK FA, which will be a production aircraft. If the T-50 is currently in the state the YF-22 is in, it should be in an article called the "Sukhoi T-50", not PAK FA. For example, see Lockheed Martin X-35 and F-35 Lightning II. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the F-22 too, except for the traditional under-belly intakes. It could very well be as advanced. Refs, anyone? Jeremy Wang (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur that it needs a source, preferably a very reliable one. However, we do cover the YF-22 on the F-22 page; the X-35/F-35 had many more changes vis-a-vis the YF-22/F-22A. Since we really don't know what the producution PAK-FA is ging to be like either, I see no problem covering the T-50 here until such time as the differences are better known, and worth covering separately, of if the article is long enough that a split is needed for that purpose. The See alos section, however, rarely ever needs complicated explanations; that should be covered in the text. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I agree that we don't need to split this article. Maybe in several years, if there turns out to be a bunch of differences, but for now we're in good shape. I guess my main point, more succinctly, is that the PAK FA is going to be a production aircraft; it should be compared to other production aircraft (I.e., the F-22). If the T-50 is ever split from whatever the PAK FA becomes (Su-XX or whatever) in Wikipedia, the T-50 might be more comparable to the YF-22 or YF-23 than the F-22. But, until then, comparing it to the YF-22 would need a highly reliable source. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point to consider; The T-10 (prototype Su-27) does not have its own article despite the fact that the T-10 differed considerably from the production model Su-27 & variants. I think there would need to be, in a sense, a verifiable difference between the case of the T-10 and the T-50 to justify splitting articles. Additionally, this is quite an interesting point. Is the mere use of a different name an implication that this is a step akin to the first prototype F-22's (as opposed to YF-22's). To speculate, one could assume this means that statements such as "first flight of PAK FA" don't necessarily mean a T-50 has not flown earlier.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than bringing a reliable source to this article (which would of course be way out of line with the other information here), let me quote Goon:

"It is important to consider that the publicly displayed PAK-FA prototype does not represent a production configuration of the aircraft, which is to employ a new engine design, and extensive VLO treatments which are not required on a prototype. A number of observers have attempted to draw conclusions about production PAK-FA VLO performance based on the absence of such treatments, the result of which have been a series of unrealistically optimistic commentaries."

Hcobb (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be exactly one comparable aircraft: F-15SE Silent Eagle, as both aircraft are only stealthy from the front. Hcobb (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At first I have to point out that the aircraft is not stealthly only from the front. There are no sources about it and I think that Sukhoi made it clear as a day what they want the aircraft to be. Than about YF-22 - the points were already made. T-50, the prototype, is comparable to YF-22 however the article is about the PAK FA, the project which still goes on. --EllsworthSK (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the default for the article is the finished PAK-FA then we write about the T-50 this should be mentioned. For example the delivery of T-50s to the Russian Air Force for training in 2013 vs the estimated delivery date of the PAK-FA in 2015 to 2020 or later. Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it known that the Russian Air Force will be training on an aircraft that isn't representative of the final PAK FA? And yes, the article could probably use some cleaning up to describe the difference between is flying now, and what the Russians will be fielding when it's done.

As for the stealthiness of the aircraft... we don't know anything. Any conclusion we make, or some blog makes, based on the video and pictures from the first flight isn't a reliable source. And, for the sake of argument, the F-35 isn't an all-aspect stealth aircraft either. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The T-50-1 prototype, just like the F-35, is stealthy from all directions except for the rear. Considering that the Silent Eagle lacks supercruise and thrust vectoring and achieves "stealth" by using some radar-absorbent materials instead of having proper stealth shaping, comparing it to the PAK FA is utterly ludicrous. Silent Eagle is America's answer to the Su-35BM — a good 4th generation aircraft that includes some 5th generation technology. Tetromino (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news76782.html The Russian Air Force will now receive the first T-50 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter in 2015, instead of 2013, as requested by Russian Premier Vladimir Putin. Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said he hoped that in 2013, the [Sukhoi] PAK FA prototype would be ready and fine-tuned, and the air force would start deliveries to military units in 2015, according to Ria Novosti.

So even the Russians are confused about what they'll get and when. If only they'd read this wikied article they would be all so certain. Hcobb (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpredictable delays in military aircraft programs are the norm — just look at the latest delay for the F-35. When any nation's leadership says that a weapons system currently under development will be ready for deployment N years from now, you should take those words with a grain or two of salt, and assume that they are optimistically quoting the contractor's CEO who had pulled the number N out of his posterior. Tetromino (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparable to other aircraft? We should mention FG-FA which is based on the PAK-FA, it's different enough to be considered more than a variation. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "See also" section's fields, the FGFA is already listed under "Related", which includes variants, ancestors, and derivitives. There's no need for it in the "Comparable" filed too. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Su-50

A lot of people seem to think that "Su-50" is the official name, whereas going with standard RuAF naming convention it is more likely to be Su-51 or something similar 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete speculation on your part. And why couldn't it be "Su-50" anyway? 97.125.51.63 (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Because, by the longstanding tradition, even numbers are reserved for strike aircraft -- either bombers or close air support, and you can count exceptions on the one hand (Only Tu-95 and Su-25 come to mind, and both were internal company designations that just kind of stuck: Tu-95 should've really been Tu-20, and there even existed some official documentation, but by the time it was finally ready for deployment, everybody and their dog just called it "article 95", so Tu-95 it became). Fighters, even multirole ones, have odd numbers, so Su-51 wont't be that much of a stretch. --Khathi (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. But like you say, this isn't a cardinal rule. The Su-39 is another support aircraft with an odd-number designation, while the Su-30 is an even-numbered multirole aircraft. So there are plenty of exceptions. I'm wondering if it's the design bureau itself which determines the aircraft model designations, not necessarily in a pattern dictated by the air forces. The information you give is interesting for sure, but I think it's too early to speculate on what the T-50 will be called when it goes into service. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't a cardinal rule, but since we have zero official information, the best guess is that it won't be Su-50. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Air Power Australia Analysis

Here is link to an in-depth analysis on the PAK-AF by by Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon from the Air Power Australia webpage. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html. L.J. Brooks (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Mind you, I'm not sure if the author is overselling the PAK. From the report:

"Should the United States continue along the force structure path for TACAIR mapped out by OSD policy definition of the last three years, it will be denied access to any operational theatre into which credible numbers of the PAK-FA are deployed by an opponent. In turn, the United States will be deterred from the use of conventional forces in such a scenario. The consequence of this, in turn, is that significant pressure will be placed upon a future President to threaten the use of, or operationally use, tactical nuclear weapons." (emphasis mine)

Sounds to me like a repeat of some of the hysteria that surrounded the MIG-25 when it first appeared. Having said that, though, I think the report would be useful for technical information. Tabercil (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Goon and Kopp think that the F-35 is limited to only two internal air to air missiles. Shall we go with Goon or with every other source out there? Hcobb (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Goon and Kopp are right. The F-35 has four internal hardpoints - 2 x AIM-120 AAM and 2 x 1,000lb JDAMs. In a non-stealth role it can mount 6 wing-mounted hardpoints - the two outer hardpoints can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders. The other four hardpoints can carry a variety of weapon systems. So, it possible that the F-35 could carry up to 6 x AIM-120 missiles (two internally) and 2 x AIM-9 or a combination there-of. L.J. Brooks (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

...Which is the truth right now, as the F-35 only has four internal hardpoints and every single source says that these can carry two AA missiles and two bombs. Either it's two ASRAAMs or two AMRAAMs (possibly Meteors in the future, as well), while a senior manager at Lockheed, Richard Cathers, said that in the future the AA capacity is supposed to increase to six internal missiles. If and when this will happen is another issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is as easy to shoot down as a Sukhoi, as stations 4 and 8 on the F-35 can carry either air to air or air to surface weapons. Combined with stations 5 and 7 we get up to four air to air missiles with a lower RCS than the T-50. Hcobb (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And here comes the RCS again... Do you know the RCS of PAK-FA? No. Do you know the RCS of the F-35? No. The APA thing is to be taken with a grain of salt, they've got a clear agenda after all and their fantasy figures aren't reliable. However, if they are wrong on something, it doesn't automatically mean that the truth is the total opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Air Power Australia is a reliable source - it's basically a self-published website. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-known think tank and one of its founders is a well-known analyst whose articles have been published in unquestionably reliable sources. Air Power Australia clearly has an agenda (to convince the Australian government to convince the US government to offer F-22s for export), but you cannot out of hand dismiss its analysis as unreliable. Tetromino (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it a 'well known think tank'? It's a collection of guys on the internet who are ignored by the Australian Government (despite them routinely spamming parliamentary inquiries with vast submissions) and who frequently have little connection with reality (eg, claiming that the F-111s can be successfully operated until the 2040s and that the US will export the F-22). Carlo Kopp is regularly published in reliable sources, but that doesn't make what are essentially editorials posted on his own website reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Air Power Australia is, as Nick-D pointed out, a collection of editorials. Well informed, informative editorials but editorials nonetheless. They have no greater access to sources then a member of the public has, but importantly they seem to have the time to search these sources for information. I think they are valid as a source for articles because of this, but with full knowledge that the primary source is preferred.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

APA is not bad, dozens of fairly reliable authors and experts are involved there. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA term

The term with the closest match to the PAK FA is Advanced Tactical Fighter or ATF. So while the United States had ATF and JSF programs and various prototypes in those programs, the F-22 and F-35 were the final result of those programs. Therefore whenever we talk about the actual flying aircraft let's use the term Sukhoi T-50 and use Russian PAK FA for the overall program. Note that between the YF-22 being selected and the F-22 being completed the Americans still used the ATF term and that is where the Russian program is at the moment. Hcobb (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't think so. ATF is more synonymous with the program that spawned 1.44 and Berkut (MFI). 99.236.221.124 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb -- I think you're on the right track there, and we may end up with a Sukhoi T-50 article describing the test aircraft and a Sukhoi Su-41 article describing the production aircraft (btw, I just pulled that number from thin air to make the point, I have no idea what it might be labeled). That said, I don't think we've got enough to split the articles yet. I think we should wait until more info is available. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is already split. This is the T-50 article and the final aircraft is covered by Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, as even the Russians are talking up the joint project aspect. Hcobb (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sukhoi/HAL FGFA is talking about the FGFA variant. This "T-50" article (Sukhoi PAK FA) covers the PAKFA variant. Are you trying to say that the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA article is talking about the final version of the aircraft in question (T-50)? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA is a Russian program to develop a one-seat fighter which has, so far, resulted in one flying prototype (T-50-1). The Sukhoi/HAL FGFA is a joint Russian-Indian program to develop a two-seat derivative of the PAK FA and which, so far, exists only on paper. The two programs have approximately the same relationship as the F-16 and the Mitsubishi F-2. By 2015 we will likely have to split the material into 4 articles: Sukhoi T-50 (the PAK FA prototype), Sukhoi Su-50 (or whatever number the Russian Air Force decides on for the PAK FA end result), Sukhoi/HAL ??? (the HAL FGFA prototype), and Sukhoi/HAL Su-50MKI (the HAL FGFA end result). Tetromino (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tetromino. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Russians have already admitted that they need foreign help to complete the PAK-FA and the Indians are the only party that they are talking with about this. The T-50 is a long long way from being combat ready. Hcobb (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"a long long way from being combat ready" — you are absolutely correct; the T-50-1 prototype is using interim engines and has no radar.
"Russians have already admitted that they need foreign help" (emphasis mine) — citation needed. Tetromino (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again to add in the ref, but anything NPOV gets wiped from this article faster that Putin doffs his shirt. Hcobb (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the whole matter is extremely politically sensitive, and ALL sides do their best trying to spin the version that suits them best in the media. So one can say that there's NO NPOV information about the plane. Half of the Russians go into patriotic fervor and yell on the top of their lungs that T-50 will tear Raptor a new one, other half of the Russians whine that everything is lost and T-50 is a lame copy of the Raptor (NEVER underestimate a self-bashing ability of any Russian), Pentagon downplay everything as to not anger anyone, but clamor for reinstating F-22 program at the same time, Dr. Kopp spins apocaliptic tales about the new Russian Star Destroyer... Where's NPOV here? --77.35.29.168 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the company a reliable source for its own products?

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)

Yet another update

The T-50 is to begin a standard flight test program in April 2010 that will take several years to complete.

And even more missing stuff.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-46570520100301?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 Analysts from the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) said in a survey published last week that the T-50 prototype's engines did not measure up to new-generation fighters in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio and fuel economy.

The T-50 will also be produced in a 50/50 joint venture with India and could be armed with jointly made BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, Davydenko said.

Hcobb (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the Pak Fa T-50 with the FGFA. The T-50 is the russian stealth plane under develpoement made for the russian army. The FGFA (which is the plane jointly developed with India) will be a plane based on the russian T-50. The differences are that the FGFA is a variant made for India that will have some Indian components (like the BrahMos missile) but little information is available at the moment and it´s soon to say anything. you can see it here (in spanish) http://sp.rian.ru/onlinenews/20100302/125310373.html --Mr nonono (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The BrahMos missile has no Russian parts? Hcobb (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing...

The cockpit has large multifunction displays and a head-up display, in line with other 4.5th generation fighters.

Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The BrahMos missile has russian parts, but it is made for India, it is not used in Russia.--Mr nonono (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your agenda is quite clear Hcobb. But what I find interesting is that when you stopped, earlier on, making edits, the anonymous edits and biggus dickus appeared. Then when you returned to making edits, they ceased. What you do, however, have in common is the same agenda for the article. Try not to cherry pick or take out of context your sources and to make valid contributions to the expansion of the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So I take it that the F-22 and F-35 are 4.5 generation fighters as well, due to the presence of large MFDs and a HUD. Seriously, what's the point of such a comment?

See what we have to put up with here? The F-35 DOES NOT HAVE a dashboard mounted HUD. This is because it is not a 4.5th generation fighter and so is unconcerned with lining up the aircraft to point at the target. Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad, the F-35 solely relies on a HMD. Something found on the the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/35 as well (in which it complements the apparent 4.5 gen HUD). Which makes the MiG-29 5th gen (5.5 gen?) and the F-22 a lousy 4.5 gen since it as for now lacks the HMD system (JHMCS). Wow.

Funny that you decided to attack that rather than the real issue. The configuration of HMDs, MFDs and HUDs is largely irrelevant. The article you quoted must've had some other reason for calling the PAK-FA a 4.5 gen fighter jet, right? In case you didn't quite get the hint, that information was what I was asking for.

The PAK FA has an RCS that is far outside the range of the F-22 to F-35 but fits in the 4.5 range. It's sensors are also focused forward rather than the all-around coverage that the F-35 excels at. And it's IR levels are also much bigger than the American fighters. Hcobb (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The RCS of the PAK FA is unknown, and moreover, whatever it ends up being will be inconsequential to the fact that it's 5th gen fighter. Also, please keep your personal opinions and commentary out of both the discussion page and your edit summary. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Perhaps you should start a blog and leave this article to people who care about improving it rather than pushing an agenda. LokiiT (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thrust vectoring?

Is there any information on whether the PAK-FA will feature thrust vectoring? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's reported to have three dimensional thrust vectoring.[3] LokiiT (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same as the Su-35BM, as the new engines aren't ready yet. Hcobb (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the same. And there's NO Su-35BM, it's just jornalists' invention. Anyway, -35 has an "article 117S" engine, a deep mod of an AL31-F (AKA article 17). T-50, on the other hand, is equipped with an "article 117" engine, without the "S", which is 17 core mated with an entirely new fuel system and compressor, heavily modified turbine part and new control system, which allows for normal afterburner thrust in 15-15.3 tonnes range (compare to the 117S' 14.5 tonnes in emergency burst mode), and ~9.6 tonnes of thrust at nominal. There's also a 117A engine in the works, and this is a mix-and-match between 117 family and some gizmos tried on the cancelled AL-41F (AKA article 20). Saturn promises ~17 tonnes of thrust from this one, but it's still on the drawing board. The engine "unavailability" of which so excites you is the projected "article 127", which isn't even contracted yet, but the point is that 117 family already meets all the "5'th generation" requirements and still have enough room for improvements to stay at the top tier for 10-15 years needed to develop the 127 engine. Though to be fair, 117S and 117 may use the same vectored nozzle, because nozzle in general is an external part and can be almost freely switched between different engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.21.247 (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I.Fedorov (The vice-director of Saturn) in his interview to RIAN news agency (http://www.rian.ru/defense_safety/20100129/206858518.html) commented: "It is a completely new engine. It's not an upgraded version of Su-35 powerplant, as numerous 'specialists' were guessing. It meets all the requirements imposed on us by Sukhoi company". At the same time, in his interview to Aviaport.ru (http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?act=gm_look&id=1267779301) on 04.03.2010: Q: "Has the Defence Ministry signed a contract for [the production of] 117 already, or is it just funding the testing of the engines?" A (I.F.): "We didn't invest our own money in 117. On the parity agreements between Sukhoi and Saturn we invested only in the 117s modification. The Ministry has already allocated its funds for the engines for the production planes. I'm sure, in 3 years time, all the machines of Su type will be flying with 117. The engine is very good. It completely satisfies a 5th generation fighter in terms of both: the power and the modes of operation." Q:"How many 117 engines have already been produced?". A(I.F.): "My answer is: Their numbers completely fulfil the fleet of Sukhoi". Q:"How many hours had the engine been working on Su-27M?" A(I.F.): "There were several flights lasting 45-50 minutes each." Q: "Where will 117 be produced?" A(I.F.):"Currently, 18% of them are produced in Saturn and 82% produced in UMPO (Ufa Engine Production Orgainzation). When there will be a large batch, the whole production can be transferred to Ufa. Of course, in this case, our company would have to find a substitute for the lost profits. These question are being discussed now within ODK (?United Engine Production Company?). Q: "Are there any discussions with Salyut going on about engines for PAK FA?" A(I.F.): "Being a leader of this project, I monitor the activity on PAK FA on a daily basis. Within ODK we have discussions with Salyut. However, the final decision will be made by the customer - the Ministry of Defence". The conclusions are: 1) 117 and 117s are completely different engines, 2) 117 is ready for mass production, 3) 117 is intended to replace all existing engines on Sukhoi fighters (including 117s), 4) 117 is a 5th gen engine. 5) There is one more 5th gen engine currently being designed for PAK FA semi-independently by Saturn and Salyut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.142.251 (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unit cost

According to source no. 8,each one will cost 400-500 crore inr which converts into 110m dollars(109.84 to be exact).http://www.google.co.in/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=5000000000inr+into+dollars&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=.I couldnt make the relevant edit as page is protected.Zoravar (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

" each FGFA will cost Rs 400-500 crore." Since the FGFA is an inexplicably unrelated aircraft that will be jointly produced by India and Russia (unlike the PAK FA which will be jointly produced by Indian and Russian companies), I don't see how that cost would apply to this article. Hcobb (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The PAK FA is produced only by russian companies, India contributes with funding. The FGFA will be produced by both countries.--Mr nonono (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to track down the source of this strange notion as it flies completely in the face of each and every source on the issue...

http://www.brahmand.com/news/India-Russia-to-jointly-develop-PAK-FA-by-2016/3282/1/10.html India, Russia to jointly develop PAK FA by 2016

But why not see what Sukhoi themselves have to say about this?

http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=3000 Vzlyot named the preparation of a Russo-Indian contract for joint development and production of PAK FA the Contract of the Year. Directly involved in its implementation are Sukhoi and HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) Corporation.

Hcobb (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hcobb -- how about sources like this: India, Russia expected to sign fighter aircraft development agreement, from 5 days ago, that say that Russia and India are about to sign a contract for the aircraft. Key words include focusing on the design concept and technical requirements proposed by India, which implies that a lot of the design has not been finalized, as it likely has for the Russian PAK FA.

I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure about the relationship between the aircraft, I'm just trying to encourage us to wait before we make conclusions. No need to fill the talk pages with snarky comments at every opportunity. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And the more reasonable way to read those third party comments is that the PAK FA design is nowhere near complete as the primary sources state over and over again:

http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=2998 Another subject of Sukhoi’s exposition will be current work under the Su-30MKI program and its prospects as well as Russo-Indian project for joint development and production of a fifth-generation fighter (PAK FA). Su-30MKI multi-role fighters have been in service with the Indian AF since 2002. In 2004, their licensed production began at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) facilities. In December 2005 a general contract was signed in Delhi for joint development and production of the fifth-generation fighter.

Hcobb (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that a more reasonable way to interprete that article? What part of technical requirements proposed by India makes you think that the two aircraft will be so similar as to be the same? Most sources have been reporting for a long time that the Indian aircraft will be a 2 seater, and the Russian will be a single seat aircraft. So we know they're not going to be exactly the same. A joint development program with Indian-specific requirements will likely result in a substantially different aircraft.

Here's an example for you. Several countries already fly KC-767 tankers from Boeing. In all likelihood, the USAF will be flying 767-derived tankers from Boeing. However, the aircraft will have been developed with different requirements, will have different capabilities, will have different names, and will likely have different Wikipedia pages. In my (unexpert) opinion, the Indian and Russian aircraft will be no closer than that.

At the very, absolutely, least, can we please just agree that we're not sure what the PAK FA and FGFA will turn out to be, how similar they will be, what their capability will be? Can we agree to not have to bring it up and have this same discussion every time there is a post on the talk page? -SidewinderX (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Movable tail

The first flight video shows that PAK-FA has no conventional rudders, its vertical tails are fully movable.[33] This special tail fin design is mechanically similar to V-tails used by the Northrop YF-23 in 1990s,[34] but is supplemented by dedicated horizontal stabilators (as on the F-22).

Decision of T-50 tail not similar with V-tail, it is conventional, but fully movable tail, like you can see on Tu-160 or Sukhoi S54-56 family. Nothing surprising, this decision provide the same efficiency as conventional rudders, but with littler size and more stealthy. Ходок (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the article on the all-flying rudder please? Hcobb (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PAK FA and India

I see here is some confusion about the PAK FA term. PAK FA may refer to: 1 The russian new fighter (developed by Russia for russian air force) 2 The Indian twin-seater variant (variant jointly developed with India based on the russian fighter, for Indian air force, named FGFA) 3 The project

This article is about the russian fighter, so please don´t confuse it with the Indian fighter or with the project.--Mr nonono (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And everytime Sukhoi talks about their "joint project with HAL" they call that project the PAK FA. Which will include Indian development work for the fighter to be used by the Russian Air Force.

http://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.

Hcobb (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you don´t understand. The PAK FA (project) is divided in two planes, the fighter developed by Russia for russian air force, wich India contributes with funding, and the jointly developed fighter based on the russian plane for the Indian air force. The sources you mentioned two discussions higher ( unit cost- about the PAK FA) were talking about the Indian fighter, and not about the russian.--Mr nonono (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And for this comment where Indian input is clearly indicated for the Russian Air Force fighter? When will you start believing Sukhoi? Hcobb (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The russian fighter is developed by Russia for russian air force, the Indian variant is a twin-seater fighter with some Indian components for India. The russian fighter is fully designed by russia, while the Indian variant shares some components. All sources (including Sukhoi) say that, they don´t say that the russian plane has Indian components, only the FGFA. I´m think you confused both planes because most sources name both fighters PAK FA, like the ones that you cited.--Mr nonono (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100311/158159986.html - this seems to settle the question (if there was any in he first place), IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.61.97 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is talking about the FGFA, not about the russian T-50--Mr nonono (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The sides agreed to develop both a single-seat and a two-seat versions of the aircraft by 2016, focusing on the single-seat version in the initial stages of development.

"Both versions will be put in service with the Indian Air Force," Nayak said. ... The new aircraft will be most likely based on Russia's T-50 prototype fifth-generation fighter, which has already made two test flights and is expected to join the Russian Air Force in 2015.

What is not stated is that the T-50 in Russian Air Force service will be trainer aircraft with the full FGFA to be introduced into the RAF later. Hcobb (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The T-50, as stated in the article referenced higher, is the prototype 5th gen fighter developed for the RuAF under the PAK-FA program; from this aircraft, dedicated versions of for the InAF will be developed cooperatively under the FGFA program. Where was it ever stated that T-50 is a trainer? It seems the Russians hope to have pre-production aircraft ready by 2013; these will be delivered to a training unit to work up procedures for the aircraft, with full service induction, based on this experience, scheduled for 2015. While one could argue that these dates are likely optimistic, I have never anywhere seen a statement claiming that the current T-50 airframe is (single seat!) trainer prototype! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.86.131 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The T-50, the fighter that will be introduced in the russian air force, is fully designed by Russia, it don´t has any Indian components. The jointly-made variant will not enter in the russian air force, only in the Indian.--Mr nonono (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FGFA will be deep modification of russian variant T-50, but it will be T-50 too. See the difference between Su-27 and Su-30MKIХодок (talk) 20:00, 11 March 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)

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)