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.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2017 10:18

Aditya_V wrote:I think the 1.44 is the J-20, both look very similair. SO the Chinese probably have paid the Russians to make sure it is not sold to India and off the table.


A lot of aircraft looks similar as they have wings engine etc J-20 and 1.44 has different planform , Air Intake , wings etc

J-20 looks like first half of F-22 , Rear of Mig-1.44 and All moving tail of PAK-FA ........Certainly its a bigger aircraft compared to F-22 and PAK-FA ....probably a Mig-31 class 45 Ton like Interceptor , Most certainly the best designed Chinese Fighter so far a novelty in design.

They certainly have studied the Western and Eastern design well and have come up with their own solution to their own problem.

Side View comparision of J-20 ,F-22, Mig-1.44 and PAK-FA

Image
Image
Image
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59340
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 09 Aug 2017 10:25

the other 3 fuselages look slim and built for air combat. the J20 looks fairly obese more like a LO standoff missile truck than a agile fighter

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2017 10:29

the other 3 fuselages look slim and built for air combat. the J20 looks fairly obese more like a LO standoff missile truck than a agile fighter


It is obese because it is bigger then all these types , it carries many tons of internal fuel inside its obese structure and probably if it gets similar fuel effecient engine it would end up having 50 % more range ......it is a Interceptor/Bomber Design and less of Air Superiority type , Agility does not look like the core purpose of its design.

All the 4 Design are different are are novelty in their own respect who ever designed all these aircraft must have put in millions of man hours of work in designing , wind tunnel test , prototyping , engineering ,engine etc you name it to make their dreams come true its all Sweat and Blood work

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 09 Aug 2017 10:32

Singha wrote:the other 3 fuselages look slim and built for air combat. the J20 looks fairly obese more like a LO standoff missile truck than a agile fighter


I agree Singha Ji. More of a Bomb truck role in stealth mode and lesser emphasis on maneuver envelope size. So betting big on Stealth to hold the fort to complete missions.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8892
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Aug 2017 10:40

Or it could be an evolution of the Mig1.44 design. Just kidding. If its heavier and has more drag then won't it more powerful fuel guzzling engine, reducing range also its Thrust Weight ratio limiting its AOA etc. and probably having a higher Radar cross section? And More importantly it cant take off from High Altitude Airbases, so the nearest place it can be based from India is Chengdu?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 09 Aug 2017 11:03

Indranil wrote:
chola wrote:With the Russians all you have to do is pay them. If we want the blueprints to the J-20 (almost guaranteed to have some Russian involvement) we just have to give them enough moolah to be worth effort.

Conversely, think they won't sell the PAK-FA to Cheen? The PRC pays enough and they will get a squadron just like the SU-35.

Selling to both Cheen and Bharat will always be more profitable than selling to just one or the other.

So is selling to India and Pakistan. It is worse to sell to India and gift to Pakistan. Should I elaborate more? But why question bias?



All I am saying is if you want intel on the J-20, you just pay the Russians. What bias? Who else would have this intel from helping the chinis with the aircraft, including supplying its engines?

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 09 Aug 2017 11:12

Singha wrote:the other 3 fuselages look slim and built for air combat. the J20 looks fairly obese more like a LO standoff missile truck than a agile fighter


I think this would most adequately describe it. MiG's contribution might not only be that of the 1.44 but the MiG-25/31 as well. This is a large missileer like the Foxbat but it depends on stealth instead of extreme speed. In either case, the purpose is to attack enemies at distance and then get away (stealth/speed.). Their development of very long range AAM is part of a doctrine with the J-20.

Dogfighting would remain in the hands of their J-10s and Flanker copies.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Bharadwaj » 10 Aug 2017 11:33

108 FGFA will likely be bought (I guess this is the initial take up from a larger deal)

http://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/ ... hter-deal/

“A firm order of 108 will be put in the final draft of the agreement being prepared,” said an IAF official.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Aug 2017 12:37

Imagine 108+ FGFAs accompanied by another 180+ stealth LCAs,something that we could achieve faster than the AMCA...that would give our mortal enemies the sharp end of the stick to chew upon.

The need for a cheaper single-pilot med. aircraft was meant to be the MMRCA/Rafale.Too expensive it has been found.The point is that whatever the payload meant to be carried by a med 4++ fighter,cannot be carried by a stealth bird internally! It either has to be larger,or carry external loads reducing stealth.The whole point of stealth being the silver bullet advantage over the enemy then goes kaput. Yes,the USAF/USN have worked out the JSF for their needs,but there are limitations and is it as capable as the F-22? Bomb trucks with LR stealthy missiles are a cheaper alternative at delivering munitions and replacing the A-10 with the JSF for close support duties has been questioned extensively within the US itself whether it will be equal to the task and as survivable as the A-10.

There is a (dated) analysis of the JSF (Aus Airpower),in which its inherent design limitations cannot be changed by later upgrades.Too long to post,but it shows that long-term,the F-22 is a far better aircraft to possess with greater inherent ability to grow in capability as technology develops.
The AMCA as depicted in its current avatar,expected by 2030 only,will be dated when it arrives,and severely limited in payload internally.If one reads in the analysis below on the JSF/F-22 comparison, the cost factor analysis shows that for little extra,the larger fighter is the preferable choice.JSF costs come down only when built in bulk.It's why I'm advocating a stealth LCA instead of the MK-2,whose primary task is air combat,secondary close air support and strike with PGMs that can fit into its internal weapons' bay/s.It will take much redesigning but will be worth it.Rafales,upgraded M2Ks,MIG-29s should bear the brunt for another decade,with the secret UCAV tasked for the deep strike role. The IAF wopuld be better off with acquiring more FGFAs which being larger,can carry more stores internally and absorb tech/improvements as they come,giving a much greater capability than the much smaller AMCA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II
Joint Strike Fighter
Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter

JSF limitations click for more...
The technological design features of a fighter can be divided by the rate at which they evolve over time. The smartest long term choices are always those which put the highest priority on design features which cannot be altered once the aircraft is in service, accepting that rapidly changing technologies will be replaced over the life of the aircraft. The most attractive aspects of the JSF are all in areas which rapidly evolve, whereas its least attractive aspects are in areas which cannot evolve. From a technological strategy perspective the JSF is a very poor choice long term compared to the F-22A (Author).
Last edited by Philip on 10 Aug 2017 13:12, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 10 Aug 2017 12:44

Dont take Raghuvanshi , Janes Bedi , Reuben F Johnson and their likes seriously ..they can invent stories and numbers from thin air to suite their needs and earn their money. Raghuvanshi is taking the story of FGFA getting approved by Air Marshal committe from Ajai Shukla without even quoting him any where.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 10:31

One thing that puzzles me about the pakfa is that is weight is always regarded similar to a regular flanker but I swear, unless my eyes are playing tricks, it looks considerably smaller to me. .
Any news on its empty weight so far. ...the two is no doubt quite good considering it established a climb record no too long ago, and that's with the current stage 1 117 engines.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 11 Aug 2017 10:40

Cain Marko wrote:Any news on its empty weight so far. ...the two is no doubt quite good considering it established a climb record no too long ago, and that's with the current stage 1 117 engines.


Though not Official but from Piotr Butowski in Air & Cosmos Latest issue the specs are

Characteristics of the Su-57

The wing is 14.1 meters
Length - 20.1 meters
Height - 4,6 meters
Empty weight - 18 tons
Normal weight - 25 tons
Maximum take-off weight is 35 tons
The maximum speed is 2M
Cruising speed at supersonic speed - 1,3 M
The range of flight on supersonic - 1500 km
The maximum flight range is 3500 km

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 11 Aug 2017 11:23

If these are the stats it is i bit smaller that the Su 30 MKI. The MKI is almost 22 mtrs (wiki says 21.935 mtrs) but it also has an extra pilot seat when compared to the Su 57.

Other parameters appear rounded off to the nearest multiple of 5 so may still be similar to the MKI

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 11 Aug 2017 11:46

Philip wrote:Imagine 108+ FGFAs accompanied by another 180+ stealth LCAs,something that we could achieve faster than the AMCA...that would give our mortal enemies the sharp end of the stick to chew upon.

The need for a cheaper single-pilot med. aircraft was meant to be the MMRCA/Rafale.Too expensive it has been found.The point is that whatever the payload meant to be carried by a med 4++ fighter,cannot be carried by a stealth bird internally! It either has to be larger,or carry external loads reducing stealth.The whole point of stealth being the silver bullet advantage over the enemy then goes kaput. Yes,the USAF/USN have worked out the JSF for their needs,but there are limitations and is it as capable as the F-22? Bomb trucks with LR stealthy missiles are a cheaper alternative at delivering munitions and replacing the A-10 with the JSF for close support duties has been questioned extensively within the US itself whether it will be equal to the task and as survivable as the A-10.

There is a (dated) analysis of the JSF (Aus Airpower),in which its inherent design limitations cannot be changed by later upgrades.Too long to post,but it shows that long-term,the F-22 is a far better aircraft to possess with greater inherent ability to grow in capability as technology develops.
The AMCA as depicted in its current avatar,expected by 2030 only,will be dated when it arrives,and severely limited in payload internally.If one reads in the analysis below on the JSF/F-22 comparison, the cost factor analysis shows that for little extra,the larger fighter is the preferable choice.JSF costs come down only when built in bulk.It's why I'm advocating a stealth LCA instead of the MK-2,whose primary task is air combat,secondary close air support and strike with PGMs that can fit into its internal weapons' bay/s.It will take much redesigning but will be worth it.Rafales,upgraded M2Ks,MIG-29s should bear the brunt for another decade,with the secret UCAV tasked for the deep strike role. The IAF wopuld be better off with acquiring more FGFAs which being larger,can carry more stores internally and absorb tech/improvements as they come,giving a much greater capability than the much smaller AMCA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II
Joint Strike Fighter
Assessing the Joint Strike Fighter

JSF limitations click for more...
The technological design features of a fighter can be divided by the rate at which they evolve over time. The smartest long term choices are always those which put the highest priority on design features which cannot be altered once the aircraft is in service, accepting that rapidly changing technologies will be replaced over the life of the aircraft. The most attractive aspects of the JSF are all in areas which rapidly evolve, whereas its least attractive aspects are in areas which cannot evolve. From a technological strategy perspective the JSF is a very poor choice long term compared to the F-22A (Author).


Does the FGFA not have any design limitations comrade?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Aug 2017 12:38

Never had a red party card! Anyway,sure,all birds have limitations,but the F-22 and FGFA/T-50 are in a diff. class,being larger have more space fopr xtra eqpt.,upgrades,weapons,new engines,etc. when available.Read the article in the link potd. earlier.

The Chinese bird looks obese becos they allegedly stole the entire JSF designs,why there is some resemblance to it.The problem is that when it comes to materials,etc. they fall short and no matter how much of reverse engineering they can accomplish,they fall short.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3660
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 11 Aug 2017 12:40

Philip wrote:The AMCA as depicted in its current avatar,expected by 2030 only,will be dated when it arrives,and severely limited in payload internally.


Such an ugly post. In true tradition of videshi bhakti the indigenous platform has to dissed in your subtle brishit style of writing.

So all metallic fgfa will be super-advanced. While AMCA is already declared "dated".

Russians are retarded, they were beaten in cold war. They GUBOed to west and were raped by west thoroughly. Putin also wants to be in western camp but they reject Russians as country of lowlifes. Russians can't match up to AMCA standards even in dreams.

They are just cunning cheats, who take money for t90 gun barrel ToT but refuse after taking money. These Russian ******** are so arrogant that they don't even bother to create manuals in English for the customer.

Go ahead drink up, draw the pension given by us nation of inferior browns. Was while dreaming of Russian brishit platforms.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 11 Aug 2017 12:45

deejay wrote:If these are the stats it is i bit smaller that the Su 30 MKI. The MKI is almost 22 mtrs (wiki says 21.935 mtrs) but it also has an extra pilot seat when compared to the Su 57.

Other parameters appear rounded off to the nearest multiple of 5 so may still be similar to the MKI


The MKI and Flankers for that matter are longer but PAK-FA is more broader and flatter.

Infact the chief Test pilot of PAK-FA said that it carries more fuel than Su-35 which itself carries ~ 11.3 Tons of Fuel internally

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Aug 2017 13:53

KS,the AMCA is right now a paper plane,expected only post 2030.The LCA is flying and a MK-2 urgently reqd. becos MK-1 does not meet reqd./expected parameters as it is underpowered/too heavy. A stealth version was suggested by those within the programme itself some time ago in a report.It would be far faster and easier to achieve ,costing less too as a stepping stone to whatever dimension AMCA eventually comes with,as until the LCA programme gets on its feet,AMCA work will remain on the drawing table /computer.We have limitations in desi stealth tech and need the FGFA to acquire the same and leverage this with our own stealth bird ambitions.Remember that we can't even get the IJT prorgamme right,long delays on the basic trainer too, and are labouring with the LCA programme which has a firang engine,radar,weapons,etc. The Kaveri engine has been a sorry experience,with the much touted claims of the GTRE found to be bogus. So let's advance in careful incremental steps,learning how to taxi down the runway before we take off in 5th/6th gen aircraft.

DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby DrRatnadip » 11 Aug 2017 18:00

Pak FA is renamed Su 57.. just curious to know how this numbering Su 30/35/57 is done? :?: :?:

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 11 Aug 2017 19:43

DrRatnadip wrote:Pak FA is renamed Su 57.. just curious to know how this numbering Su 30/35/57 is done? :?: :?:


Internal proposed/studies configuration/design iteration numbers. Those which get finalized show up. Others remain hidden forever. Same way T-50 was assigned, which is Sukhoi internal numbering. Su27 had its own T designation as well IIRC.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3104
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karthik S » 11 Aug 2017 19:45

It should have been Su-40, Su series have increments in 3, last in the series was Su-37.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35291
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 11 Aug 2017 19:53

Did you guys notice Russkies are not interested in PAK-FA?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 11 Aug 2017 20:17

Karthik S wrote:It should have been Su-40, Su series have increments in 3, last in the series was Su-37.

But there are Su 34 and Su35 and Su-39 also no..??

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Zynda » 11 Aug 2017 20:25

I think (100% not sure that new fighters designation end with a number 7)...Su-37 (one of the early demonstrators in the 90s was referred to as Su-37). Su-47 (S-37 Berkut) is used by the test bed with forward swept wing.

Image

Next available one was 57 :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Aug 2017 20:34

Even a limited series prod. of the Berkut would've been a great achievement.Probably woud've happened if the USSR didn't self-destruct.

Here's an interesting viewpoint.
Why was the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut never adopted for service?

up vote
4
down vote
favorite
3
(This is a rather long question, since I try to cover the historical background which might not be widely known. If familiar with it, you can skip to the "highlighted sections".)

As part of the equivalent programme to the US ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) , aimed at producing a 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft, Russia (then USSR) produced, like the US programme, 2 competing designs, each one from the Mikoyan and Sukhoi bureaus. These were the Canard/Delta Wing 1.42/1.44 from Mikoyan and the FSW (Forward Swept Wing) Su-47 from Sukhoi.

Initially running parallel to the US programme, due to mounting financial difficulties and the eventual collapse of the USSR, the 2 prototypes were ready more than 5 years later than their respective US counterparts (The 1.42/1.44 prototype was completed at 1994-5 but performed its first flight in 2000 while the Su-47 was completed in 1992-3(?) and flew in 1997).

Even before the collapse of the USSR though, the Soviet Air Force had chosen the Mikoyan design as its next, 5th-gen fighter.

Yet after USSR's collapse, the Sukhoi company was able to finance its own project and have it ready earlier, while also running an R&D programme and further evaluating/improving the design. The Su-47, by the time the Mikoyan MFI performed its first flight, was already taking part in air shows while serving as a testbed for various technologies (many of them finding their way to PAK FA).

enter image description here

enter image description here

This raises a number of questions, all relating to why the Su-47 was not chosen, neither before the USSR collapsed, and secondly why it was not chosen in the 90s by Russia as it was clearly a design in a more mature stage.

Was the basic design premise-that of a FSW fighter aircraft-flawed?

Were the problems facing this configuration, relating mainly to wing durability, still insurmountable?
To be precise, a FSW design offers superior manoeuvrability, especially in low speeds, retaining an AoA (Angle of Attack) undreamed of by a "conventional" fighter, is essentially spin-proof, it has a better Lift/Drag ratio, lower stalling speed while it can help with Low Observability characteristics (Stealth) as radar beams impacting the wings are reflected to the fuselage , ideally one with a comprehensive RAM (radiation absorbent material) covering.

But a FSW design has a major drawback-the loads that accumulate on the wings during manoeuvring, are much greater than in a conventional wing, leading easier to deformation and structural failure. The Su-47 tackled this problem by making extensive use of composite materials for the wings which offer greater durability at less weight.

If the FSW design was viable, was it a matter of economics?
After the USSR collapsed and Russia embarked on economic "reforms" its defence budget shrank dramatically for a decade and new procurement was very difficult. But after 1999-2000, gradually funding increased and when the need for a 5th gen aircraft became again apparent, the PAK FA (Sukhoi T-50) project began, around 2005.

But given that a design was already ready, namely that of Su-47, why not save all the expenses (PAK FA development is in the range of 10 billion US$) while gaining in terms of time?

I usually do not like to speculate on "What if?" historical scenarios but had the Su-47 been chosen, say in 2003-4, by now RuAF could have fielded a fleet of 100+ airframes (assuming initial production starting at about 2008-9)
.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... or-service

Probably a financial factor plus the realisation that stealth is compromised with weapons carried underwing/fuselage,not in internal weapons bays.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 11 Aug 2017 21:02

Philip wrote:Even a limited series prod. of the Berkut would've been a great achievement.Probably woud've happened if the USSR didn't self-destruct.

.


Even with USSR, FSW aircraft wouldnt have been anywhere near operational service. Simply put the concept was far ahead of the time, just like flying wing was in 1950s. It was not possible to make a fighter with it then. Even today its difficult. If only money was the issue and FSW was so much better in real life application with those days tech, what stopped US from making one..? Surely US is still intact and has lof of money. They have also tried the concept. The problem of aeroelastic divergence if difficult to handle even by todays tech level. A little bit of realism would be much appreciated.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Aug 2017 22:49

Austin wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Any news on its empty weight so far. ...the two is no doubt quite good considering it established a climb record no too long ago, and that's with the current stage 1 117 engines.


Though not Official but from Piotr Butowski in Air & Cosmos Latest issue the specs are

Characteristics of the Su-57

The wing is 14.1 meters
Length - 20.1 meters
Height - 4,6 meters
Empty weight - 18 tons
Normal weight - 25 tons
Maximum take-off weight is 35 tons
The maximum speed is 2M
Cruising speed at supersonic speed - 1,3 M
The range of flight on supersonic - 1500 km
The maximum flight range is 3500 km


Hmm, see this is what I don't understand. So, the mki and your regular flanker is about 0.6 mts wider, 2 mts longer, and 1.5 mts taller but weighs just 500kg (18500kg) more than pakfa? And that too considering that the pakfa design makes extensive use of composites and the mki does not?

Pakfa numbers being deliberately downplayed?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15643
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 11 Aug 2017 23:00

I am betting that India will sign, for the FGFA, only if the new "5th Gen" engine works. That is teh key - IMHO.

I would expect the wait to be at least a year.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3660
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 11 Aug 2017 23:33

SaiK wrote:Did you guys notice Russkies are not interested in PAK-FA?


It's RuAF personnel who have tipped off IAF brass that the non-composite metallic bird is a lemon with engine getting nowhere too. Total failure just like R77 a specs and brochure tiger.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Aug 2017 07:41

Russia's Fifth-Generation PAK FA Fighter Jet Officially Named Su-57

https://sputniknews.com/military/201708 ... licopters/

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia’s fifth-generation fighter jet formerly known as Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation (PAK FA), or Sukhoi T-50, has officially been named as the Su-57, Russian Aerospace Forces Commander Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said Friday.

"The decision has been made, the aircraft got its name, like a child after the birth. Su-57 — from now on, we will call it that way," Bondarev said in an interview with Russia's Zvezda broadcaster.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Aug 2017 08:08

Manish_Sharma wrote:
SaiK wrote:Did you guys notice Russkies are not interested in PAK-FA?


It's RuAF personnel who have tipped off IAF brass that the non-composite metallic bird is a lemon with engine getting nowhere too. Total failure just like R77 a specs and brochure tiger.


Any sources for this? The Russians seem to be quite committed to this program....

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2105
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby darshhan » 12 Aug 2017 08:22

Manish_Sharma wrote:
SaiK wrote:Did you guys notice Russkies are not interested in PAK-FA?


It's RuAF personnel who have tipped off IAF brass that the non-composite metallic bird is a lemon with engine getting nowhere too. Total failure just like R77 a specs and brochure tiger.


The main reason is that it is simply not stealthy. The russians have yet not mastered stealth. So why not order some extra su 30/35s.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Aug 2017 13:02

Cain Marko wrote:
Austin wrote:
Though not Official but from Piotr Butowski in Air & Cosmos Latest issue the specs are



Hmm, see this is what I don't understand. So, the mki and your regular flanker is about 0.6 mts wider, 2 mts longer, and 1.5 mts taller but weighs just 500kg (18500kg) more than pakfa? And that too considering that the pakfa design makes extensive use of composites and the mki does not?

Pakfa numbers being deliberately downplayed?


2 meter longer does not translate to it being heavier for all you know the length is just metal piece and not a wet area or volume holding any electronics etc Pakfa would have larger wetted surface area and volume confirmed by fact it has larger internal fuel compared to flanker

Gaur
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Gaur » 13 Aug 2017 11:28

darshhan wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:
It's RuAF personnel who have tipped off IAF brass that the non-composite metallic bird is a lemon with engine getting nowhere too. Total failure just like R77 a specs and brochure tiger.


The main reason is that it is simply not stealthy. The russians have yet not mastered stealth. So why not order some extra su 30/35s.


Big Claim! Is this personal opinion or is there a source for this?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3660
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 13 Aug 2017 12:08

I agree with Darshhan ji, at the most it is a dibba-bund su 30 with internal weapon bay, and some radar stealthy contours.

It isn't 5th generation AMCA with full stealth , composites, fbl etc.

117 model Engines have also failed big time. We would be lucky if by 2040 fgfa fleet functions at 20% availability.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2105
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby darshhan » 13 Aug 2017 13:05

Gaur wrote:
darshhan wrote:
The main reason is that it is simply not stealthy. The russians have yet not mastered stealth. So why not order some extra su 30/35s.


Big Claim! Is this personal opinion or is there a source for this?


Multiple sources. I will try to find them for you.

But do ponder over the following. If PAK FA was truly stealthy, why wouldnt IAF be excited about it? Everything else is expendable, be it engine, or radar but stealth is not. 'cause if stealth is not there then what benefits it brings above vanilla SU 30s. Why not order some more MKIs only?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Aug 2017 14:14

CM , Just go through the video and do your own research on this


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Aug 2017 14:55

Multi-core T-50: on the new Russian fighter IMA BK has replaced the "Baguette".

Image
On the photo: Multifunctional indicators for the PAK FA.

The company "Sukhoi" started flight testing of a fundamentally new computing systems of the aircraft T-50. The new system is significantly more reliable and more powerful than the previous, and for the first time all design and development in the modern history of Russian military aviation did it airplane firm.The first fighter T-50 with new on-Board electronics and the microprocessor were up in the air this winter. According to Dmitry Gribov, chief designer of the company "Sukhoi" and the Director of the Directorate integration of the BWC, the latest platform replaces designed in 2004 by the computing system on the basis of OBC "Baguette". Work on the creation of a new system of "Integrated modular avionics weapons systems" (IMA BK) was conducted during the last four years. One of our customers — the Ministry of industry and trade of the Russian Federation. Computer system created on the basis of domestic multi-core microprocessors and new, domestic operating system real-time.

4 million lines of code

Image
On the photo: In the scientific and technical center management information systems of the company "Sukhoi" is the testing of IMA BK.

In the integrated structure of the onboard equipment of the aircraft T-50 to the Central computer shall perform the functions of control systems of the aircraft, use of weapons, defense and a multi-mode smart support of the pilot. Central computer which simultaneously plays the role of pilot and electronic and electronic electronic Navigator and a flight engineer, in real time solves the problem of automatic detection and identification of the most dangerous purposes, to build the most optimal route, the optimal solution of problems of the use of weapons and defense aircraft, as well as reconfiguration of the system in case of failure. The new control system takes control of almost all key devices of the aircraft radar, navigation and communication in the previous version of the aircraft to calculate functions of each system used its calculator.The amount of its onboard software has already exceeded 4 million lines of code, and still further to implement a number of complex functional control modes LA and complex information processing."The new system is indeed innovative and has no analogues in the world, — says Dmitry Mushrooms. — We first went along the path of reproduction is already implemented by other decision makers, and provided a promising architecture, which will continue to develop in the direction of "network side", consistently upgrading onboard systems and complexes. Multi-core gives us almost unlimited possibilities for designing fault-tolerant hardware configurations, while saving on weight, power consumption and cost of equipment."The data is exchanged via fibre-optic channels. The transition from copper to fiber optics has allowed us to increase the speed and volume of data transmission, in order to reduce the weight of the cable network and to improve its noise immunity. If data transmission over traditional copper cable gives the speed of the order of 10-100 Mbps, then the fiber is almost 1,000 times more — 8 Gbit/sec Network structure of the complex increases the reliability of all devices when failure of any computer there is an automatic switching system at the other unit, and the use of a centralized processor has allowed almost twice to reduce the weight of the device. The performance of OBC increased by more than ten times, accutanecost increased more than four times. For the first time in Russian history the head role in the implementation of the common platform design and development played an aircraft firm.For the first time in Russian history the head role in the implementation of the common platform design and development was assigned to aircraft company — OKB Sukhoi. When you create a new system sukhivtsi worked together with the leading domestic enterprises of concern "radio-Electronic technology" (KRET): Ryazan State instrument-making enterprise (rsie) and Ramensky instrument design Bureau (RPKB). In turn, the State research Institute of aviation systems" (GosNIIAS) performed modeling of functional applications of the T-50 new computing platform. Conclusion GosNIIAS was positive: IMA BC gave a significant increase in computing resources and speed of information processing.

Taganrog IQ

One of the problems that faced the leadership of the Sukhoi design Bureau, training and retention of highly qualified software testers. Worldwide the major aircraft manufacturers and instrument engineers often turn to outsourcing is to attract programmers from India and Eastern Europe. To prepare a good specialist takes about two years. In Moscow because of the higher salaries of experienced testers take IT commercial structure. But because of the defense of the specifics to attract outsourcers from other countries was, of course, impossible.Sukhivtsi found an original solution by opening a branch in the city of Taganrog, where there are good professionals and Universities. In Taganrog have created a few dozen new jobs, and in recent years sukhivtsi from his native city of Anton Chekhov remains one of the most successful and loyal employees.

The unlimited possibilities of multi-core

New computing platform has already attracted significant interest not only from the related airline and helicopter companies in Russia, but also the developers of computing systems for space and Navy. Indian experts have chosen the operating system of the development of the company "Sukhoi" for the joint project of a fifth generation fighter, rejecting the use of the famous American RV OS VxWorks and Integrity.Little-known fact that for the first time the popular concept of integrated modular avionics was implemented for French fighter Dassault Rafale, and after that was adapted for a wide range of civil and military transport aircraft — A380, A400, A350, SSJ100, and others. Military aircraft are not so strictly regulate the dealings with the regulatory documents and the certified requirements, as a civilian, where every change is possible only after a thorough verification and validation process. That's why the system on multi-core microprocessors began flight tests on military aircraft."Our objective is to maintain leadership in this field, speaking on the ideological locomotive of the solution of questions of integration of avionics equipment into the network architecture of the future", — says Dmitry Mushrooms.

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/92456/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15643
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2017 07:38

darshhan wrote:The main reason is that it is simply not stealthy. The russians have yet not mastered stealth. So why not order some extra su 30/35s.


Not stealthy, as compared to?

And how do we know what the RuAF standard of "stealth" is?

What we do know is that the IAF is unhappy about something (some 42 items, some of which have been listed), they have been complaining from day one.

"Stealth" is not easy (although it was a Russian that figured it out) and it is very expensive. I would think they know what needs to be done to "master" it, what I suspect is the problem is funds. Thus India.

I think that is what happened with the Su-35. India funded it via the MKI

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 14 Aug 2017 08:12

darshann: Yes, the Su-57 is not be as stealthy as its American counterpart...the F-22. In a dogfight, the former may have an edge. But in BVR combat, the F-22 will come out on top. The whole doctrine of American air combat is now about stealth. If it is was just 1 vs 1, arguments can go back and forth. But the F-22 comes with tremendous support to ensure that it will rarely ever encounter a dogfight and that is a capability that the Russians (or the Chinese) will never match. Long story short.....America will prevail.

You could compare, albeit crude, the current Su-57 to the early model Su-27s. The latter did not have the finesse of the F-15, but yet in a dogfight...the Su-27 would usually come out on top. But the Russians further developed the Su-27 into multiple variants (i.e. the Su-30MKI, the Su-35 and the Su-37 to name a few) and they are above or on par with the best F-15s out there. The Su-57 will adopt more or less the same development. However, the F-22 will continue its development as well. And as long as proper funding is thrown into further development of the F-22, it will likely maintain an edge.

However, the PAK-FA is more than a match for the J-20s and FC-31s coming out of China.

America's F-22 Raptor vs. Russia's PAK-FA
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... k-fa-20010

PAK FA vs F-22 Raptor: If Stealth Isn't an Issue, T-50 'Holds the Edge'
https://sputniknews.com/military/201509 ... -aircraft/

US F-22 vs Russian Stealth PAK FA T-50
http://scout.com/military/warrior/Artic ... -101458859

Specifications Comparision - F-22 Raptor vs Sukhoi PAK FA
http://www.aviatia.net/f-22-raptor-vs-sukhoi-pak-fa/

Which is better, Russian Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 or the US F-22 Raptor? Why?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-R ... Raptor-Why
(Example: if an adversary can blow up all your airfields easily, the attributes of your jets are quite irrelevant!)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chinmay, essay, Google [Bot], saumitra_j and 37 guests