Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Is the T-50 faster than the F-22? Should I care about that claim from a Russian Lt. Gen. equivalent?

I’m not.

As postulated earlier, the top speed of the F-22 is unknown and is actually classified (as is other performance metrics). Sure, there are published numbers…but if you think anyone who works one is going to tell you, for example, the actual speed the F-22 routinely operates at or how far it can actually go is smoking something.

Same with the Russians and their T-50. Really, nobody other than a select few will know the “top speed” it’s able (or designed) to achieve and with the pace of their testing, I doubt they have even reach that mark yet.

The Russians claim a lot of their jets (for marketing purposes). As I’ve said a couple of years ago when the T-50 first flew, I mentioned it’s a big fighter with a wide body. Given that, I wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it is capable of carrying more internal fuel or “freight” (maybe they should give it a “C” designator). History has shown they usually achieve an impressive level of capability in 1 parameter, maybe 2. Where we excel with the F-22 is at least 4 and why in A2A it’s proven to be unmatched.

F-16.net Sponsor

deadseal wrote:

haavarla wrote:

Well then, pls explain to me how he manage to insult IAF pilots by claiming they were rookies, but at the same time adding "their(MKI) jets will beat our F-15 and F-16 on a regular basic"?
You know, he contradicted him self several times, so its is not wise to even use him as an source..

"oh and thrust me, i wont mention anything other than Jane's material here" a few sec later he stated the 28 deg/sec High alpha on the F-22.. great work man!
That man was a a joke.

your right, a nellis weapons school instructor is a "joke". (plug sarcasm here)

In his defense, the instructor did make many technical mistakes in his presentation, and the Air Force officially states that it doesn't share his views.

I wonder if someone knowledgeable in aviation can provide some commentary on the Zelin's claim. Given similar powerplants, how does the T-50 roughly compare to the F-22 in acceleration, cruise speed, top speed, etc?

Quote:

As postulated earlier, the top speed of the F-22 is unknown and is actually classified (as is other performance metrics). Sure, there are published numbers…but if you think anyone who works one is going to tell you, for example, the actual speed the F-22 routinely operates at or how far it can actually go is smoking something.

Same with the Russians and their T-50. Really, nobody other than a select few will know the “top speed” it’s able (or designed) to achieve and with the pace of their testing, I doubt they have even reach that mark yet.

The Russians claim a lot of their jets (for marketing purposes). As I’ve said a couple of years ago when the T-50 first flew, I mentioned it’s a big fighter with a wide body. Given that, I wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it is capable of carrying more internal fuel or “freight” (maybe they should give it a “C” designator). History has shown they usually achieve an impressive level of capability in 1 parameter, maybe 2. Where we excel with the F-22 is at least 4 and why in A2A it’s proven to be unmatched.

There are other parameters that are equall or more important as top speed. Like the accelleration, climb rate and at which altitude it perform optimal in.
Then you got stuff like fuel Consumption and fuel storage as well.
And last we need to know not only T/W but also T/D(thrust /Drag) ratio.
There was a Russian Pilot quoting, "that the T-50 will have better Fuel storage over the Flanker"..
But we do not know if he meant the Legasy or the Su-35S Flanker.. As there are big difference in parameters.
Approx 9760kg vs 11.500kg fuel..
One thing is certain, the Pak-Fa will have wet stations just like the Su-35S.
So eighter way, the T-50 on station mission duration time should be awsome.

disconnectedradical@

The only official so far about the engine is this:

"The 117 (AL-41F1) is a new 5th generation engine custom built for Russia’s fifth-generation stealth fighter jet PAK-FA according to Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosyan. Mikhail Pogosyan has clarified that claims that fifth-generation fighter allegedly has an old engine are wrong. Such claims are made by people with limited knowledge,he said. Though most parameters of the new 5th Gen Engine remains classified General Director Mikhail Pogosyan provided some information on the new engine, The engine thrust was enlarged by 2.5 tonnes when compared with the AL-31 engine, while the engine weight was cut by 150 kilograms. That allowed the new jet to supercruise i.e. move at a supersonic cruise speed without the use of after burner.

The Saturn Research and Production center made digitally controlled system (FADEC) of Project 117 Engine.The new engine produces 33,000 lbs (147 kN) of thrust in afterburner has a Dry weight of 1420 kilogram and T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that this engine (117) meets the client’s (Russian AirForce) requirements. This is not an intermediate product made particularly for test flights. The engine will be installed in production PAK-FA fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients."

Its from an intervue with Pogo in Take-off.ru.
If we are to take anything seriously, its better to take note from Mr. Pogo than any VVS generals whom often blurp out those stupid reports about delivery dates , etc. Cause they never get it right.

This means the First batch of operational Pak-Fa will have the 117 engines.
My two cent is that the new engine will be ready when the FGFA two seater are ready to fly.. and by then they will also put in on the T-50 as well.

Hmmm, let's break this down...

"The fifth-generation PAK FA T-50 jet fighter will have a higher maximum speed, longer maximum flight time and greater freight capacity than the American-made F-22 and the Chinese J-20, Air Force Colonel General Alexander Zelin said Monday, RIA-Novosti reported..."

Higher maximum speed. Curious as pointed out prior, given not many are privy to the F-22's top speed. I'd say this is pretty dubious, given even if the F-22's "max speed" is Mach 2.8 today, that'll likely change given new/better engines etc. if and when the T-50 arrives. After all, they're promising new/better engines at some point - we have to give those highly paid engineers at Pratt and Whitney SOMETHING to work on, don't we?

Longer maximum flight time? Again, anyone here know exactly how long the Raptor can stay aloft? I'm no engineer/pilot, but I'm fairly certain this varies based upon time super-cruising, altitude and so forth?

Greater freight capacity, fantastic man. How many overnight packages can she carry? Smile

Oh, he meant missles/bombs etc. Great. Is that in numbers, pounds, kilograms or some other measurement? I suppose if they retain those big honking fins I'm seeing on these Russian AAM's, it'll have to carry more "freight".

They apparently know a LOT about the J-20 too! How about that? They can even look into the future!

If I was Sukhoi/this guys boss, I'd put a muzzle on him. I made my living in insurance and now train muscleheads to feed my family. Even a guy like me can see the holes in this guy's claims/boasting.

Have another shot of vodka, comrade... Smile

cywolf32 wrote:

The F-22 would still be "slower" @ top speed given it's stealth coatings and fixed inlets require such a limitation. However, from an acceleration point of view with a usable combat load, F-22 baby.
While the F-22 will be slower in full burner compared to the T-50 , it will be much faster in super cruise. If I'm not mistaken I believe the V-max in supercruise is around [Link pending approval] The coatings on the F-22 do not slow it down other than weight considerations. The F-22 dwarfs the other fifth generation fighters in Lo and supercruise. Each of the other contenders is slower in supercruise and to my knowledge the J-22 has not demonstrated the ability to supercruise at present. So the F-22 will maintain a much higher speed in supercruise and is operationally much faster IMHO.[/i]

As far as the T-50 engines go, people are CORRECT in that it is NOT flying with the new engines. This was put out by Sukhoi themselves and the government when the aircraft first went public. The new engine is in development only. This thing is flying with SU-30 class engines only.

As far as the Raptor goes, its MAXIMUM speed is dependent only because of canopy delamination issues due to extreme temperatures...She could go much faster.

MAXIMUM speed has very little to do with modern air combat anymore and more with time on station and cruise speeds. After all, we don't really need to chase anyone anymore because 9 times out of 10, recently, we've been downing enemy aircraft as their gear comes up after lift off.

It is an deep upgrade from the Base line AL-31F engine, so yes the core is the same as what the AL-31FP use on the MKI.
But it ends there..

Both the 117S(Su-35S) and the 117(Pak-Fa) engines have increased diameter fan blades on the compressor stage, new High/low pressure fuel pump system, FADEC and improved metalurgy parts which make it run on hotter temp..

So an increase by 4000kgf thrust on Su-35S(117S).
And 5000kgf on Pak-Fa(117) engines are impressive enough.
Thats 2*15000kgf on AB.
Not that far behind the F119 engines.
And it will make do for now. The first 14 T-50 will have these engines, and possible the first operational SQ too.

As I stated...it is NOT the engine they plan on using...

"The existing PAK-FA prototype effort is clearly focussed on minimising risk during the initial process of proving the aerodynamic, airframe and systems design. Russian open sources have stated that the prototypes are powered by the existing production Al-31F 117S, often labelled for marketing reasons as the Al-41F1A, variant 19,400/32,000 lbf (8,800/14,500 kp) engine, employed in the Su-35S. While this engine lacks the performance rating of the earlier developmental Al-41F series and its likely derivatives, it is capable of supercruise and thus permits significant flight test and flight control system development to be performed without the high risks characteristic of the concurrent use of a developmental engine and developmental airframe."

Sorry. You are dead Wrong.
The 117S are installed on the Su-35S ONLY!

http://npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64

The 117 or 117M engines for Pak-Fa have 15000kgf.
Do i need to post all the sources out there..?

Here is one for starters:

http://www.uk-odk.ru/eng/presscenter/odk_news/1063/

Who cares? It just means it's going to eat an AMRAAM that much sooner.p Very Happy

Quote:

"The existing PAK-FA prototype effort is clearly focussed on minimising risk during the initial process of proving the aerodynamic, airframe and systems design. Russian open sources have stated that the prototypes are powered by the existing production Al-31F 117S, often labelled for marketing reasons as the Al-41F1A, variant 19,400/32,000 lbf (8,800/14,500 kp) engine, employed in the Su-35S. While this engine lacks the performance rating of the earlier developmental Al-41F series and its likely derivatives, it is capable of supercruise and thus permits significant flight test and flight control system development to be performed without the high risks characteristic of the concurrent use of a developmental engine and developmental airframe."

One more thing. That earlier AL-41F engine you mention, it was a failure.. It was very large, heavy, baad MTBO and poor fuel consumption. It had a different Engine core from the AL-31F.
The one that was used on the Mig 1.44 protoype..
That engine has very little in common with the 117 engines used on the Pak-fa today.

Quote:

haavarla
That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

Strange how nobody wants to remember the exercise held in India where all the discrete leaks generally were along the lines the F15 Squadron sent there was outclassed by the Flankers easily and could only just hold there own against the old upgraded Indian Mig21's. [But then as usual there were lots of excuses for that made up by many - no AWACS according to some was the problem - only average Pilots in the F15's up against India's best according to some - old outdated F15's etc.
The 2008 story also seems to be continually improving over and above what one person in the US said. From what I have read most of what he said has been discredited. He couldn't even get the Manufacturer of Su30's engines correct. If the Russians end up 1-2 years late with the SU35s big deal. Certainly a lot better than 8-10 years late.
Please grow up. India is the one country that can access virtually any equipment they want - US, Russian, French,Israeli, British etc. [virtually all the worlds technology]. If they thought the US technology was the best value for money they would be waiting in line now to buy the F35 and US avionics and missiles etc. To date they have bought none except for a few specialist items. Plenty of European and Israeli and Russian though.
TO ME THAT SAYS A LOT. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR YEARS.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

haavarla
That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

Strange how nobody wants to remember the exercise held in India where all the discrete leaks generally were along the lines the F15 Squadron sent there was outclassed by the Flankers easily and could only just hold there own against the old upgraded Indian Mig21's. [But then as usual there were lots of excuses for that made up by many - no AWACS according to some was the problem - only average Pilots in the F15's up against India's best according to some - old outdated F15's etc.
The 2008 story also seems to be continually improving over and above what one person in the US said. From what I have read most of what he said has been discredited. He couldn't even get the Manufacturer of Su30's engines correct. If the Russians end up 1-2 years late with the SU35s big deal. Certainly a lot better than 8-10 years late.
Please grow up. India is the one country that can access virtually any equipment they want - US, Russian, French,Israeli, British etc. [virtually all the worlds technology]. If they thought the US technology was the best value for money they would be waiting in line now to buy the F35 and US avionics and missiles etc. To date they have bought none except for a few specialist items. Plenty of European and Israeli and Russian though.
TO ME THAT SAYS A LOT. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR YEARS.

Says to me that India likes to waste money on an Air Force they don't need or use.

Quote:

haavarla
Sorry. You are dead Wrong.
The 117S are installed on the Su-35S ONLY!

You have got that exactly correct. The 117 is basically an 80% new 5th Gen engine. They have been used on all prototypes since day one and others are being proven up on Flankers. [From memory the 117 was ready for testing in about 2006. Obviously a lot of trials had been done with it to be confident enough to put it in a very valuable prototype from day one.] That came direct from the CEO of there United Engine Company.
The original AL41 [Equivalent of the discontinued General Electric YF120] - a variable bypass engine that they started developing in the 1980's was discontinued but much of the research of course was not wasted. Reports I have read indicate they had problems of keeping size down because of its variable bypass technology.
It, I understand is still the basis of there ultimate 5th Gen engine that will have a thrust of about 18t. From what Russian sources say it will be a similar size to the 117. It also will have better stealth features etc. Some reports say it could be ready and proven up by 2016. The work on it is well advanced. That fits with what Putin said - 2017 or 2018.
Every thing the Airforce spokesman said is also in line with all other statements made by all Official Russian sources.
Provided everything goes to plan the Pak Fa should have an extremely short takeoff. [500m has been stated by some]. Empty or loaded they did not say.
A bigger payload of fuel and weapons than the Flankers. Not sure if it will be much better than the SU35s.
Be more agile than the Flankers including the SU35s.
Longer range than any Flankers. With its wing area and design it should have good loiter time.
The specific fuel consumption of the 117 is very good. Equal or better than the 117s.
The 117 has specific thrust of about 10.5 to 1 and 2 of them will come in about 700kg lighter than the 119's on the Raptor.
All of the above comes from the CEO's or top Designers and Engineers in the program.
They also claim to be using a different type of composite construction to what has been used in the West. Obviously because they think it is better in some way. Maybe more durable? If they stay with there normal doctrine of requiring there aircraft to be able to operate from remote rough airfields I am certain they would not be interested in building something like the Raptor that requires very elaborate maintenance equipment and storage facilities etc. An aircraft of that type would not be practical for them in such a large country with extremes in climate. They obviously intend it be able to do that - the wheels on it are obviously designed to handle rough airfields. That means they either have developed much tougher RAM coatings or simply will forgo some stealth to achieve the ruggedness and simplicity of maintenance they normally demand in there aircraft. [They I am sure are very aware of the composite systems used in the West due to there joint development and construction of civilian aircraft and parts etc.]
One of the chief designers has said that the final production aircraft will look considerably different to the prototypes. [He was not specific - maybe he meant when all RAM is applied but he may also meant when there new ultimate 5th gen engine arrives - who knows?]
It is obvious though the prototypes have had no RAM coatings etc. applied - they don't even have there final one piece canopy.
They are developing it there normal way. Gradual development, and by staying with an airframe of similar size to the Flankers they can do most testing of equipment for the Pak Fa in a Flanker. In many ways the SU35s was and is a stepping stone to the Pak Fa.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

haavarla
That doesn't seem to be the case, if we're to believe those Red Flag 2008 results (vs. the IAF).

Strange how nobody wants to remember the exercise held in India where all the discrete leaks generally were along the lines the F15 Squadron sent there was outclassed by the Flankers easily and could only just hold there own against the old upgraded Indian Mig21's. [But then as usual there were lots of excuses for that made up by many - no AWACS according to some was the problem - only average Pilots in the F15's up against India's best according to some - old outdated F15's etc.
The 2008 story also seems to be continually improving over and above what one person in the US said. From what I have read most of what he said has been discredited. He couldn't even get the Manufacturer of Su30's engines correct. If the Russians end up 1-2 years late with the SU35s big deal. Certainly a lot better than 8-10 years late.
Please grow up. India is the one country that can access virtually any equipment they want - US, Russian, French,Israeli, British etc. [virtually all the worlds technology]. If they thought the US technology was the best value for money they would be waiting in line now to buy the F35 and US avionics and missiles etc. To date they have bought none except for a few specialist items. Plenty of European and Israeli and Russian though.
TO ME THAT SAYS A LOT. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR YEARS.

You have a lot of information confused, garbled or just plain incorrect.

Cope India 2004, the exercise I believe you are referring to, is probably the best example I am aware of of internet kiddies misunderstanding training exercises.

Despite what everyone seems to think, the objective in such exercises is not to pull out all the stops to somehow "prove" that you would win in a real fight. The idea is to -train-, that means you invent artificial rules to test certain skill sets. Other objectives include practicing deploying to and operating in an unfamiliar environment, building relations with a foreign force, and generally getting you out of your comfort zone.

Let me repeat again. The objective is not to try to prove you would win. Having said that:

"The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.

...

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.

The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise. " - Aviation Week 7-10-04

Not only did the US agree to fly against 3:1 odds, they weren't even simulating use of the AMRAAM. Does that sound like they were playing to win? Think about it...

Moving on, the Su-35 is way more than 1-2 years late. Russia has been offering one version or another of the Su-35 to anyone and everyone for years and years and are only just now starting to trickle them out.

But hey, they just had their 500th flight!
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/4/4/901/

(Consider that the much maligned F-35 program managed nearly double that (972 flights) last year alone.)

Finally, on the subject of India. The US has -never- had a good relationship with India. During the Cold War India was much more closely aligned with the USSR and since the Cold War the US/Indian relationship has ranged from icy (when the US put sanctions on India) to merely distrustful. (where things stand today)

To suggest that because India hasn't bought much US equipment it is because US equipment is somehow less than competitive is just insane. The US is by far the world's largest arms exporter and that includes plenty of sales to states with options.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Moscow Times: PAK-FA Faster than F-22