The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 07:26

Total indigenisation of Sukhoi next year: HAL

Later this year, India and Russia would sign a design accord for a fifth generation fighter aircraft they agreed to build jointly in 2007. India would be responsible for the manufacture of composite-material parts of the airframe, avionics and software packages, Mr. Balakrishnan said.

The Russian single-seat version of the fifth generation fighter plane is expected to make its maiden flight in the coming winter. India will induct a twin-seat version.

It almost sounds like that India is waiting to see and feel the PAK-FA before signing onto anything.

But, that is good news. +ve news for a change.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 20 Aug 2009 08:43

1500 TRMs - not bad at all!

Definitely not bad at all! If 1500 TRM's is true than it would be on par with the JSF's AESA. The Raptor is still way ahead with close to 2000TRM's though. But if it is 1500 its still an amazing achievement by russia!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2009 09:02

This is the claimed official badge for PAK-FA ( Otaku via keypubs )

PAK-FA Badge

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2009 09:31

but #TRMs is only part of the game - the back end is where the real meat is. plus TRMs themselves can vary in capability perhaps.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Aug 2009 09:34

About the NIIP AESA, it looks like a good start. But we don't even know if it is the full size model (900mm plus) or a smaller version ala Zhuk A. Further, we don't know if the radome size is the same for the pakfa and the flanker (which is HUUGE). Perhaps 1500 trms for the pakfa and 2000 for the flankers? THen how much power can we expect per trm? will it do a peak out put of 20kw ala irbis?

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 12:37

it looks like a good start

Start is the key word.

RU - among all these vendors - looks like has the longest distance to travel.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 20 Aug 2009 18:40

Translation credits: Roy FC

Russian Federation Air Force Begins Tests of Second PAK FA Prototype

The Russian Federation air force has begun tests of the second prototype of the fifth generation fighter, RIA Novosti reports referring to the Russian Federation air force commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Zelin.

"The second aircraft, which is undergoing ground tests, is already here in Moscow," Zelin said.

At the same time, the CinC acknowledged a problem in the creation of an engine for the fifth generation fighter. For now the airplane will be flying with a Saturn engine, he pointed out.

Source: 20.08.09, Avia.RU

Avionika to Begin Shaping Complex for First Flying T-50 in August - September 2009

The Avionika concern will begin shaping a complex for the first flying example of the T-50 airplane in August - September, 2009, the OAO Avionika Concern president, Givi Dzhandzhgava, announced at a press conference at MAKS-2009.

"As of today, a computing environment has been built (a computer with six processors) and visualization aids. The airplanes flight navigation complex is having the bugs worked out on the bench," he added.

Today the main question regarding the T-50 is the network architecture of the complex, that is integration of the airplane into the structure of the military systems of combat control. "It would allow increasing the effectiveness of the complex by many time," G. Dzhandzhgava emphasized.

Source: 20.08.09, AviaPort.RU

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Aug 2009 22:27

Austin wrote:This is the claimed official badge for PAK-FA ( Otaku via keypubs )

PAK-FA Badge

wonder how representative of the actual thing this is. looks a bit like the yf-23 to my eyes.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 06:17

An article on the T-50 badge which appeared at MAKS.

Rough translation follows:

At the badges with the inscription Sukhoi Design Bureau and the signature of the T-50 (index of fifth-generation fighter project at the Sukhoi Design Bureau), appeared during the MAKS-2009, shows one of its projections. Until now, no official pictures of the aircraft have been released.

According to this picture, Russia's new military aircraft has with widely spaced engines and two ridges, strongly deflected outward from the longitudinal axis. The appearance of the airframe means that it is designed with technologies geometrical invisibility (so-called «stealth»), and suggests the likely presence of weapons surround the compartment between the engines. The projection resembles the draft barely noticeable fighter YF-23, was rejected by the U.S. Air Force in favor of the F-22.

According to a source in the <<Sukhoi>> at MAKS, these icons are cheap Chinese imitation. However, another source in the aviation industry said that the resemblance with the T-50 available.

And, a more clearer pic of NIIP's AESA

http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?a ... 1250804385

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Aug 2009 06:26

Any idea how many T/R module do those AESA have ?

From what I understand the YF-23 was superior to YF-22 in many aspect including stealth , but it lost out due to production related issue , which means LM could deliver in numbers and time the USAF wanted it , in the end the F-22 ended up being a silver bullet which USAF could not afford.

What will matter for PAK-FA is not how great or worse the aircraft is compared to F-22/35 but how cost effective it is to buy and maintain it , that will determine the program success or failure.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 06:38

Austin wrote:
Any idea how many T/R module do those AESA have ?

> 1500 approximately. [ Source 1 , Source 2 ]

P.S.: I also came across the website of FGUP NPP Istok, it is here.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 21 Aug 2009 06:49

Austin wrote:Any idea how many T/R module do those AESA have ?

From what I understand the YF-23 was superior to YF-22 in many aspect including stealth , but it lost out due to production related issue , which means LM could deliver in numbers and time the USAF wanted it , in the end the F-22 ended up being a silver bullet which USAF could not afford.

What will matter for PAK-FA is not how great or worse the aircraft is compared to F-22/35 but how cost effective it is to buy and maintain it , that will determine the program success or failure.

IIRC an interesting point about the YF23 was that it used to create a visible vortex at the wings edge when banking in a sharp turn which sort of made it very visible in Air to Air...overall though it was a very promising and most innovative design onlee.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Aug 2009 07:14

JaiS wrote:> 1500 approximately. [ Source 1 , Source 2 ]

P.S.: I also came across the website of FGUP NPP Istok, it is [url=http://www.istok-mw.ru/]

Thanks , It seems NIIP is focussed on developing technologies and production base for L band AESA module while Phaza focuses more on the X-band , to develop technologies for both type , which will progressively see them develop AESA for AWACS and S-500 systems , it looks more of a strategy to develop technology base in the country.

Although both X and L band will have limited to zero ability to detect all aspect stealth aircraft like F-22 or JSF , that is more of a domain for metric radar and bistatic systems , but it should be effective for dealing with the likes of Rafale , EF.

Any idea on the power output of these Tr module ?

These Russian L band are NATO or IEEE standard ?

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 07:44

Hi,

Austin wrote:
Thanks , It seems NIIP is focussed on developing technologies and production base for L band AESA module while Phaza focuses more on the X-band , to develop technologies for both type , which will progressively see them develop AESA for AWACS and S-500 systems , it looks more of a strategy to develop technology base in the country.

I look at it slightly differently. If you look at the article which I posted earlier, within the first paragraph you will find that the shown NIIP radar is an X-Band radar, or you can look at Igorr's translation.

X-диапазона, разработанной для перспективных многофункциональных истребителей

Similarly, the article also mentions NIIP's work on L-Band. So, NIIP is working on both. I haven't read much about Phaza to comment about them.

Austin wrote:
These Russian L band are NATO or IEEE standard ?

Based on what I have read for Bars, I would say it is IEEE L-Band, or NATO D-Band.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 21 Aug 2009 08:07

Highest resolution pic of NIIP's AESA that I have come across, yet. Maybe we can confirm the # of modules from this pic, we just need someone to count them all.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 21 Aug 2009 08:45

Did a rough approximating count. Turned out to be > 1500

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 21 Aug 2009 13:06

Russia Air Force admits problems in 5th-generation jet engines

ZHUKOVSKY, August 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Air Force chief acknowledged on Thursday faults in engines for a fifth-generation fighter jet currently being developed.
The Advanced Front-Line Aviation Complex (PAK FA) plane is set to replace the Air Force's fourth-generation fighters, namely, the Su-27 Flanker and the MiG-29 Fulcrum.
Speaking at the MAKS air show outside Moscow, Alexander Zelin said: "For the time being the aircraft will use Saturn engines. There are problems, I admit, but research is continuing."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2009 17:29

As I stated earlier, the look is more important right now. The engine was expected to be an obstacles. They should be able to overcome that I would imagine. Perhaps a lesser capable engine for the time being should do to at least make it fly.

But the shape will determine a ton of things - with issues such as ejecting missiles cleanly - to fire them.

It will be sad if the pressure to get it done is more that to get it right.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 22 Aug 2009 00:00

tsriram wrote:Did a rough approximating count. Turned out to be > 1500

That's a good approximation, because a couple of guys actually counted the TRMs and came to a count of 1516 elements and 1526 elements. We just need someone to confirm which of these is correct, if any.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 22 Aug 2009 00:17

Radar Love

The V. Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design finally got – literally – to take the wraps off its latest radar on the third day of the MAKS 2009 air show.

The Russian institute, often referred to as simply NIIP – for understandable reasons – showed the design of a prototype active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on its stand at the event. The system is most likely destined for Russia’s fifth-generation fighter, known as PAK FA.

For most of the first three days the antenna and housing was covered by a canvas. The cover may have been removed briefly on the first day during the visit of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, but otherwise remained out of view. NIIP was – apparently – still awaiting final approval to show the AESA publicly for the first couple of days of the event.

The radar antenna shows a slight ellipse, likely indicative of the nose shape of the Sukhoi T-50 prototype for the PAK FA. Flight testing of the radar will begin in 2010.

The first T-50 airframe, a static fatigue test item, is already in Moscow, and a maiden flight of the design is now expected in November.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 02:50

The first T-50 airframe

That is what I am interested in.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 03:06

JaiS wrote:
tsriram wrote:Did a rough approximating count. Turned out to be > 1500
That's a good approximation, because a couple of guys actually counted the TRMs and came to a count of 1516 elements and 1526 elements. We just need someone to confirm which of these is correct, if any.

1526.

Have count by (44) row.

added l8r: The guy who has 1526 also has line count. That is what I counted to too.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Aug 2009 03:19

I would love to do drawings of the T-50 when its out. Right now I think it looks somewhat like the F-22, but with delta-ish wings

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Aug 2009 03:24

On the subject of India providing the composite skin, the LCA has a good composite cover. Question is, is this all metal frame with composite skin + RAM? or something more exotic like the complete composite tail without metal backup.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2009 08:48

JaiS wrote:Hi,
Based on what I have read for Bars, I would say it is IEEE L-Band, or NATO D-Band.

Thanks , any information or idea on rough comparison on Zhuk-AE and NIIP AESA , AFAIK NIIP has not released any performance figures yet.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2009 08:50

NRao wrote:
The first T-50 airframe
That is what I am interested in.

Most people are , but how does it really matter , what are you looking for in the first PT ?

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 22 Aug 2009 09:24

Austin wrote:
AFAIK NIIP has not released any performance figures yet.

Not to my knowledge. I would however expect it to better the Irbis-E. There are however some excellent documents on NIIP's website about their latest work on radars, including the Irbis-E located here. Maybe, Igorr can translate them when he is bored.

Austin wrote:
Thanks , any information or idea on rough comparison on Zhuk-AE and NIIP AESA ,

The best article that I have come across on the Zhuk-AE is here, not surprisingly by PiBu. I would also recommend you to go through this thread, which has quite a bit of information about Phaza's work on AESA radars.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 20:17

what are you looking for in the first PT ?

1) If they have mimicked any US shapes,
2) If they have followed the Su-27 form (as the duler design has), or
3) Have they come out with a totally different design.

IMHO, there are three factors I think that would come into play:
a) Today, the game has become who detects whom first. Shape matters as far as not being detectable or reduced detectability
b) Shape could also provide a clue to sensors that a vendor may have or proposes to have (conformal IMHO is the next step, beyond the 1526 T/R modules at MAKS09). The shape is going to be bound by both the current capabilities to manufacture sensors and the future potential (as envisioned by the vendors). I am thinking of conformal sensors here - way beyond the current euphoria about 1526 T/R modules. The issue about how to dispense the missiles I think is also a very important one. I am hoping that RUians have a non-F-22/35 design.
c) Russians (IMVVVVVHO) are ahead in theoretical "design", math based, etc. I would love to see if they have been able to utilize any of their strengths this time around (note that US stealth designs are RU based and the F-22 vertical lift/land is purely RUian!!!!!)

In short, I am hoping that the PAK-FA has two things:
i) It is a better solution that either the F-35 or the F-22, AND
ii) That the growth potential for detecting others and not being detected is tremendous.

I think the shape will tell us a lot about the status of RUian brain power, engineering and future thinking.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2009 22:01

^ Yes it will ;but then to be realistic I don't expect them to field conformal sensors ,the fact that they are playing a catch up in the AESA game is a clear indicator that there is still a long way to go.The AESA array on display from NIIP was an ellipse so at least the radome of PAK-FA most likely is gonna be closer to what it is on Su-34 platypus or even the Mig 1.44 project (check the more angular APG-77 and the radome of F-22) .

PAK-FA imho is more of an engineering challenge than some new earth shattering concept .

I can clearly see a few of them

1. R-73 and R-77 are larger and heavier than their corresponding US equivalents
2. RU is yet to field a small diameter bomb in the class of GBU-39 in order to exploit the limited space available in weapon bays.
3. Considering the above the size of the internal bay for a similar payload as the F-22 will be considerably larger and this will obviously need more powerful weapons ejection systems.
4. All of the above indicate ,for a payload similar to the F-22 the PAK-FA will have to be larger and powered by even more powerful engines to achieve similar aerodynamic performance as the Raptor.

This apart for PAK-FA to even approach the RCS of the F-22 , Russians will have to exhibit extra ordinary capabilities in area of airframe fabrication with a finish and tolerance which equals the Raptor ( a clear departure from their earlier approach of rugged engg.) , else a larger airframe with relatively inferior finish would not translate into low RCS numbers.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 22 Aug 2009 22:14

i have read quite many times that F-22 doesn't take too well to rain, it impacts it stealth etc etc. Not sure if such statements hold any truth to them but perhaps if true the Russians might be considering this issue into their design?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2009 22:23

NRao wrote:1) If they have mimicked any US shapes,
2) If they have followed the Su-27 form (as the duler design has), or
3) Have they come out with a totally different design.

Why should they mimic any one , is US approach to stealth the only right way or there are other way possible to achieve the same thing ?

I would like to think US approach to stealth has been less than successful and close to the point of failure , what is the point of having an aircraft that needs very special hanger to maintain or for every hour it flies needs 4 hours of maintenance.

Ultimately these so called stealth turned out to be silver bullet , and something even the mighty US defence budget could not afford and end up getting killed.

Technology is the winner , but cost is the killer .

I just hope Russia does not follow the US approach of high cost , high maintenance silver bullet , and develop an all round , all performing aircraft which is cost effective to procure and maintain , instead of paying premium to stealth ( whose very ability to defeat the entire RF spectrum is questionable at best ) and end up with silver bullet , they pay attention to other aspect like supermaneuverability , AI , materials ,LO which can be affordable and maintainable on field condition.

The rest is just US propaganda to prove their way is the right way the rest are all wrong.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2009 22:24

Yes F-22 has its own share of issues ; it has been reported that F-22's radar absorbent coating deteriorates due to abrasion when flown in rain . There have been reports of defects in the titanium booms which connect the wing and the main fuselage (Iirc Boeing convinced USAF about inspecting these on regular basis on field and fix them on case by case basis

).

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2009 22:32

I would like to think US approach to stealth has been less than successful and close to the point of failure , what is the point of having an aircraft that needs very special hanger to maintain or for every hour it flies needs 4 hours of maintenance.

How many stealth aircraft rest of the whole world has made ,fielded and operated when compared to USAF ? The first paper on stealth from a RU physicist notwithstanding it is a fact that there has been no Russian military AC which was designed ground up for stealth and has seen action as against USAF fleet ; it shows a glaring difference and gap between theory and practice and the fact that 'engineering' issues need huge capital and infrastructure to address and most importantly working models to test and validate.For every failure USAF has met with some of its prototypes they have the B-1's,F-117 (now retired) and now the F-22 and JSF.

The F-22 programme has run into issues but it is far from over, the emergence of PAK-FA and other aircraft will only strengthen the case of pro F-22 lobby and by the time PAK-FA will see actual service L&M,Boeing and Co will have fixed most of the teething problems with the Raptor .At the end of the day USAF has to replace its aging fleet of F-15's and even the F-16's so if not for the Raptor there will be something else .

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 22 Aug 2009 22:38

Austin wrote: The rest is just US propaganda to prove their way is the right way the rest are all wrong.

And also to save jobs in a faltering economy...

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 22 Aug 2009 22:42

negi wrote:At the end of the day USAF has to replace its aging fleet of F-15's and even the F-16's so if not for the Raptor there will be something else .

I remember reading this piece that the F-22 will be the last manned fighter designed and developed by the US. If its not the raptor replacing the F pandrah and the solahs then it will be an unmanned something...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2009 22:58

negi wrote:How many stealth aircraft rest of the whole world has made ,fielded and operated when compared to USAF ? The first paper on stealth from a RU physicist notwithstanding it is a fact that there has been no Russian military AC which was designed ground up for stealth and has seen action as against USAF fleet ; it shows a glaring difference and gap between theory and practice and the fact that 'engineering' issues need huge capital and infrastructure to address and most importantly working models to test and validate.For every failure USAF has met with some of its prototypes they have the B-1's,F-117 (now retired) and now the F-22 and JSF.

And why should the rest of the world comit harakiri just because the USAF fielded stealth in a way they think its right ?

How many B-2 and F-117 and F-22 did the US managed to field , what kind of dense and IADS have they penetrated single handedly ?

And the great engineering systems that they built , how many did they manage to afford it , what is production , maintenance issues with it that they did not think it was good enough to be build in numbers.

And a little compromise on stealth on JSF to make it affordable makes people scream that Su-35 is a cost effective buy and asymmetric and superior response.

There is so much hype about US stealth , that it just hides all its flaws and makes people believe its gods chariot , the eye opener happens when Congress cancels it

The F-22 programme has run into issues but it is far from over, the emergence of PAK-FA and other aircraft will only strengthen the case of pro F-22 lobby and by the time PAK-FA will see actual service L&M,Boeing and Co will have fixed most of the teething problems with the Raptor .At the end of the day USAF has to replace its aging fleet of F-15's and even the F-16's so if not for the Raptor there will be something else .

For now the F-22 is history after 187 and the new project might just go the Comanche way , no wonder Boeing came with F-15SE Silent Eagle

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 23:22

Austin,

I am glad that I got some unused brain cells cranked up.

As to why the Russians would follow the US - I do not know. Perhaps because the Russians have figured out how to overcome ALL the shortcomings of the US model? Dunno.

On cost of US stealth, the US itself has felt the pinch. They have discontinued the F-22!!!!!! So, why all this noise? The F-22 path - as we know it - is dead. Rain or shine.

I have in fact given props to the Russians ................................. which is why I am inclined to believe that they can produce something unusual. One option to them is the forward swept wings, but perhaps they have something even better than that. Dunno.

Just speculating on a real slow day.

Which is why in my first post I stated that I would like to see what type of design they have come out with.

Now, see if you can get me a good picture.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2009 23:33

Austin wrote: And why should the rest of the world comit harakiri just because the USAF fielded stealth in a way they think its right ?

What tripe... what do you mean by the 'USAF's way of fielding stealth', those designs of PAK-FA floating around in the web are very similar to F-22 design by your logic RU is merely copying the USAF way. Americans have a lead in AESA the rest of the world is now catching up so yes rest of the world is committed to harakiri as per your logic.

How many B-2 and F-117 and F-22 did the US managed to field , what kind of dense and IADS have they penetrated single handedly ?

Overwhelming numbers has never been a US philosophy (so much for saving american jobs argument) ; 'Quantity has a quality of it own' was touted by an individual from the other side.

Given the kind of dammage the F-15's and the F-18's inflicted upon the IRAQ'a defenses one can only imagine the kind of capability F-22 brings to the table. At least you should revisit your argument for if actual action and war time performance are to go by no one comes close to Unkil's experience in the modern times.

And the great engineering systems that they built , how many did they manage to afford it , what is production , maintenance issues with it that they did not think it was good enough to be build in numbers.

This is a typical RU fanboy rant, no facts just blanket statements. The dilapidated state of RU navy and the RuAF is a known fact.As per your logic look at the number of Mig-35,Slava class cruisers and then its entire submarine fleet which lies in shambles (apart from the new Borei class which is yet to field the new Bulava).Heck how many Su-30/35's does RuAf field ? most of the RU military Industrial complex has been reduced to a export oriented business.

And a little compromise on stealth on JSF to make it affordable makes people scream that Su-35 is a cost effective buy and asymmetric and superior response.

There is no comparasion between the two platforms ; the US arms lobby has always displayed paranoia when it comes to RU or other weapons systems as it helps their case and convince GOTUS to sanction funds. It is funny that people on forums compare the Su family with the fifth generation AC built ground up for stealth specially when the latter will be backed by superior AWACS and EW platforms.

There is so much hype about US stealth , that it just hides all its flaws and makes people believe its gods chariot , the eye opener happens when Congress cancels it .

Oh really I would be more than happy to know about such flaws; infact even more interested as to what earth shattering stuff are RU upto . The last thing I want to hear about is the aliensque 'plasma stealth' which fanboys discuss on pseudo physicks forums along with casimir drive and anti anti matter propulsion.

For now the F-22 is history after 187 and the new project might just go the Comanche way , no wonder Boeing came with F-15SE Silent Eagle

The numbers of AC produced is by no means an indicator of capability and the maturity of the platform and technology ; and in this case the platform is at least in active service in USAF and 187 is not a small number . By your logic Mirage 2000 is useless aircraft as we don't even operate 100 such aircraft.

Unlike the Mig-35 and the Su family the F-22 is not for exports (goes to show the kind of technology and IP involved).And mind you Japan and Israel have shown interest in the Raptor its GOTUS which refuses to export F-22 to anyone.

The war record of the eagle is exemplary infact it has registered kills against the Fulcrums as well as the Foxbat ; silent eagle is a step to target the export market (targeted at the Su-3x family) .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2009 23:41

Now, see if you can get me a good reliable picture.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Aug 2009 23:50

I can give it in the writing that if PAK-FA is to have a similar weapons fitment as the F-22 (ofcourse internal only) then it will be larger than the F-22 (RCS issues) unless ofcourse RU has completely new weapons (smaller than current ones) development programme for the PAK-FA. Al-41 is not yet in production and 117s has a larger fan diameter than the Al-31F i.e. considerably higher frontal CS than the P&W F119-PW100 which has a shroud less FAN design and a lower BP ratio than AL-31F (again another area which contributes to RCS).Lastly the onus is on RU to prove its manufacturing and machining capabilities specially in the ares of composites and flush fitting panels with less/without rivets in order to attain those low RCS numbers as well as achive low skin drag despite a larger airframe.

We all will be here on board when PAK-FA will be revealed, we shall see if there indeed exists an AC which can compete with the Raptor.