PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
This has been mentioned before umpteen times.
Total R&D Cost of FGFA is valued at $10 billion with 50-50 spent by both sides so each side will spend $5 billion each.
Cost of PAK-FA R&D with prototypes and 1st stage engine is valued at $10 Billion spent jointly by Russian MOD ,Sukhoi and Ministry of Industry that funds engine development.
2nd stage engine will cost the russian $ 2 billion funded by Ministry of Industry.
Most like $ 5 billion on FGFA will be spent on building and flight testing the prototypes , 2 PAK-FA prototypes are to be tested in India.
For TOT and customisation of FGFA to IAF needs and building infrastructure to lic built the aircraft at HAL facility.
With sticker price at $100 million today and plans to built 214 FGFA in next 15 years starting 2020 and taking military inflation into account for the same period the total cost of building 214 FGFA in India is valued at $35 billion over a period of 15-20 years.
Total R&D Cost of FGFA is valued at $10 billion with 50-50 spent by both sides so each side will spend $5 billion each.
Cost of PAK-FA R&D with prototypes and 1st stage engine is valued at $10 Billion spent jointly by Russian MOD ,Sukhoi and Ministry of Industry that funds engine development.
2nd stage engine will cost the russian $ 2 billion funded by Ministry of Industry.
Most like $ 5 billion on FGFA will be spent on building and flight testing the prototypes , 2 PAK-FA prototypes are to be tested in India.
For TOT and customisation of FGFA to IAF needs and building infrastructure to lic built the aircraft at HAL facility.
With sticker price at $100 million today and plans to built 214 FGFA in next 15 years starting 2020 and taking military inflation into account for the same period the total cost of building 214 FGFA in India is valued at $35 billion over a period of 15-20 years.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
yeah but will Rus transfer the core techs of the 5th gen engine and aesa radar? under su30 deal the key RF section of Bars is supplied by tikhomirov with no tot and neither has making parts for al31fp helped us on kaveri else we wouldnt be running to snecma for materials tech now.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
You probably got the wrong impression of what TOT means , TOT means it helps the customer maintain the product better without the need to run to OEM for 1 or 2nd line of maintenance,repair that can now be done say at HAL without the need to fly that out to customer place.
TOT does not mean you can use that technology for your other programs , if that were to be the case we wouldnt be looking at tie up with Snecma for Kaveri program when TOT is part of Rafale deal or we could have used AL-31FP technology for Kaveri program by now.
Using Technology for other programs would be violation of IPR even if that was to be possible , The OEM would send us the tools and machinary to make the necessary component say for eg hot parts of engine , with TOT we can use local materials to make the hot parts under the supervision of OEM which would certify or qualify the product in the end and we pay the lic fees for it , in good old days when TOT was not part of the deal and only lic agreement was critical technology was outrightly imported or we would import the raw materials from OEM and would build the components here according to lic design provided.
So yes the Russian would transfer technology that has been agreed upon but that would be to better maintain the FGFA and develop the 1st or 2nd line of maintenance,repair for the product , same will be with French Rafale TOT deal
TOT does not mean you can use that technology for your other programs , if that were to be the case we wouldnt be looking at tie up with Snecma for Kaveri program when TOT is part of Rafale deal or we could have used AL-31FP technology for Kaveri program by now.
Using Technology for other programs would be violation of IPR even if that was to be possible , The OEM would send us the tools and machinary to make the necessary component say for eg hot parts of engine , with TOT we can use local materials to make the hot parts under the supervision of OEM which would certify or qualify the product in the end and we pay the lic fees for it , in good old days when TOT was not part of the deal and only lic agreement was critical technology was outrightly imported or we would import the raw materials from OEM and would build the components here according to lic design provided.
So yes the Russian would transfer technology that has been agreed upon but that would be to better maintain the FGFA and develop the 1st or 2nd line of maintenance,repair for the product , same will be with French Rafale TOT deal
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Yes Austin Ji,
But apparently the ToT for Su-30s tires were never made. And that are just tires!
But apparently the ToT for Su-30s tires were never made. And that are just tires!
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Austin,
Thats a very good explanation of ToT. Should be pasted in newbie FAQ thread as well
Thats a very good explanation of ToT. Should be pasted in newbie FAQ thread as well
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
You mean the issue mentioned here http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?237154indranilroy wrote:Yes Austin Ji,
But apparently the ToT for Su-30s tires were never made. And that are just tires!
Do you really get TOT for every thing i dont think so , You cant set up a parallel manufacturing capacity for Su-30 or Rafale or FGFA in India , You just take TOT for what you think is critical and can be cheaper to make here for the rest you import as that would turn out to be cheaper.
From what I know even the Deep Engine TOT for AL-31F happened last year and there was a delay in absorbing technology and lic manuf it from local procured materials.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
The ToT IP protects one to one copy. So, SCB ToT would prevent a client from duplicating it to make parts for other products. However, a process - say of making specialized metals - can be duplicated. So, if ToT teaches one to make a particular alloy that process can be used to make other alloys. Which is why I feel that ToT providers do not part with everything - even Russia did not, even though they too called it ToT. The original maker protects some aspects of the ToT to prevent misuse. China is a great example. They have managed to duplicate a lot, but not the critical technologies - engines is an example.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
tushar_m wrote: P.S what can we call this big brother of tejas ????
I hope its not something as prissy sounding as Tejas . It needs to have some dham in it!!!
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
I think Ojhas rhymes and matches the characteristics
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Russian T-50 made its first long flight - Rogozin
"Promising aviation complex tactical aircraft (PAK FA) T-50 after the first solo flight from the Far East landed in Zhukovsky," - he wrote in his microblog on twitter.
Deputy Prime Minister noted that the aircraft is equipped with almost the full avionics and surveillance and attack systems.
"This is a major breakthrough! Machine broke 7000 km, making the road to the capital of two landing in Abakan and Chelyabinsk. Congratulations team of developers and testers" - said Rogozin.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
PAK-FA team please test it from russia to banglore from 8-10th feb we are waiting...........................
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
I wish they maintain the 3D 360* axis TVC over the 2D. The stealth skin can be made for the rare with next generation techniques. We/they (whos is doing this ?) should be now actually having few pieces here testing our internal puppies. what is the agreement here? when are they going to tot and begin the works. Or is this all another sham for public natak.?
we need to have the 30-50k level understanding on the project on RTI.. they can keep the secrets inside and exposing only 50k level details for project/product dev perspective for the public scrutiny.
we need to have the 30-50k level understanding on the project on RTI.. they can keep the secrets inside and exposing only 50k level details for project/product dev perspective for the public scrutiny.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
They have all the technology required for the engine. They could have made the engine but they have not tried it.NRao wrote:The ToT IP protects one to one copy. So, SCB ToT would prevent a client from duplicating it to make parts for other products. However, a process - say of making specialized metals - can be duplicated. So, if ToT teaches one to make a particular alloy that process can be used to make other alloys. Which is why I feel that ToT providers do not part with everything - even Russia did not, even though they too called it ToT. The original maker protects some aspects of the ToT to prevent misuse. China is a great example. They have managed to duplicate a lot, but not the critical technologies - engines is an example.
They have only tried to copy them. Is it because they dont have the fundamental science expertise or is it some strategic reason.
Did the major countries blocked something which Chinese cannot use it
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
On a copy mode, one can only copy it. It takes to first principles of design to think even modifying complex engineering components of advanced jet engines. Not a joke!
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
That is true!
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 9664
- Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
PAK-FA Radar Test in Anechoic chamber
http://www.pixic.ru/i/H060p0x7M0O2Q3N1.png
T-50-4 High Res
http://i.imgur.com/txD1vg6.jpg
http://www.pixic.ru/i/H060p0x7M0O2Q3N1.png
T-50-4 High Res
http://i.imgur.com/txD1vg6.jpg
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 732
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
can't they have a sleeker engine nozzle....doesn't get along with the rest of the planeAustin wrote:T-50-4 High Res
http://i.imgur.com/txD1vg6.jpg
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
is irbis-E going to be the radar or something else?
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
PAK-FA AESA has been documented for a long time now , Tikhomirov NIIP PAK-FA AESA
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId533477
Another beter quality video of T-50-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYyLNjxkHk
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker- ... ocId533477
Another beter quality video of T-50-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYyLNjxkHk
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
heh heh! Actually Tejas is a good name - its just that we are unaccustomed to reading Sanskrit meanings the way they were meant. Pisk wise we tend to go more for what we have been accustomed to considering as "fearsome" or "awe inspiring". Tejas does not cut it although it's not so bad.Will wrote:tushar_m wrote: P.S what can we call this big brother of tejas ????
I hope its not something as prissy sounding as Tejas . It needs to have some dham in it!!!
Vaman Shivram Apte's Sanskrit English dictionary lists the meanings of Tejas, among other things as: "Brillance, splendour, might, prowess, strength, strength of character, virile" etc
No worse than "arrow", "sparrow" "viper/sidewinder", "lightning" "goshawk"
If someone called a weapon "apple", "pudding" "sugar pie" or "kheer" or something then we have an issue JMHO
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
note the rearward radar symbol! so, both rear and forward has gone "hot nose"!
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
So 4 radars in total, assuming 2 under the wings. Engine must be monster to power all those electronics.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
The PAK-FA/FGFA is supposed to have conformal radars. Not sure if that has changed.arvin wrote:So 4 radars in total, assuming 2 under the wings. Engine must be monster to power all those electronics.
The engine they are using, if all goes well, should be replaced with a PAK-FA specific "5th" gen engine. It is my impression that India is actually funding this new engine too.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
I don't think I read about conformal radars.. did you mean the L wala on the slats?
the shapes for the front and rear does have to be capitalized and used well. radar positions will not change that random is my understanding..
may be you are talking about conformal passive receivers for track and scan like in raptor. Not sure, I heard this as well.
?
the shapes for the front and rear does have to be capitalized and used well. radar positions will not change that random is my understanding..
may be you are talking about conformal passive receivers for track and scan like in raptor. Not sure, I heard this as well.
?
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
http://idp.justthe80.com/world-defense- ... aesa-radar
Also there are very good reasons why not to compare the PAK-FA one-to-one with the Raptor. They are designed with totally diff things in mind. As an example:The Tikhomirov-NIIP AESA radar is being developed for use on the PAK-FA / T-50 fifth generation fighter being developed by Sukhoi in Russia. The radar was first unveiled at MAKS 2009.
The 1,500-element array radar antenna is a slight ellipse, likely reflecting the cross section of the PAK-FA nose.
Assuming the arm span of the person removing the antenna cover in the video is 2 m, the antenna ellipse appears to be a little over 1m in diameter.
NIIP officials indicated that they looked at a pivoting antenna to increase the angular coverage of the electronically swept beams but opted for a fixed antenna. The PAK-FA will use secondary conformal array antennas to provide additional angular coverage.
The Russians say, unlike the Raptor, which is designed to evade ground radar, the T-50 is honed for detecting the Raptor earlier and then engaging it in close combat.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
The Russians never claimed such things the author of the article says thatsNRao wrote: The Russians say, unlike the Raptor, which is designed to evade ground radar, the T-50 is honed for detecting the Raptor earlier and then engaging it in close combat.
Here is what Putin said
“This machine will be superior to our main competitor, the F-22, in terms of maneuverability, weaponry and range,” Putin told the pilot after the flight, according to an account on the government website.
Putin said the plane would cost up to three times less than similar aircraft in the West and could remain in service for 30 to 35 years with upgrades, according to the report.”
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
so going by kareena's dialogue in "3 idiots", we need gujerati food names for our weapons/birds!shiv wrote:
No worse than "arrow", "sparrow" "viper/sidewinder", "lightning" "goshawk"
If someone called a weapon "apple", "pudding" "sugar pie" or "kheer" or something then we have an issue JMHO
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
So, for pak-fa (fgfa), AAM with a range 100 miles is a must to tackle raptor, say if fgfa radars can lock on them. It would be interesting if there comparison reports on L-band signature on composite skins of raptor type of target available for public satisfaction onlee.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 209
- Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
- Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Lalmohan wrote:so going by kareena's dialogue in "3 idiots", we need gujerati food names for our weapons/birds!shiv wrote:
No worse than "arrow", "sparrow" "viper/sidewinder", "lightning" "goshawk"
If someone called a weapon "apple", "pudding" "sugar pie" or "kheer" or something then we have an issue JMHO
I'm thinking Ladoo guided bombs, Aloo gobhi long range missile, Samosa air to ground missile, and finally Dhosa bomb
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
good.. you did not go after the pindi channa guided munitions.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 209
- Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
- Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
That can be used for guided cluster munitionsSaiK wrote:good.. you did not go after the pindi channa guided munitions.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
A nice and updated FAQ on PAK-FA .....Use your friendly English translator has many good details.
PAK FA. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
PAK FA. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
It would be interesting to know if pak-fa skin permeates all radiation bandwidth but internally blocks them:
http://funkyimg.com/u2/2019/543/118974w1u5qv.jpg
This is futuristic! that we should imitate and innovate on.
http://funkyimg.com/u2/2019/543/118974w1u5qv.jpg
This is futuristic! that we should imitate and innovate on.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 348
- Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
check ur link hotlink not allowedSaiK wrote:which vtol a/c is this?
http://funkyimg.com/u2/2017/977/89897935.jpg
JSF does not look like that.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
That is the JSF.SaiK wrote:which vtol a/c is this?
http://funkyimg.com/u2/2017/977/89897935.jpg
JSF does not look like that.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
mm.. may be, I was confused.
Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread
Armament PAK FA successfully tested
SC "Corporation" Tactical Missiles "has successfully implemented a test plan and prepare for mass production of new aircraft weapons, including fighter 5 th generation (PAK FA), said chief executive officer Boris Obnosov.
"The development of weapons systems PAK FA is in accordance with the schedule, which is designed to provide timely, given the country's leadership serial delivery of the combat vehicle in parade of the Russian Air Force, as well as our foreign partners - India," - said B.Obnosov.
He noted that "a number of weapons systems for fighter of the 5th generation are pre-tested on other types of aircraft, which act as a flying laboratory."
"As the number of arriving at the test range aircraft PAK FA test program aircraft weapons have increasingly been going on the main type of aircraft," - said B.Obnosov.
According to him, "for a number of products are in the final testing stage for him is a preliminary preparation for mass production, on the other - trials are ongoing."
"Completed tests missiles Kh-31PD, RVV-MD, RVV-SD and RVV-BD. Output - X-31AD. I note that the new export development meet the highest world standards, and in some aspects superior to them. It has no analogues in the world guided missile HAEDAT, have high efficiency at large distances to targets. In place of a uniform X-35E antiship guided missile comes a new generation of X-35UE, which greatly enhances the combat capabilities of shipboard type "Uranus" and land "Ball." Guided missile X-35UE nothing inferior to the latest versions of the U.S. "Harpoon" and superior to other well-known in the world of missiles of this class, including the French "Exocet" - said B.Obnosov.