Video of live fire tests of the Russian T-50 stealth fighter’s 30 mm gun appears online

A new video showing the tests of the T-50 PAK FA’s 9-A1-4071K cannon has appeared on Youtube.

The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA, Russia’s 5th generation radar-evading jet, has undertaken live testing of its 30 mm cannon.

Footage reportedly filmed at a range outside Moscow shows a test platform fire the 9-A1-4071K cannon, an upgraded version of the GSh-30-1 30 mm automatic cannon developed by the Instrument Design Bureau for High Precision Weapons in 2014.

Based on the data released so far, the gun (that complements a wide array of weapons that the aircraft will be able to carry), 50 kg in weight, can fire at a rate of 1,800 rounds per minute, “the best such performance for this type of weapon around.”

According to the state-run Sputnik news media outlet “another thing that makes the 9-A1-4071K so special is its autonomous water cooling system where the water inside the barrel jacket vaporizes as it heats up during operation. The 9-A1-4071K cannon can fire blast-fragmentation, incendiary and armor-piercing tracer rounds and is effective against even lightly armored ground, sea and aerial targets. The cannon can hit ground targets up to 1,800 meters away and aerial targets at a maximum distance of 1,200 meters. Flight tests of the 9A1-4071K modernized rapid-aircraft cannon were earlier conducted on the Sukhoi SU-27SM multirole jet fighter.”

The T-50 is a stealth equipped with a front, side and rear AESA radar, as well as L Band radars. It features TVC (Thrust Vectoring Control), a top speed exceeding Mach 2 and a supermaneuverability that makes the stealth plane able to perform, among the others, even the famous Cobra maneuver.

Expected to enter mass production next year, the Russian Defense Ministry plans to buy at least one squadron of T-50 aircraft in 2018.

Theoretically, exports should start in 2020: Sukhoi is working on T-50 variant (that will embed Indian hardware) for the Indian Air Force, even though the latter in 2014 complained in a report that was given wide publicity, that the stealth jet is too expensive, poorly engineered, equipped with inadequate radar.

And, above all, the Indians criticized the unreliable engines.

The Russians have countered that a new, more powerful engine, expected to replace the old AL-41F engine used by the Su-27 family, is under development.

The brand-new motors, along with improved sensors (and more reliable radar – this, as well, planned), will probably make the T-50 a dangerous enemy for both the F-22 and the F-35, preventing embarrassing episodes like those occurred at MAKS 2011.

Back in the 2011, when PAK-FA debuted, both T-50 prototypes had technical problems. The first one, “51” had structural breaks, while second one, “52” suffered a quite embarrassing flameout at the beginning of its MAKS 2011 performance and was forced to abort take off and display.

H/T to @aldana_jp for sending the video over to us.

About David Cenciotti 4416 Articles
David Cenciotti is a freelance journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written four books.

6 Comments

  1. Interesting. The USA has a long history of overthrowing governments in other countries, as well as attacking and invading. It is still doing so.

  2. The quote was from Roosevelt, but the original doctrine was Monroe’s and was refering to Latin American countries:

    “Instead, Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the United States to intervene in Latin America in cases of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation” to preempt intervention by European creditors. This re-interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine went on to be a useful tool to take economic benefits by force when Latin nations failed to pay their debts to European and US banks and business interests. This was also referred to as the Big Stick ideology because of the phrase from president Roosevelt to “speak low and carry a big stick”.[3][6]:371[32] The Roosevelt corollary provoked outrage across Latin America.[33]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

    • Look you were wrong. The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” were two different and separate historical occurrences. Man up and admit to to your mistake. Just because wiki says it doesn’t make it so.

  3. “The fact remains Iraq did not possess quality ECM or ECM counter measures”

    > Even if they did would it have mattered against the force they were facing?

    “Despite this they were still successful in shooting down a good number of US aircraft.”

    > Yes they shot down coalition aircraft but a “good number”? Yeah umm… perhaps you should look at those numbers and compare it to how much Iraqi air force lost.

    “I am not saying anything about “fairness”. I am telling you how it will be if the US was to ever take on a country with sufficient modern tech”

    > *points to Op Desert Storm and Op Allied Force* Yup… still came out on top. Serbians did have modern defenses at that time but it still didn’t deter NATO air operations.

    • If Iraqis had quality ECM or ECM counter measures a lot more US aircraft would have been shot out of the sky.

      In both DS and Balkans the Iraqis and Serbs had outdated equipment yet still shot down a good number of US aircraft. They were using 1960s vintage radar and gen 1 SAM systems like Sa2s. Despite this they Serbs even shot down a “stealth” plane. It’s ok though. They did appologise as they didn’t know it was invisible. :-)

      • “If Iraqis had quality ECM or ECM counter measures a lot more US aircraft would have been shot out of the sky.”

        > I don’t know what ECM capabilities the Iraqis had but history shows us that the Coalition Air Force quickly gained air superiority. So much so that Iraqi aircraft would disengage when they knew Coalition fighter aircraft were in the area. Some would even run away over the border to Iran…

        “In both DS and Balkans the Iraqis and Serbs had outdated equipment yet still shot down a good number of US aircraft”

        > History again disproves you. NATO aircraft were still able to gain air superiority despite the attempts by Serbs. If they were able to shoot down as you claim “a good number of US aircraft”, how did the US/NATO/Coaltion airforces able to gain such insurmountable air superiority?

        ” Despite this they Serbs even shot down a “stealth” plane. It’s ok though. They did appologise as they didn’t know it was invisible. :-)”

        > Here lets put this in to some context…

        How many F-117s were involved in Operation Allied Force? 12. How many combined sorties did the F-117s fly during Operation Allied Force? 850. How long was Operation Allied Force? 77 days. They were able to shoot down ONE… ONE F-117 out of 77 day and 850 possible opportunities. I don’t know about you but the supposed “success” of Serbian air defenses seems very abysmal. Since than the feat has not been replicated. So if anything, it seems more like it was pure luck than actual skill and technology.

        Lets look at more fun facts.
        F-22s…

        Back in 2013 a F-22 flew undetected to an Iranian F-4 Phantom attempting to intercept a US UAV doing reconnaissance in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. The reports mention that the F-22 was able to fly undetected to the F-4. The F-22 flew below the F-4 to see the under carriage of the F-4 to see what weapons it had. Then the F-22 flew beside the F-4 telling the Iranian pilot “you ought to go home”. The Iranian F-4 pilot than disengaged. This is in light of Iranian state media claiming that their military have radar technology capable of detecting stealth aircraft. Are their claims completely hollow or are their CGI operators incompetent? You can’t tell me that Iran has no radar installations along or near the Arabian/Persian Gulf because Iran always contests that area to be part of their territory.

        http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/17/welsh-f22-flew-to-drones-rescue-off-iran-coast.html

        F-22s are still flying over Syria. Russia has reported that they have their advanced S-300 SAM systems in the area, a SAM system they claim can deter stealth aircraft. Despite this however, NATO and US aircraft seem to have foreknowledge of Russian and Syrian aircraft and defenses in the area. F-22s are reported to operate closer to Russian and Syrian platforms/systems.
        Recently F-22 came to the aide of US SOF units embedded with Kurdish forces. This was in response to earlier Syrian Su-24s attacking Kurdish forces in the Hasakah area where US SOF personnel work with Kurdish forces. In the recent event F-22s were able to get within 2000 feet of the Syrian Su-24s and followed them for 15 minutes without them knowing.

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/25/united-states-pilots-tense-syrian-jet-encounter/89258646/

        http://www.defensetech.org/2016/08/20/us-dispatches-f-22-stealth-fighters-to-intercept-syrian-aircraft/

        So what about the S-300? What about all that high tech Russian and Syrian systems in the area? Why weren’t they able to warn the Syrian Su-24 pilots that F-22s were in the area? Worse yet, this close encounter went on for 15 minutes. Does the S-300 work as well as Russian military claims? Did the S-300 CGI Operators willingly let the Syrian Su-24s be followed for 15 minutes? If so why would they let that happen? The most reasonable conclusion is that Russian and Syrian CGI operators didn’t even know a pair of USAF F-22s were in the area.

Comments are closed.