PAK-FA Thread - First flight

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2010 20:49

If looks is any thing to go by then i think the Mig-1.44 is the most beautiful looking of all Russian fighters produced till date including the PAK-FA.

Its a pity they did not carry this project ahead , I hope PAK-DA is like Mig-1.44/1.42 magnified 500 %

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Feb 2010 21:04

screen grab

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Feb 2010 21:06

Austin wrote:New video on first flight ( via keypubs )

http://www.zvezdanews.ru/video/day_events/army/0039191/

In that video, there is a shot of under-construction planes with the dorsal airbrake extended. I thought it was not used in the Su-35? Is it being used here in the pak-fa?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 Feb 2010 21:09

As per the latest video, the Russians had a couple of Haan-Haa-Naa-Naa radars at komolsk-na-amur.

I wonder how much they could see the PAK FA in flight. I guess the Su-27 flying next to it was to present a nice juicy RCS tracking target to the radars, so that everyone knew where the bird was flying. The Su-27 virtually shadowed it to the airfield in the end.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 Feb 2010 21:11

tsriram wrote:In that video, there is a shot of under-construction planes with the dorsal airbrake extended. I thought it was not used in the Su-35? Is it being used here in the pak-fa?

Possibly a pic from the Komossk-na-amur plant. They manufacture all the Su variants including the MKI. This is likely an Su variant being built.

I doubt they'll allow any camera to see the manufacturing process of PAK FA at anytime at all.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Feb 2010 21:15

Gagan wrote:As per the latest video, the Russians had a couple of Haan-Haa-Naa-Naa radars at komolsk-na-amur.

I wonder how much they could see the PAK FA in flight. I guess the Su-27 flying next to it was to present a nice juicy RCS tracking target to the radars, so that everyone knew where the bird was flying. The Su-27 virtually shadowed it to the airfield in the end.

In any case the way to keep these things unknown would be to deliberately use radar reflective stuff to give a huge signature to anyone watching.

Peter Teschner · Post by **Peter Teschner** » 01 Feb 2010 22:15

krish.pf wrote:Here are clearer pics from parlay. More than half of the engines are facing the intakes. Ofcourse this is only 2 dimensional, but when you super impose it with the bottom view, there is nothing much that can be done. But the theory of s ducts in above pic(the blue and red lines airflow pic) looks promising if that is reflected as an entire S shape duct and not just small bumps on the top and the bottom respectively in 3 dimension.

Edit: Another one: http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9784/side1fl.jpg

i think, that the axes of engines are some higher... Over general axe. As I can see...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2010 22:46

I agree, there is a pronounced bulge over the general spine for the engines, not evident in this line diagram.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2010 22:51

Austin wrote:If looks is any thing to go by then i think the Mig-1.44 is the most beautiful looking of all Russian fighters produced till date including the PAK-FA.

and here I'm giving a shamelessly no holds barred thumbs-up to this fanboyish statement !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2010 22:55

chase flanker seems to have a acmi pod on right wing.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Feb 2010 23:03

Rahul M wrote:
Austin wrote:If looks is any thing to go by then i think the Mig-1.44 is the most beautiful looking of all Russian fighters produced till date including the PAK-FA.
and here I'm giving a shamelessly no holds barred thumbs-up to this fanboyish statement !

Nah the good old Mig-29 "Best there is , best there was and the best there ever will be".

.
Btw for some reasons I never liked canard wallah designs .

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Feb 2010 23:29

Another guesstimate of the S-Duct:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2010 23:37

looks more reasonable. but that still leaves a slice of the engine face
visible from the frontal aspect - a strict no no for VLO.

imho they can and should rearrange the engine bay and a inlet by small
amts vertically and laterally to close this "gap" as it were. may bending the
intakes to face more upward will introduce the necessary bend and block
the red front view.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2010 23:50

those red semi-lobes looks like raptor food.

Peter Teschner · Post by **Peter Teschner** » 01 Feb 2010 23:52

Singha wrote:looks more reasonable. but that still leaves a slice of the engine face
visible from the frontal aspect - a strict no no for VLO.

No yet! Internal part of turbine's blades are closed by horizontal "S"

Peter Teschner · Post by **Peter Teschner** » 01 Feb 2010 23:55

Aditya G wrote:Another guesstimate of the S-Duct:

If didn't see that axes of engines much higher that axe of planer

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Feb 2010 00:23

I wonder if those guys on keypub and elsewhere ever used similar KGsque pictures to draw a schematic of the F-22 inlet manifold , I am pretty sure they would be able to see the fan blades if they try a wee bit harder.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 Feb 2010 00:49

This thread is going the MRCA way. Going round and round with all speculation and no substance. If you geniuses can tell so much from schematics, please enlighten me by showing the s-shaped air ducts of F-16. And would someone oblige to show the proof (via schematics) of double s air ducts of Eurofighter which cover nearly 100% of the compressor fans?
Is Sukhoi full of fools who cannot draw schematics? You people are thinking only in 2D. Think in 3D and you will find that there is no way of knowing how much of the compressor blades are being exposed by just looking at the alignment.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2010 02:52

with all speculation and no substance.

The guys who have substance have no time and are not talking.

And, the guys who are speculating have too much time and posting about a tech-demo!!!!

...........................

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 02 Feb 2010 03:30

Gagan wrote:
tsriram wrote:In that video, there is a shot of under-construction planes with the dorsal airbrake extended. I thought it was not used in the Su-35? Is it being used here in the pak-fa?
Possibly a pic from the Komossk-na-amur plant. They manufacture all the Su variants including the MKI. This is likely an Su variant being built.

I doubt they'll allow any camera to see the manufacturing process of PAK FA at anytime at all.

Hain ji am I missing something moi thought that the mki, mkm, mka were built by IAPO onlee...

whereas amur was more into mkk, mkv, 35bm ityadi...

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 02 Feb 2010 06:21

The mig1.44 was one of the ugliest fighters I have ever seen and I love the look of Russian fighters. I also cannot understand how it the least bit stealthy.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Feb 2010 07:00

There are a few MKIs parked in Amur. I thought they were also built there. I'll post a pic.

The engine blades being visible is just for depiction onlee. There might be another deflector directing airflow upwards to hide the blades from view

Instead of the exhaust vanes being circular and presenting a flat surface, can they be modified thus to make them a wee bit more stealthy? Will this help reduce the RCS in the aft end?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Feb 2010 07:03

the "i" kinda looks like M55 hi altitude thingy that india was exploring to replace mig-25. Not sure whatever happened to that. Although the wings look smaller..

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... oClock.jpg

http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/mjas_m-55.php

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2010 07:13

GE has used that sawtooth shape on its 737 engines to reduce noise also.
but its a smooth sawtooth not the stealthy jagged.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Feb 2010 07:17

Gagan wrote:There are a few MKIs parked in Amur. I thought they were also built there. I'll post a pic.

Can someone id the twin tailboom a/c?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Feb 2010 07:22

Possibly Sukhoi Su-80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-80
Just next to these are smaller versions of a similar aircraft - several of them. Can someone ID them? Are those UAV;s of some kind?

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 02 Feb 2010 08:29

My 2 Fanams*

1. The SU designers aren't stoopid to leave the fan visible from any angle.
2. It is possible to design a 'perfect black body' type air duct, if you have some depth to play with. Given the Russian tendency of 'engineering it into simplicity', I would bet my Cajun Chikins that it were done on the duct. The design clearly shows the engineering behind it.
3. This armchair EW expirt is unhappy about the engine arrangement, which doesn't show the expected 'engineering refinement'. I have a suspicion that it is because the engines are going to change. We might see major changes from torso down, and those 'firecracker legs#' might go.
4. Looking at the canopy, something tells me that the need for a 2 seat version was part of the spec.

That is 4 Fanams. Fanam (paNam) was the coin of Travancore.
Rambha was 'thunder thighs'. This one doesn't get to that league, hence 'firecracker thighs'

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Feb 2010 11:26

PAK-FA Line Drawings ( via Paralay )

With Brahmos

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Feb 2010 11:33

folding wings can make it possible for internal carriage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Feb 2010 11:48

Some info on Russian Development on RCS reduction ( via keypubs/coolien099 )

Andrey Lagarjkov, Director General of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences (and an Associate Member of the Academy), talks about Russian stealth technology in the following interview with the Russia/CIS Observer.

Until recently, all Russian developments in the field of stealth technologies were strictly classified. There weren't any reports made concerning research institutes dealing with these issues. The veil was raised somewhat last year when it was announced for the first time that the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences was carrying out research in the domain of reduced aircraft visibility. The information was rather sketchy. It was reported that the institute is specialized in creating materials with new properties, in particular with ferromagnetics and so-called artificial magnetics. It was pointed out that technologies developed by the institute were used in designing and manufacturing the Sukhoi Su-27M and Su-37 (Su-47). Director General Lagarjkov, who hasn't spoken about such matters in public before, told Sergey Sokut about work of his institute in greater detail.

How does Russia's way of making aircraft stealthy differ from the American technology?

- The Americans have two approaches. The first, and earliest one, was used for the F-117 and B-2. The low radar cross-section (RCS) was achieved through the shape of the aircraft and the use of radar-absorbing materials to cover the airframe. In this application, the principle of minimal level of visibility was a cornerstone - and other characteristics had to be sacrificed. For example, both aircraft are subsonic. Later the Americans tried another approach: modern radar absorbing materials are applied to F-16 and F-18, as well as to 5th generation F-22 and JSF combat aircraft, which have a traditional shape. The low level of visibility is achieved through different techniques, which Mikhail Pogosyan, director of Sukhoi, and I are going to reveal in the near future. We and the Americans are close to each other in this type of technology. Russia possesses the technology for upgrading in-service aircraft with modern stealth characteristics, and moreover, this technology is demanded by foreign operators of Russian aircraft. We, together with Sukhoi, have achieved world-class results in this area, which are confirmed by tests of real aircraft. We also can optimize the shape of the aircraft to lower the level of visibility, but I still wouldn't like to speak about the use of our techniques for 5th generation aircraft.

When would it be possible to speak about achieved results?

- Some discussion is possible today. The exact results of radar cross-section reduction will never be disclosed, neither here in Russia nor abroad. But sometime ago it was announced that the RCS of a MiG-21 fighter after its treatment by our institute is approximately 0.25 sq m. This corresponds to the characteristics of a cruise missile.

How far is it possible to go in reducing visibility of the 4th generation aircraft, and what additional improvements can be achieved in the next generation?

- My MiG-21 example demonstrates that the RCS of upgraded/modernized aircraft can be reduced 12-15 times. If we speak about new designed models, I wouldn't want to discuss the numbers publically.

In the press, information has been published about exotic technologies for providing low visibility, for example, plasma. How effective is it?

- We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.

What is the share of stealth technologies in the total aircraft cost?

- If stringent, but reasonable requirements for visibility are implemented in the project from the very beginning, it won't be too large. I'd like to point out here that at my institue, we have carried out advanced work in fundamental research. I also want to stress here that we had to do this without governmental support - funding our research from out-of-budget sources during the last 10-15 years.

It is known that you cooperate closely with Sukhoi. What about the institute's work with other design bureaus?

- Recently, we have started cooperating intensively with the others as well.

If we compare achievements of different countries in the reduction of aircraft visibility, who would the leaders be? Obviously, the Americans would hit the top, wouldn't they?

- The Americans are no. 1 because of the application of stealth to a large volume of real products. But considering the understanding of the whole problem in general - and the potential - I don't think the Americans are better than we are. We are able to achieve, and already have achieved, the same - and even in some areas, we have had somewhat better results. Another plus for the Americans is their broader application of stealth. In particular, they are entering the world market with the stealthy aircraft. Similar developments are being made in Europe, but the level of these countries is not so high. The French are tackling this problem as well. They have very good research equipment - anechoic chambers, for example. Their Rafale fighter is advertised as an aircraft with a low radar cross-section.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Feb 2010 12:07

- We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board

This is what I was trying to look at , before one Russki visitor to this BR thread pissed me off with the usual Key pub/ Secret Projects style "what have you been smoking"? line .

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

However this link may be of interest. Because here Bill Sweetman talks about some recent developments in this arena where the power requirements could have possibly been brought down.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 326e93f36c

Mods are of course free to delete this post if they so deem fit.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Feb 2010 13:30

Rahul M wrote:folding wings can make it possible for internal carriage.

Hmm not sure if PAK-FA has the depth even with folded wings to carry brahmos internally , I think only some Tactical/Strategic Bombers

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Feb 2010 14:17

What about the Sizzler? seems a more likely candidate? because if KS-172 types can be carried internally then the sizzler is a stronger possibility...

Having said that we'll probably see some derivative smaller A2G weapon. can't have a total tight fit obviously.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Feb 2010 14:35

D Roy wrote:What about the Sizzler? seems a more likely candidate? because if KS-172 types can be carried internally then the sizzler is a stronger possibility...

Having said that we'll probably see some derivative smaller A2G weapon. can't have a total tight fit obviously.

You mean Klub ? No Klub is as big a weapon as Brahmos but much lighter , they are carried externally in a special casing which releases the missile , so the Klub missile + casing makes its a big weapon.

Ks-172 carried internally ? the only long range weapon that can be carried internally is the R-37 AAM type , they are developing new generation of A2A and A2G weapons for pakfa , we may see Ramjet variant of R-77

But in any future warfare where the threat level is not high and if one is facing threats from 4 and 4 plus gen fighter plus UCAV etc it makes sense to carry a combination of external and internal weapons

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Feb 2010 15:04

I am aware of the air-launched klub cannisterized system.

if you could do away with the cannister then it is a smaller weapon than the brahmos both in length and diameter.

so a derivative shortened sizzler ( i.e take away the cannister launch mode as well as make it smaller) could be a possibility.

During MAKS 2007 a new long range missile marked AAM was put on display which looked a lot like the KS-172 but wasn't . IT was placed near the Su-35BM prototype. so they have tweaked tried tweaking the KS-172 before. may be they can make it shorter and given the launch speeds that the PAK-FA will probably be capable of a smaller booster may be used or do away with it completely as in the Mod 1. with Active radar. I am sure Novator may have a few ideas.

This is all speculation of course.

Naturally the K-37 has always been the preferred candidate for internally carried LRAAM. The Mig-31 was to have been to be its big user ( follow on from the R-33) carrying it in those semi-recessed hardpoints.

but it was the chinese who had shown more interest in it. we were more interested in the KS-172. Probably at that time the Chinese were looking to acquire the Mig-31 ( early to mid nineties)

Yeah and probably Tactical Missiles corp will come up with PD adder. it will be interesting to see if the improved adder also turns into something like NCADE.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Feb 2010 18:03

Gagan wrote:There are a few MKIs parked in Amur. I thought they were also built there. I'll post a pic.

They could be Su-35s. The older UB model not BM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2010 18:04

PAK-FA Line Drawings ( via Paralay )

Comparable to the MKI? Height being a pronounced exception - due to the canted fins.

I was under the impression that this bird would be smaller, much much smaller. Oh, well.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Feb 2010 19:51

nachiket wrote:
Gagan wrote:There are a few MKIs parked in Amur. I thought they were also built there. I'll post a pic.
They could be Su-35s. The older UB model not BM.

No, these have been around for the last 4-5 years, as far as I remember google putting up high res pics of the amur plant. The Su-35 has very few prototypes around. All are likely Su-27s, though two MKI equivalents can be seen. Go around the airport, there are at least 50 Su-27 + parked there!

Neerajsoman · Post by **Neerajsoman** » 02 Feb 2010 20:08

Anyone know if the IAF plans to replace the Su-30MKI's AL-31FP with the AL-41F?

The AL-41F was designed with upgradation in mind and requires no modification to the airframe or engine nacelles.

I had heard that a major upgrade in 2012 would involve engine replacement and replacement of the NIIP N-011M Bars with the Irbis-E PESA system or the Zhuk-MSF from the FGFA/ PAK FA project.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Feb 2010 22:58

A min 450km ranged AESA upgrade should take priority for Rambha over Engine upgrades, unless if this can be done just replacing the engine core, with the new turbines. More power, energy efficiency is great to have feature for Rambha to carry more mtows. (ks172/brahmos)

--

btw, igorr corrections should be noted. It is not AL41f, but an upgraded "article 117s" of AL31f that is pakfa now. the production version AL41F for 14-15 t/w ratio is just not there yet.