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
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

There is a point here about the international market.If one takes an overall view of the 5th-gen stealth fighters in service around the globe,there is only one stealth bird flying.The F-22.Now this bird has great capabilities ,comes at great cost (around $200M),but is limited in number,production has ceased,and was considered too valuable and sensitive to even take part in the Libyan campaign! Even though some allies like Japan wanted the F-22,it was denied to them the tech being too sensitive to allow even an ally to operate.

Thus was conceived the JSF aeons ago,a smaller single-engined stealth bird,bird for all seasons,"jack of all trades",etc.,etc.To be built in huge qtys.,different less capable versions for allies (1st class,2nd.class,turd class,) depending upon who they were and how much moolah they contributed to the programme.The project has been so technologically ambitious and in retrospect fatally flawed in key areas of air combat,that it is 10+ years behind schedule,plagued with software related problems among others,that threaten to cripple both its capability and revised schedule of inductment.Moreover,one aircraft for 3 services actually has ended up into 3 very different variants of the same platform,again in retrospect far more expensive had 3 different and separate aircraft programmes been pursued.The JSF td. has the details of the sorry saga of the programme ,the world's most expensive fighter programme ever,with overall costs according to one estimate over $1 Tr.! What it will eventually cost and how much it will cost to support and maintain is still up in the air.

Anyway,regardless of their small orders of JSFs getting smaller,many US allies have for quite some time been toying with the idea of developing their own indigenous stealth platforms/indigenous fighters.The Japanese,SoKO and Turkey prime examples.The reasons are simple.They need insurance against the JSF becoming too expensive and problematic to acquire in large number and need large numbers to replace their US legacy fighters F-16s,F-18s and F-15s.There are 2/3 stealth prototypes flying which will mature by 2020 and considerably alter the global air dominance scenario.The Russian FGFA and the Chinese J-20 and its smaller counterpart.Given the increasing spats with China that the US's Far Eastern allies have,possession of a stealth fighter is imperative,why despite the JSF's floundering,SoKo's generals have decided to plump for it in ltd. qty.,even though it is 25% above their budgeted costs.Nevertheless,developing their own stealth bird /indogenous fighter options constantly being evaluated .

While the Chinese birds will never be available to them and the principal enemy combatant,the Russian FGFA/T-50 could be available to certain nations.The Russians have in the past dangled their Flankers at some US allies,who have had solid US pressure put upon them to resist the temptation.If the Indo-Russian JV succeeds in delivering into service the FGFA/T-50 by 2020,it will be arguably the best of the stealth birds flying,equivalent to the F-22 which is unavailable to US allies.The Flanker has proven itself to the be the best combat aircraft flying today other than the F-22.With such a track record behind it,Sukhoi is on course if it succeeds according to schedule and cost,for another two decades of success in the intl. fighter market with the FGFA.The JSF as a competitor is inferior in most respects, will be more expensive and buyers will never get the US's most capable versions.The aircraft will be in demand from some other independent nations like Brazil,S.Africa,Malaysia,Indonesia,Algeria,etc.,most of whom in the past have bought Russian Flankers and Fulcrums,apart from Russia's close CIS allies.The SU-30MKI which India co-developed to meet its own unique needs ,has become the "gold standard" for Flankers,saw the creation of the SU-35 single-seater equivalent and the upgraded version of the "Super-Sukhoi" to come,which is supposed to feature some of the 5th-gen tech being developed.

Thus incrementally,Sukhoi is maintaining its lead in the fighter stakes.The FGFA is as vital to the Russian aircraft industry as the JSF,but has the insurance policy of being developed upon the success of the Flanker variants,the best series flying,and thus has greater flexibility in development and time to perfect.If it rolls out a basic fully qualified for combat MK-1 version around 2018+ as planned,it would've stolen a march ahead of its 5th-gen rivals.

A slightly dated but informative report of progress.

http://en.take-off.ru/news/107-june2012 ... ght-trials

As many as four PAK FA planes in flight trials
This summer, the fourth flying prototype of the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fifth-generation advanced tactical fighter joined the factory flight tests being flown at Sukhoi’s flight test facility in Zhukovsky, Moscow Region. Together with the third prototype, it is used mostly for flight testing of the fighter’s cutting-edge avionics suite – an advanced Tikhomirov-NIIP AESA airborne radar in the first place, a sophisticated IRST system and other systems as well.

The PAK FA’s fourth flying prototype, the T-50-4, was completed in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in late autumn last year. Sukhoi’s test pilot Sergei Bogdan conducted the first flight on 12 December 2012 and then flew it to the Gromov LII Flight Research Institute in Zhukovsky on 15–17 January 2013 following several test flights and the painting in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The ferry flight about 7,000 km long, which included several stopovers across Russia, went smoothly and demonstrated the high reliability o the aircraft and all of its systems. As is known, the first three PAK FA prototypes were disassembled and flown to Zhukovsky by An-124 Ruslan airlifters after their several test flights in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The T-50-4 is the first prototype that ferried itself from the plant in the Russian Far East to the Moscow Region.

Having arrived at Sukhoi’s flight test facility in Zhukovsky, the T-50-4 (side number 054) joined in March the three other prototypes involved in the flight test programme there.

The third flying PAK FA prototype’s flight test phase commenced at Sukhoi’s flight test station in Zhukovsky in mid-June 2012. Sukhoi’s test pilot Hero of Russia Sergei Bogdan took T-50-3 prototype for its maiden flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur on 22 November 2011. Following three sorties under the factory acceptance programme, the aircraft had been painted and airlifted by an An-124 Ruslan heavy-lifter to Zhukovsky on 28 December 2011.

The aircraft had been assembled and its systems had been debugged and ground-tested at Sukhoi’s flight test facility for five months. In particular, the aircraft was for the first time equipped with an AESA radar prototype developed by the Tikhomirov-NIIP institute, and the radar’s operation as part of the avionic suite was tested.

Sergei Bogdan took it to the sky at the Gromov Flight Research Institute airfield on 21 June 2012. The AESA radar tests commenced in July. First, it was tested on the ground against an aerial target. The first flight test of the AESA onboard T-50-3 in several operating modes took place on 24 July 2012. According to an official statement by Sukhoi, “the early tests of the radar’s air-to-air and air-to-surface modes onboard the T-50-3 prototype have produced good stable results on a par with the performance of the best existing aircraft. Approaches to refining these capabilities have been proven. Work has begun to test the optical channels”.

To date, the T-50-3 has flown more than 50 test sorties, mostly to test the AESA radar and other avionics.

The second flying prototype, the T-50-2 (side number 052), was first flown by Sergei Bogdan on 3 March 2011. A month later it was brought to Zhukovsky, and started flying there in mid-August. In August 2012, the aircraft started being used for testing mid-air refuelling from Russian Air Force Il-78 tanker planes. Since early this year, the T-50-2 which logged more than 80 sorties by that time has been undergoing modification for trials within the expanded g-load and flight limit bracket and is to resume its flying in June.

The first flying prototype, T-50-1 (side number 051) is being used in trials too. It had spent about a year, undergoing improvements since the unveiling at the MAKS 2011 air show in August 2011. The T-50-1 first flew in Komsomolsk-on-Amur on 29 January 2010 and has been flown in Zhukovsky since April 2010. The preparation of the T-50-1 for extreme angle-of-attack and supermanoeuvrability test flights had been completed by last autumn, and its first flight in the wake of the modification took place in Zhukovsky on 11 September 2012. In all, it fulfilled more than 100 sorties by this summer

The 100th test flight under the PAK FA test programme was performed in November 2011, with the 200th flight took place in January 2013. This year, the fifth aircraft is to join the trials. T-50-5 is under assembly at the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur now. It will be followed by the sixth example.

As many as five Sukhoi test pilots have been flying the T-50s: in addition to Sergei Bogdan, who performed the maiden flights on the four prototypes being tested, they are Roman Kondratyev, Yuri Vashchuk, Sergei Kostin and Taras Artsebarsky.

On 25 April 2013, the first military pilot, Col. Rafael Suleimanov, a test pilot with the Defence Ministry Flight Test Centre named after Valery Chkalov, conducted his first solo flight on a PAK FA (T-50-3).

The RusAF commander Lt.-Gen. Victor Bondarev said in January that the PAK FA would start its official tests at the Defence Ministry’s Flight Test Centre in Akhtubinsk in 2013. The construction of the six prototypes will be followed by the manufacture of a low-rate initial production batch for operational evaluation and then by full-rate production. According to the media, about 60 production-standard PAK FAs are planned for fielding during 2016–20. Obviously, the deliveries will continue past 2020.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

The fifth T-50 is in the air.
http://en.take-off.ru/news/108-nov2012/ ... in-the-air
The fifth flying prototype of the Sukhoi’s prospective fifth-generation fighter (PAK FA, T-50) made its maiden flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur at the KnAAZ aircraft plant of the Sukhoi company on 27 October 2013. The plane was piloted by the 1st class test pilot Roman Kondratyev. The fighter aircraft spent 50 minutes in the air and landed safely on the factory airfield runway. The test flight was a success and in full accordance with the flight plan. The stability of the aircraft and the powerplant were tested during the flight. The aircraft performed well in all phases of the planned flight program. The pilot confirmed reliability of all systems and equipment.

Upon completing the test flights programme in Komsomolsk-on-Amur the aircraft will be ferried to Zhukovsky near Moscow where the first four T-50 flying prototypes are now being under flight tests. Two more planes are involved in ground tests also – one as a complex ground stand and the other for static tests.

As many as three T-50 prototypes took part in the recent MAKS 2013 air show. Over the past two years since the previous air show in Zhukovsky, the PAK FA programme has made good progress: two more prototypes joined the flight tests (T-50-3 in late 2011 and T-50-4 in late 2012). Using these two prototypes, the designers have begun to test the AESA radar and several other sophisticated avionics systems, conducted mid-air refuelling experiments, expanded the fighter’s flight envelope and been gradually learning the rope in ever more advanced flight operating modes. This spring T-50 was flown by the first military pilot, with the PAK FA prototypes due to start the official trials at the Defence Ministry’s testing facility
in Akhtubinsk.

Three T-50s flew as part of the flight programme of MAKS 2013, flown as a troika by Sukhoi test pilots Sergei Bogdan, Roman Kondratyev and Sergei Chernov. In addition, Sukhoi’s chief test pilot Hero of Russia Sergei Bogdan performed solo aerobatics on a T-50.

A number of advanced avionics systems designed for the PAK FA were unveiled at the stands of the air show. For instance, Tikhomirov-NIIP displayed an X-band sidelooking AESA in UAC’s pavilion (the company unveiled the PAK FA-intended forward-looking X-band AESA at the previous air show). In the pavilion of the Rostec corporation, the stand of the Urals Optical and Mechanical Plant (a subsidiary of the Shvabe holding) featured a number of subsystems of the integrated optronic suite being developed for the PAK FA.

By early November, more than 350 flights were carried out under the flight test programme on five T-50 prototypes.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

T-50-5 HD Video ( Use Translator )

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

The T-50 Fighter Will Feature Even Greater Stealth Capabilities
Thanks to a new design solution the PAK FA fighter has moved ahead of the American F-22 in its stealth capabilities.

The aircraft company Sukhoi managed to greatly reduce the effective surface scattering of the PAK FA, which is the basic element for visibility on aircraft radars. The average value of this indicator for the T-50 fighter is between 0.1 and 1 square meter.

In order to achieve this level of stealth, designers moved all weapons to the inside of the plane and also changed the shape of the air intake channel, also lining its walls with a material that absorbs radio waves.

Thanks to these new design solutions, the T-50 is now ahead of not only all other fighters of the Russian Army, but also foreign models. For example, the visibility of the American fifth-generation F-22 fighter is 0.3-0.4 square meters, according to PAK FA chief designer Alexander Davidenko.

Rostec enterprises produced the main parts of the T-50. The company Radioelectronic Technologies created the avionics and other radio-electronic needs for the fifth-generation aircraft. RT-Khimkompozit made the canopy and paneling. The T-50 is the first Russian combat aircraft made from a high proportion of composite materials, making up 25% of the mass of the aircraft and covering 70% of its surface.

The United Engine Corporation is designing the propulsion system for the fighter jet. The work for the fifth-generation engine is taking place at the company “Engines for Combat Aircraft.” The T-50 prototype is already testing the first-phase AL-41F1 engines, a turbofan engine with afterburner and thrust vector control. With this engine the aircraft is capable of supersonic speeds without afterburner effects.

Aviation Equipment, another Rostec holding, developed a unique aviation system for the T-50, including a new power supply system that is two times more powerful than any of its Russian peers.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by alexis »

F-22 is .3 sq.m RCS? Hmmm.... We shud believe this because?

"PakFa > F-22 so PakFa RCS < F22 RCS. PakFA RCS is 0.1 to 1 sq.m. So F-22 should be higher RCS" Proved as per Lahori logic... or shud i say Russian logic?
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by alexis »

we should buy PAKFA if it is better than JSF. But no development funding!!! We have got shafted in Brahmos and Al-55 deals by Russia and Barak deal by Israel.

All funding should be concentrated on AMCA and LCA Mk2.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

alexis wrote:F-22 is .3 sq.m RCS? Hmmm.... We shud believe this because?

"PakFa > F-22 so PakFa RCS < F22 RCS. PakFA RCS is 0.1 to 1 sq.m. So F-22 should be higher RCS" Proved as per Lahori logic... or shud i say Russian logic?
Thats because the Russian always talk of mean or average RCS when describing RCS value for PAK-FA or F-22 or other fighter.

Patent on PAK-FA http://www.janes.com/article/32190/pak- ... -published

Official Patent Report : http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/250/2502643.html

There is a Graph on this write up done by Sukhoi some years back on Stealth , it gives one an idea what they think about RCS of different aircraft

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152376871/Fun ... TECHNOLOGY

Interesting thing is they rate the average RCS of F-117A lower than F-22 or JSF.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Russia fulfills obligations under 5th gentn fighter aircraft programme with India
NEW DELHI, February 07, 2:36 /ITAR-TASS/. Russia fulfills all of its obligations under the fifth generation fighter aircraft programme with India, Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin said at the Defexpo-2014 security systems exhibition on Thursday, February 6.

“We pay no attention to negative publications that appear from time to time and claim that Russia does not fulfill its obligations under the fifth generation fighter aircraft programme. Russian-Indian military-technical cooperation under this programme develops as scheduled, and we have not received any official complaints from the Indian side", he said.

Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, Deputy Director of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, told ITAR-TASS at the exhibition that all such publications had been written to order. :lol:

Commenting on one such article in the Indian newspaper Business Standard, Dzirkaln said it was not true. “There is some speculation regarding the development of the Russian-Indian fifth generation fighter aircraft programme, but it’s not surprising because the Indian Air Force, as the customer, would like to get the ‘hardware’, while budget funding has been disbursed for research and development,” he said.

“We have no official complaints from India with regard to the fifth generation fighter aircraft. All negotiations take place under the agreements reached earlier,” Dzirkaln said.

The newspaper said the Indian Air Force (IAF) had “alleged the Russians would be unable to meet their promises about its performance.” On December 24, 2013, in a meeting in New Delhi chaired by Gokul Chandra Pati, the secretary of defence production, top IAF officials argued the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) had “shortfalls… in terms of performance and other technical features.”

Business Standard reviewed the minutes of that meeting. The IAF's three top objections to the FGFA were: (a) The Russians are reluctant to share critical design information with India; (b) The fighter's current AL-41F1 engines are inadequate, being mere upgrades of the Sukhoi-30MKI’s AL-31 engines; and (c) It is too expensive. With India paying 6 billion U.S. dollars to co-develop the FGFA, “a large percentage of IAF’s capital budget will be locked up.”

Top Defence Ministry sources suspect the IAF is undermining the FGFA to free up finances for buying 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft, the newspaper said.

Fifth-generation fighters are qualitatively superior to current “Generation 4.5” fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI. They are designed for stealth, which makes these near-invisible to radar; they “supercruise”, that is, fly at supersonic speed without lighting engine afterburners (which some current fighters like the Rafale also do); and they have futuristic avionics and missiles, Business Standard said.

“The Defence Ministry and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) have countered the IAF’s objections to the FGFA. Russian officials have clarified that the current prototype's engine, the AL-41F1, is a temporary solution to let the flight-test programme continue. A new engine being developed in Russia will eventually power both the FGFA and PAK-FA,” the newspaper said.

It stressed that “Russia has gone ahead with developing a fifth-generation fighter. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has designed and done 300 test-flights of the T-50, the stealth fighter Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) plan to refine into the FGFA in about eight years. The Russian Air Force, which has less ambitious specifications than the IAF, plans to induct into service its own version of the T-50, the PAK-FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation) by 2017-2018.”

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) estimates the Russian-Indian market for fifth generation fighter aircraft at 200 planes and the global market at 400 planes.

The initial version of the fifth generation fighter aircraft being created jointly by India and Russia will be ready for flight testing in 2014, the Times of India said earlier, quoting the Chief of the Air Staff and Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne as saying.

“The two sides are close to signing a key contract expected to be worth over 11 billion U.S. dollars for research and development phase of the project in the near future,” the newspaper said.

“The first prototype of the FGFA is scheduled to arrive in India by 2014 after which it will undergo extensive trials at the Ojhar air base (Maharashtra)...we are hopeful that the aircraft would be ready for induction by 2022,” Browne told PTI.

The IAF Chief was in Russia in August 2012 to review the progress made in the programme and the prototypes of the aircraft developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau at Zhukovsky there, the newspaper said.

Browne reviewed the performance of the fifth generation fighter aircraft, called Sukhoi T-50.

“Russia has already given the draft R&D contract to us. It will include the cost of designing, infrastructure build-up at Ozar, prototype development and flight testing. So, India will have scientists and test pilots based both in Russia and Ozar during the R&D phase up to 2019. HAL will subsequently begin manufacturing the fighters,” the newspaper's source said.

Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC) First Deputy Director Alexander Fomin said that India and Russia would need at least 6-10 years to build a fifth generation fighter aircraft.“It takes some time to create a plane. The manufacture of such a sophisticated piece of equipment is a science-consuming process that requires big investments. At least six to ten years will pass before we build a sample of the fifth generation fighter plane and being its serial production,” Fomin said.

In the future, Russia and India plan to sell these planes not only on the national markets, but also in third countries. “We will export it in cooperation with Indian partners,” the official added.

India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation will work on the new fighter plane.

According to Indian media reports, the two parties will invest 8-10 billion U.S. dollars in the project. Experts believe that the new plane will exceed Western analogues by the cost-efficiency criterion and will not only enhance the defence capabilities of the Russian and Indian navies, but will also take a worthy place on the world market.

World experience shows that it takes about 3-4 years to test new planes before their mass production can begin. Russia's new plane may as well fit into this schedule, especially since its maiden flight proved its reliability in different regimes.

Fifth generation planes are currently used only by the United States: F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning. However the Russian plane, tentatively called T-50, surpasses the American Raptor.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Russia and India have no fundamental conflicts on the fifth-generation fighter program
n the framework of the Russian-Indian cooperation program creation fighter of the 5th generation FGFA / Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft / no global controversy. ITAR-TASS during prohodyaschgo Singapore International Air Show "Singapore eyrshou 2014" / Singapore Airshow 2014 / president of the United Aircraft Corporation / KLA / Mikhail Pogosyan.

"In terms of the level of cooperation that we have in this program / FGFA /, I do not think that there is a global conflict," - said the head of the KLA. Referring to the earlier joint programs, he noted that the level shown by Russia and by "dry" when creating India Su-30MKI fighter, "unprecedented" in comparison with foreign offers.

Pogosyan said that the level of cooperation and technology transfer depends on both parties. "Technology transfer requires skill receive and transmit side," - said the president of the KLA.

"I think we have a good rapport with both the Indian Air Force, and with the Indian industry" - summed Pogosyan.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

CIAM on status of engine development ( use translator )

http://www.ciam.ru/index.php?q=static&id=5&lang=RUS
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by alexis »

On paper, FGFA may offer India unprecedented access to "strategic technology" but whether it will happen in practice is the worry of most keyboard warriors... Now IAF also seem to share it. 6 billion $ is a huge investment the returns should be quite substantial to make it justifiable.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

UAC chief shoots down FGFA technology transfer concerns
I believe that the level of transparency and technology transfer Sukhoi and Russian industry have demonstrated…shows a brand new level of transfer and is especially better than that of other companies,” says UAC chief executive Mikhail Pogosyan.

“I don’t think there are any misunderstandings related to FGFA, and soon we will have a decision that will be elaborated,” he says. “The issue of technological transfer is complicated, which demands not only for the giving of technologies, but their acceptance by another party.”

In Pogosyan’s view, Sukhoi parent UAC, Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), and the Indian air force are all in accord with each other about the programme.

As for the Russian air force, Pogosyan says Sukhoi and the Russian air force will commence testing of the new type this year, and that deliveries of serial production T-50s will begin in 2016.
sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by sattili »

alexis wrote:On paper, FGFA may offer India unprecedented access to "strategic technology" but whether it will happen in practice is the worry of most keyboard warriors... Now IAF also seem to share it. 6 billion $ is a huge investment the returns should be quite substantial to make it justifiable.
I would say the meeting minutes leak which state that IAF allegedly asked lot of questions is politically motivated. As can be seen from the timeline of that leak and sequence of events that happened later- IAF in likely hood trying to save the funding for the MMRCA which is needed for immediate operational requirement. They don't want their capital budget be locked down for some super duper future fighter.

Same thing happened in US as well. General "Bogged-down"( :rotfl: ) made such claims as JSF is not air superiority fighter and without F-22 its useless etc. He is trying to save F-22 funding.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Paul »

this is the only piece of info - dated that Google throws up on the Pak FA engine program. Have the Russians released any recent info on how the engine program is coming along?

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/8/23/497/
Homepage » NEWS» 23 august 2011 ← →

The testing of PAK FA’s engine are carried out successfully
Russian Aviaton » Tuesday August 23, 2011 15:01 MSK
The engine for Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation (PAK FA) is currently undergoing initial testing ant the tests are successful yet. It has been reported by ARMS-TASS with reference to the head of engine’s development program, general designer of Lyul’ka-Saturn (Moscow division of NPO Saturn), Evgeny Marchukov.

"The initial testing includes bed tests and flight testing. It is the most laborious period by time and money. Some elements of the 1st stage advanced engine (117) were borrowed from development of 117S engine for Su-35. In particular, the methods of design and calculation, technologies of sophisticated elements’ machining, etc. 117S engine includes 80% of new parts as compared to the latest engines for modern fighters (АL-31F). The state-of-the-art automated control system has been developed for this engine. It will be constructed using Russian Впервые она будет построена на российской element base. The system’s architecture and the control algorithm are also Russian. We want to have a Russian element base, but we also have a lot of permissions for using the foreign one", - said Marchukov.


Follow us on: Follow ruaviation on Twitter
According to him, “more than 20 engines” for PAK FA have already been produced.

"The engine’s characteristics have been completely proved during the bed tests. The estimation of technical characteristics during flight testing will be given by the end of this year", - he noted. "We must start the state testing in 2013", - said Marchukov.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

Past pages in this thread should have something beyond that, but my recollection is that there was a news item that stated to expect an engine around 2020.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Interview with UAC Chief Mikhail Pogosyan.
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2014/03/1 ... html[quote]

- How is the work of the fifth-generation fighter T-50? When the aircraft is planned to transfer to the state test?

- We finished last year, preliminary tests. This step is performed in general, I think, quite well: the main characteristics of the machine, its systems, including integrated avionics, were confirmed. Recently fighter was transferred to the State Flight Test Center Ministry of Defense, which will be held already state joint tests. According to the plan, they should be completed in 2015, and in 2016 will begin mass production of these aircraft for the Russian Air Force. In parallel, we are actively working with our Indian colleagues to design the complex, which will be based on the T-50 for the Indian armed forces in accordance with their specific requirements.

- Just in India, this topic is now the focus of the local media. Some representatives of the Air Staff of India argue that the new fighter supposedly will not meet their needs, in particular, its kind of like the engine can not provide supersonic cruising. In addition, you reproach that Russia reluctantly shares with India for its advanced technology. Is it true?

- We do not have with India on global contradictions fifth-generation fighter program. And those moments that are exclusively working character. This is absolutely normal when in the process of forming a long-term program at the customer have questions that need to be clarified in the industry. We, on the other hand, are completely open for discussion. As for the transfer of technologies, we have a good rapport with both the Indian Air Force, and with the Indian industry. Once again, we are open to our Indian colleagues. And the experience of the licensed production in India of the Su-30MKI it proves the best way possible: in the course of implementation of the program was an unprecedented level of cooperation. I am sure that none of our competitors in this market do not offer this level of synergy, as we are.

- How many fifth generation aircraft you plan to release?

- We estimate the total market for our cars in 500-600 units. It is quite attainable volume. But in order to reach such performance, we need to ensure a balanced development of the entire program. That is, not only to achieve the required technical parameters fighter, but also to keep the cost within the prescribed limits. She should not get out of control, as happened with the programs of the fifth generation of our American colleagues. I believe that in the U.S. the cost of programs to build the F-35 and F-22 clearly went beyond the boundaries of reasonable (only F-22 project cost about $ 140 billion, and the price of the aircraft exceeded 250 million dollars. - "Expert"), which significantly limited possibility for expansion.

I think that our aircraft will complement the existing fleet of fighter of the 4 + and 4 +. And in the future, our customers will use a mixed group, in which structure will be effectively used planes of deep modernization of the fourth generation of the Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35 in conjunction with the fifth-generation machines.[/quote]
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Look like something on AESA ( use Caption English Translator )

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

Shafted on Brahmos? Completely opposite from interviews given by BMos head,Dr.Pillai,the demand for the missile is huge for the Indian armed forces alone,Russia has also test fired the missile from one of its frigates and both sides are indentifying friendly nations to sell it too.Only rhe engine and a couple of other components are from Russia and even these in the future will be totally built in India according to Dr.P

From details about the FGFA from a western aviation mag.Air Int,,the T-50 is on schedule to have dev. work completed and series production to start by 2016.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:the demand for the missile is huge for the Indian armed forces alone,Russia has also test fired the missile from one of its frigates and both sides are indentifying friendly nations to sell it too.
How many missiles have the Russian Armed Forces ordered? And does this mean they will stop marketing the Yakhont to friendly nations?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

No details on numbers,etc.,the demand from our side alone necessitated the setting up of a second manufacturing plant .All that has been revealed is that the missile has been tested aboard a Russian frigate,but one handicap that BMos has against its Russian counterpart is the MTCR range limitation. perhaps the longer ranged Yakhont is being fitted to larger warships while smaller ones are being tried out for BMos compatability.
Dr.P also said that the steep vert. diving BMos would "split a carrier into two".Bmos-Min is being developed as a multi-platform smaller version which can be carried by smaller aircraft than the Flanker,and fired from std. sized sub tubes.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:No details on numbers,etc.,the demand from our side alone necessitated the setting up of a second manufacturing plant .
To the best of my knowledge the Russians have placed zero orders for the BrahMos. Which makes the whole 'joint venture' aspect a mighty farce.
All that has been revealed is that the missile has been tested aboard a Russian frigate,but one handicap that BMos has against its Russian counterpart is the MTCR range limitation. perhaps the longer ranged Yakhont is being fitted to larger warships while smaller ones are being tried out for BMos compatability.
MTCR did not prevent the export of the Yakhont. No reason why it would prevent the Russians from ordering the BrahMos.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

Russia already has longer ranged Yakhonts,Klubs and other missiles in service,but has far more powerful long range missiles ,its "carrier killers",some armed with N-warheads from Soviet days.10 Oscar class SSGNs were built,one for each US carrier task force. Smaller navies like ours do not possess N-powered battle cruisers like the Kirov class,or even Slava class heavy cruisers,armed with immensely more powerful 20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) missiles mounted in deck, designed to engage large surface targets (500-600nm,500KT N-warhead),and 16 P-500 Bazalt missiles with 700km range.

The news of a Brahmos being tested on a much smaller frigate fits in with the plans for the expansion of the Russian navy with new construction across the board.perhaps BMos is being evaluated for the smaller surface combatants,since their capital ships already possess longer ranged more powerful missiles. There are alsos ome reports which say that the older missiles on the Kirovs may be replaced with newer versions of P-800s (Yakhonts),but details of the range,warheads,etc, of these missiles are not known.

However,please read the various interviews given by Dr.Pillai on the success and huge progress of the JV,and the future versions of the missile under development which will take the potential of the missile to greater heights.

Some notes:
The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.[3][4]However such description received some doubts.[5]The missile has a means of countering the attacking anti-missiles. Also, onboard computer has data to counter the enemy's electronic warfare and tactics of evasion from the fire of air defense.[6]

The P-700 was derived from the P-500 Bazalt missile with a turbojet.[7] The P-700 was in turn developed into the P-800 Oniks, which uses ramjet propulsion, and the BrahMos missile, a joint Indian/Russian modernization of the P-800.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by John »

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:No details on numbers,etc.,the demand from our side alone necessitated the setting up of a second manufacturing plant .
To the best of my knowledge the Russians have placed zero orders for the BrahMos. Which makes the whole 'joint venture' aspect a mighty farce.
All that has been revealed is that the missile has been tested aboard a Russian frigate,but one handicap that BMos has against its Russian counterpart is the MTCR range limitation. perhaps the longer ranged Yakhont is being fitted to larger warships while smaller ones are being tried out for BMos compatability.
MTCR did not prevent the export of the Yakhont. No reason why it would prevent the Russians from ordering the BrahMos.
The idea was Brahmos would be used to replace Ashm like Termit/bazalt/p-120 in existing Russian vessels that never materialized because it simply not cost effective to replace them especially when former missiles are still operational. Even IN has not gone thru with replacement of Termit. While newer Russian vessels will feature universal launching platform which can fire both Klub and Yakhont/Brahmos.

Yakhont competes with Brahmos, the size of both system limits the number of vessels that can carry them (most are designed for Harpoon/Exocet missiles) and land based system is sold often in small numbers as a weapon packages which means Yakhont as upper hand in export (Vietnam, Syria etc). Brahmos-m could be better export platform.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

The CONOPS of Soviet/Russian Navy formulated in mid-80's demanded that to take on NATO/US CBG which was the primary threat for them was to have a standoff range of atleast 500 km ....most capital ships are equipped with anti-ship missile that has range of 500-600 km and beyond like P-600 Shipwreck ,Kh-22, P-700 and later P-1000 Bazalt .....exception being ASW oriented ships that were equipped with anti-ship missile like Sunburn with range of 180-200 km.

The current CONOPS have extended the range for antiship missile to 800-1000 km , eg are Kh-32 , Kalbir .....the Range of Onyx in Russian navy is around 500 km but that being stop gap measure for newer system and standardised on Universal Launch System.

The shorter range anti-ship missile like SS-N-25 were only employed on Coast Guard and OPV's besides short leg ASW vessel.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by John »

Austin,

I can't speak for Russian navy strategy but based on the article I have read Npo intended oniks to be universal missile that can be used on all platforms and replace shipwreck as well as Shorter ranged missiles like Termit. It was uran and Moskit that were short gap solutions due to problems with oniks. The original range for onyks was quoted as greater than 500 km but the engine development ran into issues and the current Brahmos/Yakhont uses liquid fueled ramjet engine that is based on Moskit engine.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Russia already has longer ranged Yakhonts,Klubs and other missiles in service,but has far more powerful long range missiles ,its "carrier killers",some armed with N-warheads from Soviet days.10 Oscar class SSGNs were built,one for each US carrier task force. Smaller navies like ours do not possess N-powered battle cruisers like the Kirov class,or even Slava class heavy cruisers,armed with immensely more powerful 20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) missiles mounted in deck, designed to engage large surface targets (500-600nm,500KT N-warhead),and 16 P-500 Bazalt missiles with 700km range.
SSGNs, Granits, Bazalts are all meaningless as far as this issue goes, that is Russian orders for the Yakhont. Had they foregone Yakhont orders in preference for longer ranged options (which they haven't; P-500/700 are not in production), it doesn't make the joint venture any less of a farce.

The BrahMos employs the same propulsion as the Yakhont. If the Yakhont could be software 'limited' for export, the BrahMos could have been 'delimited' in Russian service as well.
The news of a Brahmos being tested on a much smaller frigate fits in with the plans for the expansion of the Russian navy with new construction across the board.perhaps BMos is being evaluated for the smaller surface combatants,since their capital ships already possess longer ranged more powerful missiles.
Most public sources state the Gorshkov class frigates will be equipped with the P-800 Oniks. Political pressure from India may result in some BrahMos orders but I'm not holding my breath.
However,please read the various interviews given by Dr.Pillai on the success and huge progress of the JV,and the future versions of the missile under development which will take the potential of the missile to greater heights.
We didn't need a JV to customize the Su-30MKI. We didn't need to give the Russians a 50% stake in BAPL, to customize and manufacture the Yakhont either.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by John »

The range for Brahmos is 300 km to increase range any further would decrease terminal rang/lo flight path increasing its intercept rang. When missile is reduced its flight altitude it would be quite vunerable best done outside of ships air dense system engagement envelope. We are not going to out range PLAN which has improved moskit which has double the fuel of Brahmos 200+ lo lo range ( similar engine )and pretty sure chinese have hacked it to get range max range. It's seeker that is key here not range.

That said the JD was easy way for Russia to get weapons developed cheaply and maintin its talent pool. I highly doubt Brahmos will find any success in terms of export but Brahmos M could turn around different. One good thing is we did get access to Russian cold launch system.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

^^ John Will Reply in Missile Thread
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

what would be the lock-on range for the radar system onboard pak-fa.. that should largely define the mission profile of brahmos too.. some modification needs to say the terminal guidance range.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

So therefore by these anti-JV arguments we need not have entered into a JV and simply bought the missile off the shelf! Some very sound logic indeed,making us even more dependent upon Russia! If you read Dr.P's interviews,not too far into the future,almost the entire missile,engine et al will be made at home with raw materials procured locally.

BMos-M will be more easily carried by the Flankers and FGFA and will be a missile in heavy demand,that is if we can produce enough.Right now,every missile that we can make is being inducted into our inventory to try and catch up in some measure of that of the massive Chinese tactical missile inventory,which is estimated to be at least 500 missiles/yr! Given our geographical inferiority in the Himalayas against the Chinese and our incomplete mil. infrastructure, for the next few years every BMos missile we are able to produce-especially the steep vert. diving version, should be absorbed by India. It gives us the means to counterattack Chinese forces in any Himalayan battle.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

having a dependency with russia is fine, but having to face problems with spares etc is a big pain and costs a lot for us down the years. migs for example. slow and staged upgrade, getting locked up with the product-line when competitive ones provide better platform and services etc.. the worst case is when the deal happens, and first squadron is raised, the F22 raptor will be offered to India thru FMS route at a competetive pricing.. they are cunning.

and DRDO will take eons to even think about fielding a home grown engine on LCA.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

It's why at the initial negotiations,which is not done by the services but by the MOD,the entire Q of lifetime support for the product in question ,must be part of the deal. In recent times some JVs for the same have been set up,or Indian co.s identified for local support. If we negotiate stupidly,we pay the piper. From details given in other tds.,the SU-30MKI deal has achieved a very high level of indigenisation and will increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt why this cannot be replicated in other programmes tooo.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

John wrote:The range for Brahmos is 300 km to increase range any further would decrease terminal rang/lo flight path increasing its intercept range.
Actually my point was that Philip's argument justifying the Russian Oniks order as a 'longer ranged' system is factually wrong, as it has been exported without any violation of the MTCR regime.
Last edited by Viv S on 05 Apr 2014 19:26, edited 1 time in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:So therefore by these anti-JV arguments we need not have entered into a JV and simply bought the missile off the shelf! Some very sound logic indeed,making us even more dependent upon Russia! If you read Dr.P's interviews,not too far into the future,almost the entire missile,engine et al will be made at home with raw materials procured locall.
Rot! We have customized and manufactured the Jaguar, MiG-27 and Su-30MKI, from the raw material stage, all without any JVs or giving BAe/IAPO a stake in HAL.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

Viv S, there are specific areas of skillsets and precision engineering setup we still lack... and that is hurting us more now than earlier. Kaveri engine is one area, and stealth designs and quick models to prototype workshops is another. Our labs are not advanced.. nor the production engineering setup is concurrent enough like Boeing. Long way to go! heck we don't have test setup like how the Russkies do.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Philip »

So what? What are you trying to prove? The fact that we've managed to increase local content from raw material indicates success with the acquisition/contract.
Similarly the armed forces are delighted with having acquired BMos,in its several variants, developed thanks to the JV with Russia.We can't get enough of the missiles necessitating a second production plant being built.Please remember that the cost of the venture has been shared 50:50. Secondly,is there any clause in the agreement that Russia would guarantee a buy of X qty. of BMos for their own use? Their existing warships and subs-as has been shown were already equipped with longer ranged anti-ship missiles meant for taking out US carriers primarily.These missiles have ranges above the MTCR requirement. If Russia has violated the MTCR do you think that the US would not have opened its orifices in loud protest? Both superpowers have in general adhered strictly to whatever nuclear and missile treaties that they have signed.The stationing of an ABM systems in eastern European countries on Russia's borders threatens to destabilise these treaties.

The BMos JV is the envy of the world.No other navy apart from the Russians possess such a versatile anti-ship/multi-role supersonic missile.Western equivalents are all subsonic,not even upto Klub std. with its supersonic terminal homing warhead. therefore I find criticism of the BMos venture as mere nitpicking.The armed forces would not have inducted it in such large measure if they were dissatisfied. Once BMos-M arrives,the number of platforms that can carry the missile would be increased,plus when the Hyper version arrives (would anyone like us to develop it on our own or without Russian collaboration?) we would have an immense advantage over other nations.

Having seen the unqualified success of the JV, the US have openly said that they would like to establish similar JVs with us,with the Javelin as a first.

Back to the FGFA. Any further news when we will get our first prototypes of the aircraft? The aircraft seems to be on schedule for the Russians,production to begin in 2016,albeit with existing engines for the first batch of approx 60 aircraft.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19285
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by NRao »

Does anyone know what the original thinking was on the BMos? Did the Russians say they would buy some - JV does not have to mean that contributors to the JV will also buy the product? There was an understanding about sales to third party entities. Cannot recall about Russia saying that they would buy any of these pups.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

not trying to prove or disprove anything here.. just taking a reality check that our stories can't end there.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:So what? What are you trying to prove? The fact that we've managed to increase local content from raw material indicates success with the acquisition/contract.
Similarly the armed forces are delighted with having acquired BMos,in its several variants, developed thanks to the JV with Russia.We can't get enough of the missiles necessitating a second production plant being built.Please remember that the cost of the venture has been shared 50:50.
The implication that we need a 'joint venture' to (i) 'increase local content from raw material', (ii) develop and induct customized variants, (iii) build a 'second production plant', or in general to (iv) 'delight' the armed forces... is wrong. The Su-30MKI is an apt example. Customized and manufactured by HAL (and supporting labs) without any JV with UAC or IAPO (which have a 0% stake in HAL).

Secondly,is there any clause in the agreement that Russia would guarantee a buy of X qty. of BMos for their own use? Their existing warships and subs-as has been shown were already equipped with longer ranged anti-ship missiles meant for taking out US carriers primarily.These missiles have ranges above the MTCR requirement. If Russia has violated the MTCR do you think that the US would not have opened its orifices in loud protest? Both superpowers have in general adhered strictly to whatever nuclear and missile treaties that they have signed.The stationing of an ABM systems in eastern European countries on Russia's borders threatens to destabilise these treaties.
Either you're claiming that the Yakhont has a greater range than the BrahMos, in which case you'd be wrong. Or you're claiming that Yakhont is not in production, in which case you'd again be wrong.

Having seen the unqualified success of the JV, the US have openly said that they would like to establish similar JVs with us,with the Javelin as a first.
And if thereafter US orders for the Javelin II remain zero, and instead it introduces a competing 'Spear' ATGM into the market, this JV will end up being just as much of a farce.
Post Reply