[MobiusElite]

Sukhoi PAK-FA
-Russian fifth-generation fighter-



Origin: (Real World)
Russia

Games Featured In:
Ace Combat Assault Horizon

Operators:
Russian Air Force

Ace Pilots / Squadrons:
Markov "Akula"/RuAF(ACAH)

Armament: (Special Weapons)

Trinity(used by Markov)

Overview:

The Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian: Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации, Perspektivny aviatsionny kompleks frontovoy aviatsii, literally "Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation") is a twin-engine jet fighter being developed by Sukhoi OKB for the Russian Air Force.
The current prototype is Sukhoi's T-50. The PAK FA, when fully developed, is intended to be the successor to the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian inventory and serve as the basis of the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA being developed with India. A fifth generation jet fighter, the T-50 performed its first flight 29 January 2010. Its second flight was on 6 February and its third on 12 February 2010. As of 31 August 2010, it had made 17 flights and by mid-November, 40 in total. The second prototype was to start its flight test by the end of 2010, but this was delayed until March 2011

Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan has projected a market for 1,000 aircraft over the next four decades, which will be produced in a joint venture with India, 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for other countries. He has also said that the Indian contribution would be in the form of joint work under the current agreement rather than as a joint venture.The Indian Air Force will "acquire 50 single-seater fighters of the Russian version" before the two seat FGFA is developed. The Russian Defense Ministry will purchase the first 10 aircraft after 2012 and then 60 after 2016 The first batch of fighters will be delivered with current technology engines. Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, has projected that Vietnam will be the second export customer for the fighter. The PAK-FA is expected to have a service life of about 30–35 years.


SOURCE:
Project ACES's twitter
"Full-Blown Assault" trailer

[EstovakianHarrierPlus]

I'm so happy they put this in the game.

[Roaches]

Just wished the Yukes used these in AC5...I'll be modeling this one for them later after I'm done with the J-20.

[Shirai_Kuroko]

Well, too bad that there's still no In-Game graphics for PAK-FA. If there is, I'd like to see it.

[Steel Hawk]

Oh those Russians and copying American designs.

[Broth3r]

Steel Hawk, on 19 June 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

Oh those Russians and copying American designs.

Here we go again.

[kuroi tsubasa]

Just three edits I did.
Removed specifications since ES doesn't seem to generally use them
Ace Combat Assault Horizon was just slightly formatted and whatever was in in Armament I just made a little official looking filler

[Heinkel]

Steel Hawk, on 19 June 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

Oh those Russians and copying American designs.

Funny to say that seeing how Tacit Blue was developped from Russian studies on radar reflection....

Besides, what else is a stealth multirole fifth generation fighter supposed to look like? Why would the Russians waste the lessons learned on the Flanker evolutionary tree and do some forward-swept unmanned boxwing?

[viperzerof-2]

Heinkel, on 19 June 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

Funny to say that seeing how Tacit Blue was developped from Russian studies on radar reflection....

Besides, what else is a stealth multirole fifth generation fighter supposed to look like? Why would the Russians waste the lessons learned on the Flanker evolutionary tree and do some forward-swept unmanned boxwing?

I get there is a limited number of ways to develop an aircraft but there are other options (like a tailless design perhaps). given that the PAK FA is 20 years younger then the YF-22 their was room to come up with new ideas. its not copy but it certainly isn't innovative at all

[Steel Hawk]

Heinkel, on 19 June 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

Funny to say that seeing how Tacit Blue was developped from Russian studies on radar reflection....

Besides, what else is a stealth multirole fifth generation fighter supposed to look like? Why would the Russians waste the lessons learned on the Flanker evolutionary tree and do some forward-swept unmanned boxwing?

You have the YF-23, which is even more stealth then the F-22, the F-117 and the B-2. All different designs to achieve stealth. Putting somebodies on-paper studies into reality is not "copying them", it's called "proof-of-concept". HUGE difference.

[Heinkel]

Steel Hawk, on 19 June 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

You have the YF-23, which is even more stealth then the F-22, the F-117 and the B-2. All different designs to achieve stealth. Putting somebodies on-paper studies into reality is not "copying them", it's called "proof-of-concept". HUGE difference.

Lolwut are you seriously referring to F-117 and B-2 just to deny me? I said multirole fighters.

And the YF-23 was rejected for the exact same reason that the Russians aren't making M-wing double-fuselage stealth jets; it's too risky a design and it breaks sharply with the evolutionary scale, as the Russians are known for evolution rather than revolution in R&D.

[Steel Hawk]

Heinkel, on 19 June 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Lolwut are you seriously referring to F-117 and B-2 just to deny me? I said multirole fighters.

And the YF-23 was rejected for the exact same reason that the Russians aren't making M-wing double-fuselage stealth jets; it's too risky a design and it breaks sharply with the evolutionary scale, as the Russians are known for evolution rather than revolution in R&D.

The point is there are a multitude of viable stealth designs and I proved my point, don't move the goal posts. You could very easily turn the F-117A into a multirole fighter, it'd be no different then the F-104 Starfighter, not everything needs a large payload. The B-2A's flying wing could be used in fighter design with wing-tip thrust vectoring ala the F-35B.

[Ribbon-Azure]

Removed a picture or somethin.

[Millie]

Tornado, like it or not, the Russians were the ones who created the means to develop passive stealth technology in the first place. We just happened to pick up the paper that their government ignored.

I feel the PAK FA is clearly an evolution of the Flanker: wide nacelles for body lift and LEVCON's resembling that of the Su-37's canards. The all-moving V-tails are built to allow the fighter to maneuver on the horizontal plane almost as effectively as the vertical plane, but rather than utilize the enormous tails of the Flanker (or even the F-22), they decided to minimize them and utilize the whole surface area for maneuvering. The PAK FA's design is built to turn sharp conventionally as well as utilize TVC for post-stall maneuvering at the expense of top speed and VLO all-aspect stealth to the F-22.

They are both excellent designs; there was little influence from the F-22.

[Steel Hawk]

Even if it is more of a classical lifting body design, it still easily evokes the shape recall of the F-22. Still think the Black Widow II is the best.

[Broth3r]

Well they have stated they intend on making it more maneuverable than the F-22, even that takes the stealth down a notch. IIRC, that's precisely what happened with the ATF.

[Millie]

All aerodynamic concepts take after each other. Since there is such a thing as a perfect aerodynamic design in the form of Sears-Haack Body, shouldn't we expect, as time and technology moves forward, for there to be incremental improvements toward that design? Its not a matter of form over function in aerodynamics, its function over form, as in any engineering science; we should just consider it a blessing that in general fluid dynamics function and form go hand-in-hand.

Additionally stealth technology is a concept that takes a similar form; a diamond should theoretically be the most efficient radar-evading shape. But creating something that can perfectly diffuse and deflect radar doesn't necessarily translate well into aerodynamics. Thus we reach a compromise, and the F-22, YF-23, PAK FA, F-35, and J-20 all show their own approach to that compromise, sacrificing perfect radar deflection to improve themselves in some area.

Suffice to say I feel the F-22 offers the best balance; but whether it be in maneuverability, top speed, range, or cost-effectiveness, there are sacrifices to be made to reach the mission profile that each design sets out to accomplish.

[Steel Hawk]

So what do you think the competing areas are between the F-22 and the YF-23? Given that the YF-23 had superior speed and rcs.

[Millie]

Maneuverability and stability. The YF-23 was a good looking fighter, and performed well, but it suffered in maneuverability, particularly on the yaw axis. Plus as much as V-tails are a wonderful compromise, they greatly suffer from instability problems (as demonstrated with a number of accidents attributed to the V-tail of the Beechcraft Bonanza), and despite all our advancements in materials and computer control, they still are too heavy and too unstable to offer a good weight loss and safety margin.

The F-22 on the other had decided to sacrifice more of its stealth capability to afford greater maneuverability in design (and TVC) as well as offer far better stability with its enormous twin-tails. It was a safer compromise in the end, something the Air Force would have been keen on having over the ahead-of-its-time design of the YF-23.

[Heinkel]

Steel Hawk, on 19 June 2011 - 11:57 PM, said:

The point is there are a multitude of viable stealth designs and I proved my point, don't move the goal posts. You could very easily turn the F-117A into a multirole fighter, it'd be no different then the F-104 Starfighter, not everything needs a large payload. The B-2A's flying wing could be used in fighter design with wing-tip thrust vectoring ala the F-35B.

That would mean wasting all the knowledge earned with the Flanker series, as I said before. So instead of having to make one all-new evolutionary family of experimental planes just to make sure the WackyFighter won't rip itself apart in midair, you adapt stealth into your existing, working design.