PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 08 Nov 2011 05:00

to save projects, sometime they have to keep it secret. if they start selling that means, partial secrets are out. btw, there may be no secrets to the real all aspects.

it is all about consuming the radar waves. or guided them to a safe direction once the direction finder knows the origin/source direction. skins on raptor I read is the most painful aspects of building it.

it is expensive because of the skin layers. it is secret. but one could imagine anything from MEMS to absorption chemistry or a simple deflector sandwiched composites.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Gaur » 08 Nov 2011 05:05

Cosmo_R,
F-22 certainly incorporates some cutting edge technology which others have not yet caught up with (eg: APG-77 radar with LPI is unmatched and F119 engine can only be matched by Saturn 117). So, US is not wrong by not exporting F-22/ However, even though its a great technological achievement in some areas, it has its share of serious shortcoming which hold it down.
For instance:
- No IRST even now.
- Cannot even drop LGBs by itself because of absence of laser designator.
- Last I had read, F-22 needed preflight entering of Mission data to its Mission computer for strike role! :shock: So, if some changes needed to be made in flight, it was not possible. I don't know if the situation has now changed or not.

And the usual:
- Requires more than 30-35 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000.
- RAM coating's vulnerability to rain and other abrasion.
- Canopy visibility has been declining more rapidly than envisaged, forcing $120,000 of repairs at 331 hours of average flying time, instead of the stipulated 800 hours.

kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby kuldipchager » 08 Nov 2011 06:38

Why we are discusing F 35 or F 22 here.If some body like this american shit then start the new web.First off all we(India) will never get hand on f 22.F 35 if we ever get will be the last one,when they will be ready to replace with some thing news.
They offer us F 16/18 when they are 25 years old.
Grow up Bashers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 08 Nov 2011 08:44

we should discuss JSF features on this thread rather than F22 because JSF will be widely exported and is the benchmark that PAKFA has to defeat certainly to prove its teeth.
JSF will replace all the F-16 and F-15 around the world in 1000s as the 22 is not for export. it will also see its first MLU for sure by the time PAKFA enters FOC, so its a moving target.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8204
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2011 21:51

Guys,

This is the place to discuss the F 35. Or any new FGFA project.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2011 12:17

Some update on PAK-FA A2A missile from yefim gordon book , Russian Airpower New Edition.

Several advanced air to air missile is under development for PAK-FA, at ranges up to 250 km medium range AAM designated 180-PD and powered by Ramjet engine may be used.

A short range of this weapon designated K-77M derivative of R-77 having a solid fuel motor is used up to ranges of 110-140 km , it has active/passive seeker head allowing missile to home on seeker source.

For close range engagement T-50 may use K-74M2 short range AAM , the missile has a matrix IR seeker head capable of discerning real targets from decoy and having twice the lock on range of R-73 AAM.

The K-74M2 has thrust vectoring control , making it agile enough to nail not only manouverable modern fighter but even incoming AAM

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2011 12:40

F-22 crash report secret? Answer..."Hypoxia".OBOG problems surface again.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby koti » 09 Nov 2011 14:03

OBOGS problem shouldn't have taken so long to pin point.
And this is relatively new issue for the Raptor as the OBOGS of it was modified sometime back(weight savings according to some).
If this was the case it should be easily revertible and grounding the entire fleet wasn't a necessity.
Maybe there is more to the story.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2011 14:44

There seems to be some chronic problem with it,at least that's what the official/industry versions state.

Here is a good analysis on the offer of the JSF to us.

"US F-35 Pitch to India – a Smoke Screen or a Step Toward True Cooperation?"

http://defense-update.com/20111104_1446 ... +Update%29

Few days before what seems to be the final selection between Rafale and Eurofighter for MMRCA, Washington is trying a last minute maneuver to derail the Indian choice, reiterating its offering of the Joint Strike Fighter to New Delhi. This proposal has been on the table for years, but India hasn’t seem to be interested – in 2007, when it first surfaced, it was too far, today, too expensive. India has already made its choice, which seems solid, developing its own derivative of the Russian T-50.

India has made its political technological and practical decision to select a European platform. By opting for a modern 4.5 Generation fighter, India will also gain access to modern manufacturing technologies, that will help its rather obsolete production lines move into the 21st century, a step in the direction toward even more advanced standards to be implemented through this decade, laying the ground for the next generation fighters and unmanned combat aircraft which will dominate the aviation of the next decades.

“What’s clear is that the F-35 is something that we would be more than willing to talk to the government of India about,” Robert Scher, deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia told reporters, when presenting a report on U.S.-India security cooperation the Pentagon prepared for the Congress. The report outlined expanding military exchanges between the two countries, said the U.S. is committed to a broad trade defense relationship “that enables transfers of some of our most advanced technologies.”

Over the next decades India will need hundreds of new fighters; with stealth fighters already looming in China, South Korea, Japan and Indonesia, India will have to ‘own’ indigenous stealth fighter capability, fielding affordable planes in adequate numbers, and be able to operate them for decades, independent of foreign pressures and limitations. The F-35, bound by complex subcontracting sourcing, with U.S. limiting user access to core functions, will hardly suffice for India’s aspiration for mastering it as indigenous technology.

If Washington is really serious about moving forward in cooperative development with India, its goal should be partnering and joining the Advanced medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a single seat stealthy jet to replace the Jaguar and MiG-27s by the turn of the next decade.


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 09 Nov 2011 20:43

constructive criticism should be welcome no matter it is JSF or Raptor. If pak-fa can beat a raptor, then it beats JSF is my thought, of course I have not looked at special mission aspects that JSF and its variants are built for (example naval vtol version, that I am sure will take ages for us to beat that damn p&w turbofan lift engine).

nevertheless, it is important to bring out the features that pak-fa can counter.. considering enemy fighter as $h!t (possible your future fighter - depending on how babooze play games), is something not correct.,

otoh, unkill sam always would hire ajints to know what pak-fa platform is.. so, by offering a tech that is a player platform to engage to find many secrets of pak-fa, then it could be that russkies may have reservations on this.
it is a simple game there.

as an integrator of tech, India has to be very careful in playing tech and learning the best, and at the same time, dealing with both old super powers keeping them happy.

otoh, do it separate.. learn from others though.

ranjithnath
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 14:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby ranjithnath » 09 Nov 2011 22:04

nukavarapu wrote:
SaiK wrote:constructive criticism should be welcome no matter it is JSF or Raptor. If pak-fa can beat a raptor, then it beats JSF is my thought, of course I have not looked at special mission aspects that JSF and its variants are built for (example naval vtol version, that I am sure will take ages for us to beat that damn p&w turbofan lift engine).


The legendary Lift system is based around the Yak-141. We are more closer than we might think 8)

or simple enough, we might not even need a VTOL version to begin with.we had a VTOL sea harrier because it was what was fit for a 24000 tonne carrier.but we are moving away from that and might as well have CATOBAR on IAC2 hopefull , if approved.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 08:41

VSTOL/STOL fares poorly in terms of payload and fuel consumption vs CTOL.
concentration of force is essential in having some part of it ready 24x7 to meet serious threats.
a VIraat class armed with 12 JSF is going to be a complete ROTFL to anyone
Harrier jumpset was built for a WW3 nuclear scene where all airbases would be hit with low-yield n-weapons in initial hours

if we are thinking of a asset that can play the game against the PLAN+PLANAF combo off the coast of malaysia and thailand, think no smaller than 55,000t and 40 rafale std fighters + 3 E2 hawkeye. 65,000t is even better for a 50 a/c wing.

the LHD ships we are getting can perform the sea control and ambhip support thing, perhaps armed with VSTOL JSF if needed (as its going to be the only jumpjet around soon)
they are useless against china though but good for policing rest of IOR.

ranjithnath
BRFite
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 14:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby ranjithnath » 10 Nov 2011 09:40

^^^ +1 .good post singhaji!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 11:11

Singha wrote:VSTOL/STOL fares poorly in terms of payload and fuel consumption vs CTOL.
concentration of force is essential in having some part of it ready 24x7 to meet serious threats.
a VIraat class armed with 12 JSF is going to be a complete ROTFL to anyone
Harrier jumpset was built for a WW3 nuclear scene where all airbases would be hit with low-yield n-weapons in initial hours

if we are thinking of a asset that can play the game against the PLAN+PLANAF combo off the coast of malaysia and thailand, think no smaller than 55,000t and 40 rafale std fighters + 3 E2 hawkeye. 65,000t is even better for a 50 a/c wing.

the LHD ships we are getting can perform the sea control and ambhip support thing, perhaps armed with VSTOL JSF if needed (as its going to be the only jumpjet around soon)
they are useless against china though but good for policing rest of IOR.


+1

The VTOL JSF comes with a super sophisticated engine with a TV and lift fans that make it look like the hat below.
Image

To me - it looks like a 21st century version of that silly Soviet VTOL shipborne aircraft that never made it:
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 11:23

>> there might arise a need where you need a small, well concealed ship, that can carry a small amount of very well
>> capable VTOL/STOL fighters, that can take off from such ships, do the job, return back and disappear.

define small. if you are thinking of a 15000t stealthy aviation cruiser type catamaran ship its airwing will not have the strike power and nor the ship the staying power to mount intensive sustained ops. not carrying any CTOL awacs, it can at best relay on ka31 type radar pickets of limited capability. due to small air wing, if detected it will have a paltry interceptor screen and rely too much on SAMs of escort ships.

they will be ok for pinprict dolittle type tokyo raids. good for psyops but not changing course of war. france even tried out submarines with ramp launched seaplanes....a failed idea.

in short neither will it have the teeth to 'shape' the battlefield our way nor the tough skin to beat off determined Flanker+Moskit attacks my dozens of land based a/c / sub launched ASMs and still remain in the area. it will likely have to run away at full speed at the first sign of detection.

if the idea is a carrier to provide protection to helicopter carrier+FFG ASW forces seeking fights and screening the large fleet of PLAN subs (their biggest threat to us), then we need a proper carrier to extend an air umbrella over the zone.

and thats why UK and France settled on the CVF sized design, not something smaller like CDG which would have saved a lot of cash for sure.

ability to refuel flying naval fighters way off in ASEAN region, even if a sqdn of tankers be deputed to car nicobar is limited. and one can expect no more than 1.5 sorties on avg from naval a/c per day as per SURGEX experiments by USN. these will be mix of strike and CAPs. for a large airwing of 50 a/c that translates to only 75 sorties....if you say 50 are CAP missions thats a good 24 hrs you need to cover, so better the mission endurance its better for workload and coverage.

typically the carrier would only have 2 fighters on CAP and maybe 4 if its expects an attack and perhaps 4 more fighters on the catapults and right behind ready to go once the inbound is detected. US CVNs benefit from having 2 fwd cats and 2 waist cats....absolutely essential to launch the first wave of 4 fighters from deck asap and then push 4 more into position....we need to ensure atleast 3 cats and not fall for a 'through deck' cruiser design of 2 cats only .... if one cat packs up our sortie rate will be halved....

turnaround times x timely concentration of force is life and death matter.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13109
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby negi » 10 Nov 2011 12:48

VTOL like variable geometry wing layout, craze for Mach3+ AC and nuke tipped ABMs was a 60s/70s fashion fad which came and passed ; have to say that generation was crazy; bell bottoms, hippie hair do and what not. :eek:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16997
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Nov 2011 13:04

>> To me - it looks like a 21st century version of that silly Soviet VTOL shipborne aircraft that never made it:

to be fair that silly soviet VTOL aircraft (yak-36) was never meant to make it, it was a tech demo.

that being said, the actual soviet VTOL fighter that operated from the kievs, yak-38, which was yak-36's successor, never made it either. it was so underpowered it carried precisely nothing most of the time, earning the epithet pigeon of peace .

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8204
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2011 13:12

The Yak 141 was the ultimate expression of the Soviet VTOL. IF the F 35 VTOL, ever reached service, it will be standing on the shoulders of the YAK 141.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2011 19:12

Yup! POst CW,the Yanks asked for a look at it ,were given tour and like the PRC stole the tech.But what they can't seem to produce like the Russians ,is a cost-effective bird,instead making a gold-plated turkey with exotic stuffing,that comes in as the priciest dish of the day this century!

Where stealth is really going to delivr is in the stealthy UCAVs that are being developed.They,by virtue of having no cockpit and support systems for a pilot,are aerodynamically stealthier,have ultra-long endurance and can be used for the real deep penetration missions .More of these roles will be carried out by UCAVs.

STOVL/VSTOL is great for recovering aircraft on deck,"relative recovery",any angle of landing,requiring no steaming into the wind,and when used as the RAF did in Germany during the Cold War,concealed in small copses near the borders and supported by small teams of logistic vehicles,was virtually invisible even when given map coordinates.The use of VSTOL/STOVL aircraft in the A&N islands,where they could use small paths,roads as runways,landing in small clarings and well camouflaged,obviates the need for large air bases and their runways which would be first targets of the enemy through salvoes of tactical missiles.As was een in the Falklands and was suposdly contemplated/used by the IN during Kargil,when the Viraat was in refit,harrier style aircraft can use decks of container ships and amphbiouos flat tops at will.While they will have payload and range restrictions,they will provide a very useful foil along with conventional aircraft and remember,Harriers ,with their "VIFFING" (vectoring in forward flight) capability,have never been shot down in air-to-air combat!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2011 02:35

Some interesting quotes from :
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2011/10/ ... signs.html

Many experts are also quick to claim that with an inferior sensor suite and a not-so stealthy design are evidences that it is not a fifth generation fighter. It will be easily shot down in battle by other fifth generation fighters before even opening fire or even detecting them. This too, is not true. The sensor suite, still under development, is the most potent on offer by the venerable Russian Defense Industry. The OLS, the IRST and the AESA will no doubt allow the Sukhoi to complete its missions with pin point accuracy. Coming to its additional radar suite, the L-band radars reflect the design principle of the Sukhoi PAK-FA. With the L-bands, agility,3-d vectors, twin 30mm cannons and R-74 missiles, the PAKFA is built to do just one thing-“To look-down, run-down, gun-down other 5-G designs in close quarters battle.” Since most of current 5-G designs are aimed at fooling X-band radars, the L-bands come both as logical and literal next move for future air combat. It is unlikely that the F-35 Lightening II would even come close to that performance spectrum that the Sukhoi intends to offer. In a few critical aspects such as range and internal weapons load, it outguns even the doyen of today’s skies, the F-22 RAPTOR.

Stealth, it appears was the secondary objective the designers of the PAKFA. All over the plane, preferences have been given to aspects like maneuverability and lift devices over stealth. Some credit it to the plasma stealth generating device which was allegedly flight tested by a Su-27 in early 2000s. They say that since the device will surround the aircraft with a layer of plasma creating a effect similar to stealth shaping and decrease RCS, the shaping is rendered irrelevant, thus the preference to the other aspects. Others simply claim that it is Russian tendency to give stealth a second priority other combat. However the truth is yet to come out.

The fighter punches far above its own weight, but it remains to be seen if the Russian Industry and Air Force are able to deliver the platform on time, in quality and in quantity. Years of neglect have helped hone this design but it remains to be observed if the Russian Industry can produce the lots of it in time.

As stated above, the Sukhoi PAKFA is a competent aerial platform capable of standing toe-to-toe with the other designs with carving a niche of its own. Whatever problems may befall on it, it is rugged, reliable and Russian

anishns
BRFite
Posts: 1342
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Location: being victim onlee...

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby anishns » 15 Nov 2011 04:45

Philip wrote:Yup! POst CW,the Yanks asked for a look at it ,were given tour and like the PRC stole the tech.But what they can't seem to produce like the Russians ,is a cost-effective bird,instead making a gold-plated turkey with exotic stuffing,that comes in as the priciest dish of the day this century!


small nitpick here:

From the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

Lockheed Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.


not that I love LM or Unkil but, to accuse someone of outright stealing akin PRC is not right either :)

Also, I don't know if its true but, I remember reading somewhere that the Yak 141's lift jets ran so hot they banned it from doing vertical landings when they brought it to the Farnborough Airshow because the first time they tried it,it melted a huge patch of the runway....

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby bhavani » 15 Nov 2011 06:44

The JSF resembles the Yak-141 a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yakov ... Museum.jpg

The Yak-141 was a pretty revolutionary design. JSF just looks like a highly souped up Yak-141 with 21st century electronics and construction standards. The basic operational principles seem to be same. I dont know how its kinetic properties would be radically improved from Yak-141. It also inherits its problems of the Yak.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2011 08:20

Anish,if I remember correctly,the agreement was never completed.It's a v.long time since,but my memory is of a report that LM took a good hard look at the Yak and after getting what they wanted welshed on the remainder of the deal.I could be wrong though.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Nov 2011 08:27

arent the typical AEW platforms using L and S band radars? for example iirc our CABS-AEW is L-band (with a far larger aperture and tx power than pakfa mini wing panels probably) and some other awacs are in S band.

if stealth shaping does not work well against S and L band radars wouldnt any modern air battle swept by AWACS reveal the stealth birds?

L band is the "long wave" radar we hear about in anti-raptor strategizing or is it the adjoining NATO table and C band is the "anti stealth radar"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#IEEE_US

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby hnair » 15 Nov 2011 08:58

Take a few SAR frames and aim for that dark spot moving above Mach 1.0 8)

anishns
BRFite
Posts: 1342
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Location: being victim onlee...

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby anishns » 15 Nov 2011 11:35

While on this topic....here's a link which provides a decent comparison between the 2 STOVL Tayyaras (as the pakis call it)

http://weapons.technology.youngester.co ... 5-jsf.html (It's from a google search so take it FWIW)

The swiveling rear exhaust is a licensed design from the Yakovlev design bureau in Russia, which tried it out on the Yak-141 STOVL fighter.

The lift fan approach had the advantage that it minimized hot exhaust ingestion back into engine, a common problem with STOVL designs that robs them of vertical thrust. The scheme was similar to that pioneered by the Russian Yakovlev Yak-141 "Freestyle" STOVL fighter, which did not enter production.

"The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show."

"In 1995, Lockheed Martin signed an agreement with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau and Pratt & Whitney signed one with the Soyuz Aero Engine Company for information on the supersonic Yak-141 STOVL fighter and its three bearing swivel duct nozzle. However, Lockheed apparently did not benefit from the agreement and their return on the investment was negligible."

I haven't read anything else about the return on the investment being 'negligible'. As it is I think the statement is quite suspect: "yes we purchased the engine technology from the designers of the world's first STOVL fighter, but no, we didn't get much out of it".

"In 1992/93 Lockheed contracted Yakovlev on some work pertaining to short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft studies in reference to the JAST (JSF) project. Yakovlev shared its STOVL technologies with the US company for several dozen million dollars.


"Former Yakovlev employees accuse Yakovlev heads of taking personal interest out of the deal with Lockheed, because the official sum of the contract did not correspond with the value of the information presented to the US company. The data was on the Yak-141 test program, aerodynamics and design features, including the design of the R-79 engine nozzles.


So, it seems money was paid.....but, who ultimately pocketed it? is the question :wink:

Philip wrote:Anish,if I remember correctly,the agreement was never completed.It's a v.long time since,but my memory is of a report that LM took a good hard look at the Yak and after getting what they wanted welshed on the remainder of the deal.I could be wrong though.



Pratyush wrote:The Yak 141 was the ultimate expression of the Soviet VTOL. IF the F 35 VTOL, ever reached service, it will be standing on the shoulders of the YAK 141.


Actually the first supersonic VTOL to have ever been built was the Dassault Mirage IIIV

Powerplant:

1 × Snecma TF104B turbofan, 4,725 kg (19,842 lb)
8 × Rolls-Royce RB162 lift turbojet, 2,000 kg (4,409 lb) each

So, both the Yak 141 and JSF are standing on the shoulders of Dassault Mirage IIIV :mrgreen:
Although might add here that the concept of swiveling the main engine was a |Russian concept...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2011 17:18

Yup! The Yanquis got their tech on the cheap,which individuals made out most with the deal is history now,but ironically are now paying through their nose in trying to get their turkey to fly! I suggest that JSF viewpoints migrate to the appropriate thread and we concentrate on the FGFA development here.I suppose that comparisons with other stealth birds is best suited here as stealth is a key component of the FGFA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Nov 2011 17:44

not just the yakovlev thing, but yakee labs incl MSFT 'raided' the entire soviet unions science complex and snapped up 100s of top researchers and engineers in the yeltsin era.

I am not sure how fast track GC and citizenship was arranged for this elite caste of warriors but I am sure with full backing of POTUS and SD, national interest waivers were signed on the dot.

you do find a lot of people from ex soviet aircraft, sciences and space bureau's working in US mil-ind, labs and think tanks now. the elite among them were recruited , the rest emigrated to feed their families. some of them moved to Israel and reportedly gave a big boost to the israeli defence and security cos.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby merlin » 15 Nov 2011 18:44

Singha wrote: for example iirc our CABS-AEW is L-band (with a far larger aperture and tx power than pakfa mini wing panels probably) and some other awacs are in S band.


Phalcon is L band, CABS AEW is S band.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Nov 2011 19:02

all the land or sea 3D volume search radars tend to L and S band too.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2011 21:28

Singha wrote:if stealth shaping does not work well against S and L band radars wouldnt any modern air battle swept by AWACS reveal the stealth birds?


That is correct most stealth fighter like PAK-FA , F-22 and F-35 are optimised for X band ( true all aspect/ multiband stealth exist only with B-2 due to its sheer size relative to radar wavelength ).

Hence a AWACS support is of key importance to deal effectively with stealth aircraft so that atleast they ( non-stealth aircraft ) dont end up receiving a surprise first BVR shot before the merge , without a AWACS support stealth aircraft retains the advantage in a sort of first look first kill advantage. ( which in reality means a capability to place yourself at a tactical level,outside the enemy aircraft radar field of view , therefore in a from a zone blind to the enemy but visible to you )

Hence the claim of Eurofighter that with AWACS support EF would better off JSF
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 35-345265/

In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.


The advantage of stealth fighter is that they can maintain their low RCS in a consistent manner in all regimes of flight ,while a non-stealth fighter RCS will go for a toss even if you hang 2 BVR missile, you add supercruise to the game and supermanouveribility and with equal or better SA and Sensor Fusion capability , the stealth aircraft ( PAK-FA ,F-22 ) will still retain a significant kill advantage over any conventional fighter of 4++ gen in BVR and Merge situation , but a merge would still give non-stealth fighter an ability to knife fight them and then all factors except stealth would come into play post merge.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 16 Nov 2011 00:35

Check the latest issue of Take Off , Has updates on PAK-FA , Interview with AESA Radar Designers and Weapons system.

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to21.pdf

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 16 Nov 2011 01:27

there should be some material made to scatter the l-band wave, no? may be material science folks can answer that. if we can scatter as much as possible, it serves the purpose.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby JimmyJ » 18 Nov 2011 19:54

IDRW: IAF sticks with Pak-Fa ,lowers FGFA numbers

Initially plans were to acquire 50 Russian version Pak-Fa single seater variant and later develop Indian FGFA variant with twin seater ,which could be around 200 in numbers , but recently Indian air force put the figures of 5th generation fighter which it wants to induct has 166 PAK FA and 48 FGFA.


Any other source available?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Kanson » 18 Nov 2011 20:06

>>The advantage of stealth fighter is that they can maintain their low RCS in a consistent manner in all regimes of flight.

Seriously, is that true?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Gaur » 18 Nov 2011 21:28

^^
No.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby pragnya » 18 Nov 2011 22:03

specs as per HAL link (future projects)

Image

The proposed FGFA will have air combat superiority, high tactical capability, group action capability in the regions even with poor communication support. The aircraft will have advanced features like

 Increased Stealth - Low radar cross-section (RCS), Internal deployment of weaponry
 Supersonic cruise and supersonic maneuvering capability
 Data link and network centric warfare capability.

Technical Parameters

Length : 22.6 m

Height : 5.9 m

MTOW : 34 Ton

Range : 3880 km

Speed : 2 Mach

Max Weapon Load : 2.25 Ton (Int.) & 5.75 Ton (Ext)

Thrust Vectoring : With Jet Nozzle (±15 º)

Engine Thrust : 2X1400 kgf

FGFA will be co-developed with Russians. Sukhoi Design Bureau (SDB) has been selected as the Russian agency for this development project.

http://hal-india.com/futureproducts/products.asp

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 18 Nov 2011 22:27

Good Find , Interesting so finally we have some figures for FGFA.

What is good to see is HAL has been very open with the specs of FGFA , Even Sukhoi has so far not released any specs on PAK-FA.

Looks some what like a new aircraft derived more from Flanker then PAK-FA. Infact it looks like a Flanker with new wings.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Bharadwaj » 18 Nov 2011 22:53

Austin wrote:Good Find , Interesting so finally we have some figures for FGFA.

What is good to see is HAL has been very open with the specs of FGFA , Even Sukhoi has so far not released any specs on PAK-FA.

Looks some what like a new aircraft derived more from Flanker then PAK-FA. Infact it looks like a Flanker with new wings.



That drawing is probably some speculative rendering.....it looks rather radar friendly and I doubt if it has anything to do with the fgfa.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Gaur » 18 Nov 2011 22:58

This is wierd. The 3D Model looks like an amaeteur attempt at Su-30 with only wings changed and canted fins. And look at engine thrust..1400kgf? WTF does that mean? :shock: Even if we assume a missing zero, the figure still makes no sense. The dimensions are also much bigger than PAK-FA but that could very well be possible. And I am highly surprised to see concrete figures of MTOW and range.
Overall, this looks more like a 12 yr old's amaetueur guess work (from 3D Model to the engine figure) than something coming from HAL. But the fact remains that this is indeed from HAL's official site which makes all this very confusing.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests