Bharat Rakshak

On the previous incident of pak-fa engine failure/burn, the russians said it was malfunctioning of the sensor.. let us assume that the control logic enables continuous flow of fuel mix when this happened, even then a continous full burn can't exceed a limit that looks like a massive leak or total failure in the fuel-air mix that went into combustion chamber.

I assume, the failure is one thing about the sensor, and continuous burn actually, perhaps caused damage to the injector, and the fuel continously over flowed.. the point I am making is if the cause of failure is sensor alone, then there should be only the max fuel that can come out of the injector will burn. In the incident, more than that came and quite visible burn exceeding.. so, the failure of faulty sensor alone can't be true.

russkies hide facts, most of the times [std practice]

Rus was also playing around with a flat nozzle, though nobody knows how seriously.

the volume of this housing was HUGE vs the circular engine exhaust...unlike the very compact F22 thing. you could fit a 1BHK apt inside this one.
http://paralay.com/s37/3713.jpg

maybe the real nozzle was inside and this housing was meant for a variety of test instruments to study the airflow and temp from all angles.

It does not appear to be a production variant of any vectoring design.. for example (assume there is no azimuthal move around) .. the yaw left and right vector could be blocked by the up and down pitch vectoring. So, I guess it was an experimentation measuring only 1D at a time.

my theory is its a external shroud to hold instrumentation around a internal real design...its certainly too large to fit the MKI, which is the biggest fighter in the world barring the FB-111

Seems like JFSki is under works with stress in ground attack some details has emerged , will be dual seater from ground up , will be in weight category of Su-25 and will use stealth and all tactical weapons , entry into service by 2020 , Sukhoi will be lead designer and it will be made at Ulan-Ude factory where current Su-25 will be built.

Flat Nozzle have one inherent weakness which is loss of thrust , the F-22 flat nozzle reportedly experience a loss of thrust of around ~ 8-10 % , plus they can vector in only 2D , the advantage is it offer full rear aspect stealth.

Although its not necessary that flat nozzle is just the only way to achieve that , The JSF serrated nozzle is claimed to be a good compromise on stealth without loosing thrust and getting 3D TVC is possible. Although the stealth achieved is not to the level of F-22 nozzle but its a good trade off.

PAK-FA engine designer claim that the loss of thrust with new flat nozzle will be around 2-3 % and it will have 2.5 TVC which is similar to what MKI has with canted nozzle.

A: Because russkies think they can do it better and learn from their mistakes or try not to repeat it.

in the end neither of them chase each other but their development is dictated by Doctrine on a larger scale and tactics on the smaller scale , Doctrines drives every thing and thats the way it should be , else you end up developing something and then figure out how to use it.

Neither side copied each other but they figured out how best to deal with them in a given theater within their doctrine.

For eg US answer to Mig-25 was not another fast high flying jet but it was multirole F-15 with longer legs ,big radar and weapons to match , In the similar way Flanker was designed to counter F-15 and F-16 but retained multirole character from ground up it shared many similar features of F-15 including long legs ,twin engine but was still a fighter that could counter effectively the F-15 and F-16 specially the latter which was superb in every aspect , Mig-29 was similarly developed as shot leg air superiority fighter from ground up to counter F-16 and F-15 but never had multirole capability but was a PD AS fighter. The answer to Mach 3 XB-70 Valkerie bomber was not not another similar types but was Mig-31

F-22 was designed as thoroughbred air superiority fighter that can go deep in and dominate while JSF was a thoroughbred ground attack type with multirole capability both were suppose to compliment each other but due to problems with F-22 , JSF got elevated to Air Superiority status ...similary PAK-FA was designed to counter F-22 but with multirole capability from ground up similar to Flanker.

Its just a myth that both sides copied each other propagated by trade magazine as that gives the sales value , look closely its all dictated by Doctrine , Theater of Operation and Tactics.

I agree, there are certain techs that is driven by doctrine, but there are others that drive the doctrine especially the new technology and capabilities. okay, let us assume the following few line items of a possible scenarios and techs available.
I think having rearward OLS, and mmw+infra jammers, is a better tech than 2.5 or 2D vectoring.. 3TVC is a game changer once all passive sensors are no use, and are in visual range for dog fight.

For BVRs, 3d TVC is the best option, as it is in safe zone., passive sensors, and lpi aesa are important in addtion to excellent stealth skins.

So, excellent stealth skins can change doctrines. LPI can change doctrines. Long range weapons can change doctrines. Deep strike missions, also need all of these.

Pak fa which has already been in testing for some time won't appear in service before 2019(as per russians themselves and even that time frame might be unlikely) and here they are claiming that they will induct another stealth plane in service by 2020 of which we haven't seen or heard anything. Russians sure know how to speculate.

PAK-FA will come by 2015 , the FGFA is delayed and wont come before 2019.

If they want to build a new plane they can virtually hide the whole project before it enters squadron service , during SU days the only time some one knew that a new type was inducted was during May 8 parade , either they declassified it after induction or some western intel satellite picked it up , Mig-29 was first detected by western satellite in air field and was given the name RAM-L/T

^^ OK . We shall see if your analysis is correct or not.

Oh well i am not underwriting Sukhoi but was just quoting what Sukhoi and RuAF have said so far.

My personal opinion is it is normal for any big program to get delayed by 2 years , so if Sukhoi says 2015 for PAK-FA then its 2017 and if they say 2018 for FGFA then its 2020 ......if they screw up badly like JSF then it would well be 2020 for PAK-FA and much beyond that for FGFA but its too early to predict any thing , so far they have been sticking to schedules by and large

I think the 'promising' aircraft refers to a version of the Su 30 extensively modified and containing elements of the PAKFA , the RuAF likes it.The Indians are partly bank rolling its development, in a way ! There is no other plane.

Its a CAS aircraft said to replace Su-25 and would be in the same weight category similar to LCA/Gripen plus types.

I think it is important for us to get involved ie get into JV for the new proposed engine for PAKFA

assuming the AL31 can be uprated to around 16t thrust (40,000lb), why cannot the PAKFA enter tranche1 service with that engine? the PAKFA is smaller and lighter than the SU30 which flies with less powerful engine. granted its heavier than F22 and wont enjoy the same T:W but does it need that in tranche1?

this would delink the timeline of PAKFA FOC from 5th generation engine development.....the 5th gen engine might have the same thrust albeit lighter in weight and better fuel economy and better MTBF....

Sukhoi classifies both the engine as 5th Gen , The current engine of PAK-FA labeled as 1st stage will be 117 engine with 15 T thrust and the 2nd stage engine is claimed to have 18T .

Most likely the 2nd stage engine is more powerful because to get improved T/W ratio and likely 2nd Stage PAK-FA will get heavier with flat nozzle and other weight gaining prescription like developing a Carried based version and as hedge against weight gain.

117 engine itself has T/W ratio of 10.5:1 which is better than EJ200 T/W ratio of 10:1 and P&W engine of F-22 with T/W 9:1 ....the only engine having better T/W ratio is the one they use on JSF with T/W ratio of ~ 11.5:1

The key is not just thrust of engine but also T/W ratio and Specific fuel consumption and engine life that defines 5th gen engine technology.

for that they have to master the fadec controls, and get the max efficiency at all altitudes. it is a long process.. I can't think how far Kaveri is compared to Russkies and the khans. Khaans are way ahead!

I know this is OT but couldn't resist.

There was a lot of speculation about the Mig-25's performance when it was first seen in photographs by the americans. Their analysis from the pictures seemed to indicate that the Mig-25 would be highly maneuverable, which it is not. And the americans had learned from the Vietnam war that dogfights were far from dead. The F-15 came out of that thinking.


The Valkyrie project was cancelled in 1969, about six years before the first Mig-31 prototype flew. I don't think it had any bearing on the Mig-31. The Mig designers were just trying to fix the deficiencies in the Mig-25 and create a better aircraft when they designed the Mig-31.

Actually the loss is about 15%.

(The loss is due to the fact that the air/gas stream is circular when it exits the engine and has to be converted into a flat stream when it exists the flat nozzle.)



The F-35 architecture was framed by the fact that they needed the same frame for all three models. With the "B" dictating what the nozzle would look like, the "A" and "C" followed without any complains. The rest was worked into this framework.

Q: What happens if RuAF wants to incorporate something that India has funded and therefore India is able to get royalty on it?

TIA.

The flat nozzle is simply not worth it.. not a next gen tech considering the loss of 3D TVC.
--
I don't think russkies will agree to anything like that on sharing royalty by using Indian components.. if at all they like it, they will buy it from us I suppose (again we need to see those agreement documents).. or build one all by themselves.

These things dont get developed over night , PAK-FA first started its life in 2000 , Mig-31 was designed to intercept bomber flying high and fast and reconnaissance aircraft of similar nature ....Valkyrie was cancelled at a late date but Mig-31 continued and threat from bomber and high flying recco was still there. Mig-25 and Mig-31 both had their life of their own well they still do.

Technology is not stagnant , if they can develop a Flat Nozzle with 2-3 % loss of thrust as they claim they are developing then they would opt for it



Most of the gains from royalty will come during exports since each side retains its own IP , else both side will maximise its own component for its own procurement for obvious reasons.

agree on that, but we need to also weigh in the objectives that is the driver towards the technology -ie, low thermal emission. now, the amount of emission should reduce by some considerable percentage to weigh in for the flat.

1. loss of thrust alone is not the concern -
2. lower infra signature
3. no loss of 3D TVC
4. high efficiency.
5. low mtbf

So the 25 % workshare of HAL in FGFA is designing the tandem seat cockpit and the cockpit MMI/Displays etc , Navigation and CMDS , perhaps even jammers/ESM too.

Third Prototype 053 has resumed flight testing

http://russianplanes.net/id79836

looks fabulous...

however the rear still remains 4++ look.

atleast it is flying and has a reliable rear end based on a proven engine.
bird in hand is worth two AL51 birds in the hanger.

So what is the advantage of flat nozzle, other than "khan did it" and "to reduce musharraf signature in RF"? If nothing, seems to constrain TV to one plane.

Imo, there is a big advantage on RF, but very little on the IR. So, if the russians can do the RF part by special materials, then they can take the IR part with jammers and probes like EF2K did.

Livefist: DRDO's Strike Scenario For 3 Indian Fighter Efforts

What do the Gurus think of it?

at present I think the Bison/Mig27 is used for <= 150km, Jaguar/M2k for 150-500km and the Su30 for anything beyond.
the Tejas should be able to carry similar payload to M2K/Jag and hence appears forcibly downsized in above pic.

^^we need to take that to LCA thread.. interesting
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg
LCA largely for CAS mode!

brimstone and nag integration is vital., and we need 400-600 LCAs then looking at dual prong war.
The elta 2052/m equivalent is vital too... especially with SAR support.

I like the line where AMCA is drawn.. so basically, we can expect LCA Mk3 with dual engines as test bed before AMCA.

dont worry, if they stick to the AMCA vapourware specs, the Tejas and Rafale will cover the middle band also. the timelines dont run in parallel, the Tejas will be there shortly, FGFA from 2020 and AMCA not before 2025.

mainly the Tejas-Rafale-MKI trident will have to do the damage in Tibet, the Jags are not very useful at altitude , PAKFA induction will take time and the AMCA is a long way off.

for once, a well planned and timely MLU of the MKI fleet will be needed.

I would expect India put more money into nano technology for stealth, plus some aspects of f22 style stealth.

eg: israeli tech:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... alth-plane

internal components and LRUs can take shape deflections based on the skin technology too.. I think this is the defining tech for next gen a/cs.

and ..
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Stealth.html

Its almost entirely China specific. With Pakistan you can expect significant overlap of tasking zones. Other than that, I am going to call the poster generic in terms of information. NTR.

-Vivek