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.
SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SagarAg » 27 Mar 2012 04:03

FGFA firing a missile from its internal bay. 8) Never seen it before.
Can anybody tell which missile was it :?:
[youtube]EcpbwmTIcpY&feature=g-all-lik&context=G24e7fc1FAAAAAAAABAA[/youtube]
Last edited by SagarAg on 27 Mar 2012 04:36, edited 1 time in total.

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby sudhan » 27 Mar 2012 04:22

SagarAg wrote:FGFA firing a missile from its internal bay. 8) Never seen it before. :D
Can anybody tell which missile was it :?:


Saar, the part where the T-50 fires the missile looks to be a grab from some video game, most likely the Ace combat: Assault Horizon. I dont think the Pak-Fa has entered weapon release test phase.

The missile shown in the video is the R-77.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 27 Mar 2012 08:41

what!!! at 1:15 in the video, pak-fa fires a missile from internal weapons bay!!! or am I wrong?

If I am right, why was that not published in a separate report?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vic » 27 Mar 2012 08:53

karan_mc wrote:Russians seems to be planning a new stealth aircraft post 2020

Stealthy close support aircraft to replace Russian Su-25SM by 2020


I think that such aircraft are v imp for India for CAS role in Mountains.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8051
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 27 Mar 2012 08:57

1:10 to 1:20 is graphics :wink:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 27 Mar 2012 09:19

well done though.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2012 16:32

PAK-FA Update via Air International
http://www.mediafire.com/?k4lkyuyv9p7tmnk

Just to sum up the key points of PiBu writeup

1. Structural cracks discovered on T-50-1 and vertical stabilizer cracks on T-50-1/2/3, its being re-enforced.

2. T-50-3 equipped with AESA N036, RWR, electrooptical jammer (DIRCM), IRST, decoys etc

3. New Izdeliye 30 engine will have 18 ton of thrust in afterburner mode and 11.5 ton in dry mode , for the current 117 engine it is 15T in A/B and 9.5T Dry

4. Izdeliye 30 - first production 2016 , PAK-FA after 2020 will be fitted with new engine.
Last edited by Austin on 04 Apr 2012 10:04, edited 2 times in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5024
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Kartik » 04 Apr 2012 07:27

Thanks Austin.

sumshyam
BRFite
Posts: 552
Joined: 23 Sep 2009 19:30
Location: Ganga ki dharti.
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby sumshyam » 11 Apr 2012 20:23

A nice interview of Sukhoi Chief

http://www.forumspb.com/en/download/session/162

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 13 Apr 2012 22:49

The protective coating against radiation for the combat aircraft canopy has been developed in Russia

The specialists of Obninsk-based Technologiya research and development enterprise have developed the metal-optic nano-coating for the canopy of combat aircraft, which protects the pilots against radiation and intense solar radiance during altitude flights. It has been declared by the Director of Steklo research and development division of Technologiya, Valery Temnikh, Lenta.ru reports.

According to him, the new coating should be applied on the inner side of the canopy and it decreases the warmth of solar flux by 40% and the radiation – by 30%. In addition, the coating decreases the electromagnetic emission 250 times and increases abrasive wear resistance and wear resistance. "Various metals are applied to the canopy and the light transmittance should be at least 70% after this procedure", - Temnykh said.

Besides, the new coating will help decrease the cockpit’s radar signature by 30%. According to Temnykh, the radio signal is reflected by the finished glass and the quenched signal spreads in different directions. The overall coating’s thickness is about 80 nanometers. Technologiya uses special magnetron deposition equipment for applying the coating to the canopy. The coating will be applied to the canopy of Т-50 (PAK FA), МiG-29К, Su-30 fighters and Su-34 bomber.

The mass-media have reported in late March 2012 that Technologiya have used gold sputtering in order to protect the pilot of T-50 against radio waves and solar radiance. According to the Chief Designer of Technologiya, Vladimir Vikulin, indium and tin are also used besides gold. The thickness of one layer is 20 nm, and the overall coating’s thickness is around 90 nm

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 13 Apr 2012 23:08

cool... that actaully means, it deflects possible radar detection on the canopy as well.. so now, the canopy angles are important.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby rajanb » 18 Apr 2012 12:11

Recd on email from Jane's weekly. Good news on PAk-FA

PAK-FA to receive low-observable cockpit
Russia's based Technology Scientific & Production Enterprise has developed a radar-insulating composite coating for the cockpit of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA fighter aircraft. The Obninsk-based organisation describes the coating as "unique", but it exploits similar technology to the coating used on the canopy of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor


Looks like it will be as good as the F-22

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Yogi_G » 18 Apr 2012 13:10

rajanb wrote:Recd on email from Jane's weekly. Good news on PAk-FA

PAK-FA to receive low-observable cockpit
Russia's based Technology Scientific & Production Enterprise has developed a radar-insulating composite coating for the cockpit of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA fighter aircraft. The Obninsk-based organisation describes the coating as "unique", but it exploits similar technology to the coating used on the canopy of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor


Looks like it will be as good as the F-22


I remember seeing a F-22 documentary (animation) in which the raptor's pilot's helmet is funnily shaped (like a viking crown), I assumed it was for radar deflection. With the canopy able to deflect radar the helmet wont be needed then.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2012 10:46

Work continues on the 2nd stage engine for the PAK FA

On "Saturn" was developed conceptual design of the second stage engine for the fifth-generation fighter, created by the program "promising aviation complex tactical aviation" (PAK FA)

As of today we've created a three stage low-pressure compressor, a combustion chamber with an operating temperature of 2,100K (1,826.85°C) and a high-pressure turbine also [with an operating temperature] in the order of 2,100K."- said Burov on science and technology congress in Moscow.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby GeorgeWelch » 15 May 2012 06:34

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... er/474329/

Delays and challenges for Indo-Russian fighter

Seven years before its scheduled completion, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has already announced a two-year delay in the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) India and Russia are to jointly develop.

Defence Minister A K Antony has been saying the FGFA would join the Indian Air Force by 2017. On Monday, his deputy, M M Pallam Raju, told Parliament, “The fifth generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019, following which the series production will start.”


2017 was never realistic and frankly 2019 isn't either

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 15 May 2012 07:49

though they are 20 years behind the F22 in timeline in trying the same things, hope is due to lessons learnt in the interim and maturation of some technologies, PAKFA will be more affordable than than F22/JSF lineage and definitely needs to be more maintainable as well without the lavish 5* SPAs these munnas need. better to be 80% as stealthy as F22 and have 90% uptime than be 100% but suffer low MTBF of many eqpts reducing uptimes. we need a warfighting platform not a tech demo and psyops tool.

if it gets a FAIL on either of these counts, it cannot be our mainstay fighter in the heavy end and we will be reduced to MKI upgrades and fresh builds as the americans are forced to squeeze new life out of the Teens now.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 15 May 2012 09:41

The entire article has interesting information on Indian FGFA posting in full

Delays and challenges for Indo-Russian fighter

The FGFA is the flagship of the Indo-Russian partnership. Both countries say it would be the world’s most advanced fighter. But interviews with Indian designers who have overseen the project suggest significant disquiet. There is apprehension the FGFA would significantly exceed its current $6 million budget, because this figure reflects the expenditure on just the basic aircraft. Crucial avionics systems would cost extra.

On the positive side, Indian designers say the FGFA project would provide invaluable experience in testing and certifying a heavy fighter aircraft that is bigger and more complex than the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA), India’s foundational aerospace achievement.

The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to build about 250 FGFAs, at an estimated cost of $100 million per fighter. That adds up to $25 billion each, in addition to the development cost.

The FGFA’s precursor has already flown. In January 2010, Russian company Sukhoi test-flew a prototype called the PAK-FA, the acronym for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsy (literally prospective aircraft complex of frontline aviation). Now, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will partner Sukhoi to transform the bare-bones PAK-FA into an FGFA that meets the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s requirements of stealth (near-invisibility to radar), super-cruise (supersonic cruising speed), networking (real-time digital links with other battlefield systems) and world-beating airborne radar that outranges enemy fighters.

But Sukhoi insists the PAK-FA already meets Russia’s requirements, says N C Agarwal, HAL’s design chief, who spearheaded the FGFA negotiations until his recent retirement. HAL worries Russia might ask India to pay extra for further development, particularly the avionics that transform a mere flying machine into a lethal weapons platform. That would leave the $6-billion budget in tatters.

The IAF clearly wants a top-of-the-line FGFA. According to Ashok Nayak, who spoke to Business Standard as HAL’s chairman before retiring last October, the IAF has specified 40-45 improvements that must be made to the PAK-FA. These have been formalised into an agreed list between Russia and India, the Tactical Technical Assignment.

A key IAF requirement is a ‘360-degree’ AESA (airborne electronically scanned active) radar, rather than the AESA radar that Russia developed. Either way, India would pay Russia extra: either in licence fee for the Russian radar; or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, for developing a world-beating, 360-degree AESA radar.

Nor is the IAF clear on whether the FGFA should be a single-seat fighter like the PAK-FA, or a twin-seat aircraft like the Sukhoi-30MKI. A section of the IAF backs a single-seat fighter, while another prefers two pilots for flying and fighting a complex, networked fighter. During the ongoing preliminary design phase (PDP), for which India paid $295 million, the two sides would determine whether developing the PAK-FA into a twin-seat aircraft (inevitably more bulky) would reduce the FGFA’s stealth and performance unacceptably.

“The single-seat FGFA is essential for the IAF, and we will transform the Russian single-seat fighter into our single-seat version with a large component of Indian avionics. The twin-seat version will depend on the PDP conclusions,” says Nayak.

The PDP also requires Sukhoi to hand over design documentation to HAL, providing it a detailed insight into the design processes of the PAK-FA. Since India took years to decide to join the FGFA project, HAL missed out the design phase entirely.

The 18-month PDP, which terminates this year, will be followed by the ‘R&D phase’, which could take another seven years, says the HAL chairman. The FGFA would be designed in both countries. About 100 HAL engineers already operate from a facility in Bangalore. Another contingent would move to Russia to work in the Sukhoi design bureau.

“Our boys will learn the Russian language, their way of working, their design rules and their design norms. We are left-hand drive, while they are right-hand drive. The Russians say they would part with all these things,” says Nayak.

But the most valuable learning, say HAL executives, would take place during the FGFA’s flight-testing. “Unlike the basic design phase which we missed out on, we will actually gain experience during flight testing. This phase throws up dozens of problems, and we will participate in resolving these, including through design changes,” says Agarwal.

HAL designers also relish the FGFA’s specific challenges. For achieving stealth, its missiles, rockets and reconnaissance payloads are concealed in an internal bay under the wings. Before using these, a door slides open, exposing the weapon for use.

The Russians clearly believe HAL possesses useful capabilities, including the ability to design the AESA radar. Also attractive is India’s experience in composites.

“The LCA programme has generated a high level of expertise in composite materials within the National Aerospace Laboratory and some joint teams. The FGFA requires ‘higher modulus’ composites, which can withstand the 120-130 degree Centigrade temperatures that arise whilst flying at Mach 1.7 speeds,” says Agarwal.

Despite the continuing imponderables, HAL believes the FGFA project provides genuine technological skills, far more useful than licensed manufacture. Agarwal says, “We will pay some $6-7 billion to France for the licence to build the Rafale in HAL. In the FGFA project, a similar sum would bring in genuine design knowledge that will help us in the future.”

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vina » 15 May 2012 12:10

2017 was never realistic and frankly 2019 isn't either

Of course it isn't and it was never realistic. Indeed, I am highly skeptical about the Russian timelines for the engine development, at the 2100K temperature levels mentioned with sufficient reliability and robustness to operate like western engines. It should simply not end up like the Mig-29 engines with a terrible MTBO

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 15 May 2012 16:56

i hope the experiences will be transferable and documented.. and in addition facilities built at home to engage a pakda project if we need later.

sometimes, when it comes to cost.. that is where one has to realize paying our men of brilliance is important.. example would be DRDO men, who have performed with excellence.

importing and paying for the brain work and process, is easier and expensive always.. and we have not seen vengence for such payment.. otoh, when we ask for decent salary hikes for real designers at home.. it creates such a huge hue and goes into comparisons.

member_23469
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_23469 » 17 May 2012 09:41

This is my first ingress into this thread. I wish to convey my respects to all the members of the thread.

With regard to the post from Austin, specifically the portion that follows below.

the IAF has specified 40-45 improvements that must be made to the PAK-FA. These have been formalised into an agreed list between Russia and India, the Tactical Technical Assignment.


Could the members of this thread, if possible, shed light on what these 40-45 improvements are going to be exactly.

I hope that one of the requirements shall be a more refined aft quarter VLO design. The Russians in their wisdom might have decided that given the low priority given in Western nations to the maintenance of deep overlapping SAM belt air defences, the susceptibility to aft quarter SAM shots inherent in limited all aspect stealth platforms was not a risk worth countering through serious investment. But the same shall not hold true for the IAF since its threat matrix obviously includes the PRC, which happens to have a pretty solid air defence network.

Any information/opinions anyone?

Thank you.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 17 May 2012 18:29

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=18547
lot more info.. so HAL do feel they missed out the design phase.. and the russkies will "sell that".. dunno on the past experiences with selling MKI knowledge.

And.. this is nothing but, another MKI approach imho. I would be really happy, if we can spend that money on test facilities at home.. it would really help build kaveri++.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 17 May 2012 19:52

we can very well guess that all docs and design secrets will never be handed over. it is something more than MKI but certainly a lot less than what a new design like AMCA will involve.

AMCA is it. some things from PAKFA might prove enablers for it and save some time. but mainly the radar and engine the core legs of the platform we have to come up with ourself.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 17 May 2012 20:20

Engines and the AESA radar + stealth to an extent what they have done are the major design stuff we would miss anyway.. I am not sure, when we put in our money, we have to reduce that investment, and focus on home grown aspects for AMCA.

Test facility is important, and as important as getting the design.. But a test facility can only validate what is in the design. So, whatever money we put in the test facility, must be ensured that it can be used for other purposes as well.

I would say, invest more on the sub component level.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 18 May 2012 12:12

We took a long time to join this project and more ever i am not sure if two air forces in the world will ever end up with identical requirement for one aircraft due to doctrinal and tactical reasons...at best one might agree on broader technology goals and some tactical ones.

PAK-FA project was initiated in early 2000 when Mig , Yakolev and SDB were told to give forward their design based on RuAF GSQR , Yakolev was eliminated early on and it boiled down to Mig and SDB .....in 2004 SDB won the competition and Mig lost it although it was decided that all three design bureau will participated in further works as they got assimilated in the monolothic UAC, SDB design was futher refined and frozen in 2005 and prototype flew 6 years later in 2011.

Right now we have just provided couple of million dollar to the project for training of engineers and creating a draft proposal for FGFA based in T-50 design .......this will be a Brahmos like JV where each side will add their own stuff and keep their IP.

The actual big money will flow in once FGFA design gets frozen based on IAF requirenment , although i dont see any major changes other then the challenge to make a single seater to twin seater without much affecting its RCS and the subsequent structural changes needed for the change to take place.

Full rear aspect stealth like seen in F-22 will only come with 2nd stage engine there is a patented 2.5D nozzle design , the current engine will be the way it is unless IAF thinks a Serated Round Nozzle like JSF is useful and that can be designed for it ....not sure what is the trade off but it is doable.

The fact that even USAF has not opted for a flat nozzle for JSF inspite of having experience with F-22 design indicates the gains versus tradeoff is not worth and serrated nozzle is good enough for the job.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 18 May 2012 21:06

Is there are comparison data on 3D nozzle design vs 2.5D w.r.t stealth.. I don't understand other the lower thermal image... If manoeverability is important, why not keep with the 3D, and focus on reducing RCS on the rear?

With regards to thermal signatures, we could go for jammers, retractable trailing pods (like Eurofighter), etc. And, thermal seekers do have not long range, so we should focus more on manoevrability than chasing the 2.5D..

IMHO, 3D nozzle, with good composite skins is what the need of the time. 3D TVC is the way to go.

q: why is that russkies chase after all that is the khaans have done? I definitely think we require 3D and nothing less. and, we can improve thermal signatures by various means including pumping H20 /chemicals on the exhaust on rearward OLS detection.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby negi » 19 May 2012 01:44

Oye what is this 2.5 D ? Is this some trishanku kind of stuff neither here nor there ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 May 2012 02:19

I can see the pitch and roll from flat nozzle. perhaps the russkies have done some vectoring la x35ish for the yaw vector.

coming to think of it, X35ish vectoring is ideal for reducing more thermal image by having the vector panel suck off heat using advanced materials.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8051
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 19 May 2012 03:16

negi wrote:Oye what is this 2.5 D ? Is this some trishanku kind of stuff neither here nor there ?


I think the are referring to the TVC nozzles as seen in the present Su-30 MKI. Te TVC nozzles point 32 degress outward of the longitudinal axis of the engine. Therefore when they move along the vertical axis, they end up moving in a V shape instead of just up and down. The same setup is used on the Su-35 and PAKFA.
Last edited by Indranil on 19 May 2012 07:16, edited 1 time in total.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby JaiS » 19 May 2012 07:02

FWIW,

Russian AF to Get First T-50 Fighters in 2013


The Russian Air Force will receive the first batch of prototypes of its fifth-generation T-50 fighter for performance testing in 2013, Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said on Thursday.

“The work on the fifth-generation fighter is going according to schedule,” Zelin, a former Air Force commander, told a news conference in Voronezh (central Russia). “The third prototype has joined the testing program and the fourth is being built.”

Zelin earlier said that the number of T-50 aircraft involved in testing would be increased to 14 by 2015.



SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 May 2012 08:10

On the previous incident of pak-fa engine failure/burn, the russians said it was malfunctioning of the sensor.. let us assume that the control logic enables continuous flow of fuel mix when this happened, even then a continous full burn can't exceed a limit that looks like a massive leak or total failure in the fuel-air mix that went into combustion chamber.

I assume, the failure is one thing about the sensor, and continuous burn actually, perhaps caused damage to the injector, and the fuel continously over flowed.. the point I am making is if the cause of failure is sensor alone, then there should be only the max fuel that can come out of the injector will burn. In the incident, more than that came and quite visible burn exceeding.. so, the failure of faulty sensor alone can't be true.

russkies hide facts, most of the times [std practice]

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 19 May 2012 09:06

Rus was also playing around with a flat nozzle, though nobody knows how seriously.

the volume of this housing was HUGE vs the circular engine exhaust...unlike the very compact F22 thing. you could fit a 1BHK apt inside this one.
http://paralay.com/s37/3713.jpg

maybe the real nozzle was inside and this housing was meant for a variety of test instruments to study the airflow and temp from all angles.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 May 2012 09:22

It does not appear to be a production variant of any vectoring design.. for example (assume there is no azimuthal move around) .. the yaw left and right vector could be blocked by the up and down pitch vectoring. So, I guess it was an experimentation measuring only 1D at a time.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 19 May 2012 10:27

my theory is its a external shroud to hold instrumentation around a internal real design...its certainly too large to fit the MKI, which is the biggest fighter in the world barring the FB-111

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 19 May 2012 10:40

Seems like JFSki is under works with stress in ground attack some details has emerged , will be dual seater from ground up , will be in weight category of Su-25 and will use stealth and all tactical weapons , entry into service by 2020 , Sukhoi will be lead designer and it will be made at Ulan-Ude factory where current Su-25 will be built.

link

"This new type of attack aircraft included in the state program is approved for the weapons and equipment of the Air Force. Until 2020 it goes to the troops," - said at a briefing Zelin in Voronezh, where the conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force.

Previously, the Defense Ministry has already talked about the development of new aircraft, which should begin to enter the army just prior to 2020 . The machine itself then called "promising ground attack aircraft" (PSSH).

He pointed out that a new attack will be designed for two pilots: navigator and operator. To meet the challenges of complex systems and weapons should not two eyes, and four" - said Zelin.


Zelin, who until recently headed the Russian Air Force, said that according to the task this aircraft weapons program will be made with a corporation "dry" with a factory in Ulan-Ude, where previously established production of Su-25UB.

As expected, the aircraft will be able to use the entire range of tactical weapons, will be hardly noticeable, able to land on any runway, with sophisticated connected, radar and navigational equipment.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 19 May 2012 10:45

Singha wrote:Rus was also playing around with a flat nozzle, though nobody knows how seriously.


Flat Nozzle have one inherent weakness which is loss of thrust , the F-22 flat nozzle reportedly experience a loss of thrust of around ~ 8-10 % , plus they can vector in only 2D , the advantage is it offer full rear aspect stealth.

Although its not necessary that flat nozzle is just the only way to achieve that , The JSF serrated nozzle is claimed to be a good compromise on stealth without loosing thrust and getting 3D TVC is possible. Although the stealth achieved is not to the level of F-22 nozzle but its a good trade off.

PAK-FA engine designer claim that the loss of thrust with new flat nozzle will be around 2-3 % and it will have 2.5 TVC which is similar to what MKI has with canted nozzle.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 19 May 2012 11:17

SaiK wrote:q: why is that russkies chase after all that is the khaans have done?


A: Because russkies think they can do it better and learn from their mistakes or try not to repeat it.

in the end neither of them chase each other but their development is dictated by Doctrine on a larger scale and tactics on the smaller scale , Doctrines drives every thing and thats the way it should be , else you end up developing something and then figure out how to use it.

Neither side copied each other but they figured out how best to deal with them in a given theater within their doctrine.

For eg US answer to Mig-25 was not another fast high flying jet but it was multirole F-15 with longer legs ,big radar and weapons to match , In the similar way Flanker was designed to counter F-15 and F-16 but retained multirole character from ground up it shared many similar features of F-15 including long legs ,twin engine but was still a fighter that could counter effectively the F-15 and F-16 specially the latter which was superb in every aspect , Mig-29 was similarly developed as shot leg air superiority fighter from ground up to counter F-16 and F-15 but never had multirole capability but was a PD AS fighter. The answer to Mach 3 XB-70 Valkerie bomber was not not another similar types but was Mig-31

F-22 was designed as thoroughbred air superiority fighter that can go deep in and dominate while JSF was a thoroughbred ground attack type with multirole capability both were suppose to compliment each other but due to problems with F-22 , JSF got elevated to Air Superiority status ...similary PAK-FA was designed to counter F-22 but with multirole capability from ground up similar to Flanker.

Its just a myth that both sides copied each other propagated by trade magazine as that gives the sales value , look closely its all dictated by Doctrine , Theater of Operation and Tactics.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 May 2012 22:10

I agree, there are certain techs that is driven by doctrine, but there are others that drive the doctrine especially the new technology and capabilities. okay, let us assume the following few line items of a possible scenarios and techs available.
I think having rearward OLS, and mmw+infra jammers, is a better tech than 2.5 or 2D vectoring.. 3TVC is a game changer once all passive sensors are no use, and are in visual range for dog fight.

For BVRs, 3d TVC is the best option, as it is in safe zone., passive sensors, and lpi aesa are important in addtion to excellent stealth skins.

So, excellent stealth skins can change doctrines. LPI can change doctrines. Long range weapons can change doctrines. Deep strike missions, also need all of these.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby darshhan » 19 May 2012 23:53

Austin wrote:Seems like JFSki is under works with stress in ground attack some details has emerged , will be dual seater from ground up , will be in weight category of Su-25 and will use stealth and all tactical weapons , entry into service by 2020 , Sukhoi will be lead designer and it will be made at Ulan-Ude factory where current Su-25 will be built.

link

"This new type of attack aircraft included in the state program is approved for the weapons and equipment of the Air Force. Until 2020 it goes to the troops," - said at a briefing Zelin in Voronezh, where the conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Russian Air Force.

Previously, the Defense Ministry has already talked about the development of new aircraft, which should begin to enter the army just prior to 2020 . The machine itself then called "promising ground attack aircraft" (PSSH).

He pointed out that a new attack will be designed for two pilots: navigator and operator. To meet the challenges of complex systems and weapons should not two eyes, and four" - said Zelin.



Zelin, who until recently headed the Russian Air Force, said that according to the task this aircraft weapons program will be made with a corporation "dry" with a factory in Ulan-Ude, where previously established production of Su-25UB.

As expected, the aircraft will be able to use the entire range of tactical weapons, will be hardly noticeable, able to land on any runway, with sophisticated connected, radar and navigational equipment.


Pak fa which has already been in testing for some time won't appear in service before 2019(as per russians themselves and even that time frame might be unlikely) and here they are claiming that they will induct another stealth plane in service by 2020 of which we haven't seen or heard anything. Russians sure know how to speculate.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 20 May 2012 10:56

PAK-FA will come by 2015 , the FGFA is delayed and wont come before 2019.

If they want to build a new plane they can virtually hide the whole project before it enters squadron service , during SU days the only time some one knew that a new type was inducted was during May 8 parade , either they declassified it after induction or some western intel satellite picked it up , Mig-29 was first detected by western satellite in air field and was given the name RAM-L/T

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2538
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby darshhan » 20 May 2012 15:15

^^ OK . We shall see if your analysis is correct or not.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests