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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 08 Jun 2014 22:03

The IRST of the T50 is bulging out of the airframe, the same way as the EOTS does at the F35, the only difference is, that the EOTS has shaped windows and if that isn't a requirement for the Russians currently at their early version, that's up to them, just like how they want to use the early Pak Fa in in strike role, because that decides if the external LDP makes sense or not.


Absolutely agree. The Russians have designed the pakfa according to what works best for them. My reference was to the Pakfa MKI which we are buying (FGFA) and which apparently is still in the design phase with us having submitted 40 design changes, and in the development of which we are equal partners.

The F22 AND the F35 will primarily use satellite guided weapons from stand off ranges in the first days of a war.


The F-22 will use the JDAM and the SDB because it lacks support for a LGB. The F-35 will use the 1000 and the 2000 pound LGB for lower number of targets that require heavier stuff, and the SDB II which has the laser guided mode for the smaller targets giving it more targets per sortie.

Laser guided weapons like LGBs or ATGMs on the other side would be too risky because of the low range and the fact that most heavy LGBs doesn't fit into the weapon bays anyway.


The F-35 can handle 2 x 2000 lb bomb, which is exactly the same number of 1000 pound bombs it can carry. It will use the EOTS and DAS for targeting, BMD and destruction for targets that require that sensors be put to detect and track them.

That means the EOTS mainly will be used in CAS, when the risk is low and full stealth capability is not required


CAS is important for EOTS, but so is SEAD and DEAD especially with the IAD threat projected. Its a discriminating passive sensor which can be relied upon so that the use of SAR and ISAR image is restricted to a minimum.

In fact, it is even likely that it will use it's external stations in such roles too, to increase the weapon loads or add more fuel to extend endurance.


External stores are likely when the mission demands, it is certainly going to be cleared to carry external weapons with the full block 3f capability.

just like an F22 would do it if it would carry LGBs.


The F-22 would not carry LGB's, if it does carry the SDB II it would use it not through a laser pod but either using MADL or in non laser modes.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/sdbii/

So an integrated EOTS is not always an advantage and used as a compromised IRST it's even a bad solution, compared to the OLS of the Russians. But without this IRST mode, the whole system would just be added weight, drag and most likely RCS during A2A roles, where it's not need. But A2A roles are what the PaK fa or the F22 are primarily meant for


I was speaking form the Indian side given that the PAKFA is going to be our main long range stealth aircraft for a long time.

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Sancho » 08 Jun 2014 22:09

NRao wrote:What is so difficult to understand in that? The statement was from the IAF.


Nothing but the fact that the statement was issued several years back, BEFORE the decisions were taken to go for a later version of Pak Fa / FGFA and not just the early version that the Russians want to induct by 2016! Just like the fact that IAF insisted on the type 30 engine as the base for FGFA and that it has to include other changes all were stated back then, but Mr Shukla just made up a story based on that old statements and it went viral!

India, Russia sign Fifth Generation stealth fighter project

December 2010


According to an official statement issued after the signing ceremony, the FGFA agreement "envisages joint design and development" and that the Sukhoi Design Bureau and Rosoboronexport would be partners from the Russian side.

The statement said: “The aircraft to be jointly developed is termed Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent. The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the design & development of the PMF, its productionization and joint marketing to the third countries. Programme options include the design & development of a twin seater variant and the integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage.”.


India to go for Upgraded Engine for the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation T-50 Fighter Jet

23.09.2011

The joint design and development of the fifth generation stealth fighter plane Sukhoi T-50 by India and Russia has seen a new twist as India has indicated that it seeks a more powerful engine. According to Air Chief Marshall N.A.K.Browne, although the progress of the T-50 fighter jet was satisfactory, an upgrade in the T-50 engine is needed...


http://www.defencenow.com/news/312/indi ... r-jet.html


India to customise Russia's FGFA planes

August 30, 2013

The Indian version of an Indo-Russian fifth-generation fighter plane is going to be lighter weight, more powerful and less visible to enemy radars that the original Russian version, according to a senior executive at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited...


http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Sancho » 08 Jun 2014 22:24

brar_w wrote:Absolutely agree. The Russians have designed the pakfa according to what works best for them. My reference was to the Pakfa MKI which we are buying (FGFA)


Which then is dependent on the operational requirements of IAF, if they think they need an integrated LDP, they can go with the Israelis as usual. Rafael has started such developments earlier and with the Israeli F35 in mind, which however doesn't seem to get such changes. However, only because the F35 has it, doesn't mean we need it on FGFA too and that's what many people forget.

brar_w wrote:The F-35 will use the 1000 and the 2000 pound LGB for lower number of targets that require heavier stuff


But not internally and that is the point here:

http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content ... rriage.jpg


So if it has to carry the LGBs externally, carrying the LDP internally hardly is an advantage anymore. EOTS and the lighter laser guided weapons, like SDB 2, Brimstone or PW IV however will form a good combo, which actually shows not the importance of laser guidance for a stealth fighter, but for useful weapons that can be carried in good loads in internal weapon bays. One reason why SDB, SPEAR 3 or SPICE 250 will be crucial weapons in future, while current generation LGBs will lose their importance.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 08 Jun 2014 22:42

Sancho wrote:Nothing but the fact that the statement was issued several years back, BEFORE the decisions were taken to go for a later version of Pak Fa / FGFA


Everything. The statement from the IAF, that the Russians are unable to deliver, came out in Dec 2013 and then again in Jan 2014.

The rest of the stuff in unrelated.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vic » 08 Jun 2014 23:01

HAL is doing hardly any R&D and nor will it do any deep manufacturing of importan T-50 components like Radar, Engine, Gear box, Landing Gear, Ejection seat etc. It is just another import disguised as JV and we get to pay USD 6 Billion dollar to get the brand of JV.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 08 Jun 2014 23:03

But not internally and that is the point here:


I must correct myself (its been a long day) when i wrote 1000 and 2000 pound bombs i was referring to GPS guided munitions.

EOTS is not specifically for laser guided bomb delivery, although it has a laser for that purpose built into the system. Its use is for percussion air to ground targeting irrespective of whether the aircraft employs and LBG or a GPS bomb or a multi mode seeker. Its a LDP but an IRST, FLIR and LDP combined sensor assembly. It works in combination with EODAS and the radar, but it in effect is a FLIR and IRST combo and does what those systems usually do in fighters.

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.in/content ... ots-pc.pdf

The EOTS comprises a third generation FLIR, a laser, and a CCD-TV camera providing target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges, high resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared search and track IRST, laser designation, laser rangefinder, and laser spot tracking.


Image

http://www.deagel.com/Navigation-and-Ta ... 41001.aspx

The F-35 can carry both the 1000 pound, and the 2000(GBU 31) pound bomb in its internal bays. It carries 2 of both per bay in addition to the two self defense missiles.

Image

Here is a video of the F-35 launching a 2000 pound GBU-31 JDAM from its internal weapons bay

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaJeA8P67cY[/youtube]


So if it has to carry the LGBs externally, carrying the LDP internally hardly is an advantage anymore.


It does not have to carry LGB's externally. The LGB clearance is there fore the weapons they want in the 3f and block 4 capability. It includes weapons all the way up to the 2000 lb. class. The shift has already been made to multi mode seekers so i do not see any more weapons coming in the 2k class that would be just Laser guided (over and above the inventories that exist). The next 1000 lb and 2000 lb class bombs would probably be bigger versions of the SDBI and II. I do not understand the treatment of EOTS as a LDP, sure it has that function, but its biggest function for air to ground as a matter of design is the FLIR function.

So if it has to carry the LGBs externally, carrying the LDP internally hardly is an advantage anymore.


The advantage is of having a FLIR pod mounted conformally to the jet instead of on a pod. It just so happens that the system is designed to perform other tasks one of which is laser designation.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Jun 2014 06:54, edited 3 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 08 Jun 2014 23:04

Sancho wrote:
India, Russia sign Fifth Generation stealth fighter project

December 2010


According to an official statement issued after the signing ceremony, the FGFA agreement "envisages joint design and development" and that the Sukhoi Design Bureau and Rosoboronexport would be partners from the Russian side.

The statement said: “The aircraft to be jointly developed is termed Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent. The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the design & development of the PMF, its productionization and joint marketing to the third countries. Programme options include the design & development of a twin seater variant and the integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage.”



Superceded by:

Feb, 2013

So, Mr. P:

Feb, 2013:: India to Use Russian Avionics For Future Fighter - UAC Boss

India is to equip its Perspective Multirole Fighter (PMF) variant of the Russian T-50 fifth-generation combat aircraft with avionics similar to Russia’s version of the plane, United Aircraft Corporation President Mikhail Pogosyan said on Wednesday.

“The future plane (PMF) will have not only the same airframe, but also an integrated system of onboard equipment,” Pogosyan said, stressing this was a requirement of the Indian Air Force


So, there goes the "PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent" ......................... in one comment from Mr. P.

And, then:

Sancho wrote:India to go for Upgraded Engine for the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation T-50 Fighter Jet

23.09.2011

The joint design and development of the fifth generation stealth fighter plane Sukhoi T-50 by India and Russia has seen a new twist as India has indicated that it seeks a more powerful engine. According to Air Chief Marshall N.A.K.Browne, although the progress of the T-50 fighter jet was satisfactory, an upgrade in the T-50 engine is needed...


Superceded by:

Again, Mr. P:

viewtopic.php?p=1663736#p1662934

Austin wrote:The 117 (AL-41F1) is a new 5th generation engine custom built for Russia’s fifth-generation stealth fighter jet PAK-FA according to Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosyan. Mikhail Pogosyan has clarified that claims that fifth-generation fighter allegedly has an old engine are wrong. Such claims are made by people with limited knowledge,he said. Though most parameters of the new 5th Gen Engine remains classified General Director Mikhail Pogosyan provided some information on the new engine, The engine thrust was enlarged by 2.5 tonnes when compared with the AL-31 engine, while the engine weight was cut by 150 kilograms. That allowed the new jet to supercruise i.e. move at a supersonic cruise speed without the use of after burner.

The Saturn Research and Production center made digitally controlled system (FADEC) of Project 117 Engine.The new engine produces 33,000 lbs (147 kN) of thrust in afterburner has a Dry weight of 1420 kilogram and T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that this engine (117) meets the client’s (Russian AirForce) requirements. This is not an intermediate product made particularly for test flights. The engine will be installed in production PAK-FA fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients."


And prior to that:

The T-50 prototype is powered by the 117S engine developed for the Su-35 4+ generation fighter aircraft but the production models are expected to be powered by the AL-41F1 which is basically a more powerful version of the 117S engine with some stealth characteristics. After 2020, the production T-50s will be powered by a new engine still being under development that will increase the aircraft's performance




So, essentially, as discussed a few pages ago, India is getting a vanilla PAK-FA, with an engine that was not planned for.


Now, if that is what the IAF wants, it is just fine. Which is what raghuk seems to be implying. ............................. No problems. But that does nto seem what the CAS wanted or said in 2010ish.

But, the quotes provided by you are old and no longer valid.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Jun 2014 05:41

brar_w wrote:
EOTS is not specifically for laser guided bomb delivery, although it has a laser for that purpose built into the system. Its use is for percussion air to ground targeting irrespective of whether the aircraft employs and LBG or a GPS bomb or a multi mode seeker. Its a LDP but an IRST, FLIR and LDP combined sensor assembly. It works in combination with EODAS and the radar, but it in effect is a FLIR and IRST combo and does what those systems usually do in fighters.


My my this will be caught on radar from 100s of miles away:

Image

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 09 Jun 2014 05:47

by the time the enemy sees that on radar it's too late, the bomb is on the way.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 09 Jun 2014 06:02

Dhananjay wrote:
My my this will be caught on radar from 100s of miles away:

Image


At least you could have used 2 different pictures on two different threads to post the same comment. A rush of blood? :)

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Jun 2014 06:08

brar_w wrote:At least you could have used 2 different pictures on two different threads to post the same comment. A rush of blood? :)


:D

Actually US MIC is using all its might to remove any jsf pics with EOTS as it might open "their dhol ki pol", so if you'll try searching on google, you'll find none. :P

So had to make use with what i could find.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2014 06:29

My my this will be caught on radar from 100s of miles away


One needs, to detect, a radar that survive.


My feel is that the old thinking needs to be revised. I very much doubt that much can be retained. I am sure that over time a lot will be overcome, but then the "next gen" will be out.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3044
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby abhik » 09 Jun 2014 08:34

With the revelation that there isn't going to be a 40,000lbs engine as earlier reported (at least any time soon), the T/W ratio of the PAK-FA has fallen by about 15% or so. Any expert comment on this significant performance drop?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 09 Jun 2014 17:32

Interview with UAC Chief Pogosyan .....just a small part devoted to PAK-FA

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/896609.html

Tests are quite successful fighter of the fifth generation, or promising aviation complex tactical aviation. Can "Tupolev" benefit from the experience of "dry", working on the PAK FA?

Mikhail Pogosyan: Program the fifth generation fighter developed in accordance with the terms of which are provided by the state program. We have completed the bulk of the pre-test in 2013 and are now at a stage presentation to the customer for the aircraft already joint state tests.

It is very important that in general the characteristics that we have laid, confirmed the test results. This is true not only of performance, but also the characteristics of the main systems of avionics. So I think that laid a good foundation that will enable us to successfully develop not only the program PAK FA, but also to use the reserve for other promising programs.

"Tupolev" is the parent KB for the program PAK DA. And I think that will be the most used the best groundwork already accumulated on other topics. Participation in the program PAK DA enterprises UAC will shorten and reduce the cost of the project.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 10 Jun 2014 00:13

Cain Marko wrote:INteresting point Karan, I did forget about this aspect. VivS, even if an AESA FCR doesn't degrade to the degree of a mechanically scanned counterpart, the AAM's seeker performance probably will?


The Aim-120D employs a conformal solid state seeker, basically an AESA. Its performance will not degrade the same way.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4510
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Jun 2014 01:37

Even so, the seeker is ultimately limited in power and size. Also, range for the missile will degrade considerably against a receding target, especially one that is very fast

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2014 08:18

Cain Marko wrote:Even so, the seeker is ultimately limited in power and size. Also, range for the missile will degrade considerably against a receding target, especially one that is very fast


And that is the main concern with a fast receding target. Not as much detection and tracking, but having a missile with the legs to chase. Air to Air missiles would always be limited here. SAM's, quite not so much depending upon the location and the way the are used.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2014 10:09

SAM will always be a major problem for any Stealth Target out there , Considering the fighters are optimised for X band radar , SAM have the flexibility to employ wide range of mobile radar operating in wide range of wavelength/frequency were LO shaping are not affected and with little limitation on power , wide employment of Passive/Bi-Static System and their missile has less limit on Seeker Range and Energy.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2014 17:31

Below is from a paper by Ignat I.Ikryanov at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology in 2000 about "results of appreciation of “Stealth” technology influence on fighter aircraft flight-performance and maneuvering characteristics."

He applied internal weapons, S-shaped ducts and aligned edges to the MiG-29 and compared the original with the stealthed-up versions.

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS20 ... CA0753.PDF

The stealth version reduced the original MiG-29's frontal RCS by 95% and side-on RCS by 88%.


via secretprojects

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2014 18:15

Austin wrote:
Below is from a paper by Ignat I.Ikryanov at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology in 2000 about "results of appreciation of “Stealth” technology influence on fighter aircraft flight-performance and maneuvering characteristics."

He applied internal weapons, S-shaped ducts and aligned edges to the MiG-29 and compared the original with the stealthed-up versions.

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS20 ... CA0753.PDF

The stealth version reduced the original MiG-29's frontal RCS by 95% and side-on RCS by 88%.


via secretprojects


And, that from a predominantly theoretical PoV (thanks for posting it - short and really sweet).

Now imagine mega computational resources at your beck and call. And, at least three, if not four, operational air crafts to lean on!!!!!!


That on the design side of the fence.

Cross over to the material side ...................................

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_23694 » 10 Jun 2014 19:07

PAK-FA is work in progress

http://idrw.org/?p=38674#more-38674

some senior IAF official are mooting idea of dropping Joint venture and Buying Russian variant of Pak-fa and then go for partial customisation locally in India which will see little deviation from Russian variant of the fighter jet. By doing this India will save the cost of Joint venture which might be required in developing technology in almost every Department of the fighter jet


And I still believe that some money will be saved of the planned $ 6 billion for JV after the above which could be used for initial funding for AMCA R&D

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2014 19:15

some senior IAF official are mooting idea of dropping Joint venture and Buying Russian variant of Pak-fa and then go for partial customisation locally in India which will see little deviation from Russian variant of the fighter jet. By doing this India will save the cost of Joint venture which might be required in developing technology in almost every Department of the fighter jet


A very good strategy, Get an MKI version much later with plenty of time to develop it. The AMCA is ours, even it is limited in some extent due to our capacity, every paisa spent on it will go into our defense industry and will pay off in the end.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2014 19:54

The IDRW article quotes lots of If , Buts , Sources similar to Shooklaw article mentioning Vice Chief without verbatim quoting him in any interview.

All Interview so far by IAF or HAL or even Sukhoi chief states IAF is happy with the progress , I have yet to see a single interview which quotes otherwise.

Quoting Sources is a good way for Journalist for Lifafa journalism specially the likes of Shooklaw who is hell bent we buy JSF :mrgreen:

Who know IN might listen to Shooklaw :lol:

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_23694 » 10 Jun 2014 20:23

Austin wrote:All Interview so far by IAF or HAL or even Sukhoi chief states IAF is happy with the progress , I have yet to see a single interview which quotes otherwise.


Could you please share a few links for the above. I can't find any online dated > 2012 which may provide in detail about the latest perspective of IAF on the PAK-FA in some detail and may sound positive. TIA

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 10 Jun 2014 20:36

dhiraj , I have posted interview from time to time on this thread you can check it , I will post once I find those in archive time permitting :)

T-50 Fighter Jet Fire Near Moscow Not to Affect Test Run

MOSCOW, June 10 (RIA Novosti) — An accident with an advanced Russian T-50 fifth-generation fighter jet, which briefly caught on fire while landing near Moscow, will not affect the schedule of planes’ test runs, Sukhoi company said Tuesday.

One of the T-50's engines failed during landing near Moscow on Tuesday, and there was a minor fire on aircraft’s hull. No casualties were reported and the fire was quickly extinguished.

“The jet will be restored. No one was injured. Sukhoi company has set up a commission to investigate the reasons of the accident. But the accident will not change the schedule of test runs slated for the T-50 program,” the company said in a statement.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2014 21:20

dhiraj wrote:PAK-FA is work in progress

http://idrw.org/?p=38674#more-38674

some senior IAF official are mooting idea of dropping Joint venture and Buying Russian variant of Pak-fa and then go for partial customisation locally in India which will see little deviation from Russian variant of the fighter jet. By doing this India will save the cost of Joint venture which might be required in developing technology in almost every Department of the fighter jet


And I still believe that some money will be saved of the planned $ 6 billion for JV after the above which could be used for initial funding for AMCA R&D


Not surprised - *at all*.

I came to a similar conclusion based on direct quotes from Mr. Mikhail Pogasyan - which went against what the Indian sides have expected!!!!!

My feel:
* The FGFA is (close to?) dead


Mr. P tried to gloss over and get his $6 billion. His quotes are very, very misleading. Seems like it did not work.



AMCA it is.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2014 21:26

brar_w wrote:
some senior IAF official are mooting idea of dropping Joint venture and Buying Russian variant of Pak-fa and then go for partial customisation locally in India which will see little deviation from Russian variant of the fighter jet. By doing this India will save the cost of Joint venture which might be required in developing technology in almost every Department of the fighter jet


A very good strategy, Get an MKI version much later with plenty of time to develop it. The AMCA is ours, even it is limited in some extent due to our capacity, every paisa spent on it will go into our defense industry and will pay off in the end.


Time will tell, but, my feel is that the PAK-FA - *from an IAF PoV* {key} - is a dud.


And, very, very understandably.

Pakalam.


A week or so ago I myself had suggested that the PAK-FA replace some of the MKIs on order. Nyet. Continue with the $70 million MKI and drop the entire PAK-FA/FGFA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8947
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2014 21:56

You may have misunderstood my post. I fully endorse the IAF buying the PAKFA. I have always wished for a PAKFA to be bought upfront (not a custom built JV designed FGFA), inducted in numbers while we work our own FGFA out using both help from the best available sources, but doing it on our own. As we mature the AMCA for example we'll pick up a lot of "know how" on a lot of matters that can be applied to the PAKFA MKI in say a trench 2 deal. Lets buy a 100 PAKFA's as is, with a few squadrons coming from the Russian line and the rest from ours (as usual). The MKI version needs to be ours from the ground up (development) and we need not rush it. Lets induct a 5th gen fighter, learn it, use it and move on from there. This acquisition will give us a jet that will last us very very long, so even our own capacity in design, support and the capability to add capability would become a lot better over time. With time we would also know on the J-20 and J-31 numbers, and how well those programs are going. Its a win win both from the timeframe concerned, and from the cost point of view. It also makes the entire 5th gen induction a much less risky affair. Eventually we are going to require 500+ 5th gen jets (PAKFA, FGFA and AMCA) and a lot of the stuff (particularly avionics) can be co-developed for all three jets.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 10 Jun 2014 22:37

What a waste of time and money. We should have started on AMCA long time back. Time to get smart and use money and time wisely

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 10 Jun 2014 23:04

brar_w,

My problem. Was not explicit.

[IMHO]

IMVVVHO, the PAK-FA does not have the funds an effort of this type needs. As a consequence, it is not as mature as it ought to be.

This poses two problems, both are related to expectation deficit:

1) IAF does not get a good plane to fill her squadron count. That deficit is in the "good plane", and

2) The Indian Labs face two issues:
a) Little to learn - due to a lack of maturity, and
b) Time. delays - got to wait fro it to mature ........ an unacceptable dimension

[/IMHO]

Comments????


I think Mr. P has been glossing over things and it is catching up - pretty fast I may add. Quotes attributed to him are contradictory to stated Indian expectations. There is no doubt about that on that score.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Jun 2014 03:46

Some better pictures of the damage

I know they say the aircraft will be repaired and it won't affect the timing of the test program . . . but the damage looks pretty severe.

Krishnakg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 01:16
Location: hyderabad
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Krishnakg » 11 Jun 2014 03:52

Fifth-generation fighter T-50 caught fire on the airfield in Zhukovsky

Image

Serial 055 was the latest prototype but seems to share recurring engine issues. After MAKS incident, this time right engine was on fire, and it landed using the left one. Powerplant seems to an area of concern going forward.

Translated from Russian, but with some gibberish

MOSCOW, June 10. / ITAR-TASS /. Fifth-generation fighter T-50 (promising aviation complex tactical aviation, PAK FA) caught fire during tests in Zhukovsky, the fire was quickly extinguished, as a result of the accident no one was hurt. Told Itar-Tass learned at the press service of the company "Sukhoi".

According to the "Dry", the incident occurred when the T-50 landing at the airport Flight Research Institute. Gromov staff after a test flight. As explained in the press service, "smoke was observed over the right air intake, then there was a local fire."
Representative LII. Gromov said that fighter, as usual, carried out test flights, but did a few laps at a very low altitude. According to him, the fire proved to be small, no pops or explosions was not heard, and the arrival of firefighters did not need - airport employees handled themselves.
Earlier it was reported that the plane was piloted by test pilot "Sukhoi" Sergei Bogdan. However, the pilot denied this information. "I just returned today from a trip," - he said Itar-Tass by telephone.
In the Sukhoi Design Bureau created a commission to investigate the causes of fire. While no version was not made
Previous incident with the PAK FA August 21, 2011 at MAKS-2011 fighter aircraft could not fly. In the dispersal of the aircraft was recorded outbreak of the right engine nozzle, and then the pilot released the brake parachute, and the plane stopped within the runway.
Cause of the accident was the failure of the power plant automation engine, occurred as a result of its surging.
According to experts, did not load sensor that monitors the parameters of the power plant.
As emphasized in the company, a new incident will not affect the timing of the tests, and the victim T-50 will be restored - he received only minor damage. According to ITAR-TASS source in law enforcement, the fighter has not yet passed the Defense Ministry. "The car belongs to the company" Sukhoi ", - said the agency interlocutor.

In Zhukovsky flight testing continues the four T-50, in ground-based experiments involving two more cars. So far committed about 500 test flights, it is planned that the state tests T-50 finish in 2015. It is expected that 2016 will start limited production of the fighter, which will come into service the Air Force combat units.
The total cost of creating the PAK FA is estimated at 60 billion rubles., But the plane itself should be 2.5-3 times cheaper than foreign analogues. Experts believe that one such fighter Russian Air Force will cost approximately $ 60 million, while India plans to buy PAK FA to $ 100 million per car. Meanwhile, according to open sources, the cost of the F-22 Raptor U.S. Air Force is close to $ 150 million, excluding research and development and the price of the F-35 Lightning II is 83-108 million dollars, depending on the modification.
On the plane
PAK FA - single strike aircraft, widely used in the design of composite materials. According to open sources, he will meet the following requirements for the Air Force fighter 5th generation supersonic flight without afterburner, low visibility (for radar, optical, acoustic and other detection systems), maneuverability and the ability to perform relatively short takeoff and landing. Flight characteristics of the aircraft are not officially disclosed.
PAK FA first flight took place on January 29, 2010 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

Earlier, Commander Air Force Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said that the PAK FA will be delivered to the Air Force of Russia from 2017. "I think that the aircraft until 2017 we will bring and maybe even earlier. If all goes well, the program tests may be reduced, but in 2017 we are planning to buy these planes and deliver them to our air part ", - said Bondarev.
Currently in Zhukovsky flight testing continues four T-50. In terrestrial experimental work has involved two cars - one is a comprehensive ground stand, the other passes a static test.


MOSCOW, June 10 (RIA Novosti) — An accident with an advanced Russian T-50 fifth-generation fighter jet, which briefly caught on fire while landing near Moscow, will not affect the schedule of planes’ test runs, Sukhoi company said Tuesday.
One of the T-50's engines failed during landing near Moscow on Tuesday, and there was a minor fire on aircraft’s hull. No casualties were reported and the fire was quickly extinguished.
“The jet will be restored. No one was injured. Sukhoi company has set up a commission to investigate the reasons of the accident. But the accident will not change the schedule of test runs slated for the T-50 program,” the company said in a statement.
The Sukhoi T-50 features a stealth profile with internal weapons bays for air and ground-attack weapons, thrust-vectoring engines for high-acceleration turns and an ability known as supercruise to fly supersonic without the use of a fuel-guzzling afterburner. The first flight was held in January 2010. In 2011, the jet was first displayed to the public at the MAKS airshow. In 2013, three jets were presented at the show and performed group maneuvers.
Combat squadrons could expect deliveries no later than in 2016 of the production version, known by its Russian acronym PAK-FA for future tactical fighter aircraft. The PAK-FA will replace the country’s aging fleet of Soviet-era fighter jets.


http://itar-tass.com/proisshestviya/1249672

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2014 04:50

GeorgeWelch wrote:Some better pictures of the damage

I know they say the aircraft will be repaired and it won't affect the timing of the test program . . . but the damage looks pretty severe.


A loss of 20% of testing assets and no impact on the testing schedule. This does not bode well for the IAF thinking.


Also noticed that earlier articles used to mention "India". The more recent ones have no mention................... just an observation.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2014 05:16

http://www.janes.com/article/38971/russ ... tches-fire
Russian T-50 PAK FA fighter prototype catches fire
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 June 2014

A prototype Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA fifth-generation fighter aircraft caught fire on 10 June following landing, according to Sukhoi.
(UAC)The fifth flying Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA prototype (side number '055') caught fire on 10 June after landing, heavily damaging the aircraft. (UAC)

"While the plane was landing, smoke above the right air intake was observed, then a local fire broke out," Sukhoi stated. The incident occurred at the Zhukovsky test centre, near Moscow, where the T-50 prototypes have been conducting flight trials.

The aircraft involved in the incident is the fifth flying prototype, aircraft T-50-5 (side number '055'), which was delivered for tests at Zhukovsky in November 2013.

According to Sukhoi, the pilot was uninjured and the company has already set up a commission to investigate the cause of the incident.


Surely a setback by at least few months.It will be interesting to see if the T-50 meets the deadlines set for its induction.
Last edited by Philip on 11 Jun 2014 05:19, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2014 05:18

Image

A very nice comment from another forum:

Every well-designed testing military program for a fighter has been including the possible loss from any or even several aircraft's, since the own reason of the tests is to take the fighter to the extreme of its capabilities.

The high heat had been generated during the fire as well as the brutal cooling occurred during extinction of the fire must have irreparably compromised the structural integrity of the aircraft, as well as other aircraft systems, even though it may be advisable not be recovered back this aircraft to the flight test program ,or even same parts of this.

Because the accident happened in the ground will be more easier to determine the causes of it, otherwise if the prototype would crash down while in the flight the whole program could be paralyzed until it was possible to determine the causes of the accident





Also, just noticed, a "bulb" looking thing, below the cockpit. does nto seem to be there in prior models. Anyone know what that could be?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 11 Jun 2014 06:17

....now that right there will buff out, no problem....... :D

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 11 Jun 2014 08:19

The picture looks bad because of the fiber coming out , Since the damage occurred during landing it could be FOD on one engine.

Though its good to see the radiation warning signal on the levcons :D

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 11 Jun 2014 13:07

Apparently smoke started appearing, above the right air intake, as it was landing. It then caught fire at that location.

The plane is clearly damaged above the intake.

If in those pictures, it is "fiber" that has dangling, then the story ought to be rather bad. The fire was on the top, the fiber is dangling below and on both sides.

055 was the latest and greatest - came out around Oct, 2013.

056, 057 and 058 are expected out this year, with 056 allocated for static tests.


The loss of 055 should be felt for some time to come - I would imagine. They could continue non-static "testing", but with older versions.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 11 Jun 2014 15:37

Three Aircraft Carry Radar and 055 was one of them ...so it really depends what test points they were testing. If Sukhoi says the test wont be affected then those test points will be carried with other PT.

Good the pilot managed to land it and got out Safely without having to bail out , Shows how unpredictable Test Pilot role can get. Three Cheers to him !

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 11 Jun 2014 17:33

Isn't this the second accident in less than a year involving the engine? Looks bad enough to set the program back by a couple of months.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests