Su-30: News and Discussion

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 06 Aug 2014 23:53

Austin wrote:
tsarkar wrote:I've always wondered why ADA went ahead with GE-404 instead of Al-31 for LCA, but now, in hindsight, going with a more reliable engine definitely made more sense.


AL-31 would any way not fix into LCA frame , the closest that can come into LCA is RD-33 series but GE-404 was chosen for LCA when there was the famous Rajiv-Regan agreement to help india in LCA program including Engine and FBW.


In hindsight, it would have been better to sit the IAF down, get an agreement from them, that redesigning the LCA with AL-31FP with Russian actuators etc too was the long term better off solution, strategically than relying on Khan. Perhaps linked the Su-30 deal or follow on purchases, to that as well. As always, no long term strategic thinking. On the plus side, Moog actuators and Ge404s are pretty reliable.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 06 Aug 2014 23:56

Austin wrote:AL-31F engine issue could be unique to MKI never came across such issue with other MK operators and there are quite a few.


Su-30 MKI is supermanoueverable with the TVC nozzles, canards, FBW. Expect the flow to the engine/operating conditions to be substantially different than std Su-27/30 flight conditions. Might be straining the engines more than the norm.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 07 Aug 2014 00:14

Rien wrote:So you have no numbers. That kind of off the cuff remark ignores the real reliability problems and failures the Dhruv and Tejas suffered because of the unreliability problems of the GE-404. The Dhruv suffered from the same problems, sanctions imposed by the US after the 1998 tests.

But they switched from an unreliable US engine to the French one. As a result, Dhruv avoided those interminable delays caused by the selection of an US engine. Any US origin equipment is unreliable and can be denied at any time. That is the reality. The selection of the GE-404 was the biggest blunder made by Rajiv and the Tejas team.


There is difference between engine reliability problems and supplier reliability challenges. Why the hell you are mixing the problem. We know that we might not be able to fly fighter planes due to spare parts shortage during war (as a workaround we can stock up the spare parts) but its better then losing life during peace time (we can´t do anything about it as it happens we pilot is in the air ...we can say RIP :( ). We are held hostage by Russian (less) and Americans (more).

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby shaun » 07 Aug 2014 01:14

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:AL-31F engine issue could be unique to MKI never came across such issue with other MK operators and there are quite a few.


Su-30 MKI is supermanoueverable with the TVC nozzles, canards, FBW. Expect the flow to the engine/operating conditions to be substantially different than std Su-27/30 flight conditions. Might be straining the engines more than the norm.



Su-30 MKI is definitely super maneuverable but doesn't mean it perform Pugachev's Cobra the every other day !! :mrgreen:

Maybe mki's are more off the ground than its contemporaries with other air forces. The only thing that we know, Russians have solution in the form of modifications and more redundancy and IAF is comfortable with it as of now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 07 Aug 2014 02:09

If TVC is part of training curriculum in CC scenarios, then Su-30 MKIs will be training extensively in the same. Corraborative information here: http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... _45850.doc
Or http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ia-on-you/

Ø The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI’s behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.f


(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs). - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... FJ7Ap.dpuf


Point being TVC is clearly part of the curriculum and IAF crew do use it for CC and Guns scenarios.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Aug 2014 03:16

Shaun wrote:Su-30 MKI is definitely super maneuverable but doesn't mean it perform Pugachev's Cobra the every other day !! :mrgreen:

Maybe mki's are more off the ground than its contemporaries with other air forces. The only thing that we know, Russians have solution in the form of modifications and more redundancy and IAF is comfortable with it as of now.


They do it. And their efficacy has been discussed in considerable detail after various DACTs. For example, Lt. Col. Frank Simon (of GAF) described that at altitude the IAF pilots pitch the nose down instead of up (probably to mitigate compressor stalls). This can be really handy in out maneuvering a bandit at 6 o'clock, especially if he doesn't see it coming. But if the bandit could read the signs and take counter-measures early enough, he may get into a position of considerable strength as the MKI would have lost a lot of its energy and does not have enough thrust to have sufficient nose pointing ability (unlike the Mig-29s).

So be rest assured, the cobras are practiced very often.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby shaun » 07 Aug 2014 08:49

I was not privy to that info. , thank you.So you mean , we play hard with our mkis or it is number of sorties that they have to perform on behalf of the hanger queens and dwindling numbers . My guess , regular mki squadrons don't practice DACTs that often like TACDE and the engine problem is relatively new with issues regarding FBW (kill s/w) and cooked up electronics making up bulk of the news.
Well the Ruskis have a "speedy solution" and that surprises me..!!

Ps:- I have no idea about the actual /specific problem with the engines .

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4434
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby srai » 07 Aug 2014 09:26

Karan M wrote:...

(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs). - See more at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... FJ7Ap.dpuf


...


The IAF at Red Flag 2008: The True Story

Hi … for all of you who are out there in the internet world and who have an interest in the performance of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag 2008 .. I have a few remarks. As the only Indian journalist who spent a lengthy period of time at Nellis after being granted permission by both the Indian Air Force and the US Air Force, I was granted access to impeccable sources in both forces. Whats more, I was able to independently corroborate this information with reliable, alternative sources.

Several of the points I present here in the form of this post on the Bharat Rakshak forum will be compiled into an article which I will post on my company website ndtv.com. For those of you not familiar with the Indian media … New Delhi Television (NDTV) is India’s largest 24 hour news network and our website is one of the most viewed among news websites in the country. For the moment, I have decided not to do a television news report on this since I believe the contents of this post are too technical for a larger audience.

For starters … and this cannot be stressed enough … the Red Flag exercises were a brilliant learning experience for all the participants, not least of all the Indian Air Force which, over a period of time, has earned the reputation of being one of the world’s finest operational air forces.

This was a reputation which was reinforced at Red Flag 2008, the world’s most advanced air combat exercises where the Indian Air Force fielded a number of state of the art Sukhoi 30 MKI jets in addition to IL-76 transports and IL-78 mid air refuellers.
For other participants at the Red Flag exercises … namely the South Korean Air Force, French and US Air Force … the opportunity to train with a platform such as the Sukhoi 30 MKI was an opportunity which just couldn’t be missed. This has a lot to do not just with the jet but also with the air force operating the fighter, a force which has made a mark as an innovative operator of fast jets.

The US Air Force … the host of these exercises … was singularly gracious in its appreciation for the Indian Air Force contingent which came into Red Flag having trained extensively for the exercises not only back home but also at the Mountain Home Air Force base in the US.

Contrary to unsolicited remarks by certain serving US personnel not directly linked to day to day operations at the exercises … the Indian Air Force and its Su-30s more than made a mark during their stint in the United States.

For starters … not a single Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter was `shot down’ in close air combat missions at the Mountain Home air base. In fact, none of the Sukhois were even close to being shot down in the 10 odd one on one sorties which were planned for the first two days of the exercises at Mountain Home. These one on one engagements featured USAF jets such as the F-15 and F-16 in close air engagements against the Su-30 MKI. The majority of the kills claimed in these engagements were granted to the Indian Air Force with the remainder of these being no-results. Indian Air Force Sukhois did use their famed thrust vectoring in these one on one engagements. Contrary to what may have been reported elsewhere … the Su-30 has a rate of turn of more than 35 degrees when operating in the thrust vector mode. In certain circumstances, this goes up substantially.

By the time the exercises at Mountain Home had matured … the Indian Air Force had graduated to large formation exercises which featured dozens of jets in the sky. In one of these exercises … the blue forces, of which the Indian Air Force was a part … shot down more than 21 of the enemy jets. Most of these `kills’ have been credited to the Indian Air Force.

By the time the Indian Air Force was ready for Red Flag, the contingent had successfully worked up using the crawl, walk, run principle. At Red Flag though, they found themselves at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis the other participants since they were not networked with AWACS and other platforms in the same manner in which USAF or other participating jets were. In fact, Indian Air Force Sukhois were not even linked to one another using their Russian built data links since American authorities had asked for specifics of the system before it was cleared to operate in US airspace. The IAF, quite naturally, felt that this would compromise a classified system onboard and decided to go on with the missions without the use of data links between the Sukhois.

Neither was the Indian Air Force allowed to use chaff or flares, essential decoys to escape incoming missiles which had been fired by enemy jets. This was because the US FAA had visibility and pollution related concerns in the event that these were used in what is dense, busy air space in the Las Vegas region.

The Red Flag exercises themselves were based on large force engagements and did not see the Indian Air Force deploy thrust vectoring at all on any of the Sukhoi 30 jets not that this was required since the engagements were at long ranges.

Though it is true that there were 4-5 incidents of fratricides involving the Indian Air Force at Red Flag … it is important to point out the following:

In the debriefs that followed the exercises … responsibility for the fratricides were always put on the fighter controllers not the pilots. Its also important to point that unlike in Mountain Home, none of the Indian Air Force’s own fighter controllers were allowed to participate since there was classified equipment at Nellis used for monitoring the exercises. The lack of adequate controlling and the fact that Nellis fighter controllers often had problems understanding Indian accents (they had problems understanding French accents as well) resulted in a lack of adequate controlling in situations. Whats more … given the fact that the availability of AWACS was often low … the bulk of fratricides took place on days when the AWACS jet was not deployed. Whats important to remember though is that US participants in these exercises had a similar number of fratricides despite being fully linked in with data links and the latest IFF systems.

So was the Indian Air Force invincible at Red Flag. In a word … no. So yes, there were certainly days in which several Sukhoi jets were shot down. And there were others when they shot down many opposing jets. Ultimately though … the success of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag lay in the fact that they could meet their mission objectives as well, if not better, than any other participant. Despite the hot weather conditions, the IAF had a 95 per cent mission launch ratio, far better than some of the participants.

And no one went into the exercises thinking the score line would be a perfect one in favour of the IAF. In fact … the IAF went into these exercises with an open mind and with full admiration of the world beating range at Nellis with an unmatched system of calibrating engagement results.

Perhaps the most encouraging part of these exercises comes from the fact that the Indian Air Force’s young pilots … learnt from their mistakes, analysed, appreciated and came back strong. Mistakes were not repeated. In fact … the missions where the IAF did not fare well turned out to be immense learning experiences.

At the end of the exercises … its more than clear that the IAF’s Su-30s were more than a match for the variants of the jets participating at the Red Flag exercises. Considering the fact that the central sensor of the Sukhoi, its radar … held up just fine in training mode …despite the barrage of electronic jamming augurs well for the Indian Air Force.

As for its young pilots … these are skills and experiences that they will take back to their squadrons … experiences which will be passed on to a whole new set of pilots who will come into the next set of exercises that much wiser.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor and Senior Anchor
NDTV

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby shaun » 07 Aug 2014 10:32

^^^
A decent write up but how does it explain,
"Neither was the Indian Air Force allowed to use chaff or flares, essential decoys to escape incoming missiles which had been fired by enemy jets. This was because the US FAA had visibility and pollution related concerns in the event that these were used in what is dense, busy air space in the Las Vegas region."
It means even the other fighters too were not allowed to use chaff or flares.

After reading all the posts , it does seems using TVC is a standard practice but it does not necessarily explain the prime reson for engine burnouts . well i have stumbled upon this http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-to--raise-su-30-mki-engine-failure-with-russia/article1-783035.aspx. Gurus please explain.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 07 Aug 2014 12:07

Karan M wrote:In hindsight, it would have been better to sit the IAF down, get an agreement from them, that redesigning the LCA with AL-31FP with Russian actuators etc too was the long term better off solution, strategically than relying on Khan. Perhaps linked the Su-30 deal or follow on purchases, to that as well. As always, no long term strategic thinking. On the plus side, Moog actuators and Ge404s are pretty reliable.


Yes in hindsight it looks good but for LCA to have AL-31FP engine it would have to reavtar itself into M2000 class fighter or F-16 or J-10 class.

That would mean redesigning the entire bird from scratch and would have added to delay ..... not to mention defeat the whole purpose of developing Small Light Fighter to replace Mig-21 enmass.

In the 80's period no one would have predicted of SU collapse or Indian Economic problem of 90's and the SU was kept away from the project from the beginning since we wanted a Western class fighter with western technologies. I read in the same Vayu article that SU did propose a Single engine fighter called Mig-33 which was rejected by IAF ( that probably went into Jf-17 design I am not sure )

The closest Tejas ever came to engine change was with Mk2 design when EJ200 was a serious competitor but its not easy to replace engine midway and prolong flight testing program with new engine will delay Tejas and F-414 was rightly chosen from technical POV as logical successor to F-404. Even if Kaveri in the current form is successful I little hope of it replacing the F-414 unless the IAF deploys a squadron of tejas built around Kaveri to make sure the future of engine development is secure which they should do.

We need to build 10-12 Tejas even in Mk1 role around Kaveri to make sure we put these fighter and engine into squadron service and to see how practically kaveri works out day in and out and learn and fix the issues that come up , Without a flight qualified engine and fighters build around it the entire Kaveri program will go waste for the core purpose it was built.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19128
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 07 Aug 2014 14:14

Another advantage would have been we wouldnt need to run this expensive game called MMRCA.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Rien » 07 Aug 2014 16:59

RKumar wrote:
Rien wrote:So you have no numbers. That kind of off the cuff remark ignores the real reliability problems and failures the Dhruv and Tejas suffered because of the unreliability problems of the GE-404. The Dhruv suffered from the same problems, sanctions imposed by the US after the 1998 tests.

But they switched from an unreliable US engine to the French one. As a result, Dhruv avoided those interminable delays caused by the selection of an US engine. Any US origin equipment is unreliable and can be denied at any time. That is the reality. The selection of the GE-404 was the biggest blunder made by Rajiv and the Tejas team.


There is difference between engine reliability problems and supplier reliability challenges. Why the hell you are mixing the problem. We know that we might not be able to fly fighter planes due to spare parts shortage during war (as a workaround we can stock up the spare parts) but its better then losing life during peace time (we can´t do anything about it as it happens we pilot is in the air ...we can say RIP :( ). We are held hostage by Russian (less) and Americans (more).


That doesn't make sense. HAL at its Nasik plant has many Russian engines. The Mig-29 engine would have fit in Tejas and local supplies and maintenance are guranteed.

So both technical and political reliability are all Russian. The size of the blunder hasn't changed here. The Tejas team needs to take the blame and be fired for entirely preventable delays. The Dhruv team had made the same mistake, but they got rid of the US engine and slipped in a French engine. Either way, GE should have been blacklisted in 98.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 07 Aug 2014 18:41

Rien wrote:That doesn't make sense. HAL at its Nasik plant has many Russian engines. The Mig-29 engine would have fit in Tejas and local supplies and maintenance are guranteed.


Local manufacture might have been guaranteed, the engine's reliability on the other hand wasn't. While the new Series 3 engine is fairly robust, the original RD-33 had the potential to sink the whole damn LCA program. No one was willing to bet on anything Russian in the 90s.

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil, cracks in the nozzle guide vanes, and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued.



So both technical and political reliability are all Russian. The size of the blunder hasn't changed here. The Tejas team needs to take the blame and be fired for entirely preventable delays.

Be fired? What delays in the program were attributed to the GE F404. None as far as I know.
Last edited by Viv S on 07 Aug 2014 21:19, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2014 19:03

No one was willing to bet on anything Russian in the 90s


How about now?

Even the additional MKIs seem to be to pacify a crowd on the one hand.

The FGFA efforts, I read, is moving ahead. But, it seems to be more of a political decision that the Service has to accept.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8465
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Aug 2014 19:28

The GE 404 family has existed on single engined aircraft and has proven to be very reliable form a safety and performance stand point with plenty of options within the family as per the user requirements. SAAB claims 200,000 Flight hours for the Gripen without a single engine incident at Farnborough 2014. To put that in proper context thats a little more than 11 years worth of flying for a NATO operator's air-force with 100 fighters operating at the NATO requirement of 180 hours pa

Even going way into the future the F-50 (404), Gripen NG and the LCAMKII will ensure that the F404 and F414 is being used in three world class single engine, affordable light weight fighters and there should be plenty of room for improvements since all three of these aircraft are expected to be in service for decades. If I were to guess i'd guess that Either South Korea or Japan would pursue the F-414-EDE irrespective of any USN investment which may show up in a year or two. That would take the family in the 26,000+ thrust class that would make it ideal for any customer that has compatibility requirement (USN, IAF, IN, SwAF, FAB, RAAF).

Depending how these customers want their TVC GE also has extensive material on the Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle in case Japan wants to move away form the crude paddles anytime soon..A 2D vectoring nozzle was also designed and tested by GE on their variable cycle F-120 for the ATF program back in the early 90's along with stealthy materials and coatings for the LO TV nozzle requirements posed by Lockheed. That could also be dusted off and brought back if a customer so wished (Only japan and SOKO are likely candidates as turkey is expected to go with P&W or Eurojet). All in all the F404/414 hedge had some sound logic behind it. With close to 1500 F414 engines delivered (a few hundred more on order) and in service around the world, it is a good program to piggy back on from a technical stability angle. The market size, installed engine base and future market outlook (South Korea engine competition coming up, Japan to choose an engine soon and perhaps turkey may even give GE a shot) both from new aircrafts and upgrades of existing aircrafts ensures that the R&D pipeline is well funded without requiring huge investments from any one particular operator.

Image

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/f414.htm

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Aug 2014 21:57, edited 7 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2014 19:58

The fundamental philosophy between the Soviets and West was totally different. While the Soviets preferred a throw away (engine), the West designed for longevity. This Soviet thinking percolated to the Russians (natural).

It is only in the recent past that the Russians have been change and trying to catch up with the West on such factors. And, that is taking time - cannot be expected in a decade or so. The Russians have neither the experience nor the metrics.

I feel this is where the IAF - as an example - is torn up, which way to go. The West provides stable products, while the Russians provide what the IAF needs, but not as reliable.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Aug 2014 20:23

Rien wrote:So both technical and political reliability are all Russian. The size of the blunder hasn't changed here. The Tejas team needs to take the blame and be fired for entirely preventable delays. The Dhruv team had made the same mistake, but they got rid of the US engine and slipped in a French engine. Either way, GE should have been blacklisted in 98.

I bow to your superior technical and political judgement Image.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby agupta » 07 Aug 2014 20:48

Lets just stop feeding the troll...

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby d_berwal » 07 Aug 2014 22:20

NRao wrote:I feel this is where the IAF - as an example - is torn up, which way to go. The West provides stable products, while the Russians provide what the IAF needs, but not as reliable.


And i Feel, russians built what is required to fight a war and not what is required to sustain a air show over the years... Russians build for mass scale production and are ready to accept the risks. (with monetary constraints, without unlimited resources)

reliability in war vs air shows is very debatable and opinionated.

F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 07 Aug 2014 22:36

d_berwal wrote:And i Feel, russians built what is required to fight a war and not what is required to sustain a air show over the years...

Russian aircraft have been quite popular at air shows. More so than American or European aircraft anyway.

Russians build for mass scale production and are ready to accept the risks. (with monetary constraints, without unlimited resources)

The Soviets did. Modern day Russia a shadow of its past when it comes to building at scale.

reliability in war vs air shows is very debatable and opinionated.

Please scroll up to my last post and go through the section on the RD-33. The rest of the MiG-29 didn't fare much better. The IAF's experience with the Mirage 2000 was in complete contrast to that. High operational availability, good maintainability. The F-16 offered the same, just at much lower costs thanks a massive production scale (that peaked at nearly 30 aircraft/month).

F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.

Wherever did you get that idea?!! :-o

If you're referring to the Yak-141, I should point out that it employs lift engines for vertical flight, unlike the F-35B's lift fan. A fundamentally different approach. And of course the F135 equipping the CTOL variants have nothing to do with Russia (which is still at least a full generation behind).

History Of The F-35B Swivel Duct
.
.
By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance.
.
.

A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on.
Last edited by Viv S on 07 Aug 2014 22:51, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8465
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Aug 2014 22:42

F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible


Incorrect. The US patents existed much before the YAK even surfaced with its 141 and the propulsion and engine capabilities were tested by at least 3 OEM's in the early to mid 1960's. The Three bearing swivel patent for the AVS program dates back to 1967. Pratt and Whitney, General electric and Boeing filed patents for a TDSN in the 60's and there was even a P&W engine and nozzle setup tested in the 60's that included extensive engine runs involving afterburners...Yak's involvement on the JSF team was only to verify Pratt and whitney and lockheed's design submissions and to provide its own testing data which would have de-risked the program going into the all important competitive stage. There were only a handful of places lockheed could have gone to get testing data and have their design peer reviewed. Others that held the patents and that had conducted extensive research on such a setup were Boeing and General electric..and given that they were directly competing with Lockheed and Pratt - they would have been un accommodating or charged an outrageous amount. Yak was cheap, had experience and was willing to go over the lockheed proposals and vouch for their soundness. Lockheed had finalized a design architecture before beginning discussions with Yak and stuck with that design architecture even after their business with Yak concluded.

Image

The Convair Model 200 was proposed in June 1972 to respond to the US Navy request for designs for a fighter/attack aircraft for the sea control ships. The VTOL aircraft would have used a PW401 engine with an afterburning 3BSD plus twin Allison XJ99 lift engines located behind the cockpit for added vertical lift forward of the center of gravity to balance the aft nozzle thrust. This concept included a three-bearing swivel nozzle on the Pratt & Whitney Engine.

While the aircraft was never produced, the engine and propulsion setup were tested, designs developed, patents filed, concepts validated and test data gathered for future use. The bummer with all that was that outside of the Engine and propulsion testing and validation which had considerable IP owned or shared by United technologies, the aircraft design, model testing and test data was in possession of Boeing which had acquired McDonnell Douglas by the time the JSF competition was in motion (McDonnell Douglas having acquired Convair's aircraft design patents for the -200 after General dynamics spun the company off)

One of the patents from United Corporation (Owner of pratt and whitney) on the 3BSN solutions (I think there were a total of 3 patents, but i'd have to check on that) from 1967

http://www.google.com/patents/US3429509

Here is a direct patent filled by Paul Bevilaqua a Lockheed Martin skunk works team bember.

http://patents.justia.com/patent/6729575

Post ASTOVL, Lockheed adopted the 3DSN, and only went to YAK after designing it and confirming it as the capability to go for the JSF program.

Read more on the STOVL architecture, the design work and Yak's contribution -

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137

What would have happened to the F-35B without YAK?

- Lockheed could have changed the STOVL architecture and gone in for a more de-risked technology
- Lockheed could have stuck to its design and taken a hit of submitting a particular capability that had some risk attached to it because the company that had the most amount of testing experience with such a setup was in fact a competitor of lockheed on this very project

Lockheed could have still (and probably would have) won the competition because Boeing under-estimated the requirements of the JSF program. In such fly-offs the real gem is in the documents submitted and not the aircraft that demo capabilities. GE leaned this the hard way when they created a technically superior engine prototype in the YF-120 that was a breakthrough given that it was a Variable Cycle engine in the 1990's. Despite of it having superior technology and performance, it lost out because it was a riskier development project and could have seriously jeopardized the induction timeline of the Advanced tactical fighter. GE's decision to go for a variable cycle engine in the 90's was so damaging to its bottom line that it had to go back and develop a totally clean sheet engine for the F-35 (VC engines were still considered risky in that timeframe) and that worked against them because Pratt had a proven engine with thousands of hours of hard testing and validation - based on which they created the F-135. Had Boeing submitted a more competitive design than the X-32 (Boeing was still figuring out its north star having acquired a bunch of companies in a short span of time) and lockheed not used the services and data of Yak to validate their design architecture they could have well found themselves in the same boat as GE did with 5th generation engines. Lockheed and P&W switched over to the 3BSN solution a couple of years before bringing Yak over to their team, and what that meant was that they could shave a year or two off their own testing and validation timeframe which meant a much more mature design, and a better competitive position for their submission to the JSF competition. YAK did absolutely no other task for the team other than to offload their test data and to validate a design lockheed and pratt came up on their own through their own research based on US DOD funded work that dates all the way back to the 1960s and 70's..They helped lockheed by de-risking their proposal and making the X-35 a more competitive submission.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Aug 2014 01:33, edited 9 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Aug 2014 23:33

d_berwal wrote:And i Feel, russians built what is required to fight a war and not what is required to sustain a air show over the years... Russians build for mass scale production and are ready to accept the risks. (with monetary constraints, without unlimited resources)


*That* would be the Soviets - who build to a grand scale, because they thought they had enough resources and could manage their risks.

The Russians who followed them have built nothing yet. IMHO of course. And, I very much doubt they will be a major player a decade form now.

While the Soviets did manage to meet Indian "demand"s, I very much doubt that the Russians will manage to keep that up. IMHO, the reliance of Indian politicians on the Russians will to some extent dictate the def relationship. Given a choice, IMHO, the Indian Services will look West - which it seems they have been doing in the very recent past. I think this trend - if left to the Services - will continue to accelerate. Not a knock on Russia, but, sorry, Russia will not be able to keep up with all aspects of being a good "supplier". (BTW, I think France too will be in the same boat.)

reliability in war vs air shows is very debatable and opinionated.


India did rely on the Soviets. The Russians have not supplied anything high end - yet. In fact, if we were to conduct a simple exercise one should find that India has leaned on the West in the recent past. IMHO *that* is not an accident or a thoughtless action. In the longer run, Russia has very little to offer - and IMHO is sliding.

(BTW, if you were to listen carefully to those vids, you will find some subtle gems in there.)

F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.

[/quote]

LM contracted and thus paid for some knowledge transfer. Which is fine. The MKI is such an effort too.


*All this at the risk of deriding the Russians.* Sorry.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4358
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 08 Aug 2014 10:37

Shaun wrote:Su-30 MKI is definitely super maneuverable but doesn't mean it perform Pugachev's Cobra the every other day !! :mrgreen:

Maybe mki's are more off the ground than its contemporaries with other air forces.

Last whole decade i lived in pune in kalayan nagar area. And Sukhois were practicing so hard, everyday 4 pm a formation of 4 sukhois will fly very low over kalyani bridge, while if you look from kalyani bridge towards viman nagar, at least 1 sukhoi will be practicing these moves so hard every evening without a break.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby d_berwal » 08 Aug 2014 13:38

Viv S wrote:
F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.

Wherever did you get that idea?!! :-o

If you're referring to the Yak-141, I should point out that it employs lift engines for vertical flight, unlike the F-35B's lift fan. A fundamentally different approach. And of course the F135 equipping the CTOL variants have nothing to do with Russia (which is still at least a full generation behind).


brar_w wrote:Incorrect. ......

NRao wrote:LM contracted and thus paid for some knowledge transfer. Which is fine. The MKI is such an effort too.


Yak-38 Forger had two smaller lift/ cruise engines and the lift fans. The data and design inputs for Lift fans came from here.
--------

The Lockheed-Yakovlev partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until September 6, 1992. Lockheed-Martin disclosed the deal only in June 1994. (this is fact, any one can validate it)
-----
Aviation Week & Space Technology;9/4/1995, Vol. 143 Issue 10, p58 (Authors: Dornheim, Michael A.)

Title: Pratt to study Soyuz data in designing JAST nozzle

"ABSTRACT from Article published:
Reports on Soyuz Aero Engine Co.'s provision of vectoring nozzle information for the Lockheed Martin Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) aircraft design. Technical assistance agreement with Pratt & Whitney; Features and capabilities of JAST; Pratt & Whitney's design of a three-bearing circular nozzle for JAST"


--------
Reference Book - "Lockheed Martin"
- By Relly Victoria Petrescu, Florian Ion Petrescu
Page 86-Last-Para
"The STVOL version of both power plants use the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, designed by Lockheed-Martin and developed to production by Rolls-Royce. This system is more like Yak-141 and German VJ 101D/E than the preceding generation of STOVL design"

-------
The information available from public domain:

Lockheed pumped in nearly $400 million(in 90s) for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics.

This allowed LM designers to learned enough about “lift plus lift cruise” techniques from the Russians to design their prototype Joint Strike Fighter, known as the X-35, in preparations for a fly off against the Boeing X-32.

This also allowed them to get hold of Yak-141 test data and get its concepts corrected and validated by russians.

The Russian/Yakovlev advantage paid off for LM. The Yak-inspired X-35 won the contract in a close finish against X-32.
------

Some times i just wonder just before a US/ NATO member comes to India for a Defense contract discussions, we see a surge of articles in all kind of media about how bad the RU equipment is and how unusable it is (sighting unnamed sources) and how US/ NATO member are doing a favor to India.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 08 Aug 2014 14:38

d_berwal wrote:Yak-38 Forger had two smaller lift/ cruise engines and the lift fans. The data and design inputs for Lift fans came from here.


A lift engine is not the same thing as a lift fan. The F-35B's lift fan is driven by a shaft from the engine i.e. it runs cold. The Yak-38's lift function was achieved by three independent turbojets. Same for the Yak-141 and very inefficient too, since the aircraft's available thrust was halved during level flight. In fact, by most metrics the Yak-38 was a failure and therefore barely saw any service before being retired (unlike the very successful Harrier family).

The Lockheed-Yakovlev partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until September 6, 1992. Lockheed-Martin disclosed the deal only in June 1994. (this is fact, any one can validate it)


That LM capitalized on Yak's money woes to facilitate a risk reduction study on its already existing designs, is a long way from - F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.

Lockheed pumped in nearly $400 million(in 90s) for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics.


^^ Never been confirmed. Yak at least certainly never saw all that cash since its fighter building days came to a close with the Yak-141.

Some times i just wonder just before a US/ NATO member comes to India for a Defense contract discussions, we see a surge of articles in all kind of media about how bad the RU equipment is and how unusable it is and how US/ NATO member are doing a favor to India.


Come now, criticism of Russian equipment doesn't always have roots in a deep conspiracy. It isn't about getting favours from the West, just simply about getting value for money. Russian gear was great value when the Soviet supplied it at 'friendship prices'. When its being bought at market prices, sometimes it is worth it (Mi-17) and sometimes it isn't (Mi-26, RD-33, Mi-28...).

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby d_berwal » 08 Aug 2014 17:00

Viv S wrote:A lift engine is not the same thing as a lift fan. The F-35B's lift fan is driven by a shaft from the engine i.e. it runs cold. The Yak-38's lift function was achieved by three independent turbojets. Same for the Yak-141 and very inefficient too, since the aircraft's available thrust was halved during level flight. In fact, by most metrics the Yak-38 was a failure and therefore barely saw any service before being retired (unlike the very successful Harrier family).


when did Yak-38 started flying(1st flight 1971) and when did Yak-141 started flying (1st flight 1987) and now see when did F-35 start flying (1st flight dec 2006)

what LM learnt from Yak they could only put together by 2006 after refinements.

now to prove your point you bring in Harrier.. whats the significance of Harrier in this ?

That LM capitalized on Yak's money woes to facilitate a risk reduction study on its already existing designs, is a long way from - F-35 engine without Russian technology is not even possible.


Risk reduction done around 95 and LM took 11 years to mitigate risk. Had it been risk reduction then 11 to reduce risk is Awesome!!!

^^ Never been confirmed. Yak at least certainly never saw all that cash since its fighter building days came to a close with the Yak-141.


In case of IAF & (Su-30MKI) every unconfirmed report in media is acceptable because ?

Come now, criticism of Russian equipment doesn't always have roots in a deep conspiracy. It isn't about getting favours from the West, just simply about getting value for money. Russian gear was great value when the Soviet supplied it at 'friendship prices'. When its being bought at market prices, sometimes it is worth it (Mi-17) and sometimes it isn't (Mi-26, RD-33, Mi-28...).


can you highlight Ru gear prices vs Super Duper US/ Nato price

Mi 26 (approx 12-15 mil $) vs CH 47F (Approx 35-40 mil $)
Mi 28 (approx 15-18 mil $) vs AH 64E (Approx 50-60 mil $)
* above quoted price is from internet

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 08 Aug 2014 17:49

d_berwal wrote:when did Yak-38 started flying(1st flight 1971) and when did Yak-141 started flying (1st flight 1987) and now see when did F-35 start flying (1st flight dec 2006)

what LM learnt from Yak they could only put together by 2006 after refinements.

The X-35 demonstrated VTOL flight in 2001 less than five years after a demonstrator contract had been awarded in 1996.

now to prove your point you bring in Harrier.. whats the significance of Harrier in this ?

The Yak-38 isn't relevant either, that way. The Harrier just puts it into perspective.

Risk reduction done around 95 and LM took 11 years to mitigate risk. Had it been risk reduction then 11 to reduce risk is Awesome!!!

What are you on about? Both LM and Boeing built and demonstrated VSTOL capable aircraft together in 2000-01. Availability of data from the Yak-141 helped de-risk the LM proposal make its offer more attractive. Without the Yak study, the LM entry would have had a slightly higher risk quotient, but would still have won the DoD contract. This idea that LM didn't know how to built aircraft and had to learn it from the Russians is just grossly misinformed.

In case of IAF & (Su-30MKI) every unconfirmed report in media is acceptable because ?


The delays in setting up the overhaul infrastructure and engine troubles are hardly a new issue.

PM to raise Su-30 MKI engine failure with Russia - 2011

The Chinese too have less than satisfactory experience with the AL-31 (service life being prematurely exhausted) according to long termers on Chinese forums.

Mi 26 (approx 12-15 mil $) vs CH 47F (Approx 35-40 mil $)
Mi 28 (approx 15-18 mil $) vs AH 64E (Approx 50-60 mil $)
* above quoted price is from internet


The Mi-26 lost out on life-cycle cost. Same with the IL-78. The Mi-28 I'm skeptical about that $15M cost. Rebuilt Mi-35s for Iraq for example are being priced at $36 million each (link).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Aug 2014 18:21

d_berwal,

It *all* started with:

d_berwal wrote:
NRao wrote:I feel this is where the IAF - as an example - is torn up, which way to go. The West provides stable products, while the Russians provide what the IAF needs, but not as reliable.


And i Feel, russians built what is required to fight a war and not what is required to sustain a air show over the years... Russians build for mass scale production and are ready to accept the risks. (with monetary constraints, without unlimited resources)


I am *not* against Russian equipment, whatever is OK with GoI (which I see as the dictating entity) and the IAF (which I see as the selection entity), it is fine with me. In fact, I have suggested that the Rafale be replaced by the MiG-29 (made in Russia please ..... *no* silly ToT) (and *not* because it is a great plane, but it is a plane good enough for this moment).


However, please check out the latest by Karnad. He mentions how some of teh Brass as opposed to Russian equipment.

There were reports that the IAF advised the Russians to keep out of the MMRCA competition.

I am not sure what the reasons for all this is, but it is there.



The rest is superfluous. The F-35 would have been where it is without the Russian technology - behind in a few years perhaps, but they would done what they set out to do.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby d_berwal » 08 Aug 2014 18:30

NRao wrote:d_berwal,

It *all* started with:


NRao you penned down your feelings and I did the same and it ended.

But some members pounced on and are hell bent to prove their point which cannot be proved ... because most of the info in public domain is speculative at the best.. (people are not ready to believe that US bought technology from RU when its their in public domain)

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby shaun » 08 Aug 2014 19:24

Dhananjay wrote:
Shaun wrote:Su-30 MKI is definitely super maneuverable but doesn't mean it perform Pugachev's Cobra the every other day !! :mrgreen:

Maybe mki's are more off the ground than its contemporaries with other air forces.

Last whole decade i lived in pune in kalayan nagar area. And Sukhois were practicing so hard, everyday 4 pm a formation of 4 sukhois will fly very low over kalyani bridge, while if you look from kalyani bridge towards viman nagar, at least 1 sukhoi will be practicing these moves so hard every evening without a break.


you are one of the fortunate one , to watch Rambhas dancing on the sky that too for a decade..!!

Well ,my query was about the engine problem.Is frequent use of TVC stressing out the engines or it is something else ??

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8465
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Aug 2014 19:46

I have moved my reply regarding the JSF-YAK involvement to the JSF thread.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Aug 2014 20:58, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 08 Aug 2014 20:47

Suggest you move ^ to JSF thread. Fairly big pool of data accumulated there. Best to add to it there itself.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby d_berwal » 08 Aug 2014 21:25

brar_w wrote: The 3BSD was something the creator had patented with US Government money years earlier to the first flight of the YAK or even before it was revealed. The Convair 200 was designed for this very purpose and multiple vendors within the US DOD industrial base were given contracts for a three bearing swivel nozzle.

The Convair design of the early 70's ( developed in the late 60's) had two 10000 pound lift engines behind the cockpit and a single JTF22A-30A developed by Pratt and Whitney equipped with a Pratt and whitney patented 3BSN that turned down 90 degrees. The propulsion architecture was studies on a test bed and testing data gathered and evaluated in the 60's.

By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance.

Pratt and Whitney secured patents for the 3BSN that they designed for the above mentioned project. I am yet to see a russian design patent on the 3BSN that predates this design.


you know BASMATI rice is patented by US company, are you aware?


Now coming to the lift fan which you say lockheed took from YAK -

The XJ99 was a product developed by the Allison company for the Convair 200. It was developed, extensively tested and given an evaluation. Two of these lift engines were to be positioned right behind the cockpit of the Convair 200 in the 70's. The engine was reported on the various aviation publications all through the 70's. Here is one such report -

Image

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFAr ... 201422.PDF


Awesome.....

The said and believed Yak-141 funding and advance research funded by LM (US) after USSR breakup is well documented and published and i have given published book references and published mag references, but they can't be believed why? (infant these reference material is not printed in cold war era)

most of your references are cold war era articles and we all know what game was play on then, dont we?

What followed in the early days of the F-35 competition was a rebalancing of the US defense industry in ancicipation of the upcoming contract award and the standard rejig as national defense outlook changed. Lockheed began absorbing General dynamics and its Texas business which it inherited. Boeing bought McDonnell douglass that had purchased convair and general dynamics california based business and design IP. From the shake up, boeing had more data on them than Lockheed (this was convair's IP passed through to General dynamics and then spread out towards lockheed and boeing). Interestingly a company that was closely behind Lockheed and BAE systems (Lockheed partner eventually) - ROLLS ROYCE quietly acquired ALLISON which in the 60's had developed the XJ-99 and had extensive testing data on it along with other lift fan concepts This combination of companies lead to a successful porting of the JSF STOVL (Lockheed's version) over to the 3BSN and a lift fan design which had been studied quite extensively (Including hardware testing, lab testing and filing patents after extensive research) by Pratt and Whitney, Lockheed (through convair), Rolls Royce (Through Allison). The 3BSN design along with a lift fan architecture were frozen way before lockheed went to russia to use YAK as a consultant to peer review their designs.


well if US is so advanced and holly, why do US go to peer review, when the peer was your blood thirsty enemy 2-4yrs ago? for charity, right?


Not quite true. The Lift fan coupled with a 3BSD design had been studied by the USN year prior to the F-35 in the 1960's and early 70's. Lockheed Martin narrowed down on the 3BSD design when they got money for the ASTOVL. Now read this carefully - After selecting the 3BSD design they chose to add Yak as a consultant to de-risk it since Boeing was not going to help much (They were competing with lockheed for the largest contract for fighters in the world). That was the scope of YAK's involvement. YAK didn't help then narrow down on a 3BSD, something that had already been verified on a engine tested through extensive testing by Pratt decades earlier and even years earlier to the Yak-38 first flight.


some insider information we all are not preview to?

It did not take 11 years to mitigate risk. Try to develop some basic understanding. They met with YAK in 1995 and then submitted their design along with the X-35 proposal. The design for the 3BSN remain unchanged from the time before they went to YAK and when they concluded their business with YAK. The X-35 plans were presented to the soon thereafter and the demo program for the 3 versions of the X-35 started 5 years later. The contract to locked was awarded in 2001 or 2002 and then the SDD (Systems development) phase of the program started. The time it takes to get a production representative aircraft from X35 to F-35 is there, not because lockheed was busy learning lessons from YAK but because the US development programs begin the critical design review processes only after the downselect has been made. Basically, lockheed designs its own aircraft for the prototype to the best of its ability. Once the SDD phase begins the 3 services join hands, develop a Joint program office and there is active involvement at every step between the USN, USAF, and USMC as the systems of the jet develops. The systems for the F-35 were very extensive. They involved a weapons bay (which did not exist on the prototype), the entire systems architecture, aerodynamic changes and solving the weight creep that comes with all this. The 11 years between the events has absolutely nothing to do with YAK but with the critical design review process and solving the weight creep issues that had come up due to the added burden of the system, sub systems, avionics, newer materials and a weapons bay. Try to read on some basic stuff of what goes on at what stage.

What is done during the SDD phase is not risk reduction. Lockheed COULD NOT go back on their plans submitted based on which they have been evaluated. RISK REDUCTION is done only for the submission. Once the program is downselected as the winner it is assumed that the level of risk is acceptable. No one reduces the risk in systems development - those efforts are made before the time of submitting the bid.


wowwwwww some basic commonsense about why some one pay money to its cold war era enemy just 3-4 years after, cold war ended and that too for developing 3-4 prototypes of a technology demonstrator plane? where LM already had every thing to make the plane?

What lockheed did in the SDD phase was turn the X-35 into the F-35 i.e a production representative multi role fighter, with a full avionics architecture, all the systems, all the sub systems , full production standard engines in place of converted F-119's on the X-35, a weapons bay with the required weapons capacity and bring aboard the new RAM materials it had proposed for the program but not used on the X-35 prototype for obvious reasons. All that takes time as it did with the YF-22 to F-22 transition which was much simpler due to 1/2 the integration code, one model, limited initial multi-role capability scope and the fact that the YF-22 was a more complete prototype than the F-35 (Had weapons bays, flew with sensor prototypes etc). The STOVL architecture of the F-35 was frozen at the time lockheed submitted the design bid for the JSF many years earlier based on 100% their own research that involved their own investment and using money invested by the US DOD on technical research conducted in the 60's and 70's through United technologies and others (Allison, general dynamics etc). There was a delay on the B version of the jet because the critical design review process was delayed because the weight creep on the aircraft exceeded the models that were acceptable for the USMC (SDD phase has equal service and vendor involvement). A two pronged approach was created to lower the weight and increase the thrust and this took some time and extra cost.


well i believe you on SDD phase.. but not on the technology part.


And what this fails to mention is that the preceding generation of STOVL was the harrier but only because it was operational. Designs had been studied, extensively worked out through study contracts both towards the aircraft makers and propulsion providers for other STOVL efforts which used a 3BSN for applications such as the Convair 200. Read up on the Advanced Vertical Strike program that was lead by the USN in th 1960's and that developed concepts, verified submissions and allowed the OEM to conduct extensive research and safeguard that through their patents. Why would companies bother patented 3BSD if all the "previous designs" had were harrier like STOVL? The patents were in place because there was R&D money coming through the USN pipeline for a different sort of STOVL capability. Multiple companies filled multiple patents in the 1960's and early 1970s, designs were submitted and testing work done. Its just that these designs were not operationalized. R&D without operationalizing happens all the time within the US DOD Industrial base and pretty much any MIC where money is spent to develop capability. Boeing revealed prototypes of RCS reducing airframes and newer materials. Lockheed has revealed the MUTT that is meant to develop a better understanding of flutter and develop a better flutter suppression system. The MUTT will never be operationalized but the systems developed and the patents obtained from its development will be in the possession of the designers to be used on future systems (Next generation bomber most likely). A week or so ago the boss of lockeed's Skunk works devision claimed that 80% of what they work on is classified and for technology development and not operational hardware. Testing, research, development and design refinement has immense value even if these things don't directly find their way into a production ready aircraft. Patents for a 3BSN were developed for the Convair 200 much before any of the Russian STOVL aircraft were revealed to the western world. Pratt owned these patents and therefore did not need to license anything from any russian company. With the need they did not need to go over the YAK and BUY ANTHING, no patent of Yak or any other Russian OEM was ever licensed, in fact the propulsion architecture developed by lockheed through working with their partners was unchanged after YAK's involvement ended. The patents filed and designs submitted during the fly off stage of the program (design submissions) were also unchanged in the final F-35B that flew years later. The X-35B and F-35B had the same propulsion architecture based on the work done over a period that extended through the 90's and incorporated in the patent filled by lockheed before the SDD phase began.


back to patents. (BASMATI)

When did i say patent of Yak or any other Russian OEM was ever licensed?

who all were LM partners? One was Yak.... who were paid 400 mil $ in early 90s.


Who contests this?

Why would they not spend the money US government provides them to develop their plans into a prototype along with other testing in the lab so that these designs could be evaluated against competition in a formal fly-off ? What does this have to do with YAK? The ASTOVL program lead lockheed towards a path of the current architecture, once they finalized this they went to YAK, they came out of those discussions assured that their plans were solid. They didn't need to change anything from the original pre-YAK architecture.

What technology was BOUGHT?


atlest some one agrees that 400 mil $ was paid by LM (US) to RU (Yak...) for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics of Yak-141 (the new prototypes were displayed after that in a airshow also as static display and-LM-rep-were-present)

who said any thing about spending money? LM (US) has complete right to spend money to acquire technology.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8055
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Aug 2014 22:39

Boys, this is the SU-30 thread.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8465
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Aug 2014 22:55

Replied in the JSF thread

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 08 Aug 2014 23:02

brar_w wrote:Replied in the JSF thread


I suggest you post a link to your reply in such posts. Use post header/subject for url.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Aug 2014 23:55

brar_w wrote:Replied in the JSF thread


Replied in the JSF thread.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16933
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 09 Aug 2014 09:33

please start a new thread with a link to this page in its first post.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests