PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
aditp
BRFite
Posts: 445
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby aditp » 01 Dec 2011 13:22

Singha wrote:for a plane thats lighter than su30 family, I wonder whats the need for such a massive oak tree undercarriage legs? compare to the spindly legs of a f15 and we know the f15 still carries a huge payload.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpointer/3475330030/

and before anyone chimes in 'need to operate from austere siberian airfields' - maybe that was ok for Mig21/23 era but these 5th gen puppies will need lavish food and maalish...the days of rough field ops are gone with the load of sensitive avionics they carry and the need to maintain every panel in perfect alignment rather than just give it a good bash with a hammer!



Roosies design their hawai jehaz for rough field ops in mind. Those days are definately not over. Many / Most Roosie military airfields would have poor runway maintenance.

But unkil being rich dad, gets smooth legs for his beauties, as they only operates from butter smooth runways

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 02 Dec 2011 07:31


Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Jaeger » 02 Dec 2011 13:02

aditp wrote:
Singha wrote:and before anyone chimes in 'need to operate from austere siberian airfields' - maybe that was ok for Mig21/23 era but these 5th gen puppies will need lavish food and maalish...the days of rough field ops are gone with the load of sensitive avionics they carry and the need to maintain every panel in perfect alignment rather than just give it a good bash with a hammer!



Roosies design their hawai jehaz for rough field ops in mind. Those days are definately not over. Many / Most Roosie military airfields would have poor runway maintenance.

But unkil being rich dad, gets smooth legs for his beauties, as they only operates from butter smooth runways


Why would you assume that most Roosie airfields would have poor runway maintenance? Any links/references to back that assumption up?

This is a common misconception BTW that born out of the fact that the USSR had TWO air forces - the VVS (which was the Tactical Air Force sort of) and PVO-Strany (which was responsible for the home defence of the Soviet Union).

The VVS-FA (frontal aviation branch) operated the MiG-15/17/19/21/23/27/29 and the Su-7/17/22/25. These were all expected to be right behind the front line (hence, FA), supporting the ground forces in their campaigns and taking on NATO fighters. And it was these guys who were expected to take off from austere airfields and (somewhat) unpaved runways.

The PVO-Strany on the other hand was composed of Su-9/11/15/27, MiG-25/31, Tu-128 {surely designed by Singha in a previous avatar 8) } and the Yak-25/28. These birds had all the land in the USSR to take off and land, and long concrete runways, full GCI facilities etc.

Since it's only Russia today, and since the VVS and PVO were merged in 1998, where is the RuAF operating out of - USSR fwd bases or existing Home Defence bases?

I think a lot of this confusion is also generated because the USSR generally exported rough-tough VVS types and therefore all their a/c were painted with the same brush.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Dec 2011 14:29

even the patriot missiles were slim and ethiopian/kenyan looking vs the woodsman slav looks of S-300 family.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4561
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 03 Dec 2011 01:46

Austin wrote:
Kartik wrote:Ah, so it was Syria..I wonder if the current Bashar-Al-Asad related turmoil in Syria will affect the overall order or not. 24 MiG-29M2s for $1.5 billion puts the unit price at $62.5 million..not quite so cheap, unless one assumes that it includes training pilots and technicians, new ground infrastructure specific to the M2 since Syria already operates MiG-29s and possibly some weapons?


The deal is suppose to be in the range of $1 - $1.2 billion thats about $42 to $50 million , most likely it will include training cost , weapons and spares. If the deal falls due to Syria crises then RuAF would likely keep it as they did with Algeria returned Mig-29. Some update from Mig from Dubai Air Show MiG Eyes Asia, Eastern Europe to Boost Sales


I daresay, it would not be such a bad idea for India to have gotten a sqd or so of Ms. Beautiful bird, with tremendous capability and massive commonality with IAF, and IN assets. Great to see that the M is indeed seeing production. Thanks for the links Austin.

CM

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 03 Dec 2011 06:27

This is a fantastic compilation.

http://www.afa.org/edop/2010/PAK-FA%27s ... 10REV5.pdf

check out the plasma port
100km range for OLS
PAK-FA definitive 5G engine at 16 to 16.5t (projected)
pak-fa inlet geometry
a big list of features to achieve
carrier config
KUB variant
internal bays
RCS measure [it is russian - need help here! pg71]

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby shiv » 03 Dec 2011 06:53

Jaeger wrote:^^I've noticed that Unkil's designers are the best at undercarriage packaging


This may have more to do with high strength lightweight and expensive materials than anything else. Both tech_and_money.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby shiv » 03 Dec 2011 07:13

Jaeger wrote:Why would you assume that most Roosie airfields would have poor runway maintenance? Any links/references to back that assumption up?
<snip>
I think a lot of this confusion is also generated because the USSR generally exported rough-tough VVS types and therefore all their a/c were painted with the same brush.


Jaeger garu - maybe the words "poor maintenance" are unfair, but that huge, underpopulated, cold-desert country definitely has more "rough airstrips" needing air supply/maintenance (like our own Himayalan regions) than anyone else and they really have excelled in making aircraft suitable for operating out of the wilds. They were the (AFAIK) first to come up with innovations like the ability to vary tyre pressures from the cockpit - to have lower pressures for rough unprepared strips, and that goes as far back as the An-2. The Il 76 also has that.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 03 Dec 2011 09:46

I dont think Rus lacks in advanced metals knowledge. this is a country that made a Akula sized submarine (Sierra class) from titanium and the Alfa class sub with its 'liquid sodium' reactor and 1000s of space rockets that pushed the edges of material science and physics.

I guess its a deliberate decision going back to WW2/WW3 paranoia and the need to retreat back into the urals and siberia to continue the cagefight worst come worst. maybe on wet or snow covered runways, the big soft tire thing helps to get a better grip on things. and windy conditions that force heavy landings might do better with thicker legs.

maybe they just like the big badass look...every people has its quirk...indians have a fetish about the 'smallest.lightest.humblest' thing.....Rus might have a fetish for the SS18/Taifun ssbn 'you want a piece of me huh?' look 8)

the bear may take a few blows but by nature is not a coward...when properly roused it will run down and kill anyone on the planet.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 328
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Jaeger » 05 Dec 2011 10:40

shiv wrote:
Jaeger wrote:Why would you assume that most Roosie airfields would have poor runway maintenance? Any links/references to back that assumption up?
<snip>
I think a lot of this confusion is also generated because the USSR generally exported rough-tough VVS types and therefore all their a/c were painted with the same brush.


Jaeger garu - maybe the words "poor maintenance" are unfair, but that huge, underpopulated, cold-desert country definitely has more "rough airstrips" needing air supply/maintenance (like our own Himayalan regions) than anyone else and they really have excelled in making aircraft suitable for operating out of the wilds. They were the (AFAIK) first to come up with innovations like the ability to vary tyre pressures from the cockpit - to have lower pressures for rough unprepared strips, and that goes as far back as the An-2. The Il 76 also has that.


Doc sa'ab, no doubt you re right about the number of austere airfields overall in Roos, and of course the number and kind of innovations they have come up with to deal with such facilities.

But the point that I'm trying to make is that a few of their forces esp. those for defence of USSR, had absolutely gold-plated facilities to work out of. I think Austin (or someone else not entirely sure) had put up a link of a book about PVO Mig-25/31 operations including in Russian Far East, and another one with some visuals of Pacific Fleet Tu-142s and Il-38s flying out of solidly constructed concrete runways at massive ABs.

The An-2, An-12, Il-76 etc. transports apart from their military duties as you well know are used also by Aeroflot to connect the truly remote corners of Siberia where the bears and wolves roam, and runways are basically long strips of flattish permafrost. Hence the rough field innovations. The Tu-128 or Su-9/11 series etc. of the PVO didn't need nor have a lot or 'rough and tough' features.

Anyway, as far as the PAK-FA's 'legs' are concerned, I also think it's a nod towards future carrier ops?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Dec 2011 10:50

among western ac only the jaguar, rafale and f-18 have such solid legs. the jaguar is capable of operating from grass strips as videos show and was originally meant to be a naval plane as well.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 05 Dec 2011 11:36

I think a stronger and beefy landing gear not only translates to semi-prepared air strips take off and landing capability as we have seen in video of Jags as singha mentioned but also ability to have shorter landing capability with greater load bring back capability if you have to land on short runways , which means no dropping of ammo.

On the negetive side you are carrying more dead weight with beefy landing gear , weight you could have used it some where for other useful purpose.

The design of PAK-FA seems to be closer for Carrier capability as it satisfies two key requirenment , Levcon for lower speed handling and generating lift and beefy landing gear , the designer will not end up making too many changes for carrier version of the aircraft.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 07 Dec 2011 17:28

As per the latest updates we will take greater number of PAK FA than the FGFA. We wont have any say on who the PAK-FA is exported to and the meaty stuff (stealth) has already been taken care of for most part. Engine will also be a no go area for us.

In light of these facts, I simply cannot understand why are we going to sink $30bn+ into the program? After all, if the ruskies are going to sell it to other countries they wont refuse selling it to us at that point in time. Right?

As I see it we are funding the program so that the ruskies can make all the $$ later on and we may get very little out of it. Someone please enlighten me if this is not the case.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20958
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 07 Dec 2011 18:02

I certainly think that there will be a "veto" on seling the bird to India;'s enemies.Even if our contribution has been more financial than technological,"without beans you can't make chilli" (original saying by the way!).I cannot see the JV seling the same to China or Pak,especially after the PRC's illegal reverse engineering of the SU-33 which has angered the Russians and reportedly made them refuse a PRC request to buy arrestor wires.

If our BR analysts are correct and the T-50/FGFA has already been designed with a naval variant in mind,it would be quite a coup for the IN to have such an option for our larger carriers intended to follow IAC-1.In fact,if such an optionis being planned,then the design of our future carriers should take into account the dimensions and characteristics of the aircraft so that aircraft lifts,hangars,etc. can be sized to accomodate the bird.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 07 Dec 2011 19:42

what is wrong with reverse engineering for learning purposes?

then with that knowledge and data base, develop an entirely new set of designs.

it is never too late to learn.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby koti » 07 Dec 2011 20:07

Nothing wrong if we are on the receiving side.
Our perception will change once we cross to the other side.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 08 Dec 2011 16:01

I haven’t really read anywhere that we will have the veto power of the PAK-FA. FGFA is a different matter - more of a customized stuff for our requirements like the MKI.

I am still very skeptical unless something concrete is announced or comes up. To me, it is no different than partners in JSF. Uncle keeps the tech to himself while others just pour in $$ to develop something that uncle will make money on. There, at least every thing is in black and white. Here there is no clarity whatsoever.

Have we even been given the timelines of milestones to be achieved for this bird to fly by 2017ish? There is too much that is not in the public domain unlike a lot of our own programs (missiles, LCA, Arjun etc.). This is what makes me uncomfortable. Please don’t say it is classified as the technology is top notch. Being the second program in this area (F22 >> first), JSF is in the same league or maybe even higher from technology POV. That does not prevent uncle from releasing good bit of information on milestones.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 08 Dec 2011 16:22

PAK-FA is completely funded by various ministry , for the entire R&D , Prototype ,Engine 117 and newer one the funding is of the order of $ 10 billion dollar.

FGFA is joint funded so we will have a say on who it can be sold to , its similar to Brahmos where we hold the veto at the same time russia is free to sell Yakohant to countries that may be interested in buying it. Where ever our IP is involved they cant sell it or sell with due consultation and we get paid for our stuff , just like Su-30MKM has Indian stuff in there.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 08 Dec 2011 19:55

koti wrote:Nothing wrong if we are on the receiving side.
Our perception will change once we cross to the other side.

that is correct.. but that perception will happen if you sell the re-engineered products.

if that is done for education purposes, in labs and universities, it may not.
What we may sell, is entirely different product. It should never resemble in any manner or spec or baseline.

why restrict to russian technologies? the reason, many feel, we should get JSF., for stripping it down. you may not know the hows, but you will definitely know the whats.

now, our lab boys can concentrate on the hows from first principles.

we have a big gap to cover.. hence re-engineering is one aspect to bridge that gap quick.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 08 Dec 2011 22:13

Strictly speaking reverse engineering is illlegal , ofcourse you can always take the risk and try to reverse engineer a product you may succeed , fail or succeed partially , eventually the OEM would come to know that you are using reverse engineer product and are not paying lic fee for it and you might end up putting the entire defence relationship with that country in jeopardy for reverse engineering one or two stuff even if you succeed.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 09 Dec 2011 03:46

that RAM coated frontal look is killing me!

another thought for avoiding RCS on the inlets would be slight angling the engine position inwards at 10-15*, and the S turn from the central fuselage to the inlets. Those blades can be covered, but it would all depend on deflection geometry and other measure pak-fa provides.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16815
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 09 Dec 2011 03:51

Strictly speeaking reverse engineering is illlegal , ofcourse you can always take the risk and try to reverse engineer a product you may succeed , fail or succeed partially , eventually the OEM would come to know that you are using reverse engineer product and are not paying lic fee for it and you might end up putting the entire defence relationship with that country in jeopardy for reverse engineering one or two stuff even if you succeed.



China says Hello.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby sohamn » 09 Dec 2011 09:39

SaiK wrote:This is a fantastic compilation.

http://www.afa.org/edop/2010/PAK-FA%27s ... 10REV5.pdf

check out the plasma port
100km range for OLS
PAK-FA definitive 5G engine at 16 to 16.5t (projected)
pak-fa inlet geometry
a big list of features to achieve
carrier config
KUB variant
internal bays
RCS measure [it is russian - need help here! pg71]


This article says that the RCS of PAK FA would be 0.5m2, now that small compared to Su 30 but significantly more than Raptor or F 35.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby manum » 09 Dec 2011 11:08

NRao wrote:
Strictly speeaking reverse engineering is illlegal , ofcourse you can always take the risk and try to reverse engineer a product you may succeed , fail or succeed partially , eventually the OEM would come to know that you are using reverse engineer product and are not paying lic fee for it and you might end up putting the entire defence relationship with that country in jeopardy for reverse engineering one or two stuff even if you succeed.



China says Hello.

:rotfl:

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Kailash » 09 Dec 2011 11:44

Austin wrote:Strictly speaking reverse engineering is illlegal , ofcourse you can always take the risk and try to reverse engineer a product you may succeed , fail or succeed partially , eventually the OEM would come to know that you are using reverse engineer product and are not paying lic fee for it and you might end up putting the entire defence relationship with that country in jeopardy for reverse engineering one or two stuff even if you succeed.


Only thing that matters in military tech is - to win - all else is fair. Did anyone care about human rights of scientist or their IP rights when they invaded german labs and factories post WW-II? If it is the sellers duty to protect his rights and royalties, its our duty to make ourselves less dependent. If the seller cant protect IP, wrong to blame the buyer.

SaiK wrote:that is correct.. but that perception will happen if you sell the re-engineered products.

if that is done for education purposes, in labs and universities, it may not.
What we may sell, is entirely different product. It should never resemble in any manner or spec or baseline.


Oh, it will still breach the IP rights of OEMs. And there is nothing calling purely "educational purpose". We are not going to employ miniaturized radars for calculating distance between passenger cars, and a small jet engines to make toy planes. They would be mated to things which make a big difference in war.

How much ever we sugar coat reverse engineering, the truth is that we will lose support from OEMs and may affect future sales. But I think it is time to face hard facts - no one will part with tech, and we have to do it ourselves, with any means necessary.

SaiK wrote:now, our lab boys can concentrate on the hows from first principles.

IMHO, the first principles were always there and we dont lack in ideas (whats) either. It is only the how-to, and equipments.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 09 Dec 2011 20:05

The OEMs are not ready to part with the cutting edge any way, no matter how many $$ are thrown at them. Only way out is we develop on our own.

Reverse engineering entire systems will not provide us with the data points for building future generations. So, it may work at first but may not help in the long term. The Chinese have been trying to build their WSxxx engines for forever, right? And, now the Russians are very careful not to sell them anything that can be cloned easily.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 09 Dec 2011 20:19

I am interested in we mastering these three areas of technologies

1. Turbines and turbojet
2. AESA MMR
3. Stealth

The others comes next. We can put $30b into pakfa, we can also put couple of billions for test facilities, equipments and research labs, and most importantly pay these guys on par with the brain-drainers.

--

Regarding IP rights, both the cold war enemies did a lot of IP breaking and stealing stuffs. They have stolen brains!

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby manum » 09 Dec 2011 20:33

Reverse Engineering is never the first step...First step is starting to do it i.e. If in our mind first step is reverse engineering, its fundamentally wrong...its not a good investment, as making a 12 year kid do PHD...

fundamentally wrong means when we are kid we might wanna be someone...but when we grow up our aims must be knowing the value of our aims...

In other way when a kid or a daydreamer dreams that what if I could go back to Prithwiraj chauhan age and could have told him, kill muhammad Ghauri...or change historical path by what we are knowing at present...is itself a daydream only...

Reverse Engineering is side track of innovation and its always employed in any country or industry...but it can never take the place of innovation fundamentally...i.e. We gotta start doing with our own visions, plans and when we are stuck...we seek solutions, this may involve many thing as well reverse engineering to learn it...but then it will be only called studying, if one is ready to rip apart an engine worth millions....so be it...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 09 Dec 2011 20:40

right right... it should be only a stop gap process to catch up!

turbines, radars and stealth!

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby manum » 09 Dec 2011 20:43

Yeah, turbines, Radar, stealth and satellite capability to detect and map nukes...

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby negi » 09 Dec 2011 23:11

Reverse Engineering as a concept is an integral part of Engineering. Be it software or hardware capability to strip down the entire piece and then systematically reproduce each one and put the whole thing back in working order is a skill which is valued in any industry. Just because China does it does not make it a taboo science, it's akin to throwing the baby with bathwater. At one level or another even we have done a fair bit of reverse engineering.

Moreover there are semantics at play here for instance the Soviets actually shared their missile and other military technology with China; so the latter did not have to actually reverse engineer the whole thing in first place strictly speaking they are essentially just continuing to produce the stuff long after the licensing agreement expired. Obviously there are exceptions but by and large stuff like F-7 and even their early liquid fueled missiles were made possible with active help from Ru obviously the Chinese have since moved on and started to build more advanced systems.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby manum » 09 Dec 2011 23:39

Exactly...They forget the start was syllabic, when they summon Reverse Engineering as if its a miracle...If you don't know what to look for in a market, how you gonna locate it...If you are not facing a problem you will never understand what and where to look for...

This inherent thing about designing, its not possible or one way its super human that a person who understand mig 21 totally, If asked to make a new plane wont make his/her own intervention...

and If the person after studying Mig 21 makes Mig 21 only, means person hasn't understood it totally...Chinese are superhuman only...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 10 Dec 2011 02:40

Exactly negi, you bring a very interesting point.. reverse engineering should be made integral part of building design capabilities. Strip to bones, and build them back repeatedly ingrains valuable information for production engineering.. It brings in selective attention to designers, and they start thinking for what we want to develop out of this.. they get to see the design errors earlier in life cycle, and puts them in design thinking.

It definitely help realize stages in evaluation to critical interpretations to usability of systems, right from maintainability and service of existing design they are stripping on. They will start looking into future. They develop a baseline mental model, and further be well prepared when actual design happens to satisfy GSQRs.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 15 Dec 2011 11:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBbsejVr ... re=related
was this posted here earlier? are they really ready to do air shows? to me they appeared not, especially felt they are under powered, when you compare a raptor power.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Gaur » 15 Dec 2011 11:35

^^
Nothing to do being underpowered, which its are not anyway (check the thrust ratings of 117). Its just that the envelope is not fully opened up. Considering the time since first flight, I personally thought that the flight display was highly impressive and showed a lot of confidence from their part.

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Roperia » 20 Dec 2011 12:25

FGFA – what sort of plane is it?

The information about fifth-generation jet fighter is partially disclosed

Image

Hindustan Aeronautics plane maker has posted on its website some of the specifications of the FGFA model, thus raising the curtain over the future jet fighter created by Russian and Indian developers on the basis of Russia’s PAK FA.

While some of the disclosed figures are quite predictable, some others are truly puzzling, if we believe everything that the Indian developer has to say. However, many of the basic parameters of the future jet fighter still remain undisclosed.

The Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) is an Indian fighter being developed by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi based on the T-50 aircraft (PAK FA). Russia and India signed a contract for the creation of the concept and technical design on 21 December 2010, the amount of transaction being $295 million. It was planned that front-end engineering would take 18 months. During this phase, Sukhoi will account for 80% of the total volume of work. The Russian side has not yet disclosed the T-50 characteristics.

According to the description available on the Hindustan Aeronautics website, the proposed FGFA will have air combat superiority and media exchange systems to communicate with similar aircraft in conditions of poor communication support. They do not specify what “poor communication” stands for. HAL must be referring to jamming. It is also noted that the FGFA has a network centric warfare capability by getting access to the Indian Defence Ministry’s database. (In mid-October 2010, India launched AFNET digital information grid, aiming at centralising the command of the country’s Air Force. AFNET will later be combined with information grids of the Defence Ministry, the Navy and the Army. As a result of this centralisation effort, the Indian Armed Forces will coordinate their activities via a single data management and exchange system).

Image

Other characteristics mentioned by the Indian developer include increased stealth, cruise at speeds well above Mach, and supersonic manoeuvring capability. The last feature is not specified, because “manoeuvring” can mean both aerobatic manoeuvres, which envisage a colossal impact of G forces on the pilot at supersonic speeds, and regular changes in the height and direction.

The length of the Indian fighter is 22.6 meters, its height is 5.9 meters, and its maximum takeoff weight is 34 metric tons. With a maximum speed of 2 Mach (2,300 kilometres per hour), the jet fighter will have a range of 3,880 kilometres.

The FGFA will feature two jet engines and have thrust vector control, with jet nozzle angle of +/-150. HAL does not mention in the description whether the FGFA will get all-aspect thrust vectoring, but it seems it will, because the Russian T-50 (PAK FA) will have all-aspect thrust-vector control.

According to HAL, each engine will reach a thrust of 1,400 kgf (13.7 kN). This one is a puzzling characteristic, because this thrust will clearly be insufficient for a heavy fighter. To compare: Indian heavy fighter Su-30MKI is powered by two Al-31FP turbofans, each producing 7,670 kgf dry and 12,500 kgf in afterburner.

The Indian specialists must have lost a zero somewhere – a thrust of 14,000 kgf looks suitable for the FGFA.

In September 2011, Indian Air Force Chief Norman Anil Kumar Browne said the military had chosen the engine that would be installed in the FGFA. The power plant will be introduced in two phases, following the T-50 patters. The Al-41F1C will likely become the engine of the first stage, whereas the one selected by the Indian Air Force will be used for the second stage. There is no information about the latter yet, except for the fact that it will produce more power than that to be installed in the T-50.

According to the description on the HAL website, the FGFA will have a maximum internal weapon load of 2.25 tons and external weapon load of 5.75 tons. The FGFA weapon load will therefore total 8 tons. The fighter is still at the design stage, so the reported figures are not final and will probably be adjusted after the prototype is created. The FGFA is expected to make its first flight in 2015 and go into service in India in 2017 or 2018.

In early October 2011, Browne said the Indian Air Force would procure 214 FGFA planes in addition to the 272 Su-30MKI that it already has. Previously, Indian Defence Minister Arackaparambil Kurien Antony said some $25-30 billion would be spent on new fighters. Browne added that 166 single-seat FGFA models would be purchased, while the remaining 48 fighters would be two-seaters, although the original plan was to buy only two-seaters.

Soon after India announced its plans to buy new jet fighters, some experts said single-seat FGFA would likely be different from the T-50 in the way that the Su-30MKI is different from the Su-30 of the Russian Air Force. In February 2011, HAL Finance Director D. Shivamurti said the FGFA development project would cost a total of $6 billion, and the Indian side would account for 35%-40% of the work. Specifically, Indian specialists will be developing an onboard computer, navigation system, data displays in the cockpit and the plane’s self-protection system.

The two-seater will have more serious distinctions than just a larger cockpit. HAL Chairman of the Board Ashok Baweja said that the two-seater would have wings, fins, rudders and electronics different from those of the T-50. Also, the design of the Indian fighter must account for the use of Indian-made weapons, including Astra air-to-air missiles or Nirbhay

http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/19/fg ... 14029.html

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby koti » 22 Dec 2011 13:38

Wouldn't the RAM coatings and shaped exteriors effect the efficiency of the Aircraft's radar?

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1120
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Hiten » 23 Dec 2011 02:02

A 5th generation jet fighter to be operational by 2025
http://www.readability.com/articles/ykaq9qjl

By 2025, Russia is planning to put into service the Sukhoi PAK FA (so-called Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation), a twin-engine jet fighter developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau for the Russian Air Force.


IIRC earlier dates being mentioned put it around 2018-2020 time-frame. Then FGFA might get pushed further down the year

something about the engine, perhaps a lost in translation
PAK FA was expected to use 5th generation engine custom-built for Russia’s fifth-generation T-50 jet fighters. But it is unlikely, Igor Korotchenko says:

"The engine used by the jet fighters will not meet the needs of the Sukhoi PAK FA. These are the engines of completely different types. A new engine should be developed from scratch, possibly, using technological advantages of the Tupolev Tu-160. The engine generates a larger thrust and has a complex automation system, to facilitate a number of flight modes such as maneuverability. It is expected that each engine will be able to independently vector its thrust upwards, downward or side to side. Vectoring one engine up with the other one down can produce a twisting force."

if AL-41F1 is a 5th gen engine, then what does it mean when Korotchenko says, "it is unlikely"

P.S: whats with equipping the PAK-FA with "artificial intellect". Aren't intellectuals bourgeois? #pj

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 23 Dec 2011 02:30

koti wrote:Wouldn't the RAM coatings and shaped exteriors effect the efficiency of the Aircraft's radar?

kevlar! this is what goes into nose cone section, and permeates all radar waves. the nose will not be coated.

this is the reason, I always think about internal shape deflectors rather externals. we could have a composite kevlar all round skins, and internal deflection geometry with RAM coating. Internal RAM coating also increases stealth and wear/tear of the coatings, while external kevlars can take any shape to aerodynamic requirements.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby srai » 23 Dec 2011 04:26

Hiten wrote:A 5th generation jet fighter to be operational by 2025
http://www.readability.com/articles/ykaq9qjl

By 2025, Russia is planning to put into service the Sukhoi PAK FA (so-called Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation), a twin-engine jet fighter developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau for the Russian Air Force.


IIRC earlier dates being mentioned put it around 2018-2020 time-frame. Then FGFA might get pushed further down the year

...


If you follow any combat aircraft development, you know that it takes at least 10 years to reach "early" IOC stage from first flight. Then it takes another 5 to 10 years to reach FOC and "full maturity" (peak production rates, well greased supply logistics, fully trained and staffed personnel, full compliment of armaments (both old and newly developed), and well developed tactics). The 2018 date is just for "early" IOC while the 2025 is more of a FOC. 2030 is when FGFA will reach full maturity.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests