PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 09:25

I feel if Rus 5th gen AL41 engine enters tests and shows promising result, they would be most willing to sell the 117S (whatever is the ultimate evolution of the Al31 family) to PRC, perhaps with some AL41 improvements like superior materials ported back to sweeten the offer.

about whether they would 1:1 sell the same engine as on the Pakfa, one cannot speculate - but the chinese will compete anyway even with a 117S engine!

we can expect the first PAF J-20 squadron around 2030 maybe....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2010 09:38

Must be at least aware that chinese have a CFM/Snecma joint venture partnership to build that they may get to learn few finer aspects of precision engineering.
--
BTW, on the pak-fa, the interesting high AoA aspect is the MOVING LERX. Now that is something we can easily introduce to LCA, perhaps mk2 itself.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2010 09:42

The "real" engine for the Russian 5th gen aircraft is still on the drawing board. Per one report the major issue is about suppressing all signatures. It is expected to be inducted in about 10 years - provided there is continuing funding.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 29 Dec 2010 09:59

SaiK wrote:BTW, on the pak-fa, the interesting high AoA aspect is the MOVING LERX. Now that is something we can easily introduce to LCA, perhaps mk2 itself.

They are going to integrate the Levcons in IAF version from N-LCA.

Cheers....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Dec 2010 10:12

^^^ Any indications to that effect?!!!

Why should we go for Levcons on the AF version in first place.

P.S. please answer in the LCA thread.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2010 10:17

please do note the word before LERX.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 29 Dec 2010 10:27

SaiK wrote:please do note the word before LERX.

LEVCON

LEVCON ( Leading Edge Vortex CONtroller ) is a deflectable aerodynamic device in wing apex region LEVCON surface is deflected +20 (down) to 30 (up) from its neutral position.Downward deflection of LEVCON is used for reducing aproach speed for carrier landing

http://www.lca-tejas.org/navaltejas.html

Cheers....

P.S. IIRC on BR itself it was mentioned that PAK FA borrowed LEVCONS aka 'moving LREX' from NLCA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2010 16:54

well it is. touba touba.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Dec 2010 17:22

narayana wrote: in the same sense can you please tell me which other country will give you the tech and planes even if we are ready to pay 100% of the development cost?

That is why I said - we need planed and Russia needs money. Simple. Don't act as if Russians are doing us favors. It is a two way street.

regarding putting money in the project,we are not only the country which has this money,if you look at middle east you may know saudi's are spending 60 Billions on defence,UAE is also pumping lots of money,the Chinese are there

If you look seriously at ME rather than throw some random numbers, you'll realize that Saudis and other countries in ME buy weapons in x-change for political support for Saudi Arabia and House of Saud - a quid pro quo. UAE is a non-entity as far as defence deals are concerned. Inspite of all these, can you tell me which other country has apetite for 250 fifth-gen tech aircraft?

if Russia is worried about IPR, how can they offer su-35 to china? what would have stopped them from partnering for 5th gen?

Why don't we discuss this when the sales ever happen? And then, please tell me how is getting sold something same as being 'part' of development project? As for what stops Russians from parterning with Chinese, last I checked, you don't teach your potential adversary the tricks of the trade.

koti · Post by **koti** » 29 Dec 2010 18:30

That is why I said - we need planed and Russia needs money. Simple. Don't act as if Russians are doing us favors. It is a two way street.

With all due respect folks, every country out there needs money.
The question remains, which one of them is the most trust worthy if worthy nation.
And Russia stands far taller in the list then any other.. including Israel.

As for what stops Russians from partnering with Chinese, last I checked, you don't teach your potential adversary the tricks of the trade.

Also, Russia + China Nexus for 5th gen plane will ring far louder bells in the pentagon then Russia + India.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Dec 2010 18:50

koti wrote:With all due respect folks, every country out there needs money.The question remains, which one of them is the most trust worthy if worthy nation. And Russia stands far taller in the list then any other.. including Israel.

The reason for that is the good behaviour by the Indians...remember, non-aligned not condemning USSR during invasion of
Afganistan or Chekoslovakia........and USSR prevented another country getting into the ring around the USSR. There are no free lunches, as some would have us believe. It is the genuflecting that gets my goat.

Also, Russia + China Nexus for 5th gen plane will ring far louder bells in the pentagon then Russia + India.

Hardly a reason.......there are enough SU-30MKK and Su-27 in service of PLAAF to warrant ringing of alarm bells in Pentagon. Now, add to that the recent Black Eagle.....'distant' cousin of Mig-1.44

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2010 19:19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjpLejaErII

what is that at 4:15 ++>> purple patch/discoloration on the canopy glass?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 29 Dec 2010 21:07

The reason for that is the good behaviour by the Indians...remember, non-aligned not condemning USSR during invasion of
Afganistan or Chekoslovakia........and USSR prevented another country getting into the ring around the USSR. There are no free lunches, as some would have us believe. It is the genuflecting that gets my goat.

The favor (if it was) was returned by SU by supporting us during 1971 with equipments, man power, diplomacy in UN security council and also helping us avoiding gun boat diplomacy (sending nuke submarine to ward of nuke cbg) and multiple other times.. I will provide the list of such situations if you require seperately

Ya, you are right... there is nothing called free lunch...you have to pay for it... But what if the other party is not ready to provide lunch even if you pay...

I had simply demanded that criticism will be more receptive if the author would have taken pain to provide alternative solution which he did not...Now i will ask again.---no free lunch we will pay through our nose, but will Unkil provide us whatever small participation we are getting in Pak fa in their F 35? If yes, i agree with you.. but if no.. there is no point criticizing just because for the sake of it...Any body can criticize, but few can provide the better solution...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2010 21:18

the AMCA needs to move out of 'showed some slides in IIsc conference' and powerpoint wishlist stage

if the J-20 doesnt light a fire under the GOIs chair, nothing else will.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2010 22:14

With all due respect folks, every country out there needs money.
The question remains, which one of them is the most trust worthy if worthy nation.
And Russia stands far taller in the list then any other.. including Israel.

Technologies are a moving target (I am NOT talking of research data here, which no "far taller in the list" will matter).

Time will tell, but my feel has always been that the Russian technology minds are very, very finely tuned. BUT, these minds have had no nutrition in the form of funds and therefore (the products) are lagging behind.

The other reason I feel the Russians are lagging is a need. Unlike the US, Isreal, etc, Russia has no real urgent need for such technologies - outside of perhaps future needs and exports.

Finally, I just do not see the in-built synergies that are needed to produce a rounded product. Even the PAK-FA, as good as it seems to be, is not fully baked. It will be in about 10 years. Hopefully.

WRT other nations, in 10 years, I would still expect Russia to lag.

WRT Indo-whatever relations. It is only matter of bartering. Circumstances will drive the situation. example: As China matures and becomes a greater threat to the region due east of her, the US, etc will have to barter away much more to India. Trust or no trust.

Russia, in this light, is doing no favors to India, nor is Russia taking India for a ride. It is just pure business based on national interests. Russia is getting her share of flesh (and blood). That is all.

Politicians (on both sides) will tell us differently.

However, there is nothing -ve nor +ve. Specially if India is willing to pay for what the Russians are offering.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Dec 2010 22:19

Ya, you are right... there is nothing called free lunch...you have to pay for it... But what if the other party is not ready to provide lunch even if you pay...

(OT)

It is all relative.

The USSR did no favors to India - for BOTH India and the USSR got something which both wanted, else they would not helped.

The recent Obama trip also did no favors to India. Both sides got something both sides wanted.

So, not getting something even if you pay only means that the point of trading has not been reached. The cost of what (India) you want is a lot more. And, it does not have to be funds. Could be a vote in the UN, something else.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 30 Dec 2010 11:19

My last post on the subject, OT again...

Neither did India did favor by buying equipments from USSR or Russia... Neither we are doing a favor, now by committing 30 Bn USD in pak fa/FGFA... We are getting more than what we should have recd paying similar amount to alternate project...

In the absence of a better utilization of money (read better work share) in the alternate project, there is no point in criticizing the pak fa structure...

The notion that point of trading is not reached cannot be an excuse to criticize existing relations where such point was reached more than 5 decades ago

Last, dont think russia is in need of money and hence have come to us... their tragic days are gone long before... If current recession is to be taken as the criteria, russia is much better placed than EU and other countries...

Support for UN vote is not something which Russia has agreed for the first time...Infact, there are nations who have agreed it now in anticipation of some few bn dollars flowing to them.. ridiculous

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 30 Dec 2010 16:14

PAK-FA will certainly be worth the Money we invested,we WILL get returns from it in more than 1 way,all this whining i think is because we expect too much from Russia.

The amount we invest is almost same that we are spending on C-17 deal(10 numbers),with many key components stripped of because we didnt sign the dotted line on CISMOA yet

We have Issues with Russians but please just dont write off them

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 30 Dec 2010 19:34

Obviously for every state its interests come first. Our number one concern presently and in the future is China. The troubling thing about Russia is that is that they have fallen behind so much when compared to China in almost every sphere industrial, economic and technologically. What little advantage it has in the military tech. will be be eroded within a few years. As the gap widens and the memory of their glory days gets fainter I think that there will come a time when it will probably in its interest to accept China's primacy. If and when that happens the far from getting "free lunches" as some people seem to think we will be getting the ungli.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Dec 2010 21:27

yes indeed - china now has a far superior and bigger automobile, shipbuilding, machine tools, plastics, electrical and electronic civilian and military construction sector vs Russia - the gap continues to widen...china is plugged into the best global cos who are manufacturing there and hence sucking up the best technology and process. Rus can perhaps claim an advantage only in some defence areas like missiles, submarines and engines.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Dec 2010 21:35

We have Issues with Russians but please just dont write off them

NONE of us can write off the Russians. No politicians, no scientist, no BRiet, etc.

ONLY the Russians can write themselves off.

IF the Russians cannot provide what India wants, for whatever reason, they will be written off. It is just a business. India is no longer strapped for funds and therefore have multiple options. Simple as that. It is NOT anti-Russian, nor pro-whatever else. It is simply pro-India. That is all it is.

I just go a step further, only because I said this in about 1998ish. Hate repeating myself so many time, but, the Russians, even today are starving of funds. Their funding situation was way worse 10 years ago. But, their recovery has not met the funds needed for sustained growth. IF they had a need they would be forced to raise the funds. But, they really do not have a need and therefore their funding is stop-gap. It cannot work for too long. It happens to many nations and companies. This is not something Russian in nature, nor anti-Russian.

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 30 Dec 2010 22:05

In the world of defense there are only a handful of defense companies who based on their governments perogative decide to sell or not to sell to another country.
USSR and now Russia have always stood by India both militarily and politically for a long long time. And due respect to all folks, Russia is/has/will be a genuine friend of ours.

We ourselves cant help our own friends, if we don't have the means to help, and this is even highly applicable to complex country to country relationship. And there are no free lunches anywhere.
As long as the oil and gas prices remain high, Russia doesn't need anyone's money.

NRoa ji,
Its a truth that partnership/friendship is between equals, not when one is the provider and the other the require always. Russia/USSR has always been the supplier and we the users, modifiers..In this kind of a situation, you take what you get, or leave it...
Though may not be applicable but there is a saying, beggars cant be choosers. The point that Russians came to IAF long ago to take feedback on T-50, take notes and offer the platform does show that their is a level of friendship in play here. There of-course will be issues, but that doesn't mean that someone has to be put in tenterhooks. And I would assume that if India was a supplier and equiper to another nation, there would be a attitude issue among us also, cant help it, its human nature.

Singha ji,
If I assume that what you are saying is true (China is superior in every aspect than Russia), then would love to see your answers to some of the questions:
1. How come they have a huge espionage network, whose primary task is to get every and any kind of data relating to almost everything including military designs, which is used to reverse engineer stuff?
2. How come the Chinese slaves (Pakis), want to change the avionics of their fighters with western avionics, though they come standard with "technologically" superior Chinese stuff?
3. In the same context, how come the Pakis are buying western equipment, when they can get all those superior platforms from China in a fraction of cost Or even free if they can keep India busy?
4. How come superior China is getting ready for another big import of defense hardware from
Russia including the S-400 etc, SU-34 etc
5. How come they don't have a single engine to fly their birds in-spite throwing the entire nations top resources in getting it done.
6. The anti-carrier ballistic missile, the 5th gen fighter are all 10 yrs away and we are cranked up on it..

I can keep on adding to this list endlessly...

If China is good at something, that is at mass producing products at the cheapest possible price (by squeezing the life out of their fellow citizens)..obviously when you are developing RC planes, they dont become fighter planes just by increasing their size...so lets not make an issue out of nothing!!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Dec 2010 23:05

I wonder if the second/third prototype or the FGFA will continue to bare the engines. All the fifth gen ones seem to have a casing around them

Some what like this

Also if it continues to have the sliding canopy we will always have that rim in the canopy. Remains to be seen if they want to stick to it.

I don't think that they would change the air intakes. But who knows

.

All in all waiting anxiously for the next prototypes.

P.S. Oh ya, how can I forget the OLS housing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Dec 2010 23:14

w.r.t our enemies, the brass tacks would be their capability rather intentions is what matters to build our future forces and our capabilities. So, it should not concern how and why they do certain things certain way to achieve those capabilities. The hows and whys are determined by the way we want to do certain things, democracy etc. that should not get muddled into defense speak.

So, we are on the right track here. chinpaks will continue to develop their capabilities no matter how well our strategies will corner Russkie friends. Russia as a supplier to china would continue to see what business they can gain and look at those economic prospects.

If we are intelligent enough, our FGFA should make sure we are taking a leading edge where it matters, especially take control of avionics, communications, stealth, radar and computing. 10 years down the line, anyone's easy guess is chinpak having a version of pak-fa or j-blah copied versions.

capability is important.. and that is what we need to make to counter our enemies in the future.

But the end game is always maturity model.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 31 Dec 2010 01:16

indranilroy wrote: Also if it continues to have the sliding canopy we will always have that rim in the canopy. Remains to be seen if they want to stick to it.

Is it possible to have it any other way for a twin seater configuration?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 31 Dec 2010 02:52

Gaur wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Also if it continues to have the sliding canopy we will always have that rim in the canopy. Remains to be seen if they want to stick to it.
Is it possible to have it any other way for a twin seater configuration?

Saars a new one piece canopy is being worked on separetly that will come online at a later stage onlee.

Please refer to below...

http://ifile.it/rhy541l/PAK%20FA.zip

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 31 Dec 2010 03:34

^^
Thanks a lot for those very informative scans. However, my question is what is the possibility of a single piece canopy for a dual seat configuration.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 31 Dec 2010 04:53

Gaur wrote:^^
Thanks a lot for those very informative scans. However, my question is what is the possibility of a single piece canopy for a dual seat configuration.

saar ji, me thinks it will be a tall order to get a long one piece canopy for a two seater...may be they will got for one with a joint in the middle? like the solah.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 31 Dec 2010 05:46

^^
Thats what I thought too. Also, please do away with the saar.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Dec 2010 08:15

does the typhoon 2 seater have a single one piece canopy. having a cool one piece canopy is a must-have for a "5th gen" fighter. even the old B-58 hustler had a giant canopy
http://steeljawscribe.com/wordpress/wp- ... ler-05.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Dec 2010 08:23

Thanks andy for the raptoriski zips.

Not in an order, but these were some tit bits from it for those who may have problem with downloads of zip at work.

Kh-58UShk 200km ARM - 2 folded wings and fins
Kh-38M 40km ASM 250kg warhead - 2
Sh121 X-band AESA 900mmx700mm 1526 T/Rs to about 2000T/Rs final prod version. "Radiolocation System" MIRES. T/Rs by Ryazan.
EOLS under dev by UOMZ - front mounted on the bulge.
L-band on leading edge flap.
K-band on pod.
The AL-31F1 is actually the 117 engine, with 117S version for export (perhaps china). New NG version of the turbofan is yet to be made for PAK-FA.
Without the movable LERX and adaptive nose flaps to increase static stability would not have been possible to beat MKI's manoeuvrability specs.
LERX acts as canards.
48* leading edge sweep, -12* trailing edge sweep, all tail palnes similar shape of wings.
25* slope of all moving cantered fins
TVC same as MKI 2D nozzle, on V-like intersecting planes
No excessive use of Stealth on T-50 yet. Only bare stealth requirements are fulfilled.
Pylons - 2 under each wing, 1 under each air ducts.
Nothing yet designed for inlet cover turbine blades or S duct.
Wingspan 45' 11"
Length 64' 11.5"
NTOW 48.5klb
MTOW 77.162klb
Thrust 147kN per replaced by later 157kN NG engine - few components, reduced op cost. Salut is offering the AL-31F-M3 with 152kN.
T:W ::1.4 - 1
M Range 3Kkm without drop tanks
M speeed 2kmph
super cruise

On Dec 22 2009, there had been a taxi trial T-50 KNS for invited Indian delegation.
Export designation PMI FGFA for India. I-21 or I-21E.
Jan 2003 India signed a protocol for common development - when Mig and LMFS presented designs.
Dec 2009 signed agreements for fifth gen.
KnAAPO and HAL manufactures at Nasik.
Possible Sh131 AESA for MKI / MK2 - being(/had been?) tested now on berkut.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Jan 2011 10:20

I have a sneaking feeling that Russians sold the tech for J-20 to China through Mig and taking India for a ride through PAKFA. I just wished that we were more committed to LCA & AMCA

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 01 Jan 2011 10:39

vic wrote:I have a sneaking feeling that Russians sold the tech for J-20 to China through Mig and taking India for a ride through PAKFA. I just wished that we were more committed to LCA & AMCA

How could Russians take India for a ride through PAK-FA when they are developing the same for their own AF?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2011 11:12

vic, you are only whining all around the place and not adding any value. please use the whine thread or keep your fingers to yourself.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2011 14:36

SISlurker wrote:..

username changed to wen.

@all, this is the PAKFA thread, not PRC economy thread. find the appropriate threads in tech/econ forum if needed.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jan 2011 21:00

This site has nice documented info on PAK-FA/FGFA development ( use translator )

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-254.html

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Jan 2011 21:05

Self edited/deleted.

Re Rahul M: Will shift to J-20 thread, but it does not exist

. This is nearest thread to issue on hand. Also the issue of PAKFA vs J-20 are real, so is the strong grip of Russian lobby due our lack on faith in ourselves. We need to import (only the) technology even if we have to pay more for it and not tie ourselves up for long term imports of equipment, let it be MMRCA or PAKFA.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jan 2011 21:07

does this look like the chinese military thread to you ?

this is the last time I'm letting off OT whining without a warning.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jan 2011 00:17

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20101222/161887184.html
Highlights from this ru.ian article and its pinprick analysis.

The plane currently being developed for India should get off the ground sooner because the bulk of its design has already been applied under the PAK-FA program. If all goes well, the first FGFA flight could occur in the next five to six years, and mass production could start in 2018-19.
However, experience has shown that India is not always capable of completing such projects under its own auspices, which can lead to significant delays and inferior equipment as compared to systems in Russia and the West. {- Akahs and Arjun as quoted example!}
Indian leadership has decided that joint development is the most promising form of military-technical cooperation because it enables India to develop its scientific and technical expertise while obtaining the results guaranteed by its partner's more significant advancement.
In terms of the prospects for military-technical cooperation with India, it should be noted that Russia will likely continue to supply the bulk of aircraft and warships. As for the supply of ground vehicles, India is gradually reorienting towards its own industry along with other international suppliers.
For Russia, however, the aviation and shipbuilding markets are more than worth it - the Indian Air Force and Navy are among the strongest in the world and require large supplies of modern technology to maintain their current force and underwrite their future development. Moreover, it is possible that in the future Russia and India will align to fill orders from third-party nations through joint production and export.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 06:58

Nice Picture of PAK-FA link

Some details of PAK-FA 117 engine link

One of the major components of these flights was to check the functioning of the new engine. Despite the fact that the engine for the PAK FA repeats the scheme of the famous AL-31F, it has 80 percent of new parts. This low-pressure compressor, combustor, turbine, installed at an angle of 30 degree swivel nozzle, high pressure compressor, a digital automatic control system with elements of distributed parameters and plasma ignition system.

As reported in the exhibition "Engines-2010" Chief Designer included in the Saturn SEC them. Yevhen Marchuk, responsible for creating the engine for the PAK FA, in the development of the turbofan, a series of measures to improve reliability and increase resource. This is necessary because the engine is more intense, has a higher temperature.

Plasma ignition system - new Russian engine.

Until now, all ignition system to increase the altitude, the ability to run at an altitude turbojet used oxygen replenishment. She demanded the availability of the entire oxygen system on board, and associated infrastructure at the airport.When you create a PAK FA has been tasked to ensure oxygen-free starting.Plasma ignition system installed in the main combustion chamber and afterburner. According to Eugene Marchukova, know-how embedded in the very nozzle with a plasma system: it simultaneously with the application of kerosene organized by the arc plasma.It is also very serious know-how incorporated in the very ignition systems where it is necessary for a short time give a very high voltage.

Digital control system with full responsibility as applied in the domestic airplane for the first time. Hydraulic power packs are just the executive. As noted by Yevhen Marchuk, the exception of one redundant centrifugal regulator, which allows for the total elimination of all electronics, such as exposure to a nuclear explosion, to return to base at a reduced mode. Digital ACS is very mobile and flexible. Whereas before, the analog control, change control algorithm engine takes two or three months, now, this operation takes a few minutes, sometimes not even need to stop the turbojet. That is, as noted by General Designer SEC A. Cradles, fixing and debugging engine is much faster. This in turn leads to a tight schedule of testing new aircraft.

The engine of the first stage for the PAK FA is built on a completely conventional scheme. He, in particular, is devoid of such characteristic elements as the flat nozzle, available from a competitor of our car - F-22. However, according to Eugene Marchukova, work on the exhaust system are underway. At the stage production of technical documentation are the development of a flat nozzle and the reverse.

From the viewpoint of gas dynamics with a flat nozzle solid deficiencies, since its establishment must make the transition to the circular (the engine) on the flat. Loss of traction at the same time can be 5-7 percent. The advantage of only one thing - providing heat at the expense of closing the stealth plane turbine blades. This mode is limited: it is switched on for 5-10 minutes to overcome the enemy's air defense system. To solve this problem, such losses are acceptable.But the designers of Saturn are trying to minimize losses of 2-3 percent.

( via Quadrafx )