PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2011 07:18

can some gurus explain this flat nozzle blah.. slightly cryptic here to understand. TIA

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:25

Austin wrote:
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.

Does this mean that Russia is introducing FADEC for the first time?

This means several things:

Neither J-10 nor JF-17 have FADEC
The J-20 will not have FADEC currently
The SDRE Tejas and Dhruv feature FADEC
The SRDE Kaveri has FADEC

What the frug do we all jabber about when we talk of 4th gen and 5th gen?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 07:31

Shiv , I think some of this gets lost in google translation , they are perhaps talking about integrated digital control system for the aircraft and engine implemented for the first time.

AFAIK even the AL-31FP has FADEC

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2011 07:36

good to know they will implement a flat nozzle for pakfa. the loss of thrust by a few % is well publicized. the plasma ignitor thing will likely save some weight.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 07:41

I could be wrong but NPO-Saturn website does not list FADEC for AL-31FP

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=53

But 117S for Su-35 shows having Digital control system though

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=156

digital engine control system integrated with the aircraft control system.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 07:43

Austin wrote:I could be wrong but NPO-Saturn website does not list FADEC for AL-31FP

My Unkal Googal told me recently that FADEC is a new and recent development for Al-31 - maybe in future

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 03 Jan 2011 07:51

shiv wrote: Does this mean that Russia is introducing FADEC for the first time?

I am not sure about NPO-Saturn but Mig-29's RD-33MK certainly has FADEC. So, Russia certainly has the technology.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 07:52

Shiv , here is something I found from Irkut

http://www.irkut.com/en/news/news_archi ... p?id48=120

The AL-31FP is the only engine with TVC under series production in the world. The TVC improves safety of flight in all modes, prevents spin and enables the Su-30MKI aircraft to operate in the supermaneuverability mode, thus ensuring a critical advantage in the close-in air-to-air combat. AL-31FP thrust comes to 12500 kgf, the engine is controlled by means of an electronic regulating system.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jan 2011 08:02

Seems to me that there is some amount of smoke and mirrors here. Nice to know that this is a new engine, BUT, given everything I would imagine that the "real" PAK-FA engine is still out there to come in 10 years.

Seems to me that both the PAK-FA and the J-20 are more of tech demos. I would expect a fairly large change in these air crafts. But, both need to be acknowledged for their progress and contributions from their respective design groups.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 08:25

Gaur wrote:
shiv wrote: Does this mean that Russia is introducing FADEC for the first time?
I am not sure about NPO-Saturn but Mig-29's RD-33MK certainly has FADEC. So, Russia certainly has the technology.

"Having the technology" is not the same as implementing it on frontline fighters. the point is that it is absent on both the JF-17 and J-10. Now this thread is about FGFA. Does FGFA stand for "Fourth Generation Fighter Aircraft" or "Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft"

What the hell does "generation" mean when what is 4th gen technology (FADEC) is absent in fighters that are boastfully described as 4.5 gen aircraft?

FADEC is essential technology for any new aircraft because it reduces pilot workload, prevents the operation of an engine beyond its stipulated limits and regulates fuel low depending on the situation and need. What is "fifth generation" about an aircrfat such as the J-20 or any other 5 gen aircraft if that aircraft does not incorporate an engine with FADEC?

I have hinted at this question several times and I am now asking it out loud.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 03 Jan 2011 08:34

^^
As I said earlier, FADEC has already been implemented in Mig-29k. Also, as Austin has posted, it is clear that AL-31FP also has FADEC.

Anyways, I see what you are getting at and I completely agree. I specially find myself at loss to understand the difference b/n 4 and 4++ gen.

5th gen is even more confusing. When F-22 came out super maneuverability and supercrusie (along with stealth of-course) were touted as defining features of a 5gen a/c. All this changed when F-35 came out. So, generation numbers are nothing but marketing ploy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Jan 2011 08:37

Gaur wrote: So, generation numbers are nothing but marketing ploy.

Absolutely. And if the large majority of us can stop talking about generation numbers and start talking about what individual technologies need development or incorporation we will have a better understanding of who is doing what.

Please delete my post admins. What Gaur and I have said is neither going to be read or given an iota of attention. I just wanted to let out some flatulence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jan 2011 08:48

What does the term "electronic regulating system" mean , can it mean analog electronic regulating system which means it not a true FADEC but a analog electronic control ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Jan 2011 08:52

Boy, you guys are so passe.

Memo: Sixth Generation Fighter

Subramanyam also told the press that ADA is poised to commence research and development on a six-generation AMCA aircraft shortly.

: )

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2011 19:58

well if the flabby tabby JSF can be massaged and molded into a 5th gen in public eye by changing the yardsticks allegedly set by the F22 (super speed, climb rate, acceleration, TVC, supercruise) , give the AMCA some rope to play with eh?

other than a more moderate degree of stealth vs F22, the JSF meets about zero of all the other data points allegedly defined by the f22 for 5th gen.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2011 20:04

okay got it.. now wouldn't the gain in the thrust more important than IR reducing nozzle if say it has good jamming and protection system? So why chase behind the flat nozzle design?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jan 2011 20:42

because a IIR missile fired from the back will see it better I suppose. you can hardly outrun a Mica-IR thats got you into a no-escape kinematic korner...least of all a JSF which is allegedly limited to Mach1.5 tops.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Jan 2011 22:16

whatever happened to the hot discussion of IR signature reduction by using some liquid coolant (Nitrogen?)- perhaps gets engaged and releases the coolant vapors once a missile approach is sensed. vapor ware!

ps: may be H2O as well.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 04 Jan 2011 02:51

China's J-20 Stealth Fighter In Taxi Tests

Photo Credit: Via Chinese Internet

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... xi%20Tests

Jan 3, 2011

By Bill Sweetman
Washington

China’s first known stealth aircraft just emerged from a secret development program and was undergoing high-speed taxi tests late last week at Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute’s airfield. Said to be designated J-20, it is larger than most observers expected—pointing to long range and heavy weapon loads.

Its timing, Chengdu’s development record and official statements cast doubt on U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s 2009 prediction (in support of his decision to stop production of the Lockheed Martin F-22) that China would not have an operational stealth aircraft before 2020.

The debut of the J-20 was announced in a November 2009 interview on Chinese TV by Gen. He Weirong, deputy commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force. The general said a “fourth-generation” fighter (Chinese terminology for a stealth fighter) would be flown in 2010-11 and be operational in 2017-19.

The J-20 is a single-seat, twin-engine aircraft, bigger and heavier than the Sukhoi T-50 and the F-22. Comparison with ground-service vehicles points to an overall length of 75 ft. and a wingspan of 45 ft. or more, which would suggest a takeoff weight in the 75,000-80,000-lb. class with no external load. That in turn implies a generous internal fuel capacity. The overall length is close to that of the 1960s General Dynamics F-111, which carries 34,000 lb. of fuel.

The J-20 has a canard delta layout (like Chengdu’s J-10) with two canted, all-moving vertical stabilizers (like the T-50) and smaller canted ventral fins. The stealth body shaping is similar to that of the F-22. The flat body sides are aligned with the canted tails, the wing-body junction is clean, and there is a sharp chine line around the forward fuselage. The cant angles are greater than they are on the Lockheed Martin F-35, and the frameless canopy is similar to that of the F-22.

The engines are most likely members of the Russian Saturn AL-31F family, also used on the J-10. The production version will require yet-to-mature indigenous engines. The inlets use diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) technology, first adopted for the F-35 but also used by Chengdu on the J-10B—the newest version of the J-10—and the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder.

The main landing gears retract into body-side bays, indicating the likely presence of F-22-style side weapon bays ahead of them. The ground clearance is higher than on the F-22, which would facilitate loading larger weapons including air-to-surface munitions. Chinese engineers at the Zhuhai air show in November disclosed that newly developed air-to-ground weapons are now required to be compatible with the J-20.

Features at the rear of the aircraft—including underwing actuator fairings, axisymmetrical engine exhausts and the ventral fins—appear less compatible with stealth, so the J-20 may not match the all-aspect stealth of the F-22. There are two possible explanations for this: Either the aircraft seen here is the first step toward an operational design, or China’s requirements do not place as much stress on rear-aspect signatures.

The major open question at this point is whether the J-20 is a true prototype, like the T-50, or a technology demonstrator, with a status similar to the YF-22 flown in 1990. That question will be answered by whether, and how many, further J-20s enter flight testing in the next 12-24 months.

Developing an effective multi-mission stealthy aircraft presents challenges beyond the airframe, because it requires a sensor suite that uses automated data fusion, emission control and low-probability-of-intercept data links to build an operational picture for the pilot without giving away the aircraft’s own location.

A rapid development program would be a challenge for China’s combat aircraft industry, which is currently busy: The J-10B, FC-17 and Shenyang’s J-11B and carrier-based J-15 are all under development. However, the progress of China’s military aviation technology has been rapid since the first flight of the J-10 in 1996, owing to the nation’s growing economy and the push by the People’s Liberation Army for a modernized military force in all domains. Before the J-10, China’s only indigenous production combat aircraft were the Shenyang J-8 and Xian JH-7, reflecting early-1960s technology from Russia and Europe.

Engine development has lagged airframe development, with reports that the Shenyang WS-10 engine, slated to replace Russian engines in the J-11B, has been slow to reach acceptable reliability and durability levels. That may not be surprising, given that high-performance engine technology is founded on specialized alloys and processes that often have no other uses. (The existence of the J-11B, essentially a “bootleg” version of the Su-27, has been a strain on relationships between the Russian and Chinese industries.)

Progress with avionics may be indicated by the advent of the J-10B, with new features that include a canted radar bulkhead (normally associated with an active, electronically scanned array antenna), an infrared search-and-track system, and housings for new electronic warfare antennas.

One question that may go unanswered for a long time concerns the degree to which cyberespionage has aided the development of the J-20. U.S. defense industry cybersecurity experts have cited 2006—close to the date when the J-20 program would have started—as the point at which they became aware of what was later named the advanced persistent threat (APT), a campaign of cyberintrusion aimed primarily at military and defense industries and characterized by sophisticated infiltration and exfiltration techniques.

Dale Meyerrose, information security vice president for the Harris Corp. and former chief information officer for the director of national intelligence, told an Aviation Week cybersecurity conference in April 2010 that the APT had been little discussed outside the classified realm, up to that point, because “the vast majority of APT attacks are believed to come from a single country.”

Between 2009 and early 2010, Lockheed Martin found that “six to eight companies” among its subcontractors “had been totally compromised—e-mails, their networks, everything,” according to Chief Information Security Officer Anne Mullins.

The way in which the J-20 was unveiled also reflects China’s use and control of information technology to support national interests. The test airfield is located in the city of Chengdu and is not secure, with many public viewing points. Photography is technically forbidden, but reports suggest that patrols have been permitting the use of cell phone cameras. From Dec. 25‑29, these images were placed on Chinese Internet discussion boards, and after an early intervention by censors—which served to draw attention to the activity—they appeared with steadily increasing quality. Substantial international attention was thereby achieved without any official disclosures.

(Sorry if posted elsewhere on BR)

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 04 Jan 2011 03:19

Dear members,
I often wonder about the need for two stealth a/c's, is it really necessary for India. FGFA by general estimates will be ready for induction around 2018-20 timeframe, with LCA mk2 becoming fully operational by the same time along with the MMRCA. Do we really need the AMCA? As FGFA is a 50-50 joint project, can't we develop the same platform to serve us in the future years removing the need for AMCA. And can we afford 2 advanced stealth aircrafts when USA is struggling to do the same. and my last question... should we be looking at brazil and russia to jointly develop the AMCA to offset the future costs of a 5th gen aircraft?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Jan 2011 04:21

^^^ Frankly this is a newbie pooch.

1. Stealth is a characteristic just like the ability to fire BVR missiles. Since we have Su-30s which can fire BVR missiles, we shouldn't need the ability to fire BVR weapons from other planes? All future planes will have stealth features. Otherwise you would be at a disadvantage against your adversary who has stealth. There is nothing enigmatic about gen-tech or stealth.

2. Initially the MCA was envisioned as a tech-feed program for the FGFA. It was actually the IAF/Navy which stood by HAL/ADA that AMCA should be developed into a plane rather than just a technology bridge/demonstrator.

3. LCA Mk2 will still not be in the category of the medium weight fighters. Frankly, because it was not designed to do so. It was designed as a light fighter and it will be one of the premium light fighters of tomorrow. LCA Mk2 is not a replacement for medium weight fighter. And the FGFA is not a substitute for a medium weight fighter.

4. I think Indians have the highest density of doubting Thomases. Nobody seems to remember an achievement. But everybody stands first in line to question whether we can do it on our own. I don't know who else does that US/Russians/UK/France/China. Somehow in India as tamrak pointed out, headlines of failures becomes a sensation. Who wants to listen that we can? A pot-bellied-middle-aged man working with the same salary as an entry-level-IT-twenty-somethings is working very hard, thanklessly and infact while being mocked, to get a Agni/LCA/Arjun come to life can barely make worthy news. Please don't join the bandwagon of doubting-Thomases from the word go.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 04 Jan 2011 05:42

Austin wrote:What does the term "electronic regulating system" mean , can it mean analog electronic regulating system which means it not a true FADEC but a analog electronic control ?

There are two types of circuits, digital circuits, and electronic circuits. Electronic circuits are analog by definition.

As for FADEC, I'm sure all 5th gen aircrafts will have it, it's not that groundbreaking of a feature. Automatically electronically controlled engines can do much of what digitally controlled engines do, with normal shortcomings of analog vs. digital.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 04 Jan 2011 05:50

thanks indranil...

i'm in no hurry to jump on any bandwagon, BUT are our pockets deep enough for all this... GOI was stingy to fund LCA in its beginning years... It seems same happening to the AMCA... there is barely any sign of major funding whereas we were ready to jump on command for FGFA....

about the thanklessness to the pot bellied veteran engineer, that award goes to "GOI". Loves to buy Phoren maal but rarely fund research.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2011 06:02

Ghosh saheb,

Would $2 Billion, for the AMCA alone, be enough?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jan 2011 07:21

DavidD wrote: Automatically electronically controlled engines can do much of what digitally controlled engines do, with normal shortcomings of analog vs. digital.

In fact this is just the sort of thing that I am referring to when I speak of "hype" and "marketing ploy".

More germane to this thread is the expression "fifth generation" aircraft which has a life of its own. The term is thrown around loosely by all and sundry. People talk of stealth and 5th gen and then say - hey its OK for stealth to be frontal stealth alone. There need not be stealth from other aspects. Then people say there is no practical difference between analog electronic and digital control.

So what actually happens is under the hijab of "5th generation" everything is diluted, mixed up, compromised until a person who produces a rubber balloon that looks like a Raptor style 5th generation aircraft will claim that this is "5th generation"

Unless technologies in use are specifically mentioned it is nonsense to talk of 5th gen. Or 4th gen or 4.5 gen.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2011 08:13

The day when all air forces could agree on a "generation" has gone. Given that each AF has their own needs, it is quite silly to generalize something like this to force an issue.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 04 Jan 2011 13:35

rao ,

I guess it's just me... I am irritated by the development speed of AMCA... especially after LCA experience, i thought we won't commit the same mistakes. F22's program cost was around 18.6 Billion dollars in 2002. That makes me wonder if 2 billion will even get amca started.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 04 Jan 2011 16:27

There were a number of factors behind the relatively slower speed of LCA development.
1. Giant technological leap required in almost all sections of aeronautics
2. Lack of adequate funding and therefore facilities
3. Sanctions etc etc etc

Now, when all the expertise has been painstakingly built over the years, expect AMCA to have a better ride. There will always be challenges but, we now have the experience to overcome them and come on top. Besides, if we stop the follow on programs now, we can kiss goodbye to ever being able to produce top-notch aircrafts of our own.

The reason IAF has insisted on it is primarily technology denial and rising cost of the watered down version of latest gizmos. JMT.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jan 2011 17:33

OT/ Similar tall order high expectation requirements where we have not established any experience yet is in AMCA as well. Please take is there.

btw, the all aspect stealth is still to be noted in pak-fa could be also a marketing ploy?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Jan 2011 17:35

(Tejas mk1 minus 0) >> (AMCA minus Tejas mk1)

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 04 Jan 2011 17:36

Please help me understand how so? I know stealth and engine. What else?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 04 Jan 2011 18:20

^^^^ You and Singha are on same line.. efforts to develop AMCA after tejas will be less than Tejas

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Jan 2011 21:32

indranilroy wrote:
4. I think Indians have the highest density of doubting Thomases. Nobody seems to remember an achievement. But everybody stands first in line to question whether we can do it on our own. I don't know who else does that US/Russians/UK/France/China. Somehow in India as tamrak pointed out, headlines of failures becomes a sensation. Who wants to listen that we can?

This is known as conditioned psy ops.
Years of propaganda creates doubt in the mind of the general public

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2011 21:52

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:rao ,

I guess it's just me... I am irritated by the development speed of AMCA... especially after LCA experience, i thought we won't commit the same mistakes. F22's program cost was around 18.6 Billion dollars in 2002. That makes me wonder if 2 billion will even get amca started.

That you/one is concerned is fine. No issues. However, to take only a few data points and then extrapolate does not make any sense.

Just BTW, India is not trying to build a F-22. The effort is to build a simple AMCA. Why would anyone compare an AMCA to an F-22 or a J-20 or JSF, frankly, is beyond me.

And, if the memo did not arrive at your table (and that is fine too), there are plenty of data points (Sitara, etc) that have proven certain aspects and should provide encouragement. This however does NOT mean that the AMCA is automatic. Just means that ANY gloominess that was generated by the LCA effort should not be there. In fact, I would say, that no gloominess should ever exist. ALL these projects carry a huge risk and that is all there is to it. Risk. And, I happen to think that these guys have beaten the risks in most cases rather well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jan 2011 22:09

I think he is irritated by the pace at which the j20 was presented to taxi and all the hyper noose about it. We can measure success only from one stage to another, and not by some commy copy strategy of suddenly becoming big time souper prowler.

Relax.. and watch the AMCA grow as you watch your kids grow, where the subject needs tender care and complete focus. Measurement of failures from slow speed to established setup with a friangi product loving community takes success by showing enthusiasm at each failure and learning from it to fix it once and for all.

It is begin of a new life cycle process, and at the end of which when it goes operational, we might not be even alive to appreciate these little patience and public support for such projects.

As long as we have a process established, and continues, things should smooth out.
/end of astrology/OT.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 05 Jan 2011 04:00

NRao wrote: That you/one is concerned is fine. No issues. However, to take only a few data points and then extrapolate does not make any sense.

Just BTW, India is not trying to build a F-22. The effort is to build a simple AMCA. Why would anyone compare an AMCA to an F-22 or a J-20 or JSF, frankly, is beyond me.

Thank you for the reply sir,
I understand we are not trying to build a f22 but I do hope the new aircraft would have stealth, internal weapons , vectored thrust, supercruise and avionics shabaaanng...
I hope simple AMCA is not as simple as it sounds. I hope if we go in to build an "A"MCA... it would be advanced enough to give every other J20-30-40 and F 's a beating they'd never forget.... Thats why I really hope we dont just build a simple AMCA which turns out to be a bigger version of tejas...

dear Friends,

I don't possess the understanding of the budgetary allocation needed to build "so called 5th gen a/c" but 2 billion seems less compared to 6 billion pledged to co=develop PAKFA and way less than US spent on f22/35.

IF AMCA is deliberately underfunded by babus and takes another 20years to develop and after that another 10 years to be "operational" just to ensure that we keep buying foreign aircrafts in future, It will be very disheartening.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jan 2011 04:05

2 billion is initial allotment even before the program has started. GOI usually provides funds for the 5year plan periods and would run from 2012 to 2017. additional funding will be provided as needed. tejas for example is being funded in 3-4 phases. also, it doesn't include the cost of manufacturing the AMCA.

since the PAKFA agreement is with a foreign govt the full anticipated amount of the deal, including cost of manufacturing is estimated. it does NOT mean that 6bn has already been handed over.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jan 2011 04:07

Ghosh saheb,

There is not too much on AMCA, but may I urge you to use google before we go any further. ALL your concerns, with one exception, should be addressed.

Again, it is a risk, so, $2 billion could be a very low figure. But, that is the figure requested by the scicom. We will just have to wait and see what happens to this very ambitious project. But, my feel is it is doable.

However, please gather some info before we go any further.

Thx.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2011 04:42

Sandeep the 2B is only an initial ask. It will grow.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jan 2011 08:28

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:rao ,

I guess it's just me... I am irritated by the development speed of AMCA... especially after LCA experience, i thought we won't commit the same mistakes. F22's program cost was around 18.6 Billion dollars in 2002. That makes me wonder if 2 billion will even get amca started.

Sandeep I mean no offence - but I write the way my mind works.

You are holding up the F-22 as a standard and asking how the AMCA might get there. This way of thinking has been common for several generations of Indians. I mean that we take an example of the pinnacle of American success, compare our efforts against that and lament that we are not good enough.

As long as Indians view the world through this filter - they are destined to be disappointed and bitter until India "catches up" with America. The real problem is that in 1947 India was technologically 50 years behind the US. In 2010 we are about 20 years behind. That means 2 things:

1) India has reduced a 50 year gap to 20 years and has taken 60 years to do that.
2) Going at the same rate India will catch up with America in 40 years time - i.e in 2050. If you are 20 years old today, you will be 60 years when India catches up. I will be dead.

The second question is whether India has to exactly catch up with the US and do exactly the same things. My answer to that is "No". India does not need to do that and will not do that. ut my thoughts on this are definitely OT.