Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

[element1loop]

Just as well, as max roll-rates would allow each frogonaught the opportunity to admire the other's gastrointestinal plexiglass expressionism.

[vilters]

Don't make me think about yaw. Or God forbid, a spin.
Ha, yes, max Roll rate could be interesting for the poor guy under negative G.

So? Conclusion?
Russian engineers don't talk to their pilots.

That's perhaps also the reason they have such a HUGE Control stick in all their aircraft.
To "manhandle" the thing around.
Or? In Russia "blood pressure" provides the "hydraulic pressure" ?

Oeps, pressures just dropped.
One guy under positive G and the other under negative G. => Hydraulic one an 2 just failed.
Ejection after a loss of control also could become "interesting".

[hornetfinn]

What the F***?! I bet that just its designer team that thing was supposed to run on Vodka too

That, or the designer team were/are huge fans of Star Wars

That thing looks like it's result of vodka induced double vision... (since there is no Vodka smilie)

[ricnunes]

That thing looks like it's result of vodka induced double vision... (since there is no Vodka smilie)

Absolutely

[ricnunes]

In Russia "blood pressure" provides the "hydraulic pressure" ?

I corrected it for you:

In Russia "vodka pressure" provides the "hydraulic pressure" ?

[ricnunes]

What the F***?!

I understand your emotions, but in a fact it was a really interesting project =)

I'm glad that you understand my emotions because for second I thought that I was having some pretty nasty eyesight problems

[juretrn]

Looking at that thing, all I can think of is...
Don't do drugs, kids!

[mixelflick]

Can't be real. Looks like something a 15 year old would draw up in his basement.

Having said that, I really like the SU-25's design. It's no A-10, but it can haul a ton and has proven to be very rugged. They apparently studied the A-9 and determined there were some merits to the design. If the Frogfoot had better sensors and smart weapons, it'd be a lot more effective. As it stands though, a weak cannon and ripple rockets cripple its ability to be a true anti-armor weapon.

It supposedly could go supersonic though, provided you punched everything off of it. Getting someplace in a hurry was probably its only advantage over the A-10...

[milosh]

Can't be real. Looks like something a 15 year old would draw up in his basement.

Having said that, I really like the SU-25's design. It's no A-10, but it can haul a ton and has proven to be very rugged. They apparently studied the A-9 and determined there were some merits to the design. If the Frogfoot had better sensors and smart weapons, it'd be a lot more effective. As it stands though, a weak cannon and ripple rockets cripple its ability to be a true anti-armor weapon.

It supposedly could go supersonic though, provided you punched everything off of it. Getting someplace in a hurry was probably its only advantage over the A-10...

You probable didn't know about IL-102:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEDkzuKw-AI

Tail gunner look odd but it would be useful against those pesky MANPAD buggers, pilot would be inform about missile launch and buggers will need to think about 23mm HE shell rain.

Also good to estimate effect of strafe run, but IL-102 was expensive (two RD-33I) and big so they selected small and cheap Su-25 as better option.

[ricnunes]

You probable didn't know about IL-102:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEDkzuKw-AI

Tail gunner look odd but it would be useful against those pesky MANPAD buggers, pilot would be inform about missile launch and buggers will need to think about 23mm HE shell rain.

Also good to estimate effect of strafe run, but IL-102 was expensive (two RD-33I) and big so they selected small and cheap Su-25 as better option.

It looks like a jet powered version of the venerable WWII IL-2 Sturmovik.
Actually it was made by the same manufacturer

[mixelflick]

You probable didn't know about IL-102:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEDkzuKw-AI

Tail gunner look odd but it would be useful against those pesky MANPAD buggers, pilot would be inform about missile launch and buggers will need to think about 23mm HE shell rain.

Also good to estimate effect of strafe run, but IL-102 was expensive (two RD-33I) and big so they selected small and cheap Su-25 as better option.

It looks like a jet powered version of the venerable WWII IL-2 Sturmovik.
Actually it was made by the same manufacturer

I was going to say! Jets or not, it looked like it would have been a real dog, especially loaded down! And pilot visibility? Didn't appear to be very much lol. Is it me, or did I see internal bomb bays in that clip? Most of their designs don't look very finished (until this very day), but boy do they come up with some interesting stuff over there. I do like seeing what they come up with, as given their technological limitations you have to give credit to their engineers. Who would have thought they could come up with a Mach 3 bird (Foxbat) working with mostly steel, sloppy welding etc.??

[milosh]

I was going to say! Jets or not, it looked like it would have been a real dog, especially loaded down! And pilot visibility? Didn't appear to be very much lol. Is it me, or did I see internal bomb bays in that clip? Most of their designs don't look very finished (until this very day), but boy do they come up with some interesting stuff over there. I do like seeing what they come up with, as given their technological limitations you have to give credit to their engineers. Who would have thought they could come up with a Mach 3 bird (Foxbat) working with mostly steel, sloppy welding etc.??

Frontal visibility for pilot was good, probable better then in Su-25, rear visibility was bad but for that you have tail gunner.

Yes IL-102 have internal weapon bays for bombs to reduce air drag, it would carry six big missile pods and six bombs.

[lbk000]

Well hang on there guys, let's not get carried away with the chestbeating.

Form follows function, and there may be good reasons (at the time) for the unorthodox twin-nosed configuration in a ground attack aircraft.
First I want to remind you that designs are guided by doctrines, and doctrines are the result of traditions. And not everyone has the same traditions.

The US has a bit of a unique tradition in ground attack most notably in its allowance in WW2 for "free hunting" interdiction. After bomber escort missions, US fighters were given the freedom to attack targets of opportunity: trains, supply trucks, etc. This firmly established the pilot as having more roles in the kill chain, as he is not simply as the executor of the attack, but also responsible for finding and evaluating targets in the cockpit. Characteristically, US targeting EO optics are designed not strictly for weapon guidance, but gimballed so as to make accommodation for loitering observation.

The more orthodox tradition is that the pilot is confined to only the execution of an attack. It is naturally developed from the classical scenario where the aircraft is used for close air support against enemy forces. The most marked characteristic is the premium put on time, as defenders are both capable and keen to retaliate! Thus, it is imperative for attacking aircraft to minimize exposure by entering and leaving the battlefield as soon as possible. In order to facilitate this, observation and targeting is for the most part done outside of the cockpit.

Soviet Shturmovik concept is very much a member of this tactical ground attack tradition. It is a word cognate to the German assault concept "Sturm", and so when understood as "assault aircraft", is very descriptive of their intended method of employment. Hence, like other one-pass-haul-ass aircraft designs (ex. AV-8B, Tornado, Jaguar), Soviet ground attackers are outfitted with fixed, forward looking targeting optics, as there is no tradition of loitering for observation.

The winds started to change towards the end of the Cold War, as more lethal weaponry raised the stakes of ground attack. Once computerized targeting became prevalent, the advantage that aircraft enjoyed in rapidity of attack was negated, and the initiative shifted in favor of surface units, as they enjoy a significant advantage in concealment compared to aircraft.
Nowadays, the accommodation for on-location tactical ISR that the US traditionally enjoyed has shifted from a luxury to a necessity: Against increasingly mobile and well concealed threats, ground strike is a seek-then-kill arena now, and so European aircraft have all abandoned forward fixed EO and even the Russians are adopting gimballed optics.

As a su-25 replacement Sukhoi designed sh-90 project (t-12)..

So with all that circumlocution, we arrive at this Sukhoi twin-nosed design. To me it suggests that this is a way to enhance ground attack capability within the bounds of the Shturmovik doctrine. The twin nosed design benefits the weapon operator with generous visibility with less compromise to the pilot's visibility compared to a tandem arrangement, and most importantly, all while accommodating a forward-targeting format. I personally suspect that the cockpits would be duplicated between the two pilots, as it would benefit the weapon operator to be able to make any supplemental corrections he deems necessary during an attack, and if so, would arguably increase the survivability of the aircraft in its role.
Against the historical context, all of a sudden it seems like quite a cogent, heck, even smart design.

As for maneuvering...
Remember the F-82?

https://i0.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/F-82-Twin-Mustang.jpg

F-82-Twin-Mustang.jpg (39.93 KiB) Viewed 36241 times

And this was actually designed to be an escort fighter -- and it scored the first three kills of the Korean War, against single engine, single pilot La-7's no less. The second pilot was a measure against the fatigue of long duration escort. It really didn't matter how maneuverable your airplane was if you were too tired to do anything.

Most importantly, it doesn't matter how ridiculous you look if there's nobody left alive to laugh at you.

[zhangmdev]

<snip>
Remember the F-82?
<snip>
Most importantly, it doesn't matter how ridiculous you look if there's nobody left alive to laugh at you.

That is twin-fuselage. From Heinkel He 111Z Zwilling to Scaled Composites Stratolaunch, connecting two identical fuselages together is a proven approach to make a bigger airplane.

That Sukhoi twin-nose design looks ridiculous because it is neither twin-fuselage or twin-boom. Placing intake between two wide-set noses makes it appear (at that angle at least) to have very large frontal area. That is contrary to the sleek and fast looking a jet fighter supposed to have.

If you want two pilots, the traditional twin-boom design like de Havilland Sea Vixen is more practical and looks far better.

[lbk000]

That is contrary to the sleek and fast looking a jet fighter supposed to have.

This is a ground attack concept. Also aircraft are designed to achieve objectives, looking good does not kill enemies.

Did some light digging and found some interesting tidbits on it:

Pilot and radar were located in the left-side forward fuselage, weapons operator and an electro-optical fire-control system in the right-side forward-fuselage. All weapons were to be carried in two large bays inside the fuselages. Production line was planned at Irkutsk.

Weapons planned to be placed on internal and external hangers. It is the presence of the internal compartments and the original engine layout that led to the appearance of a "two-headed" two-cabin layout with a developed center section. Such a layout of the aircraft was proposed by directive directly by the general designer of the design bureau P.O. Sukhoi, M.P. Simonov.

The unusual appearance of the aircraft was dictated solely by considerations of the layout, rather than the desire to use the ground effect as it may seem at first, and as mentioned in some publications devoted to W-90.

Apparently the large centerbody was for not just internal weapon stowage but also for an unusual "dual-core" turbofan-turbojet configuration:

Initially, the plane was supposed to install a single engine with a variable bypass ratio. At that time, the idea of ​​creating a multi-mode aircraft became widespread. TRD with variable bypass ratio ("double-tube") gave this opportunity.
TRD with flat nozzles and variable bypass ratio was created in the Rybinsk Motor-Building Design Bureau, the chief designer is P.А. Kolesov. The engine has passed bench tests, various sources indicate thrust from 18,500 to 23,500 kg. Perhaps there are different modifications. Strictly speaking, for the T-12 project, the engine thrust was taken in 18,500-19,000 kg. at maximum load and about 11,000 kg. on par. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau, this engine was called the Trombone.

0_b6db6_2b6eb0d_XL.gif (12.34 KiB) Viewed 36177 times

#1 is a fan, top engine is high bypass cruise engine, lower engine is low bypass.

When discussing the project with the military has repeatedly raised questions about the mass of the T-12. At sufficiently high thrust-weight ratio .65 - .7, - machine weight was more than 27 tons, and the maximum weight at all approaching 30 tons. Required thrust like a 3rd generation fighter, but here it was about attack aircraft. The weight of the payload reached 9 tons. In fact, the plane goes into the "weight category" tactical bomber Su-24.

Renders by Evgenny Grunin, designer in Sukhoi Brigade 100-2, also responsible for other interesting proposals such as stopgap "kitbash" Shturmoviks to be made in wartime from whatever parts available apparently: