PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2011 20:33

Well since we don't have a benchmark to classify an engine for 5th or 4th gen , I did a rough back of the envelop calculation for T:W ratio of Flanker,PAK-FA ,F-22 and F-35 fighter engine

1 The AL-31FP ,AL-31F and AL-31FN engine of Su-30MKI, J-10 and Su-34 generates a thrust of 12.5T and weighs 1520 kg which puts it in a T:W ratio of 8.2:1
2 The newer AL-31FM1 engine for newer Su-34 generates a thrust of 13.5T and weighs 1520 kg which places it in a T:W ratio of 8.8:1
3 The 117S ( AL-41F1A ) engine of Su-35 fame generates a thrust of 14.5 T weighs 1520 kg and has a T:W ratio of 9.5:1
4 Coming to PAK-FA 117 engine it weighs 1420 kg and generates a thrust of 15 T with T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Comparing similar 5th gen engine of American Fighter F-22 and F-35

5 The F119 engine of F-22 generates a thrust of 16T and weighs 1772 Kg and has a T:W ratio of 9:1
6 The F135 engine of F-35 generate a thrust of 19.5T and weighs 1701 Kg and has a T:W ratio of 11.4 :1

PAK-FA engine compares favorably with American 5th Gen Engine in T:W class and superior to F-22 engine while the F135 is the best engine in T:W class

Reference
1 source: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=65
2 source: http://salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=18
3 source: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64
4 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31#117
5 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F119
6 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2011 20:42

Nice round up.

However, the T-30 - the proposed engine for the PAK-FA is still under development. Per the designer they expect it - under the worst case - to be as good as the the one for the F-22. I would think it would be better.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2011 20:53

SaiK wrote:would that be the al41 153kN or 180kN wala?

AL-41F1/117 engine 15T/147kN , Check here for some details http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=98326&cid=25

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2011 21:00

NRao wrote:However, the T-30 - the proposed engine for the PAK-FA is still under development. Per the designer they expect it - under the worst case - to be as good as the the one for the F-22. I would think it would be better.

Worst or Better is a relative term , the current engine is much better in T/W ratio compared to F-22 engine but the F22 engine has 1 T more thrust there are other factors like Aerodynamics of the aircraft , Take Off Weight etc which would impact the end performance , neither the t-30 engine would be a magic wand that will make PAK-FA super duper performer for all we know it would just compensate for higher weight and loss of thrust due to use of flat nozzle.

The designer says the 117 engine is custom designed for PAK-FA and meets the clients requirement.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Aug 2011 07:58

so, it is not a continuous flame from that video off br's main site.. it was couple bursts.. and definitely to do with FADEC I guess and/or a malfunction of the fuel surge.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2011 08:13

the T-30 180kN in modified form might also be relevant for the PAK-DA the new strategic bomber that Rus will start work on once the PakFA project stabilizes. this is already decided at highest level per reports.

So likely we can expect a smaller, faster, cheaper and stealthier plane vs the huge Tu160 blackjack, which would be kept around as a ALCM "truck" given its massive range and payload, also to periodically carpet bomb any "rebels" found loitering around. the Bears and Backfires would all retire.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2011 09:51

PAK-FA flameout embarrasses Sukhoi

Russia's MAKS 2011 air show closed with an embarrassment for Sukhoi, when the pilot of its second prototype PAK-FA/T-50 was forced to abort a take-off run after two bursts of flame erupted from the fifth-generation fighter's starboard engine.

Also referred to as T-50-2, or Side 52, the aircraft was forced to stop from a speed of around 100km/h, with Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan using wheel brakes and also deploying a brake parachute.

It stopped well short of the aerodrome fence, thanks to the 5,000m (16,400ft) length of the runway.

Sukhoi said the aircraft had suffered a technical malfunction but no damage, and that its pilot had acted "in accordance with manuals".

The company later attributed the issue to a "malfunctioning fuel supply system" and to the NPO Saturn Item 117 engine's full-authority digital engine control system.

To further Sukhoi's embarrassment, immediately after the incident the show's organisers promised the public that the first PAK-FA prototype would fly instead. This failed to happen, with the aircraft believed to have been sent for maintenance shortly after performing in front of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin on 17 August.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Aug 2011 16:27

Well, thank goodness it did not happen to GE 404 on our grounds.. man! I can't imagine the bad mouths.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Aug 2011 21:06

Interview with PAK-FA test pilot Sergei Bogdan , its a long interesting interview but couple of interesting point from PAK-FA perspective ( via flateric )
http://www.timesaratov.ru/gazeta/publication/28090

> If you compare it to the Su-27, it is less than its size, but takes more on board fuel
> a powerful radar system, which allows you to see the enemy many times more than the fourth-generation aircraft.
> Modern requirements for combat aircraft suggest cruising flight at supersonic speeds. That is, the plane flies quickly and economically.
> The new fighter must fly efficiently at supersonic speed, to be subtle, far away to see the enemy and at the same time have new weapons and, therefore, simultaneously bombard multiple targets.
> this plane has a larger wing area and a much larger number of control surfaces. Plus thrust of plane is much higher.

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 23 Aug 2011 23:05

shiv wrote:
vina wrote: My Gosh. What a stunning routine and done so effortlessly.
It is this MiG 29 OVT display from Aero India 2007. Sorry about the video quality - but the performance was spectacular - including flying at AoA of >90 degrees and recovery to level flight, double somersaults etc.

OVT was a purposely built demonstrator and not a production version. However it would be certainly interesting to compare the PAK-FA production version with a production version of F22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 23 Aug 2011 23:08

NRao wrote:
Avarachan wrote: NRao, the F-22 is known to have serious maintenance issues. Obviously, that person you quoted is exaggerating, but I'd recommend that you look through two of Bill Sweetman's posts on this subject:

"F-22 Maintenance Problems Surface"
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 7/10/2009
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yaz3le6

And an earlier post of his, "F-22's LO Manhours are HI"
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 3/25/2008
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybr78jx
None of his reports agree with the statement that the F-22 is not an all-weather machine!!!! The F-22 can fly without anyone's permission in any weather. Which negates the assertion made by the poster I was critical about.

Just out of curiosity, how did you conclude that the person I was quoting was exaggerating? On the contrary, that very person seems to have been used as a baseline, without whom Bill Sweetman (or anyone else) could not have made the assertion that the F-22 has high maintenance. : )

I think negi has a point WRT comparisons. But, I guess it is natural to so. ???????????? However, one needs to do some amount of research before posting, even if there are personal biases. (Some time back there was a post about rivets on the F-35. It just gets out of hand. Being critical is one thing, but to make blanket statements which are patently wrong is another.)

I agree.

In my opinion, Politics in general has a lot to do with a major military program and funding like the F22. The numbers (be it maintenance or performance) are generally inflated or deflated depending on the Budget and Future Programs by any country. Lobbyists are the key drivers for the success or failure of a program in the US.

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 23 Aug 2011 23:13

Austin wrote:Well since we don't have a benchmark to classify an engine for 5th or 4th gen , I did a rough back of the envelop calculation for T:W ratio of Flanker,PAK-FA ,F-22 and F-35 fighter engine

1 The AL-31FP ,AL-31F and AL-31FN engine of Su-30MKI, J-10 and Su-34 generates a thrust of 12.5T and weighs 1520 kg which puts it in a T:W ratio of 8.2:1
2 The newer AL-31FM1 engine for newer Su-34 generates a thrust of 13.5T and weighs 1520 kg which places it in a T:W ratio of 8.8:1
3 The 117S ( AL-41F1A ) engine of Su-35 fame generates a thrust of 14.5 T weighs 1520 kg and has a T:W ratio of 9.5:1
4 Coming to PAK-FA 117 engine it weighs 1420 kg and generates a thrust of 15 T with T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Comparing similar 5th gen engine of American Fighter F-22 and F-35

5 The F119 engine of F-22 generates a thrust of 16T and weighs 1772 Kg and has a T:W ratio of 9:1
6 The F135 engine of F-35 generate a thrust of 19.5T and weighs 1701 Kg and has a T:W ratio of 11.4 :1

PAK-FA engine compares favorably with American 5th Gen Engine in T:W class and superior to F-22 engine while the F135 is the best engine in T:W class

Reference
1 source: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=65
2 source: http://salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=18
3 source: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?sat=64
4 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31#117
5 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F119
6 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135

I would not take everything available on the net as legitimate or accurate information with respect to its performance and/or configuratoin(s).

There is always a/many surprise element(s) that each adversary choses not to publish or announce or even brag about

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 23 Aug 2011 23:16

Singha wrote:> Wiki says that PAK-FA may only carry four internally and has 6 external hardpoints

what wiki? pakfa has two tandem internal bays for atleast 8 bvr AAMs internally and 2 side bays near wing root for perhaps 4 wvr aams. total = 12

and it combat radius/loiter time will be more than raptor for sure given its large area of wing body blending creating room for tankage.

there is no proof / pic if the pakfa will have external hardpoints - the two prototypes have no external pylons. it should be able to carry 4 big LGBs internally/ 8 x AASM-250 with a stealthy designator pod put semi conformally under the chin in our FPGA version.

external stealth weapon carriers are coming for all (incl SH)...a couple of these could potentially add another 6-8 AASM-250 style weapons (imagine the Rafale 2nd pylons wrapped into a stealth container - it carries 3xAASM). this would push the load of small bombs near the 20 mark of SU30 but with adv of stealthy carriage.

I am assuming you are talking about WIKIPEDIA

If Yes, it is easily editable by anyone. Therefore we cannot rely on wiki too much.

We need someone from the industry on these forums and possibly exposure to the manufacturing process to provide us with something legitimate.

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 24 Aug 2011 00:14

Vishal Jolapara wrote:
Austin wrote: That certainly not the full afterburning , my observation with afterburning is you should see a straight orange/yellow flame from the nozzle.
Point is: Austin i've not seen anything orange/red/magentaish on the Su30s, even at Max burner these stay blue or blueish at best.
All Red/Orangish burners are predominantly Western, is what i gather.

It all depends on the Type of Fuel and the additives in addition to the afterburner mechanism to inject Pressurized or Direct injection of fuel.

Blue flame normally indicates that the engine is running lean with optimal mixture of air with fuel efficiency as the goal by the engine design motto. This allows for complete combustion of the mixture. The design of the flame holder also adds up to this. Further it also depends if its low bypass or high bypass engine. Obviously the western counter parts are normally not too worried about the fuel efficiency (evident from several aspects) and prefer a direct raw fuel injection into the nozzle. However the purpose of the Afterburner is to give added thrust to typically get away from the potential threat. Typically lean mixtures yields a bit less power even in the afterburner mode (depends on the size of the nozzle and the pump rate). Typically the TS-1 burns blue but doesnt really mean a thing if PAK-FA will use the same.

Below are links about Jet Fuels and Flames which I thought is interesting.
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TG67.pdf
http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGloba ... ns2005.pdf
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/f ... istics.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_flame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premixed_flame

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2011 04:47

The PAK-FA has made great progress and looks good, but I do not think it is as mature as it could be. We need to wait a year or so. Specially the engine. The 117 is not the final product, not even close. May be in terms of thrust the Type-30 will be fairly close, but that is about it. The 117 cannot be used for the final product. I think India is funding the Type-30.

Looks like the current PAK-FA has a neat radar. Let us see what happens.

I still feel that the FGFA would be a different beast. The 50 off-the-shelf PAK-FA? Cannot say - outside of - to me - it amounts to funding their plane. ????

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 24 Aug 2011 04:50

Is it a given that we're getting a mix of the single-seat and the fgfa?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2011 05:00

The party line states 50 PAK-FA single seaters. And, somewhere between 2-300 FGFAs.

However, what seems to be a very interesting development is the news about the MKI upgrades. Check out the content - most, if not all, is from Russia.

Which is really good news. Russia does have a ton of talent - there is no doubt about that.

My only concern has been where is all this being routed. I still do not see much movement within Russia herself. ???? Will it come? When? In what numbers (perhaps the most important one)?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 24 Aug 2011 05:09

More than the tech and tot and other related things, what that means when it comes to numbers is that the single-seats will come to us a lot earlier than the two-seaters. Atleats a couple of years earlier perhaps? That should ease the IAF concerns about numbers a bit.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2011 05:21

Find it very hard to believe that India would be satisfied with that argument. I have to assume that Indian expectations have changed and that arg seems stale.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Aug 2011 05:48

I thought 117 was an interim engine for AL41??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2011 05:56

Do not know what the AL41 is, but, yes, it is my understanding too that the 117 is an interim - more like proof of concept.

I would keep my eyes peeled for news on the Type-30 - perhaps the AL41 (????). This is the one, in my understanding, that will have reduced IR, etc, etc, etc.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2011 07:52

the stock single seaters will come atleast 5 yrs before twin seater. witness how long it took from SU27KUB to SU30MK3 - a decade.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 24 Aug 2011 08:44

Well 50 single seats is 2.5 squadrons at 18+2 per squadron. I'd assume that once we get the 2-seaters we'd have mixed squadrons? In that case they'd be widely dispersed. But still that is 2.5 squadrons of the cutting edge of the IAF that would arrive atleast a year or 2 before the 2-seaters. Surely that amounts to something. A significant landmark I'd say and give the chipandas something to think about too.

On another note, I remember when the first pictures of the PAK-FA came out sitting side by side a Su-27(?) and we were trying to figure out how big/small it was in comparison. Check out this video of the bird from the side taken at MAKS. Note how big the Su-35 vertical stabilizers is compared to that of the new one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFsHqDLM6mk

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Aug 2011 08:48

imo though the top speeds of both su27 & pakfa families would be around mach2.2, pakfa should accelerate much faster from 0-800 (patrol speed) and 800-1700 (combat speed) mashallah.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Aug 2011 08:51

We would still required to create the low profile canopy for twin seaters.. Alternatively, we could have all those surface exposed to frontal RCS, have deflective honeycomb/conical sandwich composite sheath skins to mangle the wave forms.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2011 13:44

They seem to have just flattened the Su-35 to get the PAK-FA

http://russianplanes.net/images/to53000/052500.jpg

Does PAK-FA from the pic have a bigger engine compared to Su-35 or its just an optical illusion ?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 24 Aug 2011 17:03

the PAK-FA clearly shows signs of its flanker antecedents especially in terms of the massive centro-plane.

But then the F-22 also has a lot of the F-15 in it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2011 17:19

NPO Saturn reveals cause of PAK-FA engine flame-out

A malfunction in the automatic flight control system was the cause of the Sukhoi PAK-FA's starboard engine flame-out at the MAKS Moscow air show, according to Russian engine maker NPO Saturn.

Speaking to the Russian media two days after the incident, NPO Saturn general director Ilya Fedorov acknowledged that the starboard engine "suffered [a] surge". A bright flame was seen to erupt from the powerplant when the fighter was halfway through its take-off run at Ramenskoye airfield on 21 August. According to Fedorov, this was due to a malfunctioning sensor which began feeding "erroneous data" to the airplane's control system.

He thanked Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan for his prompt reaction to the engine malfunction. "It was a test for the new machine. During flight trials on any brand new aircraft - and this airplane is undergoing flight trials - malfunctions such as this one are not only possible, but even mandatory."

Fedorov said: "The motor did not fail - in fact, it was put by erroneous control input into a wrong mode that caused the surge. This is not an engine failure, but the wrong data input caused by a malfunctioning sensor feeding data to the flight control system.

"After what had happened the motor was checked [and] the malfunctioning sensor was replaced by a good one. Today, there is no issue with this engine."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2011 06:12

This flame out is not a big deal.

And,

malfunctions such as this one are not only possible, but even mandatory.

IMVVHO, hallmark of a true engineer.

Hey, for what it is worth, F-22, 1992:

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2011 06:18

Austin wrote:They seem to have just flattened the Su-35 to get the PAK-FA

http://russianplanes.net/images/to53000/052500.jpg

Does PAK-FA from the pic have a bigger engine compared to Su-35 or its just an optical illusion ?

They seem to have increased the distance between the engines and then taken the engine inlets and laid them horizontally (relative to the Su-XX). This, IMHO, allowed them to move the inlets a wee bit outwards and upwards. (Which is why I had asked if this inlet design can be adopted for the MKI.)

(((At times I wonder if they can stop the MKI production and use the leftover funds towards the FGFA. ????????)))

((((( Anyone getting that feeling in the stomach that the J-XX series is getting too stale?))))))

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2011 06:46

NRao wrote:
They seem to have increased the distance between the engines and then taken the engine inlets and laid them horizontally (relative to the Su-XX). This, IMHO, allowed them to move the inlets a wee bit outwards and upwards.

Also gave them a huge box between engined for internal weapons whose doors are visible in pictures/videos.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2011 08:35

the 117x engine being used on Pakfa and Su35BM apparently has higher mass flow and slightly bigger diameter to the AL31x.
the definitive AL41x might be same diameter as 117x or probably somewhat bigger given its higher target IOC thrust and leaving room for growth models as the Pakfa itself evolves, plus leaving a upward curve for PAKDA bomber engines.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2011 08:40

btw what do wing gurus think about this CT?

Su27 family has wing design optimized for transonic flight around Mach1.3
F-15x/F22 family has a true supersonic wing for region Mach1.5-2.2 with higher sweep angle
now the Pakfa is following that supersonic wing shape as befits its premier a2a role.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2011 10:56

Pardon my ignorance how is M 1.3 transonic flight , it is supersonic isn't ?
How long can a flanker or F-15 sustain a supersonic flight once it lits an AB for F-15 I read it was 15 minutes can't be different for flanker.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2011 11:15

I stand corrected, wiki says transonic = Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic_speed

there are also allegations in dark corners that Su27/Su30 suffers some kind of instability at the root of the tailfins in a certain band of speed around 880-900kmph iirc. this was allegedly corrected in the Su35.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Aug 2011 12:34

Singha wrote:there are also allegations in dark corners that Su27/Su30 suffers some kind of instability at the root of the tailfins in a certain band of speed around 880-900kmph iirc. this was allegedly corrected in the Su35.

Never heard of it but possible , only some Airforce wala clarification can put that doubt to rest. BTW what is the source of this allegation ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2011 12:50

I read it in some random thread in BR - a media report was cut pasted.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Aug 2011 16:35

Austin wrote:Kanson no details but some news on new engine

State tests of fifth-generation fighter engine to begin in 2013

ZHUKOVSKY, Moscow region, August 19 (Itar-Tass) —— State tests of the engine of the fifth-generation fighter jet will begin in 2013, Lyulka Research Center General Designer Yevgeny Marchukov said.

”Preliminary tests are in progress. About 20 engines have been built. The trials are rather successful, and I think that the state testing program will be launched in 2013,” he noted.

Thanks Austin.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2011 11:00

Got it via email , Communication system for 5th Gen aircraft

PROMISING GROWTH PATHS FOR AIRBORNE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
Military Parade 2011
Author: Alexei Komyakov, Konstantin Voytkevich
Alexei Komyakov - director general of FSUE NPP Polyot.
Konstantin Voytkevich - director for research, deputy designer general

FSUE NPP Polyot (Nizhny Novgorod) is a leading Russian developer and manufacturer of aircraft radio communications equipment and has the status of the Federal Research and Production Center. It conducts R&D, carries out full-scale production and upgrades its earlier products.

Standard radio communications systems for new Gen 4++ and 5 aircraft occupy an important role in Polyot's R&D efforts. Equipping modern combat aircraft systems with the latest electronics helps integrate them into the Air Force's information management system, which provides the crew with complete information for task accomplishment in real time.

NPP Polyot develops communications systems using the integrated modular avionics (IMA) technology. Technically, the IMA computer system is defined as a set consisting of crates that comprise a set of common modules and communicate via a unified digital network. To achieve maximum effect from implementing the IMA technology, a comprehensive approach to building an avionics suite on an aircraft is required. The crates ensure the installation of modules, their communication with each other, and heat removal. Cooperation between modules is done via a motherboard carrying power supply circuits, low-speed interfaces, high-speed serial interface circuit and a PCI bus.

The performance level of advanced communications systems is characterized by high quality of data and voice transmission, improved consumer properties, compatibility with avionics, guaranteed reliability and broad applications, practical implementation of the software-defined radio concept. All non-unified communication functions are software- rather than hardware-implemented, allowing their adaptation to future changes in requirements without costly upgrades.

The software-defined radios use modern integrated microelectronics, open architecture for operation in a wide frequency range, from 2 MHz to 6 GHz, provide data and voice transmission.

The novelty of the developed systems lies in the software implementation of the maximum possible number of required functions and the use of several basic technologies: network interfaces and the user interface, opportunities for remote booting and upgrading the whole software and the necessary code to configure turn-on of all equipment. Accessibility of all system elements providing their reconfiguration and setup on the part of the network, the use of versatile hardware platforms, allowing software implementation of the most diverse functions on them, as well as software-based data security methods are of great importance.

The design of the system's equipment corresponds to the standard series defined by state standards and allows quickly building up its functionality.

All of these solutions and technologies have been implemented in NPP Polyot-developed S-111 communications system for a future Gen 5 fighter. Its main features are as follows:

- fully digital architecture allowing a significant reduction in the system weight and dimensions;

- improved communications quality and reliability;

- use of modular design makes it possible to increase the number of channels and scope of functions;

- re-programmability, i.e., the capability to store and use different algorithms without hardware modifications;

- a single internal information network reducing the number and range of interfaces used;

- software implementation of most of the functions, modulation types and emission classes together with the possibility of rapidly changing the types of operation;

- use of the Baget 2.0 standard operating system simplifying the development and improvement of the system's software modules;

- software implementation of operation modes with increased jamming immunity;

- low power consumption;

- operation via high-speed channels at up to 40 Mbps with the capability to transmit different types of information (video, data, voice).

Transceiver modules installed in the S-111 system enable operation in the HF, VHF/UHF, SHF bands: provide communication in a unified communications, navigation, identification and data transmission system and in satellite communication channels. It is possible to include radios operating in other bands in the system.

As part of a fifth-generation fighter, the S-111 system has ensured the successful accomplishment of over 60 test flights.

Versions of the system are planned to be installed on different objects operated by the Russian Ministry of Defense and foreign customers. Work is underway to adapt the system to the helicopters, long-range and military transport aircraft as well as to ground communications centers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2011 12:25

Though tangential to the topic,being 5th-gen stealth aircraft too,I'm posting this brief news item from Strat-Page here.If the aircraft does appear,it would be a worthy acquisition for the IN which is operating/aqcuiring MIG-29Ks.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 10828.aspx

MiG-35D Takes On The F-35
August 28, 2011: Russia has announced that it will use its new (still in development) MiG-35D as the equivalent of the American F-35. This will be the low-end to the high end T-50 (the Russian F-22). The T-50 is no F-22, and the MiG-35D is no F-35.
The MiG-35D is a considerably redesigned MiG-29. The 29 ton MiG-35D is armed with one 30mm autocannon and can carry over (by how much is not yet clear) five tons of bombs. The big selling point for the MiG-35D is its offensive and defensive electronics, as well as sensors for finding targets on land or sea. This stuff looks very impressive on paper, but the Russians have long had problems getting performance to match promises.

The 27 ton American F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs), plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally, and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons. The MiG-35D has little stealth capability. The MiG-35D first flew four years ago, and there are currently about ten prototypes being used for testing and development work. The MiG-35D is expected to enter service some time before the end of the decade. The MiG-35D will sell for less than half what the F-35 goes for (currently over $120 million each).