Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 19 Dec 2014 20:35

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4014 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 101  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2012 20:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
unlike India, china has been persisting with the old Badger design and the improved An12 and converted atleast the former into a useful carrier for families of ALCMs while we are just talking of it. on paper IAF has no plan to get a industrial strength ALCM carrier for the nirbhay, there is not even a paper plan for nirbhay beyond a ground- and sea- version.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2012 20:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirbhay

The yindoos are going to make multirole as their motto. Whether it is ground, sea, sub or air, one can take it granted that Brahmos & Nirbhay will come in all flavors. We are secular onlee. We don't discriminate on the basis of launch platforms & payloads. With 24 spikes of the wheel, this will be another sudarshan chakra.

At subsonic speeds, the weight of a 2000-2500 km range missile equals the weight of a Brahmos. If a Su30 MKI can launch Brahmos, rest assured that it will be able to carry similar weighing subsonic ones unless the physical dimensions make it impossible. In that case, modify some of the MTA/Il 476 or whatever we are getting to Super MTA/Illyushin with bomb bays --- cheap & reliable onlee at no heart attacks in the neighboring capitals. When the eyes in the sky spot a load of transport planes on the tarmac, they won't be able to see the launcher in its belly with arrows of fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2012 23:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third

Quote:
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.


The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2012 01:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28
Posts: 1179
it's 117 and not 117S/C (cyrillic)

the latter is the su-35's upgrade engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2012 11:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Nov 2011 02:49
Posts: 1894
Location: krishna's thandai, Assi ghaat, banaras
SaiK wrote:
I think, we need our labs to engage IITs and other institutions on a bumped and high visibility projects to get what we need.. Neither the Russians nor The khaans can provide or have to our needs.

What is in Raptor, will never come.. we have to do it., from first principles.


arrey...that is what hal drdo etc everyone does.

but then they get the tag of useless from armed services.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2012 16:01 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Posts: 84
Location: CLASSIFIED
nakul wrote:
India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third

Quote:
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.


The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:



Does anyone see a possibility for the order nos for the Rafale increasing due this projected cut of the FGFA order size. There always has been a speculation that the order size for the MMRCA could go upto 200 over period of time, which would mean an additional order of 74 a/c over the 126 initial order size, then you all see that the FGFA order size has been cut down from 214 to 144 a decrease of 70 a/cs. Coincidence or probable additional orders for Rafale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2012 17:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
My guess is that they are opting for a wait and watch approach. The current order of 126 Rafale / 144 FGFA is not expected to be completed anytime soon. By the time these nos are inducted in the IAF, the scenario might change. They want to keep the door open for extra orders without commiting to them beforehand. The threat perception in 2020, Tejas, AMCA & budget are unknown at this point in time. It makes sense to have the information before making a decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2012 21:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2012 20:46
Posts: 135
Location: Aerospace capital of India
From what i've seen and heard it has always been 144 single seaters(PAK-FA MKI) PLUS 48 twin seaters (PAK-FA UB MKI). The 144 might be the number of single seaters only and not the total number and i expect eventually the number will be close to 250 like the Su-30MKI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 09:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1495
Amit J wrote:
[quote="nakul"India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third

Quote:
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.


The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:[/quote


Does anyone see a possibility for the order nos for the Rafale increasing due this projected cut of the FGFA order size. There always has been a speculation that the order size for the MMRCA could go upto 200 over period of time, which would mean an additional order of 74 a/c over the 126 initial order size, then you all see that the FGFA order size has been cut down from 214 to 144 a decrease of 70 a/cs. Coincidence or probable additional orders for Rafale


Here is what I see:

FGFA/PAK-FA (IAF version) will enter squadron service around 2025 given the new timelines. And to productionize all 144 aircraft order will take at least 10 years. By 2035, the oldest Su-30 MKIs will be 30 years old. Depending on future strategy/plans, IAF will most likely order more FGFAs in batches to replace the MKIs nearing their service life.

As for the Rafale, it will take HAL till 2025 to fulfill delivering of 106 Rafales to IAF. By which time, 3 squadrons of MiG-29 UPG will be coming up for their retirements. This is when IAF will exercise its 60+ options on the Rafale.

Now with the LCA, it would seem that the 2 squadrons of Mk.1 will replace 2 squadrons of MiG-27 UPG in tactical support role; hence the emphasis on A2G validation first. The subsequent order for 5 squadrons of Mk.2 version will fill in the role left void by the upcoming retirement of 6 squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons.

AMCA will replace 2/3 squadrons of Mirage 2000-5 and 5/6 squadrons of Jaguar UPG post 2030. That's 200 aircrafts right there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 09:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 464
srai wrote:
Here is what I see:

FGFA/PAK-FA (IAF version) will enter squadron service around 2025 given the new timelines. And to productionize all 144 aircraft order will take at least 10 years. By 2035, the oldest Su-30 MKIs will be 30 years old. Depending on future strategy/plans, IAF will most likely order more FGFAs in batches to replace the MKIs nearing their service life.

As for the Rafale, it will take HAL till 2025 to fulfill delivering of 106 Rafales to IAF. By which time, 3 squadrons of MiG-29 UPG will be coming up for their retirements. This is when IAF will exercise its 60+ options on the Rafale.

Now with the LCA, it would seem that the 2 squadrons of Mk.1 will replace 2 squadrons of MiG-27 UPG in tactical support role; hence the emphasis on A2G validation first. The subsequent order for 5 squadrons of Mk.2 version will fill in the role left void by the upcoming retirement of 6 squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons.

AMCA will replace 2/3 squadrons of Mirage 2000-5 and 5/6 squadrons of Jaguar UPG post 2030. That's 200 aircrafts right there.


but by looking at IAF track record of up-gradation of older Aircraft i don't think IAF would so early retire MKI. Even Jags are upgraded to live upto ~2040.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 09:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 May 2012 22:34
Posts: 471
Those are new Jags not the older ones. I don't see older Jags staying in service till 2040.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 12:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 464
Bheeshma wrote:
Those are new Jags not the older ones. I don't see older Jags staying in service till 2040.


I mention jaguar to just give an example that 35 years for bird like MKI is too short as per IAF standard.

Also, IAF upgrading about 120 jaguar , so are you saying all these are new ones because AFAIK HAL started manufacturing of these planes from 1981(according to deal 120 were to produced by HAL), then 17 in 1999 and 20 in 2001 were produced.

So apart from 37, most of the remaining 120 are produced during late 80's or 90's and by 2040 their lifetime will be 40-50 years.

And not to forget even though those are not so old but they have the airframe of late 60's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 13:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
nash wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:

And not to forget even though those are not so old but they have the airframe of late 60's.

I think your talking about Airframe design.
Like C130 or Chinook.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 20:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48
Posts: 464
sarabpal.s wrote:
nash wrote:

And not to forget even though those are not so old but they have the airframe of late 60's.

I think your talking about Airframe design.
Like C130 or Chinook.


Yes, and that is the point i made, why IAF won't retire MKI so early.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2012 20:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
There have been some excellent designs in the past that we are using - Jaguar, Mig 29, Su 30. All of these excel in their designated roles and would be kept upto date as long as possible since the replacements might lack the same aerodynamics/maneuvrability of its predecessors. The FGFA is looking to be the most maneuvrable 5th gen fighters with all its competitors going for boxy designs, only the PAK FA looks to have been made with aerodynamics in mind. In that sense we are lucky to have some good airframes that will do their job well. IAF cannot afford to retire any planes unless they are at the end of their service lives. Quality has a quantity of its own and during war the older planes will allow the newer ones to be concentrated on the frontlines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2012 00:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
nash wrote:
Yes, and that is the point i made, why IAF won't retire MKI so early.

Each airframe has own life after that it will be up for retiring. i am talking about each airframe not air frame Design.

IMHO airframe life calculated from no. flying hour done By particular aircraft.
May be early SU30 up for retirement early because they are used extensively.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2012 03:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1495
sarabpal.s wrote:
nash wrote:
Yes, and that is the point i made, why IAF won't retire MKI so early.

Each airframe has own life after that it will be up for retiring. i am talking about each airframe not air frame Design.

IMHO airframe life calculated from no. flying hour done By particular aircraft.
May be early SU30 up for retirement early because they are used extensively.


True. It's case by case on airframe design and usage. Besides aircraft types are retired in batches (with the oldest most used going out first). So even though Jaguars is said to be around till 2040, those remaining will be those that were last manufactured and least flown. But the majority of the fleet will have begun retirement from 2030 (or earlier). Plus, there will be severe restrictions on flight hours towards the end to preserve any life left on the airframes.

We can do a simple math to see how much of an airframe gets used over 30 to 40 years:

150 (average flight hours per year) x 30 (years in service) = 4,500 flight hours (this is typically the airframe design limits of Russian origin combat aircrafts)

200 x 30 = 6,000 flight hours (this is typically the design limits of Western combat aircrafts)

150 (avg flight hrs) x 40 (years) = 6,000 flight hours
200 x 40 = 8,000 flight hours

Typically, as a general rule of thumb, an aircraft variant serves an airforce between 30 to 40 years at max with one major MLU. The reason why we see the IAF stretching the service of old variants, such as the MiG-21/27 and Jaguar, is due to shortages. Planned replacement aircrafts have not arrived in time, and to maintain fleet numerical strength IAF has been forced to retain aircraft types beyond retirement dates. This will likely change in the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2012 21:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
well we have to remember that Jag is almost indigenous leaving engineIMHO..
it can play good role in term as multipurpose deep strike, close ground attack and marine strike.(all ready doing but other assets also dedicated to this role)
you imagine how many assest it set free for other purpose.

it should be our H6 Bomber.
add some more muscles in it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2012 12:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
AW&ST: Throttling Back

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/td110.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 06:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
T-50 Trials on Schedule ( pg 18 )

http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 09:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
APA is very pleased to release a new paper, APA-2012-03, entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype, authored by Dr Michael Pelosi and Dr Carlo Kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 10:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
Looks like j20 is no pushover atleast in shaping.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 10:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23782
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Austin wrote:
APA is very pleased to release a new paper, APA-2012-03, entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype, authored by Dr Michael Pelosi and Dr Carlo Kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html


The paper says
Quote:
The T-50 was developed specifically to compete against the F-22 Raptor in traditional Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and Within Visual Range (WVR) air combat.

Is there any independent source that quotes some Russian source as saying this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 12:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
shiv wrote:
Is there any independent source that quotes some Russian source as saying this?


The chief designer of PAK-FA Alexander Davydenko says this

http://paralay.com/pakfa/pakfa.html

Quote:
In response to a request by journalists to compare fighter PAK-FA with the American F-22 Raptor, set up ten years ago, the Chief Designer Alexander Davydenko said: "The main functions are the same, but we tried to make them better." Davydenko said that the development of the aircraft CB "dry" simulated dogfight T-50 F-22.

"I think we will have a competitive price. With regard to the criterion of price / performance, our plane is much better, "said the designer.


Quote:
"2015 is set as the deadline for the supply of fighters in the Air Force. We are working on implementing this, "said Davydenko. According to him, a prototype that flew, is "100% of the fifth-generation car." The designer said that the system of navigation, communication and information system of the experimental design is completely new, but their tests in the wind regime is later. The plane is not yet ready for the suspension arms, said Davydenko.

The proportion of composite materials in the total empty weight of 25%. On the surface of the aircraft - 70% ", - said A.Davidenko journalists on Monday.

He noted that the widespread use of composite materials in aircraft design to reduce its weight, and significantly facilitate the preparation of production. "Through the use of composite materials significantly reduced the number of parts: in comparison with the Su-27 has decreased the number of parts to four times," - said A.Davidenko.
He added that the use of composites has significantly reduced radar signature aircraft.

A.Davidenko reminded that the fourth-generation aircraft - the Russian Su-27 or the F-15 - have the reflectivity surface characterizing radar signature aircraft, within 12 square meters.

"The F-22 aircraft (American fighter of the fifth generation - Interfax-AVN) - 0.3-0.4 sq.m. We have similar requirements for visibility," - said A.Davidenko


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 12:20 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
atleast the RUS have come up with their own unique design and will fully understand the tradeoffs and issues.
cheen seems content at the moment to clone american shapes with the deviation in J20 forced only by weak engines for the size of airframe and not a desire to be aerodynamically greenfield.

but a good 2-D flat nozzle would impart some killa looks to the Pakfa. they might go the ghetto chic look, have a gangsta rapper on hand for zhukovsky air show who spray paints raptorkilla on the fuselage....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 12:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
The clone because they dont have extensive database and flight testing program involving multiple design some purely scientific or some involving production system , such program will involve lot of money , risk and many decades of persistance and failure.

Only US and Russia have such kind of program covering wide area and they come up with original design based on their respective AF requirement and philosophy.

PLAAF lacking both and even in older avtar relying on modified Soviet proven types or similar Israel design variant takes a safe route of copying what is know to work and then incrementally making changes to it .....that limits its ability to come up with out of box design and consequently its learning curve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 12:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 528
the point is , if we compare all the stealth fighters of which we are aware of, is there something unique which the PAK-FA is bringing to the table, One country is simply making a clone of the US fighters and they consider it to meet the stealth requirement (only issue being the engine)

So my understanding is that the design / shape of the fighter is one part (make a blatant copy and probably it will work), what would be really interesting how we achieve additional stealth.
What could be a game changer would be
1. use of plasma stealth feature on top of the current design and available from the first aircraft
2. a very efficient 2-D flat nozzle engine with very low emission to reduce signature.
3. an efficient network availability which will allow conducting a mission without using its own radar
4. A long range radar with the ability to identify objects with very low RCS and corresponding strike capability
5. Long range stand off strike capability

some may be fantasy at the moment but worth a try rather than again trying to match up with some other country 10 years down the line (like PAK FA trying to match F 22)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 13:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
one worrying aspect is the lack of visibility when the successor missiles to R73 and R77 will be FOCed. plus the ramjet equivalent to Meteor.

khan is sitting pretty with aim9x, aim120C7, aim120D ... so pretty infact the boeing JDRADM AAM+ARM design is now proposed to be cancelled in next funding year
http://www.boeing.com/bds/mediakit/2010 ... 200210.pdf
but the tech will surely be kept in lab status and ready to productize


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 13:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
The successor to R-73 is new WVR missile with a FPA/IIR Seeker is under works and R-77 successor is the newer RVV-SD ( 110 km) and the new R-77M the latter has a larger motor and range of 140 km.

If a ramjet successor is in works is not know but RVV-BD ( 200 km ) has internal carriage capability but its solid fuel and not ramjet.

Most certainly for long range kills against manouvering targets a Ramjet BVR missile like meteor is not just desirable but absolutely necessary , given our experience with Astra and Ramjet via Akash we should develop one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2012 15:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26812
Location: NowHere
we could keep a squadron of killa-looks 2D nozzle for show off pak-fa, but effectively, I see to retain 3D that is more useful. with regards to RCS, there are other ways they have already thought about for the rear signature.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 00:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5792
Singha some information.

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065972202

Quote:
RVV-MD success spells the end for rival AAM programmes
By Reuben F Johnson

10/9/2012

Russia's improved version of the Vympel R-73 short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) has proved so successful that neither the K-30 programme to develop an all-new weapon in this class nor the similar programme by the Ukrainian Luch bureau progressed beyond the preliminary design stages, a Moscow-based missile designer has told IHS Jane's.

The improved R-73 variant, which at one time was called the R-74 and is now being offered for export as the RVV-MD, "is everything that a close-combat AAM should be in terms of performance," the designer said. "Putting the money into a new missile made no sense."

Designers familiar with the K-30 programme told IHS Jane's that the K-30 was initiated back in the 1980s at the Vympel design bureau in Moscow. It was specifically designed to be one of the new series of air-to-air weapons that would be used on board the now-abandoned Mikoyan MFI Project 1.42 fighter. It was to have been a dogfighting missile with an imaging IR seeker and would have employed a thrust-vector controlled rocket motor similar to that of the R-73.

179 of 414 words


Its going to be the RVV-SD (improved version of R-77) and the RVV-MD (improved version of R-73E) which are going to be on the T-50. We will likely incorporate Astra as well, if it can fit in.

The T-50 is also to test a new HMDS. Other improvements apart from the AESA, are sensor fusion (also on the Su-35, and likely to be used on the Super30 upgrade as well - they both share the same cockpit layout, as does the T-50 prototype) and an automated pilot associate (basically automatic course corrections and suggestions - currently present in limited form on the Eurofighter).

The PAK-FA can carry a total of 4 BVR + 2 WVR missiles as per the current prototype design, in internal bays plus wing bays (with disposable covers). A limited loadout but should be sufficient when coupled with the PAK-FAs high speed, high alt, LO attack profile.

Its likely the PAK-FA is going to rely on a combination of VLO RCS in frontal sector, LO in others plus active EW to suppress spikes, as versus purely passive stealth as on F-22 and JSF.

IAF has asked for the usual everything plus kitchen sink for their version of the PAK-FA, including 360 degree AESA. Lets see how that goes.

A large range & high speed/supermaneouverability profile is a very dangerous capability for the opponent to face upto.

Apart from ramjet AAMs and dual pulse motor AAMs, conventional AAMs such as the AMRAAM will stand very limited chance to even face off against such a target. Let alone have their seeker lock on successfully.

The Chinese have indeed spent a fair bit of time, getting the J-20 design outer mold line in place. But, they lack the interiors in terms of sensor sophistication. In Austin's report above, the Phazatron radar company director from Russia rather plaintively keeps talking of how they helped Chinese houses and how the latter then made their own radars, while clearly, so as to not offend the Chinese, he gives a disclaimer at the end that they didn't copy etc. Phaza is the also-ran of the two Russian radar houses, perennially coming second to NIIP which has established itself with the Sukhoi marketshare. They need money, and clearly, the Chinese need partnership since the Phaza folks mention the Chinese want AESA tech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 03:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1495
Karan M wrote:
...

The PAK-FA can carry a total of 4 BVR + 2 WVR missiles as per the current prototype design, in internal bays plus wing bays (with disposable covers). A limited loadout but should be sufficient when coupled with the PAK-FAs high speed, high alt, LO attack profile.

...


From CGIs depicting weapon loadout, it would seem PAK-FA can carry 6 BVR AAMs.

Image
t-50-pak-fa-fgfa-internal-weapon-bay


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 03:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5792
Fan CGIs..
Latest news from the Russian side is the T-50 can hold only 4 BVR missiles, out of 6 total. JSF in comparison can hold 4 total. F-22, 8. J-20....might be more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 03:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5792
this is another fan CGI to depict the latest statements; that the missile placement is to allow for LRAAMs to be carried but could be modified for six.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1345966033

Basically, that the bay has enough space for 6 MRAAMs. But
fitted for common 4 large missile loadout (Kh-58 ARM, LRAAM) as standard. Perhaps a later modification with a connector for three missiles.

It also has 6 pylons.
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/906 ... 063133.jpg

More on missiles, 11 are in development for PAK-FA

Quote:
According to Boris Obnosov, the RVV-MD and RVV-SD air-to-air missiles displayed at the show this time are designed for external carriage so far, but are, essentially, prototypes that will have spawned refined versions by 2014 to fit the PAK FA. They will become the backbone of its weapons suite in the dogfight and medium-range air-to-air missile classes.

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to21.pdf

Quote:
Head of the Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV), Boris Obnosov, told RIA Novosti that the Kh-35UE (AS-20 Kayak), Kh-38ME, Kh-58UShKE (AS-11 Kilter), and RVV-MD (AA-11 Archer) missiles will be ready for the Sukhoi PAK-FA fighter by 2014.

http://alert5.com/2012/02/01/pak-fa-wil ... s-by-2014/

Russian vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHd6n-Z3Fxk

They are being mostly conservative, adapting, modernizing existing designs. Nothing radical. But then again, that makes it likely that all these systems will be developed fast.

On this forum itself.

Quote:
The latest Air International has an article on bad boy Pak Fa some pointers:

- Oval shaped antenna of the SH121 in current form is about 900mm wide and 700mm in height and contains 1526 T/R modules; the final antenna for Pak Fa will reportedly be larger and contain about 2000 modules
Tests for the new radar are supposedly starting in 2010 using a Tu134 (same jet used to train Blackjack crews). Five AESA antennas front Xband, two located on the side are also X band and two installed in wing leading edges are L band.

- Currently two AL-41F1 (izdeliye 117 - advanced version of AL41-F1S - izdeliye 117s used by Su35) rated at 147kn each.
It suggests that final versions or later versions will be powered by a new engine with >157kn thrust each.

- Tender for 2nd stage of engine was issued in 06 but cancelled in may 07. Proposals by both NPO Saturn and MMPP Salut were rejected due to "formal" reasons. According to Ilya Fedorov (GM of Saturn) the date contest has been moved to the first quarter of this year, but that does not mean necessarily that it will not be postponed again. Fedorov expects that the project will be carried out with co-operation of several companies led by Saturn:
- Core - Aviadvigatel in Perm together will Saturn will work on Core
- NPP Motor in Ulfa would make low pressure compressor fans and afterburner chamber
- Klimov in St Petersburg would make the TVC nozzle, gearbox and APU
- AMNTK Soyuz in Moscow will look after inlet guide vanes as well as rcs reduction for injun
- Series prod. for new engine likely to happen at UMPO Factory in UFA where 117 and 117s are manufactured
NPO Saturn is currenly offering participation to its greatest rival MMPP Salut (Moscow based), however Salut is expecting more as it wants to be a general integrator. Salut has lost the 1st stage injun tender and is continuing development of the AL-31 FM3 in hopes of powering the PAK FA rated at 152 kn.

- Engine TVC supposedly managed the same way as the MKI the nozzles move up and down (two dimensional) but the central plane of each nozzle is deflected aside (right to right and left to left) so the nozzles move within v-like intersecting planes. Inclusion of LEREXes a very important feature.

- There are quite a few pics of missiles(AA and AG) all with complete folding fins notable are 810 type AA missiles (4.2m or 13.9 ft) long range, multipurpose KH 38M (4.2m or 13.9ft) long weighing 520kg (1146lb) and KH58 USHK (4.2m or 13.9ft) long weighing 650kg anti radar missile. Each weapons bay reportedly are estimated to be 4.6m to 4.7m (15.1 to 15.5 ft long) and 1 to 1.1 m wide (3.3ft to 3.7ft) two 810 or KH38M or KH58USHK can be placed inside one weapon bay.] Other smaller types of munitions include K77M, K74 and K30. Also KH36 anti radar and 250KG and 500KG guided PGMs. A single but similar weapon bay was fitted to the Berkut in summer of 07 this had two ejector racks and side by side placement.

- Static instability is reportedly 10% to 12% when compared to the 5% to 6% of SU27M/MKI and the neutral instability of basic SU27. Design aimed towards being more agile when supersonic than previous fighters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 07:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
>> Salut has lost the 1st stage injun tender and is continuing development of the AL-31 FM3 in hopes of powering the PAK FA rated at 152 kn.

nice to know there is a plan-B available, however once the 5th gen engine works, I suspect Rus might be willing to sell this Salyut engine for the J20 and make a lot of money


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 09:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
Salut engine wont make it to PAK-FA , Saturn engine 117 ( 15 T ) has already been selected for Stage 1 and for Stage 2 both Saturn and Salut are co-ordinating their effort for next gen engine.

Salut engine will be used for re-engining existing flanker as the key advantage of Salut AL-31 FM engine is it does not need any changes to existing air intake design and has higher thrust.

Chinese most certainly are eying the available AL-31FM2 engine with 14 T of thrust and talks are on with Salut to procure this engine , I am sure that it would make it to J-20 design if not now then at some later stage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 10:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33993
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I think the J20 engine bay is designed to accomodate 117 as well (if they can get or clone it in future)

if you look from rear note how it somewhat sharply tapers down to the junction of engine exhaust and fuselage casing.

http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee3 ... 613f1a.jpg

the mighty foxhound has no such artificial taper..fuselage flows smoothly into the exhaust.

http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/mig31a10.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 14:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 528
@year 2022 - Assumption : China has reasonably developed J 20 and J 31 and inducted a few squadrons (they are good in manufacturing and inducting in large numbers ) and provided 1 squadron each of J 20 and J 31 to Pakistan.

Now how is it going to affect the deep strike capability of Rafale and Sukhoi of the IAF. Will the scenario be something like the PAK FA will have the responsibility to clear the air space while the Rafale and Sukhoi follow them to perform the deep strike.

If that is the case then the availability of PAK FA by 2020 with all the features that have been promised in it becomes much more critical.
Another thing that needs to be analysed will be the conflict between two stealth fighters against each other, what will be the scenarios , how does one realign there operational tactics in both offensive / defensive situation and finally how does stealth and non-stealth fighters combine there capabilities to achieve optimum result.

Notwithstanding the engine development issues that China may be facing ( anyway we should not relax with this news when suddenly one day they showcase a brand new engine meeting there requirement and again we start playing catch up) , i think that with the speed with which they have shown the J 20 and J 31 to the world , and with the kind of secrecy that they will maintain about their capability , having 300 such fighters will definitely have a major psychological effect around the region and may even lead to a more aggresive China.

Any thoughts ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 14:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11754
Singha wrote:
I think the J20 engine bay is designed to accomodate 117 as well (if they can get or clone it in future)


J-20 might well be in place for a new engine , all it needs a slightly bigger intake and its good to go , as 117 needs higher mass flow ......considering its in flight testing stage they can incorporate such changed in present or Mark 2 model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Nov 2012 16:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23782
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
dhiraj wrote:
@year 2022 - Assumption : China has reasonably developed J 20 and J 31 and inducted a few squadrons (they are good in manufacturing and inducting in large numbers ) and provided 1 squadron each of J 20 and J 31 to Pakistan.

Now how is it going to affect the deep strike capability of Rafale and Sukhoi of the IAF. Will the scenario be something like the PAK FA will have the responsibility to clear the air space while the Rafale and Sukhoi follow them to perform the deep strike.

If that is the case then the availability of PAK FA by 2020 with all the features that have been promised in it becomes much more critical.
Another thing that needs to be analysed will be the conflict between two stealth fighters against each other, what will be the scenarios , how does one realign there operational tactics in both offensive / defensive situation and finally how does stealth and non-stealth fighters combine there capabilities to achieve optimum result.

Notwithstanding the engine development issues that China may be facing ( anyway we should not relax with this news when suddenly one day they showcase a brand new engine meeting there requirement and again we start playing catch up) , i think that with the speed with which they have shown the J 20 and J 31 to the world , and with the kind of secrecy that they will maintain about their capability , having 300 such fighters will definitely have a major psychological effect around the region and may even lead to a more aggresive China.

Any thoughts ?


Good hypothetical scenario. I have cross posted it in an appropriate thread for discussion. On this thread this is off topic.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6459&p=1363385#p1363385


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4014 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 101  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, RaviKR, sam witte, Sonugn, ssaravanan, Yahoo [Bot] and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group