PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jun 2010 13:27

Vina;

Well if you think that inanity can only be countered by inanity, your call. As far as I see, some one at your level does not need to do that. May be less able posters, with limited language skills can only produce a rant, but frankly you are too good to do that.

However if you wish to join the *rant a day* gang, your choice, who am I to stop you.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2010 23:31

Interesting scaled pictures of PAK-FA, YF-23, F-22 and F-35

http://www.venik4.com/wp-content/upload ... f22f35.jpg

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 24 Jun 2010 01:55

NRao wrote:Interesting scaled pictures of PAK-FA, YF-23, F-22 and F-35

http://www.venik4.com/wp-content/upload ... f22f35.jpg

interesting comparison.

now when you look at it PAK FA seems to be missing internal weapon space. There seems to be space available only between the engines which might carry at max 2 or 1 PGM (centerline) .

F-23 black widow seems to suffer from the same issue (internal weapon bay). Only F22 has enough as its internal weapon compartment is ahead of the engines (its much bigger in size as well)

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 24 Jun 2010 02:33

The F23's view is a dorsal view. There is no way we can judge from this picture.

From the scale bar I estimate the centre-line bays for the PAK-FA to be roughly 1m x 3 m x 2 bays and the F22 to roughly be about 2m x 3m. Of course this view does not provide depth so there is no way to estimate internal volume.

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 24 Jun 2010 18:07

Noob q: Will it be possible for the PAK FA/FGFA to carry external weapons, drop tanks etc?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Jun 2010 18:10

^^
Yes. Fifth gen a/cs have external hardpoints.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Jun 2010 02:18

Vina, nice observations as always!

I am not trying to defend the Pak-FA design, but trying to understand it better.

The carrots that you pointed out were earlier spoken of as additional internal weapon bays. Also the placement of those carrots doesn't quite seem right! At that point the cross-sectional wingspan is wider than at the LERX, also the body has simultaneously grown wider (though flatter). Thereby, it seems like the cross sectional area is on the rise and given the curves and the wing body blend, the cross sectional area curve would be smooth. Wouldn't adding the carrot there create a departure from this smoothness and actually act against the area rule. Also bumping up the cross sectional area around that part would be much more easily achieved by ever so slightly increasing the body at that point. It would be more aerodynamic and have a smaller impact on RCS. Am I missing something?!

Very nice point about the fairings for the flying surface actuators! After you pointed it out, I actually went ahead and checked it for the F-22 and the F-35. Though the F-35 didn't seem to have the additional fairing, the F-22 did have them. I must say that the ones on the F-22 "look" smaller, and may I dare say more aesthetic!

However, I noticed that on the LCA, the fairings do look much bigger! Do you think/know whether they double up as carrots? I am asking this because at that point the LCA fuselage starts tapering down. You can answer me on the LCA thread if you want!

Thanks in advance.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Jun 2010 20:36

^ Boss lets not get jingoistic about this, the so called carrots/humps as per various sources infact house the L-band radar array .
As for the movable LERXs/LEVCON well it does not come as surprise to me specially when Russians have been known to favour higher degree of maneuverability in sub/trans sonic regimes just like its predecessors i.e. Fulcrum and the Flanker it needn't be a F-22 copy to qualify as a 5th gen fighter.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jun 2010 02:12

Negi Sahab, thanks for pointing out that it may house the L-band radar array rather than being additional internal weapons bay!

But my questions still stand. I am trying to understand Vina's take on the LCA fairings and Pak-Fa wing-root "bulges". Nothing wrong in exchanging views and for me to learn more!

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 26 Jun 2010 02:24

I think ,in order to fair a larger space they may resort to a f22 like positioning of air intakes and engine positions later on ..
there is a need of space in between engines for fuel storage for larger range, so same space cant be used for weapons as well ?
changes in the final showdown are expected ...

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Jun 2010 06:43

indranilroy wrote:Negi Sahab, thanks for pointing out that it may house the L-band radar array rather than being additional internal weapons bay!

Well don't take my word for it

I might be wrong but that is what most open sources on PAK-FA report as of now.

But my questions still stand. I am trying to understand Vina's take on the LCA fairings and Pak-Fa wing-root "bulges". Nothing wrong in exchanging views and for me to learn more!

Wing root ? or the bulges between the flaps/ailerons and the main wing surface ?

Even F-22 has them , what about them ?

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item88219.html

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Jun 2010 12:36

negi sahab. My questions to Vina were very simple

1. Why does she think that the bulges at just where the wing meets the fuselage lerx are carrots?
2. Also, if she knew/thought that the the fairing for the hydraulics/ actuators doubled up as carrots. Frankly they look quite big. Compare them with the Mirage for instance which has a very similar geometry for the wings, flaps and ailerons.

P.S. I myself said that the F-22 has these fairings too.

indranilroy wrote: I actually went ahead and checked it for the F-22 and the F-35. Though the F-35 didn't seem to have the additional fairing, the F-22 did have them . I must say that the ones on the F-22 "look" smaller, and may I dare say more aesthetic!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 28 Jun 2010 17:53

If it has not been posted before.Air power australia analysis of pak fa by carlo kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » 29 Jun 2010 11:12

Here is a nice wallpaper. And a big gallery on the Paralay site: http://paralay.com/su50.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2010 13:44

Epsilon wrote:Here is a nice wallpaper. And a big gallery on the Paralay site: http://paralay.com/su50.html

This image takes forever to load and kills the fun of this thread!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2010 13:51

I like the F-35. Offered to the Indian navy. It carries 2 bombs. Like the Su-7. But it's more modern.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2010 14:23

^^^ I think 2 internal but many more external , read its a bomb truck as far as external weapons goes.

Not sure why is IN so obsessed with F-35

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » 29 Jun 2010 15:41

shiv wrote: This image takes forever to load and kills the fun of this thread!!

I edited it. It weighs only 1.5 Mb though.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 29 Jun 2010 16:20

Only? Thats quite big

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 16:21

Austin wrote: Not sure why is IN so obsessed with F-35

Issuing an RFI constitutes as obsession? Has there been more traffic than that?

However, the real "obsession", IMHO of course, is the EMALS.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2010 16:32

Epsilon wrote:
shiv wrote: This image takes forever to load and kills the fun of this thread!!
I edited it. It weighs only 1.5 Mb though.

When you link something from BRF the server gets overloaded pretty soon. That is why we disallow the linkage of some sites that people might want to promote using the eyeballs they get here.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2010 16:37

NRao wrote:
Austin wrote: Not sure why is IN so obsessed with F-35
Issuing an RFI constitutes as obsession? Has there been more traffic than that?

However, the real "obsession", IMHO of course, is the EMALS.

Yes in the past the IN was closely looking at JSF and time and again it keeps popping up , call it obsession or love the IN would like to have JSF if they can.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2010 17:01

Austin wrote: Yes in the past the IN was closely looking at JSF and time and again it keeps popping up , call it obsession or love the IN would like to have JSF if they can.

Hmmmmmm.....

I was aware of the JSF-to-IAF link )via the F-16I super viper thinking). I was also aware of the IN wanting the latest and greatest WRT technologies for the IAC-2 onwards. But, I wonder how could the IN be so interested in the JSF when the tests of one instrument (EMALS) that is needed for the JSF to be hosted on a ship was not even completed until a week or so ago (June 1st week)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My thinking was that the IN sent out the RFI AFTER it got to know that the EMALS was a possibility. But, ..................

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Jun 2010 17:04

Austin wrote:Yes in the past the IN was closely looking at JSF and time and again it keeps popping up , call it obsession or love the IN would like to have JSF if they can.

I agree.. Why just the IN, it would have been a top contender for the MMRCA competition if 'in service' now.. I think its biggest weakness was its timing.

For the IAC2, it would be ready.. In just the right time. With the number of orders coming down and cost escalations rife..this might just be a good time for the IN.

There is no doubt that its a fantastic aircraft. F-35's would have an edge over all the others in competition, in so many areas.. the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, and incredibly advanced sensor systems and electronics that would make it India’s most capable reconnaissance asset and even a potential electronic warfare aircraft. By far its biggest strength would be stealth..

Whether, the US would offer a full spec F-35 or not is altogether another story....

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Jun 2010 04:28

Sukhoi T-50 Prototype Demonstrated For Putin

In a high-profile visit to view what is Russia’s first “low-observable” aircraft, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin watched the prototype Sukhoi T-50 being put through its paces at the Zhukovsky flight test research center near Moscow and got a tour of the new aircraft’s cockpit June 17.

The T-50 is being developed to meet the Russian air force’s PAK FA requirement for a multirole fighter to replace the Su-27 Flanker. It has logged about 16 flights, say U.S. officials, first flying Jan. 29. (AW&ST Feb. 8, p. 30). The initial stage of state testing of the aircraft is presently due for completion in 2012.

Sukhoi chief Mikhail Pogosyan estimates there will be a worldwide market for 1,000 of the aircraft over the next 40 years. Putin contends the aircraft will carry a price tag that is one-third that of the U.S.-built Lockheed Martin F-22. Unlike the F-22, which the U.S. Congress has ruled cannot be sold to foreign governments, the new Sukhoi design is built with export in mind.

India is already a “participant” in the program, with an interest in a two-seat version of the PAK FA.

The first prototype T-50 is not believed to have been fitted with radar. The design will have at least two fixed active, electronically scanned arrays—one facing forward, the other facing aft and providing about a 120-deg. field of regard in each direction. The design may also have cheek radar apertures.

The aircraft is flying with a pair of NPO Saturn 117S engines, which are a further modification of the AL-31F engine family that powers various Flanker derivatives.

That didn't take long, India went from being a 50/50 JV to a Participant!!! Well as long as the AMCA can hold its end of the bargain, it would be a wise decision by the IAF to be a Participant and not a co-developer to have an aircraft around ITS requirement!!!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2010 06:47

And the best part of the F 35 is that it's so stealthy and carries 2 bombs. That would be a devastating force from Indian carriers.

Imagine 4 F35s doing the job of one Jaguar. Get the Pakis shivering. And the Jag can't operate from a carrier and is unstealthy. What's the point of carrying those 8 bombs?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2010 09:50

I am not sure why the IN cant be happy with a fleet of Mig-29K and N-LCA for the next 10 - 15 years and then opt for something like Naval FGFA.

This is against the background that none of the new types purchased or projected to inducted are serving on board any Aircraft Carriers of IN , the best hope is around late 2012

Not sure what is the intention of RFI just to look around and gauge at technologies and options available for new fighter or a serious desire to buy a new fighter in a certain time frame. An RFI need not necessarily get converted to RFP.

Do we have the money to buy a new type of fighter considering the IN has more pressing needs on other more serious programs.

The JSF seriously lack ability to carry decent load in stealth mode which is not a problem for US as they have other heavy assets which can carry more bomb and is far more stealthy , though JSF can carry heavy load as external payload but it comes at the cost of its LO , what good does JSF do to IN with hardly 2 aircraft carrier in pipeline and some projected fancy numbers of IAC to be built and in some projected schedule remains to be seen.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 30 Jun 2010 10:28

Why do we need stealth fighters for the IN? How many large navies are in the IOR apart from USN? I would think we'd need a lot of cheap and reliable planes...

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jun 2010 11:16

A proven stealth design with AESA,that is available for immediate procurement will provide an unprecedented advantage for the IN offensive defense., more of self defense though., given that it would be more short legged against a chinese flanker., but then again the AESA radar would hold the ace.Any other aircraft type may not provide that level of capability in the near future.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2010 11:26

the VSTOL version of the JSF could have some use if we go for a serious line of tarawa / mistral type ships - for self defence of the ships - to replace the sea harrier in that role. but I dont see the jsf navy being our mainstay for sure in the strike carriers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2010 21:02

kit wrote:A proven stealth design with AESA,that is available for immediate procurement will provide an unprecedented advantage for the IN offensive defense., more of self defense though., given that it would be more short legged against a chinese flanker., but then again the AESA radar would hold the ace.Any other aircraft type may not provide that level of capability in the near future.

And those two bombs the JSF carries. They won't even be needed. Because if it is for self defence it does not even need a multi mode radar. But it can carry 4 AAMs. Same as MiG 21 Bison

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2010 21:09

Shiv,

I am not too sure if we can compare these air crafts one-to-one. From what I have read so far (not too much) the USN too talks about F-35 + F-18E/Fs.

Here is a glimpse of what they think in terms of - just to get you started. There seems to be a grand shift in just the basic thinking. What exactly it is is still evolving IMHO.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 30 Jun 2010 21:13

Couldn't we fit AESA onto the Mig 29's?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2010 21:33

The IN, I feel, is just fishing. Looking for what is out there that can influence the potential design of the IAC-2 onwards.

Also, the IN, unlike the other arms, has to work with other navies and therefore will have a different outlook on the build out.

BTW, just read that the IN had shown interest in the Su-33 and Russians (the article claims) stated that the plane was being "phased out" (while negotiating a sale of 50 to China!!). Clearly the current set up (Vicky + IAC-1) retains its value. The issue seems to be what value will newer technologies bring to the table and are they worth it.

???????????

arya · Post by **arya** » 30 Jun 2010 22:03

PAK-FA and FGFA Thread?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 30 Jun 2010 22:20

Austin wrote:I am not sure why the IN cant be happy with a fleet of Mig-29K and N-LCA for the next 10 - 15 years and then opt for something like Naval FGFA.

This is against the background that none of the new types purchased or projected to inducted are serving on board any Aircraft Carriers of IN , the best hope is around late 2012

Whatever is ordered will be required to serve for the next 25 years. Personally I don't see why the IN would want to field the N-LCA at all, except for encouraging the domestic industry. The LCA was designed to be modern but affordable, an ideal aircraft for a large fleet. The IN on the other hand requires a small number of high-tech fighters. When only two squadrons can be deployed, the aircraft shouldn't be a economical choice. And unless a naval PAK-FA is on the horizon, the F-35 remains the best option for fleet air defence, available to the IN today.

Do we have the money to buy a new type of fighter considering the IN has more pressing needs on other more serious programs.

I believe this is for the IAC-2, so the induction is still a long way off (over five years). Plenty of time to arrange the resources and create a suitable doctrine.

The JSF seriously lack ability to carry decent load in stealth mode which is not a problem for US as they have other heavy assets which can carry more bomb and is far more stealthy , though JSF can carry heavy load as external payload but it comes at the cost of its LO , what good does JSF do to IN with hardly 2 aircraft carrier in pipeline and some projected fancy numbers of IAC to be built and in some projected schedule remains to be seen.

The naval fighter's primary role still remains fleet air defence, the strike role being secondary. Its true the F-35 has a limited payload with internal stores, but that's not a disadvantage vis-a-vis the N-EF, N-Rafale, SH, or Sea Gripen seeing as none of them can carry an internal payload.

For the IAC-2 the IN has choice of flying two squadrons of the cheaper MiG-29K in 2016 or the significantly more expensive F-35, with the aircraft being responsible for the safety of the entire fleet/battlegroup. While some (significant) concerns about American electronics exist, there is no doubt the JSF is the better aircraft to handle a large opposing force or clocking lower attrition figures against a smaller force. Bear in mind by 2020, the PAF will probably be flying significant numbers of upgraded F-16s and J-10Bs and may also have a number of the Chinese origin Jxx/J-14/'whatever-the-hell-its-called' stealth fighter.

archan · Post by **archan** » 01 Jul 2010 00:48

Epsilon wrote:Here is a nice wallpaper. And a big gallery on the Paralay site: http://paralay.com/su50.html

Epsilon,
Please check your inbox and respond to the email address provided in the message at the earliest. Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2010 21:45

NRao wrote:Shiv,

I am not too sure if we can compare these air crafts one-to-one. From what I have read so far (not too much) the USN too talks about F-35 + F-18E/Fs.

Here is a glimpse of what they think in terms of - just to get you started. There seems to be a grand shift in just the basic thinking. What exactly it is is still evolving IMHO.

NRaogaru - the F 35 is no good for us . It is poison. Carrying 2 bombs is just the thin end of the wedge. The surface coating of stealth aircraft is sensitive and expensive. Who is going to look after that for us? Remember the peeling paint on Indian a/c? Little dents make a difference. And if you carry external stores - might as well use the LCA.

The US is trying to subsidize the technology of its really good brahmastra the F 22 by giving making the F 35.

Where is that picture of size comparison of all these a'c including Pak FA? The Pak FA and F 22 are big big. That is sensible because they can carry much more internally. And because they are big they can do well with thrust vectoring.

F 35. Naaah! Not me.

archan · Post by **archan** » 01 Jul 2010 22:46

Epsilon,
You have already seen my PM. I am banning you. If you want to continue posting on BRF, you will need to contact us and get it sorted out.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 02 Jul 2010 06:11

shiv wrote:....
Where is that picture of size comparison of all these a'c including Pak FA? The Pak FA and F 22 are big big. That is sensible because they can carry much more internally. And because they are big they can do well with thrust vectoring.

F 35. Naaah! Not me.