Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 13 Nov 2017 07:17

^^^^^
Good post!

Only to add to your post.

Avionics are an expected edge (DAS-HMDS, multi-ship sensor fusion, etc). But, you really ought to add, if not emphasize, the stealth & maintainability aspect.


Keys sensors + networking.

They no longer talk in terms of an air craft.

Disclosures made by USAF brass have revealed it to be stealthier than the F-22. And its been designed for resilience - the manufacturing precision is in a class of its own requiring no epoxy application. Its the Toyota-Honda factor (i.e. not the fastest or nimblest thing around, but combines good performance, superb production quality & reliability with large economies of scale) and an Amazon-style logistics system, that make it the best overall package.


They have started to introduce IoT at every step of the way, thus reducing errors across the board. Next step is to introduce embedded AI, self healing components. Already implemented (AI), by some vendors, at early stages, manufacturing as an example: extrusion, etc.

In addition they are implementing granular testing: diode level. As components are assembled risks are computed based on track-able components. Easy to track problems. If need be easy to fix too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 13 Nov 2017 07:27

These are fundamentally different aircraft supporting different needs and at different maturity levels. The PAKFA is the first clean sheet fighter design for Russia in the post flanker era and is their first large scale production investment into Low-Observables. The F-35 is a multi-service 5th generation strike fighter which will have the distinction of being the first to take low-observable designs and mass produce them which it is doing with deliveries north of 60/yr. already in 2017 (and it is still not out of Low Rate Production phase) .

It's the first "quantity" 5th generation fighter which has been designed from the ground up to be produced in large numbers for both the primary customer but broader NATO and non NATO US allies. This extends beyond the aircraft to how it is supported, sustained, modernized and the training and logistical element and industrial partnerships. Of course from a purely technical and manufacturing perspective Lockheed and the USDOD has been investing in R&D and production of LO aircraft and weapons for decades so there will be benefits and advantages both technical and those associated with hands on experience of operating them. Avionics and LO advances aside the biggest advantage the F-35 enjoys is the scale i.e. delivering dozens of airframes to its primary customer every year. This is easier said than done and it will be interesting to see how long the Russians take to achieve F-22 level production rates let alone those approaching the F-35.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Nov 2017 10:11

Indranil wrote:That would be wrong. They employ the same generic layout. The 57 makes some compromises for better RCS, but makes up for it through power. This is the same as in the F-22. F-22 makes the same kind of compromises, actually more than that of the Su-57. So in aerial capability, I would place it slightly over the F-22. The F-35 does not hold a candle to either of these 2 in aerial capability.


There is no generic layout if you mean having a wing , fuselage and tail then all aicraft has it and its generic to it.

Even the F-15 and Su-27 dont share the same planform one is a conventional design and other is lifting body design , The only thing common between a flanker and PAK-FA is its lifting body design

Please check official patient of Sukhoi on PAK-FA ( use google translator ) https://topwar.ru/18494-samolet-integra ... 16-c1.html

Where the F-35 gains is its avionics and mission computer which is a generation ahead of the F-22/Su-57. F-35 is the absolute leader in this aspect. Everybody else is playing catch up.


Their avionic has gone a change since the time they flew since the begginning of the year read the link on new architecture

Sukhoi starts testing new IMA BK FMS on Russia's PAK FA fighter

http://airrecognition.com/index.php/arc ... ghter.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Nov 2017 14:05

Pics of Early Model Pre-Serial Id 30 Second Stage Engine Nozzle [ via keypubs ]

Image
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Nov 2017 14:06

T-50-9

Image

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 14 Nov 2017 03:11

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:

Brar giving up?? :) Must have reached lowest of lowest bottom. He is extremely patient!


If someone continues to push demonstrably false information and blatantly lie repeatedly, what else can one do? If he/she think its ok and the community is fine with it then who am I to question it.


You are too kind sir! I put that individual on ignore list half a decade ago!!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Nov 2017 10:01

Full Engine View of Id 30 Engine pre-prod model

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Nov 2017 10:03


JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 00:56

They have F135-like chevrons on the exhaust for LO.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2017 03:11

Austin wrote:Even the F-15 and Su-27 dont share the same planform one is a conventional design and other is lifting body design , The only thing common between a flanker and PAK-FA is its lifting body design


So the F-15 does not have a lifting body design??
http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

McDonnell Douglas attributes the saving of this aircraft to the amount of lift generated by the engine intake/body and "a hell of a good pilot".

Come on Austin, IR is on the dot here. The Su-27 legacy is obvious when you see the Su-57 & its avionics are still a work-in-progress and likely nowhere as mature as the ones on JSF or F-22. Let alone the stealth.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 03:52

Austin, There are degrees of body generated lift so that nuance applies. It needn't be a Y or N. The F-15 most definitely generates body lift as Karan points out.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 09:42

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:Even the F-15 and Su-27 dont share the same planform one is a conventional design and other is lifting body design , The only thing common between a flanker and PAK-FA is its lifting body design


So the F-15 does not have a lifting body design??
http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

McDonnell Douglas attributes the saving of this aircraft to the amount of lift generated by the engine intake/body and "a hell of a good pilot".

Come on Austin, IR is on the dot here. The Su-27 legacy is obvious when you see the Su-57 & its avionics are still a work-in-progress and likely nowhere as mature as the ones on JSF or F-22. Let alone the stealth.


There is difference between F-15 and Flanker design , Flanker have a integral lifting body design where the wings didn't just abruptly join the cylindrical fuselage as earlier designs did the wings grew thicker and changed form, getting rounded to blend in seamlessly into the fuselage. This gave Franker design tremendous increase in lifting surface as well as increased internal volume for fuel/equipment.

From Sukhoi Website on Flanker design http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/milita ... k/history/

Key pubs had an interesting design on Flanker and other type design https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... -the-world

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 16:52

Of course these designs are different. I think the earlier point was that one had body lift and the other didn't. This is inaccurate as both generate body lift. It is also likely true that the Flanker generates more body lift on account of the design. This is also true for the F-14 and F-16 vis-a-vis the F-15 and of course the newer 5th generation aircraft will also be better.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 17:22

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:
So the F-15 does not have a lifting body design??
http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

McDonnell Douglas attributes the saving of this aircraft to the amount of lift generated by the engine intake/body and "a hell of a good pilot".

Come on Austin, IR is on the dot here. The Su-27 legacy is obvious when you see the Su-57 & its avionics are still a work-in-progress and likely nowhere as mature as the ones on JSF or F-22. Let alone the stealth.


There is difference between F-15 and Flanker design , Flanker have a integral lifting body design where the wings didn't just abruptly join the cylindrical fuselage as earlier designs did the wings grew thicker and changed form, getting rounded to blend in seamlessly into the fuselage. This gave Franker design tremendous increase in lifting surface as well as increased internal volume for fuel/equipment.

From Sukhoi Website on Flanker design http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/milita ... k/history/

Key pubs had an interesting design on Flanker and other type design https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... -the-world


The way Su-27 was designed was they started with only the wing, perfected it in WT, and then started adding engine pods, fuselage etc. Thats why the characteristic layout where it feels like the engine pods are hung from below.

One can see contiguity of design concept/philosophy from older generation fighters like MiG-25 on Su-27/Mig29 if you see the concept development of the Su27/MiG29 fighters from inception to design freeze. Same applies for PAKFA vis-a-vis Su-27 platform. And similar contiguity can be traced in various American or French design houses too.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 18:31

Su-27 and mig-29 lifting body design with integral wings and fuselage was due to extensive work done by Tsagi which passed on that to the two design bureau who came with with solution in mig-29 and Su-27.

There is no commonality in design with Mig-25 or previous design it's a complete break from it , PAK-FA follows flanker design philosophy on integral lifting body plus adds to it like small all moving tail and levcons etc

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 18:33

Su-27 and mig-29 lifting body design with integral wings and fuselage was due to extensive work done by Tsagi which passed on that to the two design bureau who came with with solution in mig-29 and Su-27.

There is no commonality in design with Mig-25 or previous design it's a complete break from it , PAK-FA follows flanker design philosophy on integral lifting body plus adds to it like small all moving tail and levcons etc

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 19:17

Austin wrote:Su-27 and mig-29 lifting body design with integral wings and fuselage was due to extensive work done by Tsagi which passed on that to the two design bureau who came with with solution in mig-29 and Su-27.

There is no commonality in design with Mig-25 or previous design it's a complete break from it , PAK-FA follows flanker design philosophy on integral lifting body plus adds to it like small all moving tail and levcons etc


Sure, Tsagi designed it. Just like LCA is designed by NAL, not ADA. :wink:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 21:02

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:Su-27 and mig-29 lifting body design with integral wings and fuselage was due to extensive work done by Tsagi which passed on that to the two design bureau who came with with solution in mig-29 and Su-27.

There is no commonality in design with Mig-25 or previous design it's a complete break from it , PAK-FA follows flanker design philosophy on integral lifting body plus adds to it like small all moving tail and levcons etc


Sure, Tsagi designed it. Just like LCA is designed by NAL, not ADA. :wink:


Tsagi did the work on Lift Body Design and provide these to two design bureau to incorporate into their respective design.

Tsagi does a lot of R&D pre and post design work for almost every thing that Russian builds and flies , refines or upgrades or even civilain stuff high speed trains or cars ........it is like Alma mater for every design bureau for aviation civil or military or space.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2017 00:37

^^ Indeed. No arguments there.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby enaiel » 17 Nov 2017 22:04

X-Post from AMCA Thread:

Not sure if this was posted before:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 39202.html

It seems that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is not in favour of acquiring the 127 fifth-generation fighter aircraft from Russia due to the "very high cost" involved in the project. It in turn wants to back a DRDO Make in India project - which it is planning to develop a similar plane called Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
It is learnt that IAF's views on the aircraft programme have been conveyed to the defence ministry even as a government panel has expressed its views in favour of the programme.
"The Air Force has its reservations on the programme mainly on three points. First, the project cost is too high and way beyond what it had expected. The learning curve is not there as the project is already at an advanced stage and the stealth technology of the planes is not as advanced as that of the other similar planes," senior government sources told Mail Today.

The maintenance cost of the planes is also expected to be very high and similar to that of the Sukhoi-30 planes whose maintenance and upkeep has been quite demanding in their around 20 years in the force, they said.

"The cost of the FGFA progarmme is coming to be huge. While we have already spent close to $300 million (Rs 2,000 crore) on the preliminary design phase, the Russians are demanding $6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) as the development cost of the planes which is coming to be much higher than what we had perceived," the sources revealed.

"The Russians are asking us to make big investments in the programme. While we are planning to induct only 12 of these planes in their IAF, they are asking India to buy 127 of these aircraft," added the sources.
Sources said the investment of $6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) would give India only four prototypes of the FGFA aircraft and it will have to pay another $135 million (Rs 900 crore) each for the 127 planes, which would be ready for induction only after 2027-28.

The cost per aircraft at the time of delivery in 2027-28, due to high inflation in defence deals, would come around $250 million bringing the total project value to around $32 billion (Rs 2 lakh crore), sources also said.

AIR MARSHAL SAYS OTHERWISE
Air Marshal S Varthman committee has recommended that the IAF should go ahead to coproduce the planes with Russia and the Defence ministry has to decide on it taking into account both the viewpoints.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ajacob, brar_w, Varuna and 25 guests