PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 18:06

Oh well i am not underwriting Sukhoi but was just quoting what Sukhoi and RuAF have said so far.

My personal opinion is it is normal for any big program to get delayed by 2 years , so if Sukhoi says 2015 for PAK-FA then its 2017 and if they say 2018 for FGFA then its 2020 ......if they screw up badly like JSF then it would well be 2020 for PAK-FA and much beyond that for FGFA but its too early to predict any thing , so far they have been sticking to schedules by and large

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 May 2012 18:18

I think the 'promising' aircraft refers to a version of the Su 30 extensively modified and containing elements of the PAKFA , the RuAF likes it.The Indians are partly bank rolling its development, in a way ! There is no other plane.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2012 18:30

Its a CAS aircraft said to replace Su-25 and would be in the same weight category similar to LCA/Gripen plus types.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 May 2012 19:41

I think it is important for us to get involved ie get into JV for the new proposed engine for PAKFA

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2012 20:22

assuming the AL31 can be uprated to around 16t thrust (40,000lb), why cannot the PAKFA enter tranche1 service with that engine? the PAKFA is smaller and lighter than the SU30 which flies with less powerful engine. granted its heavier than F22 and wont enjoy the same T:W but does it need that in tranche1?

this would delink the timeline of PAKFA FOC from 5th generation engine development.....the 5th gen engine might have the same thrust albeit lighter in weight and better fuel economy and better MTBF....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 May 2012 21:38

Sukhoi classifies both the engine as 5th Gen , The current engine of PAK-FA labeled as 1st stage will be 117 engine with 15 T thrust and the 2nd stage engine is claimed to have 18T .

Most likely the 2nd stage engine is more powerful because to get improved T/W ratio and likely 2nd Stage PAK-FA will get heavier with flat nozzle and other weight gaining prescription like developing a Carried based version and as hedge against weight gain.

117 engine itself has T/W ratio of 10.5:1 which is better than EJ200 T/W ratio of 10:1 and P&W engine of F-22 with T/W 9:1 ....the only engine having better T/W ratio is the one they use on JSF with T/W ratio of ~ 11.5:1

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 May 2012 21:40

Singha wrote:assuming the AL31 can be uprated to around 16t thrust (40,000lb), why cannot the PAKFA enter tranche1 service with that engine

The key is not just thrust of engine but also T/W ratio and Specific fuel consumption and engine life that defines 5th gen engine technology.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 May 2012 22:29

for that they have to master the fadec controls, and get the max efficiency at all altitudes. it is a long process.. I can't think how far Kaveri is compared to Russkies and the khans. Khaans are way ahead!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 May 2012 00:24

I know this is OT but couldn't resist.

Austin wrote: For eg US answer to Mig-25 was not another fast high flying jet but it was multirole F-15 with longer legs ,big radar and weapons to match ,

There was a lot of speculation about the Mig-25's performance when it was first seen in photographs by the americans. Their analysis from the pictures seemed to indicate that the Mig-25 would be highly maneuverable, which it is not. And the americans had learned from the Vietnam war that dogfights were far from dead. The F-15 came out of that thinking.

The answer to Mach 3 XB-70 Valkerie bomber was not not another similar types but was Mig-31

The Valkyrie project was cancelled in 1969, about six years before the first Mig-31 prototype flew. I don't think it had any bearing on the Mig-31. The Mig designers were just trying to fix the deficiencies in the Mig-25 and create a better aircraft when they designed the Mig-31.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2012 06:09

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:Rus was also playing around with a flat nozzle, though nobody knows how seriously.
Flat Nozzle have one inherent weakness which is loss of thrust , the F-22 flat nozzle reportedly experience a loss of thrust of around ~ 8-10 % , plus they can vector in only 2D , the advantage is it offer full rear aspect stealth.

Actually the loss is about 15%.

(The loss is due to the fact that the air/gas stream is circular when it exits the engine and has to be converted into a flat stream when it exists the flat nozzle.)

Although its not necessary that flat nozzle is just the only way to achieve that , The JSF serrated nozzle is claimed to be a good compromise on stealth without loosing thrust and getting 3D TVC is possible. Although the stealth achieved is not to the level of F-22 nozzle but its a good trade off.

The F-35 architecture was framed by the fact that they needed the same frame for all three models. With the "B" dictating what the nozzle would look like, the "A" and "C" followed without any complains. The rest was worked into this framework.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2012 06:17

Q: What happens if RuAF wants to incorporate something that India has funded and therefore India is able to get royalty on it?

TIA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2012 07:06

The flat nozzle is simply not worth it.. not a next gen tech considering the loss of 3D TVC.
--
I don't think russkies will agree to anything like that on sharing royalty by using Indian components.. if at all they like it, they will buy it from us I suppose (again we need to see those agreement documents).. or build one all by themselves.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2012 11:08

nachiket wrote:The Valkyrie project was cancelled in 1969, about six years before the first Mig-31 prototype flew. I don't think it had any bearing on the Mig-31. The Mig designers were just trying to fix the deficiencies in the Mig-25 and create a better aircraft when they designed the Mig-31.

These things dont get developed over night , PAK-FA first started its life in 2000 , Mig-31 was designed to intercept bomber flying high and fast and reconnaissance aircraft of similar nature ....Valkyrie was cancelled at a late date but Mig-31 continued and threat from bomber and high flying recco was still there. Mig-25 and Mig-31 both had their life of their own well they still do.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2012 11:15

SaiK wrote:The flat nozzle is simply not worth it.. not a next gen tech considering the loss of 3D TVC.

Technology is not stagnant , if they can develop a Flat Nozzle with 2-3 % loss of thrust as they claim they are developing then they would opt for it

I don't think russkies will agree to anything like that on sharing royalty by using Indian components.. if at all they like it, they will buy it from us I suppose (again we need to see those agreement documents).. or build one all by themselves.

Most of the gains from royalty will come during exports since each side retains its own IP , else both side will maximise its own component for its own procurement for obvious reasons.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 May 2012 08:43

agree on that, but we need to also weigh in the objectives that is the driver towards the technology -ie, low thermal emission. now, the amount of emission should reduce by some considerable percentage to weigh in for the flat.

1. loss of thrust alone is not the concern -
2. lower infra signature
3. no loss of 3D TVC
4. high efficiency.
5. low mtbf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 May 2012 23:59

India’s Version of Sukhoi T-50 Delayed by Two Years

The joint Indo-Russian project to produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) for the Indian Air Force is facing a two-year delay. It will now take nine years instead of the stipulated seven to develop. The Indian Air Force attributes the delay to Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), which has a workshare of 25 percent in the program.

The two-seat FGFA is based on the single-seat Sukhoi T-50 PAKFA. HAL is tasked with supplying designs for the tandem seating and cockpit displays, none of which have been provided on time, a senior air force official told AIN. HAL is also responsible for navigation and countermeasure dispensing. Indian junior defense minister MM Pallam Raju recently confirmed the delay to Parliament, commenting, “The fifth-generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019 [instead of 2017], following which series production will start.” India and Russia concluded the $295 million preliminary design contract for the FGFA project in December 2010, during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to India.

There are also concerns the FGFA will exceed its current estimated $6 billion development budget. The unit production price is predicted to be between $93- and $97 million. India will acquire 214 aircraft, making the total cost of the FGFA project at least $26 billion.

The 30-ton FGFA will be “a swing-role fighter with highly advanced avionics, giving 360-degree situational awareness, stealth to increase survivability and smart weapons,” said now-retired Indian Air Force Chief P.K. Naik. Capable of covering long ranges without refueling, it will feature supercruise along with advanced mission computers. The Indian Air Force has specified 43 improvements to the design following its observation of flying trials at the Zhukovsky airbase.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 May 2012 00:09

So the 25 % workshare of HAL in FGFA is designing the tandem seat cockpit and the cockpit MMI/Displays etc , Navigation and CMDS , perhaps even jammers/ESM too.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jun 2012 09:26

Third Prototype 053 has resumed flight testing

http://russianplanes.net/id79836

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jun 2012 10:28

looks fabulous...

however the rear still remains 4++ look.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2012 11:00

atleast it is flying and has a reliable rear end based on a proven engine.
bird in hand is worth two AL51 birds in the hanger.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 25 Jun 2012 08:31

So what is the advantage of flat nozzle, other than "khan did it" and "to reduce musharraf signature in RF"? If nothing, seems to constrain TV to one plane.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jun 2012 09:20

Imo, there is a big advantage on RF, but very little on the IR. So, if the russians can do the RF part by special materials, then they can take the IR part with jammers and probes like EF2K did.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 25 Jun 2012 13:48

Livefist: DRDO's Strike Scenario For 3 Indian Fighter Efforts

What do the Gurus think of it?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2012 14:04

at present I think the Bison/Mig27 is used for <= 150km, Jaguar/M2k for 150-500km and the Su30 for anything beyond.
the Tejas should be able to carry similar payload to M2K/Jag and hence appears forcibly downsized in above pic.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jun 2012 16:55

^^we need to take that to LCA thread.. interesting
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg
LCA largely for CAS mode!

brimstone and nag integration is vital., and we need 400-600 LCAs then looking at dual prong war.
The elta 2052/m equivalent is vital too... especially with SAR support.

I like the line where AMCA is drawn.. so basically, we can expect LCA Mk3 with dual engines as test bed before AMCA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jun 2012 20:11

dont worry, if they stick to the AMCA vapourware specs, the Tejas and Rafale will cover the middle band also. the timelines dont run in parallel, the Tejas will be there shortly, FGFA from 2020 and AMCA not before 2025.

mainly the Tejas-Rafale-MKI trident will have to do the damage in Tibet, the Jags are not very useful at altitude , PAKFA induction will take time and the AMCA is a long way off.

for once, a well planned and timely MLU of the MKI fleet will be needed.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jul 2012 00:50

The Stealth Debate

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jul 2012 07:59

I would expect India put more money into nano technology for stealth, plus some aspects of f22 style stealth.

eg: israeli tech:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... alth-plane

internal components and LRUs can take shape deflections based on the skin technology too.. I think this is the defining tech for next gen a/cs.

and ..
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Stealth.html

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jul 2012 08:26

SKrishna wrote:Livefist: DRDO's Strike Scenario For 3 Indian Fighter Efforts

What do the Gurus think of it?

Its almost entirely China specific. With Pakistan you can expect significant overlap of tasking zones. Other than that, I am going to call the poster generic in terms of information. NTR.

-Vivek

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 02 Jul 2012 13:30

Great to Viveks name once again. Hope he cleared his blog of the back ground and started writing. Hope his health inproved also.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2012 15:47

Interview of Tikhomirov-NIIP Director General Yuri Bely

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to23.pdf

Some updates on PAK-FA radar , Su-30MKI upgrade has been proposed with AESA radar ,IAF has to make up its mind

RajD · Post by **RajD** » 10 Jul 2012 15:37

Dear all,
Cross posting from blog AA me... on FGFA updates.
http://www.aame.in/2012/07/india-relate ... ussia.html
Hope! Its not posted before.
Thanks.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jul 2012 12:57

A report from an engine technology exhibition some time late 2011 detailing FGUP TsIAM's work.

http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/79/pics/pg04.pdf

As regards PAK-FA, TsIAM is delegated work regarding:

малоступенчатым высоконагруженным вентилятору и КВД с низкой массой;
A fewer staged, high loading fan and a low mass, HP compressor;

основной высокотемпературной камере сгорания;
The main high-temperature combustion chamber;

высокотемпературной одноступенчатой ТВД;
High-temperature, single-staged HP turbine;

легкой форсажной бесстабилизаторной камере сгорания;
A lean-burn combustion chamber without a stabilizer

цифровой САУ с полной ответственностью (FADEC).
FADEC

via keypubs link

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jul 2012 13:08

http://www.xairforces.net/images/news/l ... 170512.jpg

this pic clearly shows the true essence of the pakfa airframe
2 big engines, 2 internal bays, lots of fuel and essentially a huge flying wing with a big radar.

i wonder if instead of speculated wvr aam, those housings under each wing will house side looking radar panels and EW gear.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 19 Jul 2012 13:11

it resonates the russi design philiosophy in which every weapons platform can stand on its own, whether a plane or a ship unlike the amreeki one which places a huge emphasis on supporting platforms

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jul 2012 13:24

Big Airplanes with huge internal fuel is an absolute requirement for Russia be it Flanker , Mig-31 or PAK-FA ( for that matter even their transport aircraft ) because the country is one of the largest in the world almost 6-7 times the size of India and nearly twice the size of United States.

A smaller airframe has cascading effect on logistics be it more air bases or more aerial refulers to cover similar area and the entire end to end need to support such air base in remotest areas like electricity , fuel , transport , manpower needs etc ......a larger airframe affords them to have few air bases and consequently smaller logistics foot print as possible , Smaller airframes like Mig-29M/F-16 clas etc can just defend a given area VP/VA or city etc

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2012 12:41

missions are getting longer and more loitering needed for targets of opportunity as well. the smaller planes like Ef/rafale/F16 have tried to cope by adding huge external fuel tanks which eats into their A2A moves, making them BVR missile trucks only. F15 was lucky enough to escape with a CFT and so I think we need to pursue Rafale CFT as well and free up the big inner pylons for quad-packed Helinas.

onlee the Su27+ family manages without drop tanks given their vast size.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2012 13:49

Those Teen , Rafale ,EF were designed and built for NATO requirement where generous amount of logistics , global bases ,supporting platforms like tankers and spares were available .....almost every 2nd country in the world or the next hop would have had some US/NATO bases or support for it it land and refuel.

They didnt needed big aircraft like SU needed it what they needed was electronic/weapons/sensor suite which they had and was a crucial edge over its rivals.

Big aircraft has its own perils when it comes to peace time operating cost , logistics and maintenance cost eating into any airforces Opex ..........in the end there are no bad choice it is just dictated by own airforce requirement for its environment , operational philosophy and doctrine.

I wonder if IAF will plumb the MKI for Drop Tanks add 3 x 2000 L Drop Tank on 3 hard point you can easily get 6000L of additional fuel and you still end up with 9 HP for weapons/sensors , good for sustained loitering when you cant tank up.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jul 2012 13:55

good for DPSA too, with 2 x 2000L supersonic drop tanks, 3 nirbhay/2000lb LGB and 2-4 self protection AAM, while some dedicated 'escort' MKI will carry 8-10 AAMs only + fuel tanks instead.
the heavy nirbhays, KH59 and brahmos-A will increase fuel burn for sure.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 20 Jul 2012 22:13

Singha wrote:missions are getting longer and more loitering needed for targets of opportunity as well. the smaller planes like Ef/rafale/F16 have tried to cope by adding huge external fuel tanks which eats into their A2A moves, making them BVR missile trucks only. F15 was lucky enough to escape with a CFT and so I think we need to pursue Rafale CFT as well and free up the big inner pylons for quad-packed Helinas.

onlee the Su27+ family manages without drop tanks given their vast size.

I understand how larger aircraft with more fuel will be able to fly longer, but how does one say this authoritatively...and mathematically?

If the lift to weight ratio remains the same regardless of size of aircraft (of course it will) ...how does one calculate the range of an aircraft ?

Noob qn here.