PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nash »

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.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by sarabpal.s »

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.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nash »

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.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

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.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by sarabpal.s »

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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by srai »

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.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by sarabpal.s »

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
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

T-50 Trials on Schedule ( pg 18 )

http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

Looks like j20 is no pushover atleast in shaping.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by shiv »

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
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?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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
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.
"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
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

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....
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_23694 »

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)
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

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
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Karan M »

Singha some information.

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065972202
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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by srai »

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
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Karan M »

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Karan M »

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
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
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.
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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

>> 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
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

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
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_23694 »

@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 ?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by shiv »

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.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1363385
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_23694 »

shiv wrote:Good hypothetical scenario. I have cross posted it in an appropriate thread for discussion. On this thread this is off topic.
No Issues with posting in an appropriate thread, but only problem is with the word "hypothetical".
My understanding is that this scenario is very much feasible in the foreseeable future (hypothetical only if either we don;t get PAK FA(serious issue ) or China is not able to deploy J 20 / 31 (good for us))
MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by MN Kumar »

shiv wrote:
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.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1363385
Another issue that needs attention is the doctrine of engagement, SoP's etc. that one needs to develop. This takes time and comes with experience operating the platform. Its not like you just fly a stealthy plane into action expecting the other side to be blind about its presence. And this applies to everyone not only to the Chinese or may be pakis.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_23694 »

SaiK wrote:USAF!!??!!??!!

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-trqqM_LkUSU/UBJL8 ... GFA-01.jpg
good one :D
but they should have colored it all black like the gorgeous YF 23
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Testing of the new engine for the PAK FA in 2014
Scientific production association "Saturn" the beginning of a new engine for the preparation of the future fighter T-50 (PAK FA) for bench testing. On this, as reported by "and-mash," said Yevgeny Marchuk, General Designer, Director of the Scientific and Technical Center Cradles name, part of the "Saturn". Engine test in 2014.

"In iron engine will be ready in two years, and will begin bench testing, will go to finishing. This - essentially a new engine, so it creates a long enough" - said Marchuk. According to him, the weight of the new power plant will be 30 percent less than that of the AL-41F1 ("Item 117", the modified version of the engine AL-41F1S for the Su-35), known as the engine of the first stage.

As expected, the life-cycle costs will also be almost a third less than that of the AL-41F1S and according Marchukova, "he should be cheaper." New engine for the PAK FA engine known as the second phase or "Type 30" will be significantly different from the currently used "Products 117". The latter will be installed in the first production car, until the end of the development of "Type 30".
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

I want our team to be participative in these testing and dev works. I am still not sure what is in the deal?
Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Sancho »

SaiK wrote:I want our team to be participative in these testing and dev works. I am still not sure what is in the deal?
It was reported that Russia offers a co-development in return for additional fundings of course, not sure if something was fixed in this regard yet, but we surely could only learn through such a developments.
Our deal is mainly about FGFA and the customisations about it, otherwhise we hardly can contribute since they started the developments before we really joint and we lack the necessary knowledge in many crucial fields. With our silly behaviour to turn any initial plan around (twin seat, single seat, both...), it's even better that the Russians have the lead in the main developments.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

Not too sure at this point in time, but, I think India has funded an engine.

My read is that when India says the PMF/FGFA will be diff than the PAK-FA/T-50, it also includes the engine. My feel is that the Russians, for whatever reason, are not able to afford the plane being designed-built for the IAF.
Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Sancho »

NRao wrote:Not too sure at this point in time, but, I think India has funded an engine.

My read is that when India says the PMF/FGFA will be diff than the PAK-FA/T-50, it also includes the engine. My feel is that the Russians, for whatever reason, are not able to afford the plane being designed-built for the IAF.
I think they can afford it, but developing a fully capable 5th gen Pak Fa needs more time too, that's why they compromise with a stealthy airframe, AESA and some modernised weapons, but stick to the engines and avionics of the Su 35BM / Su 34 to reduce the costs and keep the timeframe of induction in 2015.
IAF wants the whole deal and therefor has to wait till the final engine will be ready as well, it can't be just a coincidence that the first NG engine will be available for tests at the same time as the first FGFAs.
However, I still say we shouldn't waste time and have demanded that one T50 prototype will already be tested in India, even if it's ground tests only.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by shiv »

SaiK wrote:I want our team to be participative in these testing and dev works. I am still not sure what is in the deal?
According go Vayu India is in it wrt to composites (which form 25% of the weight and the avionics. Indian funding is about 50% IIRC. The second seat requirement was removed after it was known that stealth would be reduced by 15% by seat 2, apart from fuel/weight issues. A prototype will be tested in India starting 2014.
Post Reply