PAK-FA Thread - First flight

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2010 00:01

kartik, sounds like you are in a mood to cancel mmrca. it is not a bad thought, if pak-fa can reach us by 2015 time-frame. let the public opinion show begin.

--

btw, on brahmos: if it can carry two 400km novators, why not two brahmos?

Bhaskar · Post by **Bhaskar** » 30 Jan 2010 00:05

SaiK wrote:kartik, sounds like you are in a mood to cancel mmrca. it is not a bad thought, if pak-fa can reach us by 2015 time-frame. let the public opinion show begin.

1. Cost will be an issue.
2. FGFA induction may only start by 2015 at earliest. MRCA induction is to be completed by 2015.
3. Indian Air Force requires 126 Mutli-Role Medium Combat aircraft, a stealth Fifth Generation plane might not do that job.
4. No strategic advantage we will have if we are to buy a European/American plane in MRCA tender.
5. What if FGFA turns to a Gorshkov?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2010 00:08

SaiK wrote:how different would be a tandem canopy will look like?

don't you ever get tired of asking these questions ?

Now I really wonder whether its worth spending $100-140 million on something like a Typhoon or Rafale when the PAK-FA will clearly smoke them in combat.

same question been gnawing me. is it really worth it to go for a lesser capable aircraft at similar (or heavens forbid, higher!) prices, all for a 5-6 years lead time ? perhaps it will be far better to hasten LCA production and be done with it.

FGFA induction may only start by 2015 at earliest. MRCA induction is to be completed by 2015.

fat chance ! I will be happy if we have 2 complete sqdns by then.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 00:09

Rahul M wrote:
madhubala it will be then !

hey !! this is a democracy! start a thread to name this one if you want to give it such names..

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 30 Jan 2010 00:11

Kartik wrote: Ahem, you meant low-wing loading a/c I presume..

Yep! Sorry. I meant to say that PAK-FA probably has a lighter-wing loading compared to the Flanker family.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2010 00:17

rahul ji, i was about to ask a question about naval variant! (la 35b).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 00:18

Ajatshatru wrote: Could the Russians also end up selling PAK-FA to the chinese?

not possible now since India is a partner. we had no say on the Su-30 because we simply bought a variant customised for us. In this case, we'll be putting up a large portion of the funding, so no chance of any Chinese sales. My fear is that the Chinese already must've bought some technology related to MiG's attempt at a 5th generation fighter..with no other customer and their finances being poor, they may have sold the design concept and other technologies. I wouldn't be surprised if China has 2 different 5th generation programs ongoing since they have vast resources and aspire to compete with the US- one a mid-sized single engined fighter based on the MiG design (like the F-35) and the other a larger twin engined fighter as a possible replacement for their J-11s.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Jan 2010 00:19

tejas wrote:Congrats to Sukhoi OKB!! God I love this top view

Splendid. So it confirms that Saturn's leaked image was truly authentic.

Observations:

1. The Flanker design influence is visible. I cant find anything common with the Su-47 except for the internal weapons bay.

2. Side profile is strikingly similar to YF-23.

3. Cockpit visibility aft is poor like in other Su aircraft, save for the Su-27.

4. Those are surely more than just engine nacelles - too broad to house just engines.

5. Tail is a departure from the Su-34 design

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 00:22

sumshyam wrote:
And about G forces....I had feeling that human limit is 9-G....anyhow....I perhaps am an illiterate in biological terms...open for words of wisdom from gurus.

9G dynamic forces with the airframe capable of taking upto 10-11Gs. Its not unheard of. I've heard of some other fighter (can't remember which one) that went up to 10Gs or so with the pilot conscious. the Mirage-2000 airframe itself can take 13Gs without being permanently deformed due to the massive stresses. one Slovakian MiG-29 OTOH was retired after permanent damage to the airframe resulting from pilot accidentally exceeding the 9G airframe limit.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 30 Jan 2010 00:23

we wont see madhubala/katrina/priyanka/dia/gauhar until 2018.But we will see lot of

on paki side.

VijayKumarSinha · Post by **VijayKumarSinha** » 30 Jan 2010 00:27

Kartik wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
madhubala it will be then !
hey !! this is a democracy! start a thread to name this one if you want to give it such names..

I phoolly konkur.

Since, there is a generation gap between this aircraft and any other that we have.
Bhy kall it Madhubala bhen be kan kall it Aishwarya!?!!!

In the meantime lets just call her красивые девушки.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 30 Jan 2010 00:28

Two more pics one higher rez, the other at a different angle. Both are sweeet!!! Note from this view the wings seem much more similar to the Raptor then I initially thought.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 30 Jan 2010 00:30

Kartik wrote: the Mirage-2000 airframe itself can take 13Gs without being permanently deformed due to the massive stresses. one Slovakian MiG-29 OTOH was retired after permanent damage to the airframe resulting from pilot accidentally exceeding the 9G airframe limit.

IIRC I had read somewhere that the Rafale's airframe g-limits are +13g and 14g.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 00:30

Surya wrote:Is there a high res picture of the top view ?

Thanks

and its beautiful and the nitpickers should take a week off

exactly what I was about to say ! nitpickers and cribbers please leave this thread alone..just bask in its splendour and beauty for a while without spoiling it with "oh its a YF-23 copy" or "oh it doesn't have F-22's RCS" or this or that. every idea that worked was copied in some form or other in later designs. thats called progression. otherwise as NRao put it, the only design possible that would've been truly unique would've been a flying saucer. its a prototype, and some of Russia's best minds have gone into coming up with this design. And by God's grace, aesthetically its an incredibly appealing fighter, something that most 5th generation fighter designs are not. The IAF should use this fighter's image in its recruitment campaigns and it'll see the numbers applying shoot up. I mean which kid wouldn't want to fly this bird ??

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Jan 2010 00:39

Looks like a lifting body element

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2010 00:43

One very small observation.

THIS is the PAK-FA, a Russian plane. It CANNOT have an Indian name. Please wait till the FGFA is out and then we can name/start-threads/etc.

bhavani · Post by **bhavani** » 30 Jan 2010 00:45

Guys,

I have some questions:

- is FGFA similar to PAK-FA? will it be really different.
- why do we want so many dual seaters?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Jan 2010 00:59

So Russians have silenced the critics who believed Russians cannot compete with Americans/Euro when it comes to latest aircraft designing. They have shownthey are not behind any ones..I am so Happy...

Rahul M wrote:same question been gnawing me. is it really worth it to go for a lesser capable aircraft at similar (or heavens forbid, higher!) prices, all for a 5-6 years lead time ? perhaps it will be far better to hasten LCA production and be done with it.

Kartik wrote:Now I really wonder whether its worth spending $100-140 million on something like a Typhoon or Rafale when the PAK-FA will clearly smoke them in combat. There is nothing in the PAF's or PLAAF's arsenal that will match this, not until the next J-XX comes along. With 250 of these in the IAF, Air Dominance is assured !

Oh God, I'm in heaven..my heartiest congratulations to the Sukhoi OKB and to those individuals in the IAF, MoD and GoI who chose to partner Russia in this program..I've truly never felt happier about any partnership with Russia than how I feel now.

I always viewed in my posts in MMCRA thread that we should go for the bird which satisfies all the requirements of ASQR and is the cheapest of the lot. there is no point in going after costlier birds just because they exceed the requirements for no matter what they offer, they will be gen behind the pak fa/FGFA

We cannot avoid MMCRA at this stage. I was recently going thru list of aircrafts of IAF in wiki. We have around 200 Mig 21 other than bisons that needs to be replaced very soon. LCA is coming but current production capacity will not be able to take care of shortfall. Also, PAk FA/FGFA will come only by 2016/17 being realistic.... Thus the best strategy would be to for the cheapest bird and divert the additonal resources to Pak fa/FGFA and MCA

BTW, how will FGFA with obvious more utilization of new gen composites (that is being developed for MCA as reported in livefist) look stealth wise?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Jan 2010 01:08

Got from keypubs. Check out the *insane* range!

MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's fifth-generation fighter performed its maiden flight on Friday.

* The T-50 is the domestic name of Russia's fifth-generation fighter plane which has been developed as the Advanced Front-Line Aviation Complex (PAK FA) for Russia's Air Force.

* The project started its development by the Sukhoi design bureau since it won the tender in April 2002.

* The Tikhomirov Institute of Instrument Design, which developed the Irbis radar for the Su-35BM Flanker, has been working on the T-50 radar. The new fighter's radar and fire-control system will be designed on the basis of the Su-35BM's systems.

* The new fighter's exterior design was approved on December 10, 2004.

* Last summer, the fighter's design was approved, and the prototype blueprints were delivered to the KNAAPO aircraft building company based in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where three experimental fighters will be built for testing.

* In February 2009, the first prototype was constructed. After the plane was successfully tested on the runway, a decision was made to stage the maiden flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, rather than in Moscow.

* The prototype fifth-generation fighter made a 47-minute maiden flight on January 29, 2010, in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

* Although T-50 specifications remain classified, fragmentary data on its engines imply that this heavy-duty fighter will have a take-off weight of more than 30 metric tons and will be close in dimension to the well-known Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.

* The new fighter's exterior was designed using Stealth technology, also known as LO technology (low observable technology).

* The combat aircraft is fitted with 117S (upgraded AL-31) turbofan engines from the Russian aircraft engine manufacturer Saturn.

* The PAK FA can carry either eight next-generation air-to-air R-77 missiles, or two large controllable anti-ship bombs weighing 1,500 kg each.

* The new jet can also carry two long-range missiles developed by the Novator Bureau which can hit targets within a 400 kilometer range.

* The jet can use a take-off strip of just 300-400 meters, and perform sustained supersonic flight at speeds over 2,000 km/h, including repeated in-flight refueling. The highly-maneuverable plane has a range of about 5,500 kilometers.

* The fifth-generation fighter is equipped with advanced avionics to combine an automatic flight control system and a radar locator with a phased array antenna.

* The newest combat aircraft are planned to be mass produced in Komsomolsk-on-Amur from 2015.

Sri Harsha · Post by **Sri Harsha** » 30 Jan 2010 01:26

Congrats to all involved

(Sorry tried to post at The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project but couldn't so posted in new thread)

I have few question please clarify..

1)Why do India want a twin-seat fighter?
The reasons I can think of are
i) Single seat PAK FA technologies are mostly developed by the time India joined. (But does the technology change much between single and twin seat fighter other than cockpit.)
ii)We want our own MCA to be single seat fighter.
iii) As we are purchasing 126 + MRCA which are single seat fighter. (If u ask me forget MRCA and get PAK FA even with current available technologies, so that we can start production by our own by 2015. Any way by the time first MRCA may join IAF in 2014 only.

So that no need to establish infrastructure for a new fighter) I know that's not going to happen.
iv)Our IAF & babu's don't want 5th gen fighter "as soon as possible".

2) Is our participation in any of the technologies involed in the single seat fighter. As the technologies between 1 & 2 seat fighter will mostly be same. Or atlest our 10 billion will be used in development of technology that will be used in single seat fighter too. If so then we can get royalties for the sale of the these fighters.

3) If we want to procure the single seat fighter is it going to be like any other purchase or are we going to have benefit as we are partner in the project?

4) Can we use these technologies in our MCA project? if so to what extent?

I would like to know how the Intellectual Property rights are shared.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 01:28

full-flight test video. I cannot stop remarking on just how beautiful this bird is..I'm so deeply in love..

link to youtube video

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2010 01:37

Aditya G wrote:check out the insane range!

Is that on internal fuel alone? Probly! No wonder the IAF wants a 2 seater!

As regards, forgoing the MRCA, yup it is a sorely tempting thought. But the MRCA deal has become a political carrot for a long time, I hardly think the MRCA is being thought of as a gap filler now (it stopped being that as far back at 2005) - too late for that. THe MRCA is now just a political conundrum along with a possibility for deep western tech partnership.

Any way, the IAF's need for 126 birds has been somewhat fulfilled with the outright purchase of 40+60 MKI.

So even though the MRCA is sort of superfluous for IAF needs (as the Tejas + Pakfa + MKI would do the trick), the deal will still be pursued for other non-technical reasons imho. It is daft, but that is the way it is!

CM.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 30 Jan 2010 01:41

Congrats to everyone involved in this project. Thats one damn good looking bird.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2010 01:42

just like her sister (rambha!)

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 30 Jan 2010 01:47

Bill Sweetman's blog:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

good read

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 30 Jan 2010 01:48

Sri Harsha wrote:Congrats to all involved

(Sorry tried to post at The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project but couldn't so posted in new thread)

I have few question please clarify..

1)Why do India want a twin-seat fighter?
.

There was a recent report from Ajai Shukla on broadsword that single seaters would be part of the IAF "portion".

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jan 2010 01:50

Gagan wrote:A few interesting features to note.

p

Is it just me or do the inlets not match in terms of shape?

CM

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 01:59

To get the USAF's general opinion about the PAK-FA, I'll quote Djcross, a poster on AFM forum who is known to be from a USAF background.

29th January 2010, 11:23
djcross
Aerospace Curmudgeon Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,476

Its unanimous. The guys who have viewed the pictures and youtube clip were all impressed. Many of us worked F-117, F-22 and F-35.

I was showing these pics to a guy that worked on the F-22 and he remarked on the appearance of rivets on the PAK-FA up close. It may be only on the prototypes but soon enough, after a few prototypes, we'll see something done to hide those rivets. On the F-22 apparently, some sort of sheet film is applied to prevent the fasteners from being seen. But its also very maintenance intensive with re-coating and re-filming required after a certain number of flight hours as well as with every repair, panels needing to be accessed, etc.. On the F-117, it seems that for 1 flight hour, 24 maintenance man-hours were required to re-coat it. this is first-hand info from a reliable source. Might be a better thing to not go obsessive about such fine attention to small details if the trade-off is excessive maintenance requirements.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 30 Jan 2010 02:05

Cain Marko wrote:
CM

Its the angle of the shot....Remember seeing snaps of the raptor and thinking the same thing.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2010 02:06

Cain Marko wrote:Is it just me or do the inlets not match in terms of shape?

CM

check shiv ji's reply in an earlier page on this. makes sense.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2010 02:19

Lest we forget.

This is just a prototype.

Expect much to change between now/this_plane and the final product. Specially those inlets.

Ways to go.

THEN there is the FGFA.

Ways to go.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Jan 2010 02:32

Cain Marko wrote:Is it just me or do the inlets not match in terms of shape?

CM, Shiv had a similar doubt. its a simple matter of the angle at which its been looked at. If you were to view it from dead-on straight up front, it'll be the exact same on both LHS and RHS. You simply cannot (not any aircraft to date) have 2 different inlet designs that can produce differences in air-flow to two engines placed side-by-side that are exactly the same.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Jan 2010 03:19

Kartik wrote:full-flight test video. I cannot stop remarking on just how beautiful this bird is..I'm so deeply in love..

link to youtube video

Thanks for the video link!!

Can someone who speaks russian translate what the pilot and the other guy said at the end of that video?

Towards the end, when we see the close-up of the plane, it looks like it has some pretty sharp edges. Aren't sharp edges supposed to be more vulnerable to radar detection?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Jan 2010 03:46

Kartik wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
madhubala it will be then !
hey !! this is a democracy! start a thread to name this one if you want to give it such names..

Since this is a Indian and a Russian JV, how about naming it something on the lines of both India and Russia
how's NIKITASHA...

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 30 Jan 2010 04:02

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Jan 2010 04:14

Cain Marko wrote:
Is it just me or do the inlets not match in terms of shape?

CM

Pardon my ignorance here and SPECULATING, could it be that being that it is a prototype, they are testing out which inlet gets better air flow?? and maybe just maybe, one engine might be a different engine (prototype ??)

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 30 Jan 2010 04:39

PAK-FA Gallery

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jan 2010 04:40

^ Pgbhat's pic above should put all such unsymmetrical engine speculations to rest . Btw this was by far the most outrageous of Jingo speculations.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 30 Jan 2010 04:41

Craig Alpert wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
Is it just me or do the inlets not match in terms of shape?

CM
Pardon my ignorance here and SPECULATING, could it be that being that it is a prototype, they are testing out which inlet gets better air flow?? and maybe just maybe, one engine might be a different engine (prototype ??)

hmm Craig.. I was about to say the same but the picture above your post puts that to rest.
They look very similar in that pic.

Anoop. A. · Post by **Anoop. A.** » 30 Jan 2010 05:14

pgbhat wrote:PAK-FA Gallery

Interesting picture, especially the second one (2 of 11), the canopy seems to open by sliding back like that of older era aircrafts. The Glass canopy has an added metal structure on the top portion similar to the SU 34 Bomber.