The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2009 05:36

USAF is special.. they have already stolen russian technology.. .

?????????????

Which tech?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Oct 2009 06:11

^^
I think he is reffering to Yak-141 VTOL tech used for F-35. But that was not stolen. Lockheed had formally consulted Yakovlev Design Bureau.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Oct 2009 06:12

Since it is speculation season, here is my contribution.

The US shut down further production of the F-22 because it was too expensive - for the bird it churned out.
It is possible that the US got to know and understand what the PAK-FA was all about, and the F-22 might have come up runners up in comparision. Hence this move to shut it down.
There is a possibility that the US will come up with a new fighter (say a 5.5 gen fighter to upsurp the PAK-FA)

</speculation>

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Oct 2009 07:13

f-35 VSTOL version is not for USAF, it's for USMC and RAF/RN.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 22 Oct 2009 13:25

Since Russians have perfected the 3D TVC, can the vertical stabilizers and tails be removed (or kept as optional add ons - like the initial MCA design)??

what are the disadvantages of such a design?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Oct 2009 15:46

Kailash wrote:Since Russians have perfected the 3D TVC, can the vertical stabilizers and tails be removed (or kept as optional add ons - like the initial MCA design)??

what are the disadvantages of such a design?

It is possible to remove these control surfaces. But without them, would 3D TVC alone suffice to provide needed maneuverability? I somehow doubt that.
Though if Russians somehow manage to make their TVC powerful enough to do that, it would be huge advantage as far as RCS is concerned. But I personally doubt if it will happen.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 22 Oct 2009 20:21

Kailash wrote:Since Russians have perfected the 3D TVC, can the vertical stabilizers and tails be removed (or kept as optional add ons - like the initial MCA design)??

what are the disadvantages of such a design?

maneuverability vs RCS

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Oct 2009 20:55

optionally, it should be good for fail-ops!., (ignoring RCS: if we think we have mastered RAM and shape stealth technology).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Oct 2009 21:18

Gaur wrote:^^
I think he is reffering to Yak-141 VTOL tech used for F-35. But that was not stolen. Lockheed had formally consulted Yakovlev Design Bureau.

indeed.. sorry I used the word stolen, but in any socialistic sense, I could be right, and from Lockheed Martin sense, its a buy out!

More info:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2009 21:41

Yak was the consultant for LM, while BAE (Harrier fame) was the consultant for Boeing's offering.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 22 Oct 2009 23:46

KrishG wrote:Igorr, Which IRST is supposed be used on PAF-FA atleast according to speculation ?

With very caution could be said OLS-35 derivate of same developer.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Oct 2009 23:54

OLS-100 makes it a killing.. I am imagining., assuming the 35 being the km range. Imagine an Aastra-NG hooked up on it!

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 23 Oct 2009 00:36

The outlines of PAK FAaccording to Paralay.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 00:43

Igorr,

Thanks a ton for that - some of us can now sleep at night. (That is rather impressive stuff.)

However, at the risk of putting you on the spot, how close do YOU think is this source to the "truth". 50 - 60 - 70 - 80% close to reality?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Oct 2009 00:47

Like the fact that it has external HPs too. And a gun to boot.

But, I like the delur.ru design better.

WLRAAM 'Izdelie 810' ................ 400 km.

Is that the range?

Wicked. That pretty much covers all of PakiLand width wise!!!!!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 23 Oct 2009 01:53

Igorr wrote:The outlines of PAK FAaccording to Paralay.

Thanks a lot.

Have been waiting to read that for some time now.
And as NRao asked, how reliable do you think the article is?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Oct 2009 02:07

Igorr wrote:The outlines of PAK FAaccording to ParalayZoki said...
Hi
IGOR i wont to know your opinion can Pak-fa ( su-50 ) provided air superiority or no.

October 22, 2009 11:34 PM .

that is indeed funny or intentional?!

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Oct 2009 05:33

Gaur wrote:
Igorr wrote:The outlines of PAK FAaccording to Paralay.
Thanks a lot.
Have been waiting to read that for some time now.
And as NRao asked, how reliable do you think the article is?

if zhuk ae detects 30 targets and attacks 6 of them so its possible AESA on PAK FA will be able to detect 60 targets because being more powerful than zhuk ae

L band aesa on wing and tail front is reality

mig35 has FLIR and ground looking IRST so its very possible that rearword looking IRST is very possible for PAK FA, and at the time when PAK FA enters in service IRST range will be increased to 130-150km in rear hemisphere

fuselage of PAK FA seems to be wider so more space for two internal bays for large weapons in fuselage and two smaller bays on the sides of air intakes

if fuselage is wider which allows rearward looking radar like L band aesa or KOPYO F to be fitted easily compared to su30/35 which allows missiles to be fired backwards

R172 missile seems to be longer than the internal bays in PAK FA so only R33 derivative or R37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-37

http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ ... radar2.jpg
Radar 9B-1388 has dual-mode semi-active and active. The range is 75 km in a semi-active and 25km in active mode. The sensor weighs 45kg without the radome.
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 2Fr34.html

also from air power australia about 9B-1388 seeker
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h ... N%26um%3D1
The R-37 is equipped with an Agat 9B-1388RS active radar seeker, with midcourse inertial, data-link and semi-active radar homing capability. A datalink range of at least 100 km was disclosed. The seeker is claimed to be capable of acquiring a 5 square metre target at 21.5 NMI. Range performance varies with the flight profile, from 80 NMI for a direct shot, to a maximum of 215 NMI for a cruise glide profile. In 1994 a trial round killed a target at 162 NMI, a record for a BVR missile.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 25 Oct 2009 04:44

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... PAK-50.jpg[/img]
Does anyone know what this is a picture of?? I doubt these are actual pics of PAK-FA but I kinda envisioned it to look similar to this in design. They look like photo shopped fakes to me cuz the engines are way too close together for starters. There's no way you could have a useful internal weapons bay with that engine configuration.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Oct 2009 06:36

That looks somewhat like the YF-23.
Actually a mix between the S-47 Berkut and the YF-23!
These appear to be flying models that are tested to know more about the aerodynamics. So we know that the russians experimented with this wing design.
Even if the engines are close together, there is some space between the air intakes, usually that is where the missiles will get stored.
The actual fighter will be ~ 2x or 2.5x this size.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2009 08:09

Some 6-8 years ago (long time ago) we had decided they were fakes.

b_patel · Post by **b_patel** » 25 Oct 2009 11:05

Some 6-8 years ago (long time ago) we had decided they were fakes.

MY bad!! I just stumbled across the pic a couple of days ago. I had no idea that this pic was that old.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 25 Oct 2009 15:08

Gaur wrote:
Igorr wrote:The outlines of PAK FAaccording to Paralay.
Thanks a lot.
Have been waiting to read that for some time now.
And as NRao asked, how reliable do you think the article is?

Most of his specs are very logical and well coordinated with qualitative descriptions from other independent sources. At least the degree of similarity between real PAKFA and the artistic reconstruction must be high since a RuAF top confirmed closeness with the 'pictures disclosed in Internet'.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 25 Oct 2009 15:36

Gaur wrote:
Igorr wrote:The outlines of PAK FAaccording to Paralay.
Thanks a lot.
Have been waiting to read that for some time now.
And as NRao asked, how reliable do you think the article is?

F-22 detects Su35 from the distance of 150-180 km but can open fire from 110 km, while becomes visible for Su-35's radar by itself and on R-77 range of attack.

The AIM-120D is supposed to have it's range increased by 50% over ~100 km of C version. That would put the range at around 150 km.

OLS-35 probably detects Raptor on 100 km distance.

I think 100 km is an exaggerated figure for an IRST.

According to deagel --

The OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation with a target acquisition range for non-afterburning aerial targets of 50 km facing up to target's front hemisphere and 90 km facing up to rear hemisphere. The laser rangefinder features a five-meter Circular Error Probable (CEP) and ranges up to 20 km for aerial targets and 30 km for targets on the ground.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Oct 2009 20:54

Just tried to do a loose English translation of the full original Russian PAK-FA article.

PAK FA in Anticipation of First Flight

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Oct 2009 21:23

of all the pics, the f22 raptor pic stands apart.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 25 Oct 2009 22:17

the real stuff is here..

!!!

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1256144403

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Oct 2009 22:43

doesn't look right. the floor is a PS job.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Oct 2009 23:18

From Austin's translation

Analysis of these figures shows that the fighter length of 19 meters, with a wingspan of 14 meters and a height of 4.5 meters in the parking lot has a maximum takeoff weight in the region of 32 tons. Swept delta wing with leading edge 53 degrees apparently, chosen from attaining a high cruising speed and angular velocity of the roll. For this fighter paid deteriorating runway data, partially offset by the high thrust-weight ratio. Reduced landing distance will be achieved after the installation of flat nozzles with thrust reverse

The size is almost similar to F-22 (18.9m * 13.6m * 5.1m) but MTOW is less by 6 tonnes (might be due to metric being used, internal fuel capacity , power plant specs etc tec ) .

The total payload which can be accommodated in internal bays (Igorr's translation of PM says 2000kg) . F-22 carries around 1300/1400 kg depending on the loadout (AA/AG).

And then performance specs too don't match up specially if 117C specs are to go by ; NPO Saturn has not yet published data on AL-41.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2009 23:48

Too early to compare. A lot of systems need to mature. The current PAK-FA is more closer to a tech-demo, which needs to fill out. Perhaps by early 2011ish it should be definable.

Till then have fun.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1256144403 , teaser? Is there something hanging under the wing? Seems to have the seams of the delur.ru.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 26 Oct 2009 03:37

aim-120C-5 has a range of 105km,

aim-120 C-7 has a range of around 130km

Aim-120D has 30nm more range than the c-7, which puts the range around 180km.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 26 Oct 2009 04:08

RameshC wrote:aim-120C-5 has a range of 105km,

aim-120 C-7 has a range of around 130km

Aim-120D has 30nm more range than the c-7, which puts the range around 180km.

The new R-77M-1 has a range of 175 km and 1zd 180 will have range of 240 km. It can be used with MKI, Mig-29K, Mig-35 and LCA. The american missile will most probably stop working if fired against the paki airforce and will require permission from GOTUS to be used. No way IAF will go for it. R-77's, Meteor and Astra should be enough for IAF.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Oct 2009 06:34

The american missile will most probably stop working if fired against the paki airforce and will require permission from GOTUS to be used.

We have been through this one before.

So, just how do you think that can happen?

Then would the P-8Is fail to detect a US or even a French built asset?

Could India have a leg up on China with the Sukhois and associated missiles?

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 26 Oct 2009 07:40

NRao wrote: We have been through this one before.

So, just how do you think that can happen?

Then would the P-8Is fail to detect a US or even a French built asset?

Could India have a leg up on China with the Sukhois and associated missiles?

They just need to stop supply of spare parts to ensure that entire fleet becomes hangar queens.Its time India looked at the supply problems Korea and malaysia have had with american F-16/18's.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Oct 2009 07:46

negi wrote:The total payload which can be accommodated in internal bays (Igorr's translation of PM says 2000kg) . F-22 carries around 1300/1400 kg depending on the loadout (AA/AG).

The original article says internal more than 2000 kg , external more than 6000 kg

And then performance specs too don't match up specially if 117C specs are to go by ; NPO Saturn has not yet published data on AL-41.

117C/AL-41F1A : ~ 14.5 tons A/B thrust
AL-41F1 : ~ 16 tons A/B thrust ( upgrade potential to ~ 18 tons A/B thrust )

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 26 Oct 2009 08:16

vavinash wrote: They just need to stop supply of spare parts to ensure that entire fleet becomes hangar queens.

I have got tired and bored of listening this.... truly i mean it. Ok..the question is...what we have been doing all this year..can we not reverse engineer on of the jet for our noble cause

.

kit · Post by **kit** » 26 Oct 2009 08:53

Yup, but you need a certain level of technological sophistication to copy a product like a radar or avionic system .. and make it work .. and maybe make it even better.Japanese are the masters and china is trying.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Oct 2009 00:34

vavinash wrote:
NRao wrote: We have been through this one before.

So, just how do you think that can happen?

Then would the P-8Is fail to detect a US or even a French built asset?

Could India have a leg up on China with the Sukhois and associated missiles?
They just need to stop supply of spare parts to ensure that entire fleet becomes hangar queens.Its time India looked at the supply problems Korea and malaysia have had with american F-16/18's.

THAT is not what you posted earlier!!!!!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Oct 2009 01:13

sumshyam wrote:the real stuff is here.. !!!

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 1256144403

its a tandem su-34 under the camouflage paint job skins!

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 27 Oct 2009 01:52

^^

Don't think so.

- The Su34 has a split down the centre of the canopy - can't see it here

- The Su34 DOES NOT have canted tails