PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
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 » 11 Feb 2013 10:54

it it does they induct if it doesnt Sukhoi fine tunes it and then its tested for induction.....


Mark my words. You are looking at 15 years from now before the PAK FA will be in any usable form for it to be inducted. The big hurdle of stealthy engines is yet to be met , and not to mention all the avionics and others that need to be developed.

If the F-35 and F-22 are any indication to be an operational weapon in IAF service you are looking at 20 years from now.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Raman » 11 Feb 2013 13:00

vina wrote:Diamond shaped wings will increase the - As* Pecked ..oops Aspect Ratio , which in turn will increase aerodynamic efficiency by increasing Lift to Drag (lower induced drag than over a lower aspect wing), giving higher range ityadi. Ask Unkal Googal about Breguet Range Equation for example.


Au contraire, the diamond shape (a la AMCA/YF-23) reduces aspect ratio. For example, comparing a delta and a diamond wing of the same sweep and span (b), the area (S) of diamond wing is much greater, so AR=b^2/S will be correspondingly reduced. A diamond wing will also have worse aspect ratio than a delta of the same wing area, given the same sweep.

I'm no aero expert, but the advantages I'd expect are:
- similar structural advantages of a delta, but with increased available volume (for given span and sweep)
- reduced rate of change of cross-sectional area, which should have a big effect on transonic/supersonic wave drag.

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 » 11 Feb 2013 13:28

Raman wrote:Au contraire, the diamond shape (a la AMCA/YF-23) reduces aspect ratio. For example, comparing a delta and a diamond wing of the same sweep and span (b), the area (S) of diamond wing is much greater, so AR=b^2/S will be correspondingly reduced. A diamond wing will also have worse aspect ratio than a delta of the same wing area, given the same sweep.


As Mr Spock says, it doesn't compute ! The way to compare is for wings with same wing area ! Once you fix that, it is simplicity itself to see that , for a given wing area , a wing with a high span has higher A*s Pecked ratio than one with a lower one from basic geometry.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 11 Feb 2013 13:51

diamond planforms are for supersonic drag reduction (if i can decipher my vague herb induced trance recollections)

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Raman » 12 Feb 2013 08:54

vina wrote:As Mr Spock says, it doesn't compute ! The way to compare is for wings with same wing area ! Once you fix that, it is simplicity itself to see that , for a given wing area , a wing with a high span has higher A*s Pecked ratio than one with a lower one from basic geometry.


No sir - you are mistaken. Please look at this image. The two wings have the same area (all grey triangles are the same size) and the same sweep (green line) - check the spans (red lines). The diamond clearly has a smaller span than the delta, and the corresponding b^2 term in b^2/S will be much lower - hence lower aspect ratio.

The only way to get a higher aspect ratio for the same area is to reduce the sweep and elongate the wing. You don't want to do that - it will mess with the high-speed capability, which is a fundamental advantage of the diamond.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby bmallick » 12 Feb 2013 09:49

I would like to hazard a guess why the Diamond planform has been chosen for AMCA.

The current position of the internal bomb-bay is shown to be behind the cockpit and ahead of the engines, almost in the middle of the fighter. Now the release of weapons should not disturb the CG of the fighter by huge margin. Which means that the CG of the fighter too would be somewhere around there. Now between Delta wing and a Diamond one of same area, the delta's center of lift would be farther aft compared to the Diamond. Now if the fighters Center of Lift is aft of the CG the fighter would have nose down tendency, not the most desirable thing. This would entail loads of push down by the horizontal tails, resulting in more drag. Hence the choice of Diamond planform to position the center of lift better with regards to the CG. Just my two cents.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2013 10:11

vina wrote:Mark my words. You are looking at 15 years from now before the PAK FA will be in any usable form for it to be inducted. The big hurdle of stealthy engines is yet to be met , and not to mention all the avionics and others that need to be developed.


Though I am no Prophet from Israel to predict what can/may happen in the future but in high complexity project such delays are inherent and how can one manage those delays and trade off the risk/gain keeing requirements in mind would needs project management skills of highest order , We can just hope that delays are minimilised to the least possible , every one hope for that , We will see how Sukhoi tackles that.

There are no such things called stealthy engine , what PAK-FA wala did was they went for Blocker Approach for stealth and something else as Engine is not aligned with the intake, for Frontal RCS and for rear aspect they can always use Serated Nozzle JSF style ..... A new engine is always a risky business and I am not sure why they want to go for a new engine with so called 17-18 T of thrust its insane as the current engine closely matches the thrust of F-22 and has better T/W ratio and life cycle claimed to be better than any Saturn engine of flanker. Never mind if something exotic comes out from new engine no one will complain , considering this baby will serve for 30 years plus they perhaps want to make it future proof.

If the F-35 and F-22 are any indication to be an operational weapon in IAF service you are looking at 20 years from now.


F-22 and F-35 are both badly managed project and should not be a mirror for any other project , US defence industry and its key aerospace players are hell bent on ripping off pentagon , They come up with Over Specd , Over Priced design , rip up pentagon to maximum possible then when the project actually takes shape they find it does not meet original specs and its delayed .. so they rip off more under cut the specs and when air craft is inducted the GAO report like in case of F-22 suggest its a maintenance nightmare and promises that never made good.

In US Defence project only the contractors and subcontractors are net gainers , the Pentagon if they are lucky gets what they want in most cases they dont and the USAF becomes the net looser.

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 » 12 Feb 2013 10:41

Raman wrote:No sir - you are mistaken. Please look at this image. The two wings have the same area (all grey triangles are the same size) and the same sweep (green line) - check the spans (red lines). The diamond clearly has a smaller span than the delta, and the corresponding b^2 term in b^2/S will be much lower - hence lower aspect ratio.


Ayyo! You are right, if you want to preserve the sweep angle of a classic delta with a diamond (by rearranging the two triangles of a delta on it's hypotenuse to form a diamond. However, that is not the idea behind it. The idea is to increase the distribution of area of wing perpendicular to the axis of the plane. Ie, you want a longer span for aerodynamic reasons ( longer span, more L/D of the wing), so the sweep angle will of course be higher than for a pure delta.

The only way to get a higher aspect ratio for the same area is to reduce the sweep and elongate the wing. You don't want to do that - it will mess with the high-speed capability, which is a fundamental advantage of the diamond.

You absolutely want to do that. The advantage of the diamond is structural (giving a longer wing root for a given span over a conventional wing, hence more structurally efficient and can be deeper as well giving space for fuel and undercarriage stowage) . The wing rides inside the shock cone from the forebody (aka nose of the plane). Sweep angle alone doesn't determine the design speed, but rather, the forebody /wing planform interaction.

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 » 12 Feb 2013 11:42

Austin wrote: A new engine is always a risky business and I am not sure why they want to go for a new engine with so called 17-18 T of thrust its insane as the current engine closely matches the thrust of F-22 and has better T/W ratio and life cycle claimed to be better than any Saturn engine of flanker.

New engine is needed because the current ones on (AL-30 based) dont cut the mustard in terms of T:W ?

Never mind if something exotic comes out from new engine no one will complain , considering this baby will serve for 30 years plus they perhaps want to make it future proof.

They need to get it to work in the first place. And look at "proven" engine doing it's stuff at MAKS-2011 with flames blowing out due to compressor stall ! I think it is going to quite tough.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 16 Feb 2013 23:43

vina wrote:New engine is needed because the current ones on (AL-30 based) dont cut the mustard in terms of T:W ?


The current 117 engine uses 70 % new parts and uses new hot stage , its around 150 kg lighter than Al-31FP engine that we use on MKI and a stated thrust of 15 T , the T:W ratio is 10.5:1 which is better than the F-22 T/W and even Eurofigter only the F-35 engine has better T:W ratio which is 11:1.

I think the only motivation for new engine is likely the PAK-FA/FGFA will get heavier in the future and then 17-18 T thrust will make sure it compensates for the thrust and gives it a great over all T:W ratio , may be some new technology like variable cycle engine .. we will see when that comes.


They need to get it to work in the first place. And look at "proven" engine doing it's stuff at MAKS-2011 with flames blowing out due to compressor stall ! I think it is going to quite tough.


The Flame out was due to faulty FADEC which was rectified , PAK-FA did flew a lot at MAKS 11 and after that.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 16 Feb 2013 23:46

PAK-FA with the new sting with Su-35S in the background

http://i.imgur.com/WELPJh0.jpg

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 16 Feb 2013 23:50

What is their plan to reduce rear RCS? any info?, especially on their hot sections on dorsal sides.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Christopher Sidor » 18 Feb 2013 23:36

Austin wrote:PAK-FA with the new sting with Su-35S in the background

http://i.imgur.com/WELPJh0.jpg


Is it me or is does the sukhio pilot actually have a better all round visibility as compared to the PAK-FA pilot?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7403
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 18 Feb 2013 23:49

There is only so much that the pilot can turn his head.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2013 00:14

you mean the the dash is slightly higher, and ground visibility blocked?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19878
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Feb 2013 04:03

An interesting snippet on a lengthy feature on the FGFA,where approx "20 sorties" of the AESA radar had been carried out,is that the Irbis 400km range radar meant for the SU-35,will be retrofitted to upgraded TU-22M3s and TU-160s,trials to commence from 2014.A lightweight "Bars-130" is being developed for the YAK-130 combat trainer.

4 prototypes are now flying,with a 5th later this year. Nasik might get its first prototype in 2014.

Other snippets.The IN's Zhuk-ME slotted array radars on their MIG-29Ks,feature "even greater capabilities (FGM-229 version,earlier version FGM-129)".About 50 radars will be supplied to India.Same radar for upgraded MIG-29s.A KH-35E antiship missile was successfully tested to a range over 85km.An AESA version is also being offered for future upgrades/MIG-29Ks.

PS:Has anyone estimated the length of the internal weapons bay ,whether it can accomodate v.long-range anti-AWACS AAMs?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2013 04:23

nope. check the previous page sancho has the stores diagram.

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 Feb 2013 06:54

how is anyone sure today itself that AMCA will have fixed air inlets?
the F15 has constricting structure inside and so does the Mig29. its only the M2k where the moveable cone is visible.

member_24612
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_24612 » 19 Feb 2013 09:34

SaiK wrote:What is their plan to reduce rear RCS? any info?, especially on their hot sections on dorsal sides.


IMO, the PAK-FA will not be as "stealthy" as say an F-22 Raptor, but it will be a good balance between stealth, maneuverability, weapons systems and cost.

The twin engine exhausts are a huge heat signature!

Vivek

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2013 10:16

The thing is, they never concentrated on the design carried forward from sukhoi-30s. Even in the sukhois, these engines skins are exposed. I am not concerned on the heat signature for BVR, but it is a concern for radar signatures. Do they get a skin at least to absorb or deflect? There is a high probability that a Raptor can take a look down shot on PAKFA in the future.

member_24612
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_24612 » 19 Feb 2013 11:12

SaiK wrote:The thing is, they never concentrated on the design carried forward from sukhoi-30s. Even in the sukhois, these engines skins are exposed. I am not concerned on the heat signature for BVR, but it is a concern for radar signatures. Do they get a skin at least to absorb or deflect? There is a high probability that a Raptor can take a look down shot on PAKFA in the future.


Yeah, wonder why they left the aft part of the engines "naked"

I had heard that this was an interim configuration and that the PAK-FA would get better heat/radar absorbing skin, especially towards the rear.

The other issue is the lack of an S-Duct for the engine intakes.

I wonder if the Indian FGFA will overcome some of these issues with the PAK-FA!

Vivek

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
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 Feb 2013 12:09

Singha wrote:how is anyone sure today itself that AMCA will have fixed air inlets?
the F15 has constricting structure inside and so does the Mig29. its only the M2k where the moveable cone is visible.

Usually top speed is a give away ; if it is like Mach 2+ or above then use of variable geometry inlets is more than likely the case.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 19 Feb 2013 15:18

For questions related to LO , Engine , Weapons etc on PAK-FA there is a good FAQ to read that contains information based on what has been disclosed and patent drawing etc .... its in Russian but translator works equally well

http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2326

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 19 Feb 2013 15:23

For the aerodynamic gurus an interesting patient filed by Sukhoi Design Bureau on PAK-FA program ( use translator )

AIRCRAFT INTEGRATED aerodynamic design

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby PratikDas » 19 Feb 2013 22:24

Austin wrote:For the aerodynamic gurus an interesting patient filed by Sukhoi Design Bureau on PAK-FA program ( use translator )

AIRCRAFT INTEGRATED aerodynamic design


Some great line drawings in there. Click to expand.

Image

Image

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 01 Mar 2013 23:06

Russia, India Describe Next-Gen Fighter Plans

The air force commanders of both Russia and India have this month discussed the progress and future schedule of the fifth-generation Sukhoi fighter project. They are keen to have their own pilots evaluate the design so that they can take a decision on further funding for the project.

Russian air force commander Gen. Victor Bondarev said that he expects all four flyable prototypes of the so-called PAKFA (Future Aviation Complex of Frontal Aviation) to gather at the defense ministry’s test base and firing range near Akhtubinsk in Southern Russia, for customer assessment and weapons release trials. By the year-end their number shall increase to eight. If tests are a success, the PAKFA will go into series production in late 2015 or early 2016.

In his turn, Indian air force chief of staff told journalists at the recent Aero India show that he expects arrival of three PAKFA development prototypes in India, the first in 2015, the second in 2017 and the third in 2018. Air Marshall N. A. K. Browne said that the design and development phase of what India calls the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) is proceeding well under “a small-value contract.” When it is completed later this year, India and Russia will sign a new R&D contract “which is the mother of all phases,” he added.

Should India be satisfied with flight performance of the FGFA, it will fund the next phase: creation of a customized version for the Indian air force by a joint team of Russian and Indian engineers. The Indian version would use same airframe, engines and main systems, and differ in mission hardware and software, as well as weapons nomenclature. Series airframes manufacturing would commence at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in 2022, Browne added.

At Aero India, United Aircraft Corporation’s president Mikhail Pogosyan said that Russia and India would buy “over 400” aircraft and that the total market would exceed 600. He confirmed that all four prototypes built to date are now in flight test, and said that additional development aircraft will be completed “as necessary, after the two sides sign the full-scale development contract.”

Pogosyan further insisted that both Russian and Indian versions “will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical onboard systems and avionics.” Indian air force specialists had been involved in working out specification to the aircraft “from the very beginning and through all development phases.” He continued, “It may happen that in future there will be some specific [national] requirements for onboard systems or additional missions, but these would be formally agreed by both customers.” Pogosyan expects the FGFA to follow the Su-30MKI/MKM example, in which “the Indian and Malaysian air forces use the very same platform, with the difference confined to a few avionics items.”

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby RoyG » 01 Mar 2013 23:28

2022? That's quite a long time.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 01 Mar 2013 23:30

^^^ there is a LOT of engineering and testing to do before then

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 01 Mar 2013 23:52

Seems like mega bargaining going on.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 02 Mar 2013 03:01

well if the airframe and engine are russkies, then more than 50% of basic flight controls, and FADEC are part of russians. It is a major challenge indeed from that perspective, and we might be burnt down in the integration engineering alone, unless the team sits in the same place and do not have mars rover kind of problems (english vs metrics) ahead.

Avionics and stores separated out looks like mostly MKI, vetrivel ++ -> shaktivel. why not just call it pak-fa-mki, and remove the fgfa business. that way the russkies would not think of chewing us more. I am off the feeling the cost for this MKIzation is way too much. It is better diverted to Kaveri up thrusting and AMCA for a vision 2020.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11067
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby pankajs » 02 Mar 2013 18:08

Austin wrote:Russia, India Describe Next-Gen Fighter Plans
Pogosyan further insisted that both Russian and Indian versions “will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical onboard systems and avionics.” Indian air force specialists had been involved in working out specification to the aircraft “from the very beginning and through all development phases.” He continued, “It may happen that in future there will be some specific [national] requirements for onboard systems or additional missions, but these would be formally agreed by both customers.” Pogosyan expects the FGFA to follow the Su-30MKI/MKM example, in which “the Indian and Malaysian air forces use the very same platform, with the difference confined to a few avionics items.”

This is as clear and straight forward as it can be and should dispel any remaining doubts on the "co-development" BS. FGFA will be a PAK-FA-MKI afterall!

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby RamaY » 02 Mar 2013 23:55

Indian air force specialists had been involved in working out specification to the aircraft “from the very beginning and through all development phases


Looks like Indian customers are involved from the beginning not the R&D partners. Fair enough!

This is a challenge to Indian R&D organizations. They need to show the confidence in their capabilities and also have the discipline to convert their dreams/promises in to reality in a timely and efficient manner. All the best to them.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2013 02:01

working out specs from the very beginning needs little spice and salt to digest. can they produce a 50k ft level document on that? we only knew visits made by babooze and the forces to see demos. boss loags, this is $30 billion can't be substantiated like that. one can't create a basis for satisfying that expense, but substantiate the necessities for the expenses to incur. an augmented a/c will have lesser money to make it an MKI, not at the level of doing it from scratch. russkies are taking us for a big ride here is my gut says. Don't we want CAG at an earlier stage and prevent bad investments, corruptions if any should go on that path.. our empirical data is full of such bad corrupt practices.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 03 Mar 2013 02:26

RamaY wrote:
Indian air force specialists had been involved in working out specification to the aircraft “from the very beginning and through all development phases


Looks like Indian customers are involved from the beginning not the R&D partners. Fair enough!

This is a challenge to Indian R&D organizations. They need to show the confidence in their capabilities and also have the discipline to convert their dreams/promises in to reality in a timely and efficient manner. All the best to them.


There are two planes: PAK-FA and the FGFA. That statement should hold true for the FGFA, and NOT the PAK-FA. The India team joined them way after the fact.

pankajs wrote:This is as clear and straight forward as it can be and should dispel any remaining doubts on the "co-development" BS. FGFA will be a PAK-FA-MKI afterall!


It still should be a good deal for India. What India seems to totally lack at the moment is testing (and granted some phases of the "5th Gen" plane). The FGFA should provide a good deal of experience from that angle - how is testing planed and conducted.

Since India is signing of on segments she seems to be hedging her bets and making sure she gets what she asked and paid for before going to the next step. Would be interesting to see what happens if there is a slip somewhere.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4115
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby srai » 03 Mar 2013 09:29

pankajs wrote:[quote="Austin" Russia, India Describe Next-Gen Fighter Plans
Pogosyan further insisted that both Russian and Indian versions “will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical onboard systems and avionics.” Indian air force specialists had been involved in working out specification to the aircraft “from the very beginning and through all development phases.” He continued, “It may happen that in future there will be some specific [national] requirements for onboard systems or additional missions, but these would be formally agreed by both customers.” Pogosyan expects the FGFA to follow the Su-30MKI/MKM example, in which “the Indian and Malaysian air forces use the very same platform, with the difference confined to a few avionics items.”
/quote]
This is as clear and straight forward as it can be and should dispel any remaining doubts on the "co-development" BS. FGFA will be a PAK-FA-MKI afterall!


Unlike the MKI project, FGFA will undergo flight tests in India. At least three test aircrafts are planned. This would mean early participation of DRDO/HAL in customizing and making modifications as per IAF's requests on the aircraft in India. There will be some assistance from Russian engineers in this regard.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36297
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2013 09:37

Can they list out all the customization and at 30K level details? we would then need to justify the expense.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4115
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby srai » 03 Mar 2013 12:51

SaiK wrote:Can they list out all the customization and at 30K level details? we would then need to justify the expense.


Well, we could make pretty good educated guess based on current (and near future) Indian aerospace technology capability.

  • Airframe -> while external design can't be changed, India has quite mature composite tech. We can expect lots of Indian composites on the airframe.
  • Engines -> probably will be involved in the full authority digital electronic control (FADEC) system and some component parts
  • Radar & Sensors -> probably a hybrid like the Israeli-Indian MMR, but with Russians
  • Avionics & Computers -> vast majority like MFD, Mission Computer, Weapons Computer/Adapter will be Indian (with some EU ventures)
  • MMI & Ergonomics -> more suited to Indian pilots
  • ECCM -> Indian (with some Israeli ventures)
  • Weapons -> Indian weapons such as Astra AAM, Sudarshan LGB, PGM-ER, Brahmos-3; also, weapons from Israel, EU and US

Other specific IAF requirements would be "hot & high", "very hot & dry", "hot & sandy", "monsoon", and "hot & humid" performance. These are more unique to Indian sub-continent environment.

Down the road, we could even see more Indian systems derived from the AMCA project integrated into FGFA.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 04 Mar 2013 08:31

srai wrote:Other specific IAF requirements would be "hot & high", "very hot & dry", "hot & sandy", "monsoon", and "hot & humid" performance. These are more unique to Indian sub-continent environment.


Hot ,High Dry performance is not any issue as the Engine has enough power to take care of it even MKI or Mig-29 are not know to suffer due to these issue , the only known aircraft that has been a problem with Hot and Dry climate has been the Jaguar.

What they might need is better ECS with enough cooling to take care of cockpit condition in indian subcontinent.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4115
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby srai » 04 Mar 2013 08:43

^^^

There are performance penalties. The IAF may have some specific requirements on how much fuel and weapons it can carry along with take-off/landing distances etc. when operating at these hot&high conditions.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16238
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 04 Mar 2013 09:03



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alhaz, Google [Bot], jaysimha, pattnayak, rohitvats, Snehashis, Vinod Ji and 56 guests