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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Seems like GE is also proposing a Variable Cycle Engine has good info on the subject in link posted.

"Superjet" variable cycle jet engine could power future fighter aircraft
GE Aviation is developing a revolutionary new jet engine that aims to combine the best traits of turbojet and turbofan engines, delivering supersonic speed capability and fuel efficiency in one package.

The new engines are being developed under the USAF ADVENT project, which is seeking 25 percent fuel saving which will in turn lead to an increase in mission capability.

There are two main species of jet engines for aviation: low-bypass turbofans, usually called turbojets, and high-bypass turbofans. Turbojets are optimized for high-performance, pushing fighter jets to above Mach 2 (and the SR-71 "Blackbird" to well over Mach 3), but pay for that performance with terrible fuel efficiency. The performance outcome of a conventional turbojet is dominated by the operation of the high-pressure engine core (compressor, combustion, turbine, and exhaust nozzle).

In contrast, high-bypass turbofans are the heavy lifters of commercial aviation, being optimized for subsonic thrust and fuel efficiency, but performing poorly at supersonic speeds. A conventional turbofan adds lower-pressure airflow from an oversized fan which is driven by the jet turbine. The fan airflow bypasses the combustion chamber, acting like a large propeller.

In an ADVENT (ADaptive VErsitile ENgine Technology) engine, the high-pressure core exhaust and the low-pressure bypass streams of a conventional turbofan are joined by a third, outer flowpath that can be opened and closed in response to flight conditions. For takeoff, the third stream is closed off to reduce the bypass ratio. This sends more of the airflow through the high-pressure core to increase thrust. When cruising, the third bypass stream is opened to increase the bypass ratio and reduce fuel consumption.

The extra bypass duct can be seen running along the top and bottom of the engine. This third duct will be opened or closed as part of a variable cycle to transform it from a strike aircraft engine to a transport-type engine. If the duct is open the bypass ratio will increase, reducing fuel burn, and increasing subsonic range by up to 40 percent, leading to 60 percent longer loiter times on target. If the ducts are closed, additional air is forced through the core and high pressure compressor, enabling thrust and speed to increase and providing world-class supersonic performance.

GE's ADVENT designs are based on new manufacturing technologies like 3-D printing of intricate cooling components and super-strong but lightweight ceramic matrix composites. These allow the manufacture of highly efficient jet engines operating at temperatures above the melting point of steel.

Engineers also designed the new engine to be easy to fly. “We want the engine to take care of itself and let the pilot focus on the mission,” says Abe Levatter, project manager at GE Aviation. “When the pilot says ‘I’m out of danger, I want to cruise home,’ the engine reconfigures itself. We take it upon ourselves to make the engine optimized for whatever the pilot wants.”

GE is now testing the engine’s core components and plans to run a full test in the middle of 2013. The video below provides additional visual description of its operation.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

NRao wrote:
Preliminary design completed, R&D phases about to be signed (this year). And first prototype in 2014?


As per IAF chief recent statement at AI link

Quote:
Indian air force chief of staff told journalists at the recent Aero India show that he expects arrival of three PAKFA development prototypes in India, the first in 2015, the second in 2017 and the third in 2018.
Thanks.

But the article (two posts prior to my last post) says 2014.

Never mind, even 2015 seems too ambitious. I hope they do not take a current body and convert that into a prototype for India.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by svinayak »

NRao wrote:
Never mind, even 2015 seems too ambitious.
The 2015 will be Pak-FA lite
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

that means lot of high altitude testing is needed, and would definitely cross 2017 or even 2020. wonder if they can fadec the bypass controls for high-g turns, so that it can provide the flow controls where needed.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Russia, India Forge Ahead on Fifth-Gen Fighter
Sukhoi announced this week that the “design and development” (D&D) phase of the Russo-Indian prospective multifunctional fighter (PMF), also known as the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), has been completed. The aircraft is a joint development with India of the T-50 that Sukhoi has already designed and flown for the Russian Air Force. “The airplane has been shaped completely,” the manufacturer stated.

According to Sukhoi, the Russian and Indian sides have agreed, specified and allocated the further work that they will accomplish in the next “research and development” (R&D) phase. A contract for this phase is expected later this year, “upon completion of preparatory work.” In practical terms, placing the R&D contract is the “make or break” point for the Indian government.

India and Russia signed a government-to-government framework agreement for the FGFA in October 2007. The next move followed in December 2010, when Russian arms import/export organization Rosoboronexport, and its contractors Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), signed the D&D contract, under which Sukhoi trained a number of HAL specialists and provided “input data and software packages” so that the joint Russo-Indian team could work together “in a common environment.” Since January last year, Indian specialists have been working in Russia and Russians in India.

“The prospective multifunctional fighter being developed will have some differences from the prototype [T-50] aircraft so as to address the specific requirements of the Indian air force,” Sukhoi said. Earlier this year Indian air force commander ACM N.A.K. Browne said the Indian version will use the same airframe, engines and main systems, but differ in mission hardware and software, as well as weapons nomenclature. The aircraft for the Indian air force will be built locally, starting in 2022.

In the meantime, Sukhoi reported last month that the four T-50 prototypes have logged approximately 200 test flights in addition to 250 flights carried out by testbed aircraft and flying laboratories dedicated to the development of the stealthy new combat aircraft. Ground testing continues on a pair of specially built airframes. The T-50 is also known by its Russian acronym, PAKFA. The Russian air force is due to perform its own evaluation of the T-50 shortly, and expects first deliveries in 2016.

At the recent LIMA 2013 in Langkawi, Russian air force commander Gen. Victor Bondarev said that Malaysian prime minister Najib Tun Abd Razak “took notice of the large PAKFA model on display and expressed interest in this program” when visiting the Russian exposition on opening day. Although the Malaysians were briefed on the PAKFA program, the aircraft is not on offer to meet that country’s multirole combat aircraft requirement, but it could be if Malaysia were to make an official request.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

one can't calculate hours with the old engine, when new engine is still in shape. the hours put on the new engine, and how it behaves to various mission profiles and controls is vital for the program to some real metrics.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 848
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by maitya »

JTull wrote: ...
As far as engines are concerned, we've all known how inadequate efforts towards Kaveri have been and but I was sick of watching everyone after AI-13, being busy back-slapping over some single-crystal blades that aren't of requisite caliber to be used. More years are being wasted at GTRE in coming up products from yesteryears (and being completely clueless in the process), while the world is pursuing and achieving next generation technologies. We're only good for a begging bowl, hoping one of the other engine makers will just give us the required tech by way of consulting contract.
...
JTullji, while this angst is somewhat justified vis-à-vis Kaveri (and GTRE), the bolded part above (about them being "products from yesteryears" and "completely clueless" etc) is not true.

Since discussing about Kaveri/GTRE et all is completely OT for this thread, I'd request you to consider taking the discussion to the Kaveri thread - for starters pls refer to this post (actually a 3 part-series of posts) of moi on Perspective of Kaveri Dev Failure/Success - IMO a better and more balanced perspective is required while dissecting teh Kaveri development process (there are series of posts in that thread, both before and after that post-series, which delves into this aspect).

And to start the ball rolling, let me make very bold stmt - it doesn't matter what gen etc of the technology is being pursued as long as the desired objective is met - and one can only aim for a tech gen provided a baseline level of the required capability and experience is available.

As far as Kaveri is concerned, a contrarian view can be, we aimed too high a tech gen (given the technological baseline and engineering capability - both on gas-turbine CFD and material tech) with Kaveri and failed in achieving it by a whisker. An ab-intio F-404 gen (so, the 3rd Gen Turbojet – maybe 1st Gen military Turbofan) is just too high to aim for given the indigenous turbojet/turbofan technological and material engineering capability that we possess.

But we’d start somewhere, isn’t it? And any ab-intio tech dev is inherently as-risky-as-it-ever-gets and Kaveri is no exception.
And it’s always better to aim higher and take-on the long and painful grind then to just go for what is available (or import) and maybe make good press out of it – a rhetorical question can be, would IAF ever accepted a GTX-37UB level engine (so required Thrust achieved but very poor SFC and weight) for LCA ?

Moreover, like all technological advancements, the next Gen of technology is more achieved by incremental advances over the previous Gen technological levels. For example, you will notice that the 4th Gen F414 level (aka F414-EPE or F414-GE-INS6 for LCA Mk-II), are based on 3rd Gen F404 tech. Similarly, on the material technology front, notice the diff between 3rd (CMX-4) and 4th Gen (CMX-10) SCBs (except for Re composition increase, and the corresponding balancing of other heavy elements of the alloy, not much of difference between the two gens) – some details of which can be found here.

So, IMVHO, if we pursue Kaveri devt program to it's logical conclusion of full-range-of-FTB tests etc, we'd have mastered the 3rd Gen Turbojet (maybe 1st Gen military Turbofan) technology end-to-end. Based on which the 4th Gen engine etc development can be taken up.


And regarding your point about "back-slapping over some single-crystal blades that aren't of requisite caliber to be used" - well, that's a huge improvement on it's own, as basically until this years' AI, we were not even sure if we are able to manufacture any SCBs (forget about 2nd, 3rd, 4th Gen SCB etc) in the first place.

Pls refer to this talk by GTRE director, T. Mohan Rao, in AI09 here – notice, how he points out the basic future thrust areas that need working on … and I quote,
a. BLISK - integrated single Blade and Disk
b. Single Crystal blades - he categorically said - We do not have that tech at all.
c. Thermal Barrier Coatings - TBC - very critical for high temp engine operation.
That was back in 2009 and in 2013, we have a photo of an indigenously developed SCB blade - yes, we don’t know yet which gen it is, and what kind of thermal fatigue, creep resistance and mechanical pressure it can withstand – but isn’t that a huge progress, even if we conservatively assume it to be 2nd Gen SCB etc.

Admins and fellow posters, apologies for this completely OT post for this thread, but I thought it’s relevant in the context of JTullji’s post above.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by koti »

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Air Force pilot flew a PAK FA test mission for the first time
Moscow, April 25. Air Force pilot of the Chkalov Flight Test Center made a PAK FA test flight for the first time. The plane took off the airfield of the M.M.Gromov Flight Research Institute in the city of Zhukovsky (Moscow region). The system and equipment testing went on for two hours in accordance with the flight test program. The flight was a success, in full conformity with the flight mission.

Presently four planes undergo flight tests. Two more aircraft are engaged in ground experimental missions — one plane is a complex ground test stand and the other undergoes static tests. The fifth PAK FA aircraft will join the flight test program in the second half of 2013. Construction of that plane at the Sukhoi’s aircraft plant — Y.A.Gagarin KnAAZ in Komsomolsk-on-Amur is almost complete.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

New Video on PAK-FA with more details on its range



Mikhail Pogosyn : The Su-27 can do around 600-700km @ supersonic speed, the T-50 manages over 1500km at supersonic speeds. Subsonic range of PAK-FA close to 3500km.

T-50-4 ---> http://russianplanes.net/id109210
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

June Issue of Take Off Magazine

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to27.pdf
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Russia’s fifth generation T-50 fighter jet through important testing stage
The Russian Army is through with the first stage of testing of a multipurpose fifth generation T-50 fighter jet. T-50 has been through years of research and hundreds of flights. Many of the plane’s performance characteristics are still a secret. According to the designers, what is not a secret is the fact that T-50 is better in terms of basic parameters than its foreign-made equivalents.

When one sees a T-50 in the air, the first idea that occurs to one is that planes just cannot fly like this, but if the plane is manned by a seasoned pilot, it will perform no end of stunts.

Modern-day combat planes will never again be what they used to be. Now it is a jet-fighter, an attack plane and a bomber all in one; a plane that can accomplish any mission. T-50 is a fifth generation plane, which means it is invisible to enemy radars; it means it’s the fastest plane, with the maximum speed exceeding 2,500 kilometres per hour; it means the plane is equipped with artificial intelligence (that is the aircraft thinks over and performs missions that the pilot was to take care of earlier).

According to a test pilot, Hero of Russia Sergei Bogdan, the pilot may abandon all of his controls on barely taking off, without even activating the auto-flight mode; the aircraft will never dive, but will maintain its horizontal flight. The plane may even start falling tail first, in which case it will by all means warn the pilot of the situation.

If something happens to the pilot during the flying mission, the jet fighter will be able to return to the base and even land there on its own. It is actually quite true that the T-50 offers its pilots many things on a silver platter. One such thing is an automatic target recognizer.

The jet fighter’s cover is suggestive of a living organism; it reacts to whatever happens around due to special transmitting-receiving elements that are virtually sewn into the jet-fighter’s body. This is also known as a smart cover.

Prior to T-50, it was the US F-22 Raptor, which was seen as the world’s smartest fifth generation jet fighter. But the Russian fighter plane is ahead of its US equivalent in several ways, namely T-50 is faster than F-22 Raptor by 500 kilometres per hour, it is lighter but can flight to greater distances. But the most important about T-50 is its equipment, which is hidden inside the aircraft. The PAK FA (another way of referring to T-50, meaning literally a ‘Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation’, made more than 500 flights in the years of secret testing. The designers have agreed that the flights have been normal.

The first deputy of the Chief Designer of the SUKHOI Designing Office, Mikhail Strelets, says the designers had understandably sought to attain a certain performance level, and he believes they have attained at the first stage what objectives were planned to be attained for that stage. Some flight characteristics are even better than expected, like a very good sustained supersonic cruise and super-manoeuvrability.

The achievements are largely due to the aircraft design, namely a small fin and no angles between surfaces. The arms will be stuffed into the interior, since the air reaction during manoeuvring is lower, and it is more difficult to spot the aircraft because of its special cover.

“We can now counter any threats, posed by our potential enemies. Our airborne complex will prove in no way inferior to the fifth-generation complexes built in the United States, conversely, it will prove superior to them. This makes us feel confident of the future”, said the President of the Sukhoi Aviation Military Industrial Combine, Mikhail Pogosyan.

Before pilots actually get at the control-wheel rim of the T-50, they are through a course of training at a special simulation centre. Even the catapult system is a whole new story, taking account of the weight of a pilot, flight speed etc, to ensure that the pilot will leave the plane safely.

Four T-50 jet fighters are already through with their test programme. Another one will be added to them by the end of the year. Batch manufacturing of T-50s is due to begin by 2015.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

NPO "Saturn" a list of critical technologies for the competitiveness of enterprises in the future
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?rssid=1371123 ... =6&slang=1
Recognized the following key technologies through which deployed or plan to in the near future full-scale research:

1. In the short term:
- Low-emission combustor for a gas turbine turbofan engines and multi-loop control of fuel flow through the front unit;
- High-temperature alloys and composite materials intermetalidnoy matrix for the hot part of the engine;
- Antioksidnye and thermo-barrier coatings for operation at temperatures greater than 1250 ° C;
- Composite materials for the polymer matrix of the cold engine.

2. In the medium term:
- Dry rotor support of non-metallic friction pairs / roller and support with a magnetic suspension;
- Digital automatic control and diagnostics of engines;
- New methods for experimental studies of processes for a rolling refinement.

3. In the long term:
- Advanced design schemes engine with the ability to enhance the performance of engines for civil and military engines.

"It's important not just to find its niche in the nomenclature of the products that are sold on the market today - the general designer of JSC" NPO "Saturn" Yuri Shmotin - it is important to lay the groundwork for their development. We operate in the global market with very serious players. In order to match and even outperform gas turbine leaders, we need to control the formation of the concept of technological advance. "

Long-term activity of JSC "NPO" Saturn ", aimed both at improving existing products and developing new engines, and the establishment of a scientific and technological potential, has allowed the company to create a critical technology and basic design of the main engine components, the 5th generation

- Engine core for PAKFA;
- Nodes stage low pressure PAKFA;
- Long-term gas generator engine for the civil, military transport and long-range aircraft;
- Nodes stage low-pressure engine perspective for civil, military transport and long-range aircraft.

In addition to the basic application created NTRP is used successfully in the development of industrial and marine turbine engine of new generation.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

^where is the recovery chute?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Lalmohan »

i mostly saw it doing lazy flat spins... quite interesting
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

A chute would open only if the plane was unable to get out of the spin - that is what I thought. The chute is meant to arrest the spin. Seems to me that around 1:19 the plane does make it out of the flat spin - therefore no need to deploy it. Nice vid.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

jealous amrikis having a lot of khujli in comments section of that thread. their munna F22 isnt getting any money for a decade now for much needed gap filling in original kit and production is over. JSF rules now. its just another evolutionary dead end.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

F-35 being pushed by some quarters. Some great visuals at this link below, this plane is totally AI. Awesome.
Following is a google translation.

http://vpk.name/news/91378_istrebitel_p ... video.html

17.06.2013
Fifth-generation fighter T-50 has successfully passed an important test step - video

In the Russian army completed its first phase of testing multipurpose fighter of the 5th generation. Behind the years of research and hundreds of flights. Until now, many characteristics of the T-50 remains a mystery. As the designers say, is not a secret is that our plane on the basic parameters of the best foreign analogues. Moreover, it has surpassed even the expectations of its developers.

First impression: the planes do not fly they can not. But when at the helm of a supernova fighter T-50 experienced pilots perform aerobatics, it becomes clear: there can, how.

Modern combat vehicles will never be the same. Now this is a fighter and attack aircraft and bombers, which can carry out any task. In the sky plane of the fifth generation. It means he's "invisible" (that is invisible to enemy radar), it means that the fastest (top speed of more than 2,500 kilometers per hour), then with artificial intelligence (he thinks and makes operations, which previously had to be take care of the pilot).

"That is, the pilot took off, threw the pen, not even including the automatic mode - the plane still will not go down, the plane smoothly switches to horizontal flight. Though the aircraft tail will start to fall down, the pilot will warn about it," - said the test pilot hero Sergei Bogdan.

And even if something happens to the pilot during the task, the fighter can independently go back to the base and even to land. This airplane pilots generally provide much "on a silver platter." For example, an automatic target recognition.

Boarding fighter - like a living organism. It reacts to everything that is happening around, thanks to a special transceiver elements. They literally sewn into the body of a fighter. It is also called "smart paneling."

Before the advent of the T-50 the most advanced aircraft of the fifth generation was considered an American F-22 Raptor. But the Russian fighter today passes him on several parameters: it can reach speeds of 500 kilometers per hour more he easier, and can fly further. But the main thing, of course, is hidden inside.

Within a few years of secret tests of PAK FA (promising aviation complex tactical aircraft, so this is called a fighting machine) has completed more than 500 missions. Constructors sum up the first phase of testing and is safe to say, the normal flight.

"We were hoping, of course, get a degree, and I believe that with this task in the first stage we managed. According to a number of characteristics we got better results than planned. For example, we received a very good performance at a supersonic cruise speed, at superagility "- said the first deputy director of the Research Design and Research Center, deputy chief designer of" Sukhoi "Mikhail Sagittarius.

All this is largely due to the design: a small tail, the absence of angles between the surfaces. A weapon will place in the inner compartments: the so air resistance during maneuvers less, and find the plane for a special coating difficult.

"We got the opportunity to respond to any threat that may arise from our potential adversaries. In the world today are complexes of the fifth generation in the United States. Our complex is in no way would be to give in, and will be superior to their foreign counterparts. This gives us confidence in the future" - said the president of JSC "United Aircraft Corporation" Mikhail Pogosyan.

Cab one to one, as in T-50. In a special center pilots undergo additional training before they get behind the wheel of the new fighter. Even the system of catapults and chairs - a science. Pilot weight, speed - all this allows the computer and allows you to safely evacuate the pilot.

The test is held for 4 handsome T-50. By the end of the year will experience another one. By 2015, the plan to put into production.
© 2007-2013, VPK.name, http://vpk.name/
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Interview with UAC President
http://www.aex.ru/fdocs/2/2013/6/17/23200/
- How do you assess the test fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) and work with Indian partners over his choice for the Indian Air Force?

- On the flight patterns and flying laboratories conducted more than 500 flights. In the static, ground and flight tests involved six aircraft. Especially for the PAK FA program has created a unique test facilities. It allows you to simulate flying on the ground most of the situations, and thus greatly reduce the cost of test cycles, and in the air. We have already confirmed the flight and the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. And on a number of parameters, they have exceeded our expectations. The task of the immediate future - start docking of the onboard equipment with the air attack. This year, we have to complete the stage of preliminary tests on the plane and pass state tests. Their first step should be completed in 2015 jointly with Indian counterparts we complete the preliminary design of aircraft according to stringent technical requirements of the Indian side. Fully developed appearance of the aircraft. Agreed scope of work and the division of the parties at the stage of development activities (R & D). The next stage - signing of OCD.
member_25400
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_25400 »

Austin wrote:
Its now official that 5th Gen Engine would be a Variable Cycle one , which would mean the engine would be efficient under all flight condition and consequently fuel efficient too.
Austin, I see you have located the cites on the USAAF ADVENT program currently driving GE's variable cycle jet engines for improved fuel efficiency.
What you might have perhaps missed is that in the late 80's GE had a working variable cycle jet engine (GE37/YF120) that flew on the prototype YF22 and was fitted onto the YF23. It was a significant technology advance that had fan-boys drooling over it. That particular engine also had thrust vectoring and reduced the associated weight penalty, but IIRC, required riskier ceramic linings compared to P&W's more conventional offering to which it lost out. This time around, GE CR&D has bought into 3D printing as one of the technology differentiators

Rolls Royce too has variable cycle engine technologyunder the ADVENT program but seems to have lost out to Pratt & Whitney and GE in the follow up AETD program
And the US Navy is driving the VCATprogram to leverage efforts from the USAAF Advent program

Regds
Barath
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

[quote="Austin"]Interview with UAC President
http://www.aex.ru/fdocs/2/2013/6/17/23200/

[quote]- How do you assess the test fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) and work with Indian partners over his choice for the Indian Air Force?

- On the flight patterns and flying laboratories conducted more than 500 flights. In the static, ground and flight tests involved six aircraft. Especially for the PAK FA program has created a unique test facilities. It allows you to simulate flying on the ground most of the situations, and thus greatly reduce the cost of test cycles, and in the air. We have already confirmed the flight and the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft. And on a number of parameters, they have exceeded our expectations. The task of the immediate future - start docking of the onboard equipment with the air attack. This year, we have to complete the stage of preliminary tests on the plane and pass state tests. Their first step should be completed in 2015 jointly with Indian counterparts we complete the preliminary design of aircraft according to stringent technical requirements of the Indian side. Fully developed appearance of the aircraft. Agreed scope of work and the division of the parties at the stage of development activities (R & D). The next stage - signing of OCD.
[/quote][/quote]

Thanks for posting. Here are some articles showing how the Russian jets impressed at a recent airshow.
http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/35 ... 37751.html
http://izvestia.ru/news/552200


It is high time we ensured that our side actually implements TOT, the Russians were always open to TOT but our PSUs have fallen short in achieving this goal unaided. We need a GOI PPP to launch a couple of indigenous projects with R & D funding support. I am posting this old article - it is still there on the web, castigating our failure while China went ahead and assimilated all technologies.
It is unpleasant reading but we need to do better, and others are noticing that we have not.

This underlines the need to get serious about domestic defence manufacture. I am told that many heads of our industry associations are from foreign companies. How are they expected to promote Indian manufacturing, on which Indian economic long term viability depends? What use will be as allies to anyone if our economic well being is undermined?

http://club.mil.news.sina.com.cn/viewth ... tid=273626

Russian military circles of the joke: Indians, Chinese are too smart dumb!
  Russian military experts have been circulating inside the circle of a joke: It is about the Chinese and Indians. 27 things that the Soviet Union and China, so with J-11B, the Russian experts, India's fixed up pregnant so with the "Gorshkov" aircraft carrier, the Chinese are too smart and dumb Indian.
  
  China is a have a comprehensive military, political and other countries improve the system. China and Russia's military technology trade, only the Chinese have taken to make up their own lack of procurement. Compared with India, India adopted a "comprehensive update" to the Russian technology to fully replace their chaotic technology.
  
  India has access to the former Soviet Union during the Cold War technology, our technology. India has been testing these technologies together. As a result, more integrated, the greater the vulnerability. His fusion of Chinese efforts to the contrary, very good.
  
  In the Russian view, the Chinese military is will "steal", so what's to steal Han! Extremely intelligent!
  
  China has a lot of respect for his intelligence fusion. For a frigate at the same time can appear to the United States, Russia, France. Sweden and other countries in different forms, create mechanisms for the opposite type of equipment. For the Chinese people in the. They can be a good application together. India mainly "buy, full purchase" for the principle. In developed on the basis of India far behind China.
  
  Swedish military military critics think: China can absorb almost any country in the world of military technology, and they can apply these techniques on the same unit. China, a warship, you can install the Russian anti-ship missile production, the Swedish rapid-fire weapons technology in recent anti-French form of guidance radar. Communication.U.S. anti-submarine technology equipment.
  
  And no country around the world, there is the ability to reverse these materials together. For the Chinese, they do so more than once had. In this regard, India and China are simply can not compare. India, the German Leopard 2 technology, coupled with the Russian T80 tanks to develop its own technology. Ending is very tragic. The Indian fighter, LCA since the late 80s started to develop. As of today. Still with a "scar" equipment. Because he is self-oriented economy started the rise of semi-closed, so they all developed with the Chinese-style model can not be compared.
  
表于 2010-10-24 12:39 只看该作者
该帖被浏览 105,346 次,回复 48 次
俄罗斯军工圈子的笑话:中国人太聪明印度人太笨!
  一直以来在俄罗斯军事专家圈子里面流传着一个笑话:是关于中国人和印度人的。中国搞点了苏27于是有了歼11B,印度搞掂了俄军专家的大肚子于是有了“戈尔什科夫”号航母,中国人太聪明印度人又太笨。
  
  中国是一个具备全面军事,政治等完善体系的国家。中国与俄罗斯的军事技术贸易,仅限于中国弥补自身不足而采取得采购。较之印度,印度则是采取"全面更新"以俄罗斯技术来全面替换自己混乱地技术。
  
  印度拥有冷战时期获得前苏联技术,我们的技术。而印度一直以来试把这些技术,结合起来。其结果是,结合的越多,漏洞就越大。反观中国他的融合力度很好。
  
  在俄罗斯看来,中国军工很会"偷",有啥偷啥!聪明绝顶!
  
  中国把自己的才智用于很多方面的融合。对于在1艘护卫舰上同时可以出现来美国,俄罗斯,法国。瑞典等国不同形式,类别制造机制截然相反的装备。在对于中国人来说。他们都能很好的应用,结合在一起。而印度主要是以"购买,全部购买"为为原则。在自行研制基础上,印度也远远落后中国。
  
  瑞典军事军事评论界认为:中国可以吸纳几乎全世界任何国家的军事技术,而且他们可以把这些技术应用在同一个单位上。中国1艘军舰,可以安装俄罗斯产反舰导弹,瑞典技术的近防速射武器,法国形式的指导雷达。通信。美国技术的反潜设备。
  
  而全世界没有任何一个国家,有这样的能力把这些反向物质融合在一起。对于中国人来说他们已经不止一次这样去做了。在这一点上,印度与中国是根本不能同时比较的。印度以德国豹2技术,加之俄罗斯T80技术研制自己的坦克。结局是很悲惨的。而印度战斗机,LCA自80年代末期开始研制。截止到今天。依旧是带着"伤疤"装备。由于他的经济起步是以自主为主的半封闭式的崛起,因此他们与中国的全开发式的模式不能对比。
  


下一篇:难以启齿:5000年中国历史上最耻辱的女俘
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Karan M »

A Chinese blog full of self praise. What else is new?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

don't understand the point of posting that crap?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Lalmohan »

i think kshirin is trying to debate a different point - i.e. how comes india fails to really adopt TOT whereas china seems to learn and build on its learnings

kshirin - i think that is a complex topic - no OEM (including Russians) will ever part with core technology - why would they?

indian organisations appear to either be content with screwdriver-giri (e.g. BEL) or the next step up is too difficult (HAL) - could be a function of R&D spend, management knowledge and drive and incentives.

in the chinese context, it seems that they have greater will to succeed and definitely $$ to throw at the problem - and they are more willing to copy and push ip laws or just ignore them
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

raj-ji
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 25 Oct 2010 19:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by raj-ji »

Lalmohan wrote:i think kshirin is trying to debate a different point - i.e. how comes india fails to really adopt TOT whereas china seems to learn and build on its learnings

kshirin - i think that is a complex topic - no OEM (including Russians) will ever part with core technology - why would they?

indian organisations appear to either be content with screwdriver-giri (e.g. BEL) or the next step up is too difficult (HAL) - could be a function of R&D spend, management knowledge and drive and incentives.

in the chinese context, it seems that they have greater will to succeed and definitely $$ to throw at the problem - and they are more willing to copy and push ip laws or just ignore them
This is a complex topic indeed. But the Panda blog post shows how they are oblivious to what's going on now. The Pandas have been flying under the radar till recently regarding their reverse engineering and intellectual property theft. Those days are done. Now the spotlight is very clearly on them.

As a result of the Panda's heavy handed and devious techniques, there is a Cold War brewing with the West. And a much more active trade war with them on the horizon. This will only hurt the Panda, as they are running out of friends fast.

For India the need to catch up with the competition and get through the learning curve is essential. But Panda techniques are not smart at all. A better approach is to recruit experts from the competition and use them to both jump start our R&D and mentor local talent. Getting the best scientists from the competition by offering them lots of money can work much better than Panda methods. And this method is a more business oriented approach that will not get the same reaction as the Panda is getting now.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

Lalmohan, I often wonder how come a forum like BR, which is clearly full of patriots, does not discuss the need for indigenous development of technology more. Yes, people touch upon it and then angle off to other topics. We need to put our best minds together on this issue. I agree we need to develop a real innovation eco system, not one based only on copy catting, but the Chinese have gone way beyond that. While CC-ing, they have re-formed their organisations, nudged enterprises towards the market, implemented dual use and civil military integration strategies cleverly so as to benefit from civilian technology flows which can be used in the military sector, and achieved what even jaded experts acknowledge is a techno revolution in aerospace, maritime, submarine and other capabilities. They have even developed missiles which can take out Russian land forces on their border with Russia. We are really, way, way behind technologically. Any attempt to question DRDO DPSU guys is met with aggressive defensiveness.
And BTW, everyone was once a pirate. Pasting article below. We should not shy away from reverse engineering, opening up black boxes and investing more in R & D, in fact companies should be forced to do so and so should service sector companies which are taking their profits abroad.
Sorry for rambling, just finished Chetan Bhagat's book call centre etc, we are creating sub-par jobs for Indian youth, soul destroying, coolie jobs. We need to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, not carp about the Chinese, but focus on one goal single mindedly and not quarrel among ourselves while doing so. MOD is trying to push through reforms but this has to be system wide...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... irates_too
We Were Pirates, Too
Why America was the China of the 19th century.
BY CHARLES R. MORRIS | DECEMBER 5, 2012

The ship carrying Francis Cabot Lowell and his family home from England in the summer of 1812 was intercepted by a British war squadron, which held the passengers and crew for some days at the British base at Halifax, Canada. Lowell's baggage was subject to several intensive searches, for his captors had been warned that he may have stolen designs for power textile weaving machinery, a serious crime in England. Lowell, indeed, had done just that -- but, aware of the risk, had committed the designs to memory.
The British rarely accorded outsiders the privilege of touring their cotton plants. But Lowell was a leading Boston merchant who imported a great deal of British cloth and had solid relations with his British counterparts. One can imagine him on one of his tours, feigning languid disinterest even as he diligently filed away details on gearing and loom speeds. By the gentlemanly codes of the day, it seems dishonorable.
Today, it's China that is the rising power, and the United States that is the hegemon wary of the young upstart. To China, the United States appears much as Great Britain did to Americans two centuries ago. The U.S. Navy is an intrusive presence on its coasts, while U.S. support for Taiwan parallels British sympathies for southern separatists. Most threatening for Beijing is the appeal of America's raucous democracy for China's rising masses.

The Chinese today are as determined as 19th-century Americans were to achieve economic parity with their rival, and like early Americans, will steal all the technology they can. The important difference is that modern documentation standards make theft much more rewarding. Any drawings Lowell purloined would have been mostly dimensionless and only approximately accurate. (He was fortunate that Paul Moody, the genius mechanic who designed and built his plants, was also a skilled weaver.) In the mid 19th century, Americans were also desperate to replicate Britain's famed Sheffield steel, by common consent the world's finest. But the best Sheffield craftsmen the United States could buy failed to replicate it. (The key, which even the British had not guessed, was the local clay used in the heating vessels.)

Today, Chinese espionage is widely assumed to have targeted virtually all big American technology companies. A long list of firms, including Apple, Boeing, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Ford, Motorola, Northrup Grumman, and General Motors, have pursued successful criminal actions against Chinese moles and other agents.
Back in 1812, finished cotton textiles dominated British exports, accounting for about half of all trade revenues, the fruit of a half century of progress in mechanized mass production. Proportionate to GDP, the industry was about three times the size of the entire U.S. automobile sector today. High-speed textile manufacture was a highly advanced technology for its era, and Great Britain was as sensitive about sharing it as the United States is with advanced software and microprocessor breakthroughs. The British parliament legislated severe sanctions for transferring trade secrets, even prohibiting the emigration of skilled textile workers or machinists.

But the Americans had no respect for British intellectual property protections. They had fought for independence to escape the mother country's suffocating economic restrictions. In their eyes, British technology barriers were a pseudo-colonial ploy to force the United States to serve as a ready source of raw materials and as a captive market for low-end manufactures. While the first U.S. patent act, in 1790, specified that "any person or persons" could file a patent, it was changed in 1793 to make clear that only U.S. citizens could claim U.S. patent protection.

China's modern trade and patent regimes are similarly tilted against outsiders. "Use" patents are freely awarded for Chinese versions of Western inventions. High-value chips are denied import licenses unless companies allow the "inspection" of their source code. Western partners willingly make Faustian bargains to contribute crown jewel technologies for the sake of immediate contracts. German companies that once supplied mag lev technology to their Chinese high-speed rail partners now find themselves shut out by newly born Chinese competitors. Last summer, GE made a similar deal involving its highly valuable, and militarily sensitive, avionics technology.

If anything, the early Americans were even more brazen about their ambitions. Entrepreneurs advertised openly for skilled British operatives who were willing to risk arrest and imprisonment for sneaking machine designs out of the country. Tench Coxe, Alexander Hamilton's deputy at Treasury, created a system of bounties to entice sellers of trade secrets, and sent an agent to steal machine drawings, but he was arrested. While skilled operatives were happy to take U.S. bounties, few of them actually knew how to build the machines or how to run a cotton plant.

The breakthrough came in the person of Samuel Slater. As a young farm boy, he served as an indentured apprentice to Jedidiah Strutt, one of the early developers of industrial-scale powered cotton spinning. As Strutt came to appreciate Slater's great talents, he employed him as an assistant in constructing and starting up new plants. (In his signed indenture, Slater promised to "faithfully ... serve [Strutt's] Secrets.")

Worried about his future in England, Slater made the jump to the United States when he was 21, bringing an unusually deep background in mechanized spinning. Emigrating under an assumed name, he answered an ad from Moses Brown, a leading Providence merchant, who had been badly stung by ersatz British spinning machinery. Brown was sufficiently impressed by Slater to finance a factory partnership, and over the next 15 years, Slater, Brown, their partners, and the many people they trained created a powered thread-making empire that stretched throughout New England and down into the Middle Atlantic states. Former president Andrew Jackson called Slater "The Father of the American Industrial Revolution," the Brits called him "Slater the Traitor."

The development implications were profound, for Slater and Lowell together jump-started American mass-production manufacturing, the essential ingredient in its startling 19th-century growth. The United States' present-day high technology could have much the same implications for China. There is no point appealing to Chinese ethics -- in the great game of nations, ethics don't enter into the conversation. Had Americans invented a magic telescope into British factories, they surely would have used it. A more appropriate response is to apply what some have called "innovation mercantilism": If Lowell had been reincarnated as an American consultant today, he could have told the multinationals to keep all Chinese out of their factories, no matter how friendly they seemed.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Charles R. Morris is author of The Tycoons, The Trillion Dollar Meltdown, winner of the Loeb award as the "Best Business Book of 2008." This article is drawn from his recent book The Dawn of Innovation: The First American Industrial Revolution.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

Raj-ji, I agree with you, but isn't it impossible to catch up with the West now without even starting a serious national innovation system? The other day I was looking at MIT Technology review, they have gone so far ahead that unless we start a serious national exercise to get onto step 8 of the technology ladder (step 1 would be inventing the wheel I guess - they say there have been only 8 disruptive innovations in the last couple of centuries or i may be forgetting the exact number and time frames), we will really suffer. The yawning trade deficit and crashing rupee is only one symptom of our falling behind, and only the beginning. I wish I were wrong. We need to exploit our comparative advantage in mass production and go for high-tech simultaneously. Step 5 is really reverse engineering, there is an excellent piece by Prof Tai detailing the differing complex layers of reverse engineering and innovation which everyone should read: http://igcc.ucsd.edu/assets/001/501953.pdf
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Interview with Sergei Bogdan Test Pilot PAK-FA , Su-35 ( use translator )

http://ria.ru/interview/20130622/945066770.html
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Lalmohan »

kshirin - maybe catch is not the right strategy. maybe it is to bypass? perhaps some stages of the industrial cycle are now so redundant that they are no longer worth emulating?
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

You man as in Gerschenkron's thesis- reculer pour mieux sautez? Backward countries can leapfrog development by bypassing those stages. They too have done this historically by borrowing foreign technologies, only one step ahead. Kaise karein Indian context mein?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Lalmohan »

we have done it for telecoms - building mobile infra better than our land line infra - and created an entirely new model
we similarly need to identify and focus on a small number of key future defence technologies
we have done well in rocketry for instance
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

^that is because there is big secrecy involved and a wider security aspect needs to be covered. mil area is different, where even the best brains are denied entries. the norms are different.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

Lalmohan wrote:we have done it for telecoms - building mobile infra better than our land line infra - and created an entirely new model
we similarly need to identify and focus on a small number of key future defence technologies
we have done well in rocketry for instance
Talking with a member of the original LCA team (1980s) he mentioned the one thing India lacks is Project Management - even today. Outside of the Kaveri (ANY such engine is a huge challenge - for anyone) India, he says, has the technical framework to do very, very well. That is not the problem child. India simply cannot get her act together in some areas that are considered very simple, but very crucial : make sure all components are accounted for, dependencies, timely delivery of materials (just-in-time is too much to ask for), etc, etc, etc.

That is where ISRO (they also had the direct blessing of Madam - but that is a different thread) excelled. ISRO had not only issues with other nations, they also had problems within the country (due to lack of resources within the country). Lot os resistance that they had to overcome. Which is perhaps why they had to - forced to - manage everything very well.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Karan M »

NRao sir: That gentleman from CSIR (I presume as you may have mentioned him before), has some flaws in his analogy when bringing up ISRO.

Let me explain - ISRO is not as dependent on external user feedback as our defence houses are. The developer and the user are one and the same, and hence things move much more smoothly.

Another thing is that ISRO, nothing against their achievements, simply operates in a different environment. For instance, a lot of their items are single use - they have to work once, but flawlessly, whereas defence equipment has to work repeatedly across different areas in India, and under the harshest user conditions (that means unskilled operators). Hence the design, development and certification process is significantly different. The trials go on and on, till every stakeholder is satisfied.

Next, the military field stresses far more on state of the art technology. For instance, if ISRO sends up a satellite with (say) a transponder less, the effect would be at most less coverage, but its not a crisis. However, if a defence item does not have all the bells and whistles, the user frequently puts that across as a make or break issue. As it can lead to defeat. (Whether these claims are often hyperbole is another issue, for instance with the Arjun where the T-90 got a free pass in many aspects). This means longer development schedules and also more effect from sanctions etc.

Lastly, there are the interdependencies. ISRO is not as dependent on external vendors and suppliers since their production items are very limited. How many GSLV is ISRO planning to produce? In contrast, DRDO et al have to work with BDL, HAL, OFB, Private firms etc to see far more numbers of Agnis and similar missiles in service, this along with all the other tactical missiles which too take up engineering resources. Each of these partners comes with their own quirks, and DPSUs have to be often cajoled into the programs, because after all, irrespective of whether A works or fails, they get to make whatever is imported anyways.

In short, its often project management which is blamed, but its far more than that. The entire environment in which the LCA and other defence projects occur, are totally different. These make an apples to apples comparison very hard to do
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

would be program management and PLM.
kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by kshirin »

Lalmohan, the telecom reforms have resulted only in a huge service "industry" feeding another service industry -IT, which is very good except I don't like India only being a lackey of western outsourcing, iSPIRT is trying to reverse this by encouraging product start ups, telecom manufacturing has not been a priority for the government, so I see the telecom reforms now as a bit of a let down. I do not know why Indians do not take advantage of reforms to create manufacturing capabilities, part of the blame lies with the policies discouraging manufacturing, but part of the blame may lie with the vision of Indian entrepreneurs.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

one can't fake a demand.
Post Reply