PAK-FA and FGFA: News & Discussion - June 2014

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2016 01:50

Russia's PAK FA T-50-2 prototype fitted with two Kh-31 air-to-surface missiles
(Credit: Alex S/russianplanes.net)

The same T-50-2 prototype aircraft now armed with six unguided bombs
(Credit: Evgeny Volkov/russianplanes.net)

Pictures unveiled on the russianplanes website first showed the T-50-2 prototype fitted with Kh-31 anti-ship missiles. A second series of pictures unveiled a few days before show the same prototype aircraft performing a test flight armed with two Kh-31 anti-ship missiles. The Kh-31, also dubbed X-31 in Russia, is a Russian air-to-surface missile. It can reach a Mach 3.5 max speed, depending on variants. Its warhead is equipped with a 94kg HE shaped charge. The Kh-31 has an operational range of up to 110 km.

A few days later, the website released pictures showing the same aircraft fitted with 6 free fall bombs. The PAK FA previously had only performed flight tests with air-to-air missiles.

Russia's T-50 PAK FA is a fifth-generation fighter programme of the Russian Air Force. The T-50 prototype first flew on 29 January 2010 and the first production aircraft is slated for delivery to the Russian Air Force starting in late 2016 or early 2017. Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in 2015 that the Air Force will slow PAK FA production and reduce its initial order of 150 aircraft to 12 jets due to the nation's deteriorating economy, along with the manufacturer's ability to produce the more complex aircraft.

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... apons.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2016 10:35

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Apr 2016 11:39

why so much external carriage of weapons on a supposedly VLO fighter ? problems with internal mounts ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2016 11:58

Rahul M wrote:why so much external carriage of weapons on a supposedly VLO fighter ? problems with internal mounts ?

I dont have an answer but there are prototypes being that would be designed for internal test , I dont have access to janes but they talk for T-50-6
http://www.janes.com/article/59509/russ ... on-testing

According to unofficial information, a sixth prototype will depart the production facility in Komsomolsk-on-Amur at the end of April. It will be the first aircraft of the second test batch, reportedly fitted with significant changes in the airframe structure.

External mount carry more wide amount of weapons hence the testing needed would be more intensive to test the CG and stuff like that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2016 12:08

Rahul M wrote:why so much external carriage of weapons on a supposedly VLO fighter ? problems with internal mounts ?

Only the initial stages of a conflict are expected to require stealth. Once the skies are dominated, stealth is no longer needed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Apr 2016 12:17

that depends on what your internal weapon options look like. else, you would not reach stage 2.

thx Austin, as of now what are the potential internal carriage weapons for PAKFA ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2016 12:19

Must be the first 5G fighter testing unguided WW2 era bombs. Truly Russian.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2016 14:05

Rahul M wrote:that depends on what your internal weapon options look like. else, you would not reach stage 2.

thx Austin, as of now what are the potential internal carriage weapons for PAKFA ?

There was a Janes Article by Piotr Butowski that extensively wrote on PAK-FA weapons program which I will link

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1890019

Beyond that MAKS 2015 showed new internal types Stand Off Weapons under dev for PAK-FA and for that matter any other type

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 15 Apr 2016 20:22

Karan M wrote:Must be the first 5G fighter testing unguided WW2 era bombs. Truly Russian.

Karan ji, Russians must have come to the conclusion that pak fa is hardly stealthy. So why the pretense. Atleast by using external pylons, it gains the extra payload.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Apr 2016 20:24

Any fighter that does more than one thing must have flexibility to perform different missions under different scenarios. External stores are present in all 5th generation fighters and are expected to be used as and when required. The F-22 for example even has pylons that can be jettisoned leaving very little in RCS degradation once the stores/tanks and pylons have been ejected.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2016 20:41

Darsshan, the lack of proper low RCS shaping for the back of the PAK-FA is truly irritating. Ok, so they are counting on EW and high speed, alt, long range weapons - still would have been better if they finished the whole design. Like the J-20.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Apr 2016 20:44

The design quite suits the operational requirements for Russia. The FGFA would probably change a few things to accommodate the sort of missions the IAF envisions with it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2016 20:44

^^Whole design except that J-20 left two large holes at the back that would have been totally stealthy until they put Al 31s in..just sayin

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Apr 2016 21:02

While the PAK-FA has a defined engine path to a better engine by way of Izdelihye 30, what is the path for J20?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Apr 2016 21:09

RahulM wrote: that depends on what your internal weapon options look like. else, you would not reach stage 2.

It really does not matter what the internal weapon options look like.

The internal weapons is to maintain stealth. That phase will continue until all enemy assets are taken care of. Only after that will Phase II, the non-stealth phase, start. Sequential.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Apr 2016 21:10

what is the path for J20?

China is making a very large investments in propulsion. While they will take a long time to catch up, the sort of roles they will most likely utilize the J-20 in, at least initially, won't stress the propulsion need since they are unlikely to want to out run, out climb or out maneuver an F-22. They'll use it as a land and maritime strike platform and as an interceptor going off of some of the ISR and SA tools they are building gradually, using long range weapons in an attempt to use the Low-Observability, numerical superiority, and long range to negate the SA advantage the US can provide to its own long-range strike assets going forward.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2016 22:26

shiv wrote:^^Whole design except that J-20 left two large holes at the back that would have been totally stealthy until they put Al 31s in..just sayin

Not really.. that's the least vulnerable part .. look up FCR against receding targets.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Apr 2016 22:28

brar_w wrote:
what is the path for J20?
China is making a very large investments in propulsion. While they will take a long time to catch up, the sort of roles they will most likely utilize the J-20 in, at least initially, won't stress the propulsion need since they are unlikely to want to out run, out climb or out maneuver an F-22. They'll use it as a land and maritime strike platform and as an interceptor going off of some of the ISR and SA tools they are building gradually, using long range weapons in an attempt to use the Low-Observability, numerical superiority, and long range to negate the SA advantage the US can provide to its own long-range strike assets going forward.

US, US, US... this is B-RF.

More to the point, that low RCS shaping will definitely challenge our older gen non AESA fighters. Its not like we have plenty of AWACS at the higher bands either..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Apr 2016 22:45

US, US, US... this is B-RF

I know but for China, the J-20 is about a lot more than just India, its about all their regional and global ambitions and denying the US access. The point was that they don't need the most perfect stealth fighter, and won't wait for one. They have a ton of things they can do better than the status quo with the current J-20, against the US, to against India, Taiwan etc with a less than perfect J-20. Unfortunately, what the Chinese are developing, to deny the US Access is very much applicable to other potential adversaries. The biggest tools here are their efforts to deny the US Situational Awareness, and this means taking out AWACS, P-8's, Global Hawks, Rivet Joints and JSTARS using both long range stand off missiles, to stealthy, fast sniper like tactics using their more modern fighters. Once you break that, you are at a much more level playing field and in a situational where China has a numerical advantage. They are going to adopt similar strategies in the maritime environment, utilizing these assets to deny sea-access and control. This translates to other theaters as well, even against India.

More to the point, that low RCS shaping will definitely challenge our older gen non AESA fighters. Its not like we have plenty of AWACS at the higher bands either..

The radar range equation favors a stealthy or even semi-stealthy aircraft when it comes to launch detection range advantages so you can obtain massive tactical advantages if the opponent aircraft is not as stealthy, or stealthy at all. This is because unless you do a very very shoddy job of RCS reduction (even sectored) your opponent can't makeup the difference by carrying a larger aperture or by supplying more power to the X-band sensor (even with the largest RF sensors that go on a fighter). Where a very large radar with a lot of power helps is to negate some of the RCS reductions that have happened on legacy aircraft such as RAM's or even subtle changes in shapes to consciously reduce RCS. In the case of a considerable RCS treatment and design its better to exploit other vulnerabilities (for a non stealthy aircraft) if they exist such as using EW to target enemy emissions since EMCON requires a lot of technology, investment and training and layering it on top of stealth and still successfully discharging the expected duties in a strike or air-superiority mission requires a lot of experience and access to technology that goes above and beyond creating a low RCS airframe. The reason the stealth has proliferated in fighter designs is because there is really no way around this catch-22 situation. If you emit and carry larger sensors you only give yourselves away faster since EW has improved by leaps and bounds and current systems out range active sensors especially if they are linked. The only realistic way to organically pull back the detection range advantage is to lower your own RCS since shaping, materials and coatings have advanced to a point that you can't negate the advantage with RF energy alone.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 00:03

>>This translates to other theaters as well, even against India.

Point this is about India. If its relevant then that is ok. Post should be not "even against" but "if against" given the context of the BR forum. Not USR.

>>The radar range equation favors a stealthy or even semi-stealthy aircraft when it comes to launch detection range advantages so you can obtain massive tactical advantages if the opponent aircraft is not as stealthy, or stealthy at all.

Exactly India's problem. Until and unless it starts deploying big-ass and capable AESAs into its Flankers, it will be at a disadvantage vs the J-20.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Apr 2016 00:14

brar_w wrote:
what is the path for J20?
China is making a very large investments in propulsion. While they will take a long time to catch up, the sort of roles they will most likely utilize the J-20 in, at least initially, won't stress the propulsion need since they are unlikely to want to out run, out climb or out maneuver an F-22. They'll use it as a land and maritime strike platform and as an interceptor going off of some of the ISR and SA tools they are building gradually, using long range weapons in an attempt to use the Low-Observability, numerical superiority, and long range to negate the SA advantage the US can provide to its own long-range strike assets going forward.

Deep strike even with the help of a VLO asset is troublesome against well defended air spaces with multiple layers of SAM and all kinds of CAP assets in the mix. Not sure how will they use this less of fighter more of a bomber. Maybe as a first strike asset against a front line base but after that, what is its utility? How does one use a cannot climb, maneuver or outrun asset as an interceptor - only on its VLO capability?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Apr 2016 00:22

If Indians hadn't invested in Su-30 and MKI later, by this time alphabet soup canals had a better chance already and American pie praying and Ruskie bashing would be the order of the day. Important part is join partnership with Russia, instead of alphabet soup treaties under label of already strategic partnership as decided by powers-that-be.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 00:25

vishwak, if the su-30 was not screwed by russian chalta hain attitude towards spares which india had to push them to resolve then there would be no need for MMRCA

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Apr 2016 01:45

Exactly India's problem. Until and unless it starts deploying big-ass and capable AESAs into its Flankers, it will be at a disadvantage vs the J-20

Depending on how good the RCS reduction measures are on the J-20 ( when it actually enters service) Big AESA radars may or may not restore a significant advantage especially if the large nose on the J-20 also spots a half decent AESA. The problem in stealth on non-stealth engagements are pretty straight forward. As long as the stealth aircraft has decent RCS reduction, it would be tough (practically impossible) to get a detection range advantage over it on a 1 v 1 engagement given that both have the capacity to carry a fairly decent sized radar. Once the detection range is shrunk the stealthy aircraft has tactical freedom to maneuver and get into advantageous positions for its primary weapon deployment. One BIG advantage a large AESA (or any AESA) does however provide is resilience to EA/EW, wider bandwidth coverage (depending upon the experience and capability of the supplier base) and the ability to enhance LPI techniques through processing. Here no doubt a future AESA Kitted MKI would offer much better capability. Think of Low-RCS as a form of passive EW where the ability of your radar in terms of detection range is throttled while your enemy's (assuming you aren't stealth) aren't.

However, if the J-20 lives up to the hype (and is procured in large quantities), at least in some areas that are applicable to the sort of missions under discussion the IAF would be much better served by the PAKFA, AMCA and the AURA UCAV (for both complicating adversary CAP, and as a node) enhancing Situational Awareness and enabling non-stealthy fighters to perform above and beyond. The ability to blur FEBA lines and penetrate and gain SA and pass it along in ways that are hard to detect, is invaluable and if you can establish sensor pickets with stealthy, highly capable assets deployed close to the FEBA supported by less survivable (harder to hide) assets behind you will have a much better chance. The Chinese would obviously look to counter through SO and EW so its really a situation of staying ahead of the threat and here the AMCA is relevant since its mission systems afford the IAF 100% control.

Ignore the numbers, but this illustrates how even modest RCS reductions offer great detection range advantages. Once you start becoming decent-good at reducing RCS, even in the frontal sectored you begin to reach a point where your opponent cannot pull back the detection range advantage by simply improving the sensor since there are obviously limits to how much you can grow there (unless you have a 21st century radar and your opponent that has a LOW RCS frame mated to a 1970's quality sensor

) Hence there is a very broad consensus amongst designers and 'requirement-framers' of current and future fighters that RCS reduction is paramount to restoring this obviously coupled with modernization of the active and passive detection systems onboard (and of course networking and cooperative targeting). While AESA radars offer better detection ranges against low RCS targets compared to PESA's, or older technology, it is more effective against cruise missiles and UAV's since an advanced fighter generally has a fairly decent EW suite accompanying RCS reduction measures that aids the pilot in picking up source emitters, figuring out sensor FOV's, and helping the pilot use the freedom to maneuver to place the aircraft outside the sweet spot. Cruise missiles can't really do this, and current UAV's can't really either. Therefore, for an effective engagement of even near-parity in detection ranges with an AESA equipped non-stealthy fighter vs an AESA (even inferior one) equipped stealthy fighter you really need a cooperative target if you are a non-stealthy aircraft otherwise, the stealthy aircraft has plenty of opportunity to fringe your sensor fov, and leverage the freedom to maneuver afforded by the shrinking of the detection envelope to put lateral and altitude separation in order to aid the BVR missile. This is the main reason why the "First Shot" in an engagement involving stealth aircraft is critical since in a stealth v non-stealth engagement you can considerably aid the PK of your first shot.

Deep strike even with the help of a VLO asset is troublesome against well defended air spaces with multiple layers of SAM and all kinds of CAP assets in the mix. Not sure how will they use this less of fighter more of a bomber. Maybe as a first strike asset against a front line base but after that, what is its utility? How does one use a cannot climb, maneuver or outrun asset as an interceptor - only on its VLO capability?

Strike fighters have existed and have thrived for decades. With VLO assets you exploit kill chains that are a part and parcel of the 'well defended' air-defense strategies. You hide as much as you can ( Low RCS + Smart/Adaptive EW systems), Jam as much you can (preferably using expendable and/or off- board assets, but organically if you must) and try to stay on the fringes of the AD sweet spots (Medium-Long Range Stand Off weapons). Combine VLO assets with Electronic Attack/Warfare, and stand off weapons and you have a very competent attack strategy going forward no matter what the defense is. Additionally, VLO provides you a force multiplier like advantage when it comes to complicating CAP strategies (A potential attack from VLO assets, or mixed LO and traditional assets demands denser CAP's) of your opponent, particularly when there are other supporting assets that may or may not be stealthy to account for. Looking at a longer arc of time, the J-20 would probably be one of many LO to VLO assets they field. They are already experimenting with a semi-stealthy UCAV (iirc) and what appears to be a stealth representative UCAV. There is also the J-31. Pick any air-defense setup, discuss how well multiple elements are integrated seamlessly, identify the kill chains and you will see that VLO, when combined with some of the other things showing up in stealth aircraft address each and one of these potential areas. How well it is executed is obviously a matter of how good a system is, how it is supported, and the TTP's but these aircraft very specifically address modern integrated air defense systems which China itself possess, and plans to operate (S400) in the very near term.

Also, I never said the J-20 will be a crappy fighter, there is simply not enough information out there to make that claim. As long as it does not have optimized 5th generation propulsion however, it would obviously struggle against other 5th generation aircraft in many areas that require peer level air-combat. However that won't be all the missions it is asked to perform and in the interim, while they get their propulsion technology up to standard they have more Su-35's (to support the J-10 and flanker clones) they can order in addition to whatever they have in terms of stealthy UCAV's if not a stealthy long range bomber which they are rumored to be working on. IN a situation it turns out to be a really CRAPPY fighter, there would still be a question of a non-stealthy aircraft having to survive a first salvo. In CASE it is still capable of decent supersonic performance, this could mean multiple salvos before it has to decide whether to pursue or disengage with the VLO nature providing plenty of opportunities to do just that. It all depends upon what the true capability is obviously.

Their next reaction would most likely to develop very long range air-air ARM's (They already have some for the G2A application), and AIM-54ER like long range weapons to have their flanker clones act as long range snipers for their J-20's. They'd like to do the same for A2G munitions given and they have been increasingly showcasing some of those advancements over the years. How, good is any of this is obviously a big unknown and unless they open up, or export the equipment to someone that is willing to share their assessment, it would be hard to tell until they actually are used in a conflict.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 08:08

Karan M wrote:vishwak, if the su-30 was not screwed by russian chalta hain attitude towards spares which india had to push them to resolve then there would be no need for MMRCA

MMRCA was started during Kargil and need for 126 fighter due to lack of procurement in 90 ,delays in Tejas and block obsolence with 21 and 27 and M2K doing well in Kargil which IAF had asked for , they had little to do with Su-30 program which was barely beginning its life then

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Apr 2016 14:56

Austin, come on, stop kidding yourself and us. Spares, weapons - the Russians screwed up bigtime and the data is now open about how badly ROE screwed up its end of the deal.

The state of the Su-30 fleet through the past is well known by now, irrespective of how you choose to defend the Russians & the IAF rush for the MMRCA has everything to do with the teething issues with Su-30 fleet which continued to worry the IAF. This is the reason why they have been so adamant about the MMRCA. A Su-30 fleet at high serviceability would automatically mean IAF would focus more on force multipliers, not force.

Russia didn't give two sh!ts about the above till GOI continued to force the issue at Putins level and that is also why IAF is so negative on the PAKFA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Apr 2016 16:13

^^^^^

And why the IAF advised the Russians not to participate in the MMRCA competition?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Apr 2016 16:34

PAK FA prototype under production -

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 18:44

Karan M wrote:Austin, come on, stop kidding yourself and us. Spares, weapons - the Russians screwed up bigtime and the data is now open about how badly ROE screwed up its end of the deal.

The state of the Su-30 fleet through the past is well known by now, irrespective of how you choose to defend the Russians & the IAF rush for the MMRCA has everything to do with the teething issues with Su-30 fleet which continued to worry the IAF. This is the reason why they have been so adamant about the MMRCA. A Su-30 fleet at high serviceability would automatically mean IAF would focus more on force multipliers, not force.

Russia didn't give two sh!ts about the above till GOI continued to force the issue at Putins level and that is also why IAF is so negative on the PAKFA.

The spare issue of Su-30 is also due to the fact we didnt went for an agreement in initial phase to address the availability of MKI something we are doing for Rafale deal , Else why would any one pay $250 million for single Rafale .....there is a price to be paid for availability spares , stocks/storage etc

But read this news lot of info here on improving availability of MKI.

India, Russia to sign pact on spares for Su 30 fleet, availability could go up to 75%

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 075387.cms

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2016 18:47

Viv S wrote:PAK FA prototype under production -

Static tester

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 16 Apr 2016 19:39

brar_w: My comment was only in context of the J-20 and not any VLO asset. The J-20 presents a very particular set of capabilities and limitations by way of its design and propulsion at hand. India also could similarly adopt the somewhat not fully baked PAF-FA and arguably could use a slightly better asset as compared to the J-20 but India and Russia both have decided to wait till a mature product is at hand, primarily with matching 5th gen propulsion.

I was just wondering what type of threat the J-20 as it stands today and likely near future presents to us. You see there are a set of Indians, who are very scared of the Chinese threat and use that to justify getting into the arms of the US. I was wondering to what degree should I brown my pants.

Added: till then we will watch how the Chinese do with their WS-15 engine. But hats off to them to invest in their native capabiltiies.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Apr 2016 20:27

My comment was only in context of the J-20 and not any VLO asset. The J-20 presents a very particular set of capabilities and limitations by way of its design and propulsion at hand

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6846&p=2006580#p2006580

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 16 Apr 2016 20:32

Viv S wrote:PAK FA prototype under production -

Thats an airframe on a structural test rig and that is how every aircraft/Helicopter is tested everywhere in the world.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 17 Apr 2016 02:17

The Queen of all hangar-queens getting ready

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 17 Apr 2016 06:37

Vipul wrote:The Queen of all hangar-queens getting ready

I am presuming that Russian defense products are more rugged than made to appear. With ample spare parts, such a notion may disappear from RADAR of critiques. Going by performance of Russian jets in Syria, it is quite possible.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Apr 2016 11:45

yes I think its a stress test rig not production line.

the aperture of the elliptical nose radar will be huge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Apr 2016 02:21

Austin wrote:The spare issue of Su-30 is also due to the fact we didnt went for an agreement in initial phase to address the availability of MKI something we are doing for Rafale deal , Else why would any one pay $250 million for single Rafale .....there is a price to be paid for availability spares , stocks/storage etc

The CAG reports on Su-30 deal clearly show the TOT for local production was delayed by ROE by upto 3 years. That sort of delay really will affect serviceability.

But read this news lot of info here on improving availability of MKI.

India, Russia to sign pact on spares for Su 30 fleet, availability could go up to 75%

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 075387.cms

I am waiting for that "could" to become "has". That will be the best news for a long long time. Thats fifty airframes (almost 3 squadrons) available over current!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Apr 2016 02:24

brar_w wrote:
Exactly India's problem. Until and unless it starts deploying big-ass and capable AESAs into its Flankers, it will be at a disadvantage vs the J-20
Depending on how good the RCS reduction measures are on the J-20 ( when it actually enters service) Big AESA radars may or may not restore a significant advantage especially if the large nose on the J-20 also spots a half decent AESA. .

Again, you are reiterating what I said. I didnt say advantage, I said without AESAs of the large variety it will be at a disadvantage. Assuming Russian radar tech is ahead of PRCs (reasonable), its logical that a J-20 may still get detected by a Flanker with a high power AESA. Better IMO than the Rafale. Small nose size.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Apr 2016 14:54

Singha wrote:yes I think its a stress test rig not production line.

the aperture of the elliptical nose radar will be huge.

Yup, the main front facing sensor is between 1500 and 1600 T/R modules, with the cheek arrays further adding a couple hundred more each iirc. Its go big or go home

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Apr 2016 16:34

Russia to test-fly PAK FA fighter powered with Phase II engine in late 2017

The first flight of the Russian fifth-generation fighter (Russian acronym - PAK FA) powered by the Phase II engine is slated for late 2017, Yevgeny Marchukov, general designer/director, Lyulka Design Bureau (an affiliate of the Ufa Engine Production Association, UMPO), told TASS on Thursday, March 10, 2016.

"If all goes to plan, the Phase II engine’s fight flight on the flying testbed will take place late in 2017, with a T-50 (PAKFA) prototype to act as flying testbed," the general designer said.

"One of the flying testbed’s engine nacelles will house a Phase I engine and the other the advanced one," he added.

According to Marchukov, the Phase II engine is in the prototype manufacture, demonstrator assembly and core engine test stages. The first core engine has been tested, with good enough results produced. The second core engine’s assembly is nearing the end. "We will test the engine demonstrator this summer," Marchukov said.

The general designer emphasized: "The Phase II engine designed for the PAK FA is a Generation 5+ design, even a Generation 5++ one." The engine is 15-20% superior to the previous ones in terms of specific characteristics.

"The engine’s characteristics have been refined through a sharp improvement in the operating cycle parameters, efficiency of units and introduction of advanced technologies and materials in the first place. It features higher thrust and a sizeable reduction in specific fuel consumption in virtually all operating modes, i.e. not only in the cruising range mode, but in the acceleration and afterburning modes as well - the modes the aircraft is normally flown in. This implies a life cycle cost reduction," the general designer explained. "In addition, a hefty specific weight reduction through advanced technologies and materials has been planned."

According to Marchukov, "there have been difficulties in the development of the advanced engine, because not all of the materials have been certificated, and we may not use them for now. Therefore, the early prototypes will be somewhat different to the ones used in the official trials. We are working on the powerplant in cooperation with the plane’s designers, including the work on the air intake, because it is an all-new engine designed to remain in service for 30 years at the least."

"We plan to use the advanced engine’s core engine to derive a whole spectrum of advanced powerplants for aviation and power generation applications," the general designer concluded.