Sukhoi PAK FA

@gadeshi



There is a radiation symbol in tail sling does that mean Pak-fa is having a tail based radar or it 's a RWR antenna

CHEERS

Drsomnath999 said:

@gadeshi

There is a radiation symbol in tail sling does that mean Pak-fa is having a tail based radar or it 's a RWR antenna

CHEERS

Click to expand...

ECM kit from what we know. I had posted info a few pages back.

There are IFF antennas in the wing LEs, and RWR/ECM kits antennas in the fins and LEVCONs.
What is in the tailboom is not clear for now, but guys from KnA say that there is an AESA ECM suite there.

Sukhoi fighters will remain the backbone of the Russian Air Force



Russian jet maker Sukhoi continues the development of the T-50 fifth-generation fighter for the national air force under the PAK FA program. The fifth prototype of this aircraft made its hour-long maiden flight at Komsomolsk-on-Amur on October 28.

The manufacturer is not explaining how the T-50-5 differs from the previous prototypes, nor does it disclose what kind of tests the airframe is intended for. After the factory trials, T-50-5 will join the other four prototypes, which are currently being test-flown at Zhukovsky outside Moscow. Two more airframes are involved in the ground test: one of them is used as a ground rig, the other one is undergoing static tests.

The T-50 is intended to replace 4th generation Sukhoi Su-27/30 aircraft in the Russian Air Force. It will also serve as the baseline for the Russo-Indian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, being developed jointly by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

The first T-50 prototype flew in January 2010; the flight test program started in April same year. The T-50-3 prototype, equipped with an AESA radar, joined the trials in 2012, the same year as tests began on the fighter's in-flight refueling capability. According to Sukhoi, in the three years of testing the T-50 prototypes completed more than 450 flights in total.

The T-50 prototypes involved in the flight tests are currently powered by a pair of Item 117 engines, which represent a radical upgrade of the NPO Saturn AL-31F design. Russia's United Engine Corporation is looking to complete the development of a production engine for the Sukhoi T-50 fighters by late 2015. This is when the engineering design phase is expected to be finished and blueprints issued for the manufacture of the gas generator and engine demonstrators. Engine prototypes should be built and enter into testing in 2016.

Earlier, Russian Air Force Com**mander-in-Chief Lt-Gen Viktor Bon**darev said that the flying phase of the joint evaluation trials should begin in 2013. Series production of the new fighter is expected to be launched in 2016. According to Mikhail Pogosyan, head of Sukhoi's parent company United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), 25 billion rubles (about $780 million) will be invested in setting up a T-50 assembly line at Sukhoi's Komsomolsk-on-Amur facility, which already houses the assembly line for Russian Air Force Su-35S multirole fighters.

The Su-35S generation 4++ multirole combat aircraft is expected to be operated by the Russian Air Force alongside the T-50. The Russian military placed an order for 48 of the type in 2009. The first two airframes were delivered in 2011, another eight followed last year. The type is now undergoing join evaluation trials. Sukhoi reported earlier that the results of the flight testing program had corroborated the design performance parameters for the airframe, powerplants, navigation system, and other equipment. The aircraft demonstrated a maximum near ground airspeed of 1,400 km/h and 2,400 km/h at altitude, and its maximum demonstrated altitude is 18,000 m.

The Russian Air Force has also ordered two more warplane types from Sukhoi: the Su-30M2 twin-seat fighter and the Su-34 bomber. The latter are being assembled at another Sukhoi facility, in Novosibirsk. The military has inked two contracts with Sukhoi for a combined 124 of the type. Deliveries started in 2010.

The Russian Defense Ministry expects Sukhoi to deliver 14 more Su-34 this year. The first bomber was delivered in May, two more batches followed in July and October. The 2014 production plan for the Novosibirsk facility stands at 16 aircraft, the military reports.

According to Pogosyan, the Komso**molsk-on-Amur facility is planning to deliver 27 fighters to the Russian Air Force this year, and 19 more fighters in 2014. Joint deliveries by the two Sukhoi facilities are expected to reach 51 fighters in 2015. Pogosyan says this is more than one half of all the aircraft the Defense Ministry has ordered from UAC.

Sukhoi fighters will remain the backbone of the Russian Air Force | ???????????????? ?????????

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/772847.html

it still looks all metal with a slew of rivets!!!!!!

Where are the composites critical to RCS reduction?

Not bad.

How many more Su-34s are expected to be ordered?
@gadeshi
What do you think?

Su-34 = 32 + 94 = 124 + potential 60 more = 184. And this is only by 2020. Is it possible VVS wants nearly 300 Su-34s after 2020?

Su-35S = 48 ordered + 48 options = 96. And this is only until 2018 I suppose.

Su-30SM = 30 + 30 + potential 30 = 90. This should go on till 2020.

That's around 325-350 Flankers to be manufactured in another 6 years. Is that right?

The current order for Su-34 stands at 124 for this decade plus the previous order of 2000's where were small dozen order.

My figure is not precise but Su-34 current order stands at ~ 137 odd number including the current and last decade order which were delivered.

The figures are only documented till 2020 as part of GPV 2020 beyond that its speculation.

The Airforce future plans for 2020-2025 which I posted shows a modification Su-34M , so that may be the new order or upgrade of existing , perhaps they will order Su-34M in oder to replace the upgraded Su-24M

Su-34 is a backbone tactical striker for VVS for the next 15 years at least, when (as rumored) a T-50 based bomber will appear.
So, the numbers are not surprise. It supposed to be 32 + 94 = 124 jets before 2020 and the same numbers after. How many of them will be Su-34M is apparently unknown as well as the exact technical face of the type. Su-34M is in GPV-2025, so we'll wait for more info.
@Austin, Su-24M are old as well, so they are replacing now with Su-34 in Voronezh and Morozovsk, Shagol and Dzemgi are on the way. All the Su-24 with a proper lifetime left are under relocating process now. The most part of them will be transferred to Shagol and Dzemgi untill replacement with Su-34. The others will be sold to Algeria to sustain their Su-24MK fleet.

Su-30SM is non-needed to VVS because multi-rollers are good for peace-time service, not for real war. At the top of this, they are expensive and prove themselves worth their money only in mono-typed airforce (which is not acceptable for Russia). So, they will be delivered to Navy shore-based regiments, as Navy is an ideal place for them. Also they will be delivered to regiments armed with old MiG-29 (9-12) which are on the edge of their lifetime now and must be replaced ASAP.

gadeshi said:

@Austin, Su-24M are old as well, so they are replacing now with Su-34 in Voronezh and Morozovsk, Shagol and Dzemgi are on the way. All the Su-24 with a proper lifetime left are under relocating process now. The most part of them will be transferred to Shagol and Dzemgi untill replacement with Su-34. The others will be sold to Algeria to sustain their Su-24MK fleet.

Click to expand...

https://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/su-24m2/

Kramnik writes that 120 Su-34s will be 70 percent of the fighter-bomber inventory, and some 50 modernized Su-24s will make up the balance. Right now, there are about 160 Su-24M and 40 Su-24M2 in the force with their average ages in the 25-27 year range. It sounds like about 10 of these aircraft can be modernized each year.

Click to expand...

For any further discussion on this we can take up on RuAF Thread

General designer "Saturn" Yuri Shmotin "engine of the second stage of the fifth-generation aircraft will bring a new life"


One of the major challenges currently facing the Russian aircraft engine building is the development of the second stage engine for the aircraft PAK FA (T-50). Most of the work on the creation of this engine performs Rybinsk "Saturn."

About that, at what stage is the process of creating this engine, which features a new plane will become the "heart" told "Interfax-AVN," Chief Designer "Saturn" Yuri SHMOTIN.

- Yuri, tell me what should be the engine for the fifth generation fighter aircraft? What are its main features?

- Fifth generation fighter aircraft T-50 is not just a fighter, bomber or attack aircraft. This multi-purpose aircraft. Such aircraft should be given a new "heart", which will make it highly maneuverable, fast, economical and able to withstand competitors such as American F-22 and F-35.

The engine for the fifth generation aircraft will be different from the previous generation increased engine specific impulse, lower weight, lower specific fuel consumption and the presence of new solutions for low visibility. Thus it should be relatively inexpensive to operate and maintain. "Saturn" is now working on this engine.

- How components and units of the new engine is given special attention in the development? What is the biggest challenge for engineers?

- In aircraft engines, everything is important. One of the most complicated engine components is a high-pressure turbine. It was given to make the turbine is operated at a temperature level at which the metallic nickel alloys simply melted. This work was completed successfully.

Aircraft engine is the heart of the high pressure compressor. Its level of perfection directly depend all the main characteristics of the engine. The amount of detail in the new high-pressure compressor, we were able to reduce by almost half compared with the previous stage compressor, with a significant increase in performance provided by one stage. The cost of manufacturing such a compressor will not exceed the cost of manufacturing the engine HPC fourth generation. And it is subject to the application of new materials and technologies.

Deciding to these and other challenges, we will get to a gas generator with a new level of performance that will be the basis for a new engine family. Characteristics of the gas generator units, such as the effectiveness of the ARC, increased on average by more than four percent, and on a number of modes and eight. In fact, it is a revolution in engine, because determines the possibility of creating an engine with an enormous reserve of development for traction.

- What structural materials preferred for a new engine?

- Without fundamentally impossible to provide new materials are the characteristics that we make to the new generation of GTE. The specialists of "Saturn" is a good experience and the impact of new materials developed by the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM).

In the first place, it certainly blade high-temperature nickel alloys. Turbine blade - it is a unique product. It represents the complex spatial structure which must operate at temperatures above 2000 K.

There are also proprietary materials "Saturn." We offer them for a new generation engine. These materials make it possible to increase the half life of the engine at the same temperatures.

Today much is said about the use of composite materials. The new engine for the PAK FA applied composites that are built not only on the polymer matrix of the cold, as well as items created by high compositions. These works "Saturn" is already long enough.

- Do not forget that everything is new and modern with time obsolete. Is there a possibility of it generated by the engine of modernization?

- Of course. Concurrently with the development work on the engine of the fifth generation we build backlog, which will help develop the engine is not only ten, but at 30, maybe even 50 years ahead.

Today in "Saturn" conducted extensive research on the development of fifth-generation engine using the technology, which is called "variable cycle engine." The studies that say that at a certain transformation engine thermodynamics through design changes can significantly improve engine performance at subsonic and supersonic flight regimes. One of these transformations can be a third application of the circuit. All this is provided.

- How will affect the installation of new engines on the flight characteristics of the fifth generation fighter? Feel the difference whether the pilot, the plane peresevshy with the engine of the first stage of a plane with the engine of the second stage?

- The new engine is fundamentally different from previous products of the first stage. Of course, the pilot will immediately feel the difference in traction. Plane with the new engine will become more docile and can quickly react to the actions of the pilot. In fact, the engine of the second stage is to give the T-50 aircraft to a new life.

- Yuri, it is known that the PAK FA is already being tested. What engines are equipped with the first prototypes?

Now prototypes completed the first phase of the motor, which in engineering circles is known as the product 117. In fact, it is the result of deep development engine family AL-31, which is installed on the aircraft today Su-27 family.

Of course, it's a great engine, which is a bestseller and is built on the basic principles and ideas of the design bureau Arkhip Cradles. But it's still a step motor 4 +.

Google Translate

Excellent. So now we have a source saying that the new engine will be a variable cycle engine.

@gadeshi Could you please explain/elaborate on these 3 points you have made in your post ? I could not understand the exact reasons behind them...Thanks.

gadeshi said:

Su-30SM is non-needed to VVS because multi-rollers are good for peace-time service, not for real war.

Click to expand...

Why are multi-roles not good for real war ?

At the top of this, they are expensive and prove themselves worth their money only in mono-typed airforce (which is not acceptable for Russia)

Click to expand...

What is mono type airforce ? Why it is not acceptable to Russia ?

So, they will be delivered to Navy shore-based regiments, as Navy is an ideal place for them.

Click to expand...

Why so?

TrueSpirit1 said:

@gadeshi Could you please explain/elaborate on these 3 points you have made in your post ? I could not understand the exact reasons behind them...Thanks.



Why are multi-roles not good for real war ?



What is mono type airforce ? Why it is not acceptable to Russia ?



Why so?

Click to expand...

Reason Russians never make Multi role.

Then it is only natural for them to extoll the virtues of their own creation.

Because most of their fighters belonged to cold war era where specialized fighters were employed for ground attack and air defence.

But with the advent of laser guided bombs no fighter needs to do don the role of the ground attack low altitude flight profile to hit ground target.

In today's long range BVR and laser guided precision munition multi role fighters offer great flexibility to airforces around the world.

In reality all multi role fighters of today are air superiority fighters mated with laser designator and advanced litening pods with multi mode ASEA for nap of the earth flying.

These set of statements is total BS as it says Su-30 MKI is good only for peace time!!!!!!

And IAF is ready to make a 20 billion dollar investment in RAFALE which is also a multi role.


After seeing the config of Su-30 MKI in IAf the russian airforce was so impressed they ordered Su-30 SM which are also of exact config of IAf SU-30 MKI, even the avionics and radar computers along with the Mission computers of Su-30 SM are imported from HAL as it pertains to IAF SU-30 MKI config.



World over IAF su-30 MKI is noted as the most potent of the flanker versions sans Su-35 for their avionics and aerodynamic config combined,

it is the left handed compliment given by the gent in question for the IAf SU-30 MKI!!!!!

Many in IAF will slap l the man if he stands in front of them.


Most of his statement that his so and so engine is so and so is yet to be proved.

these kinds of PR BS is always dished out when they are unable to complete a project in time.

The joke is if you ask the IAF guys they will say their FGFA is a multi role!!!!!

Specialised aircraft have their own key role to play reason else there is no reason to have dedicated bomber , tactical fighter , Specialised EW aircraft and others.

If a country can make one then they would use specialised type also a question of affordability , Russia can build and afford to have such types hence they are not limited to using multirole types ...the only limitation would be how many can they afford as there is limit to one purchasing power.

India imports most of the aircraft so it tends to make the best of what it can do in single type hence multirole platform is favoured over specialised type ..and technological solution would have made it possible to make the best use of a type if not optimum use.

I am sure if Su-30SM was one single type that can meet RuAF needs they would have build that in numbers , having build all types in decades their airforce would have deep insight when it comes to specialised types and the doctrine of employment etc

No one would argue that Su-34 is a better tactical bomber compared compared to Su-35 and Su-35 is a better air superiority fighter in flanker series while Su-30SM would be good enough for all the roles but optimum for none, but a Su-34 would still be a better Air Superiority fighter compared to Su-24M2 and much better in the role of a bomber ... platforms , weapons and sensors/electronic affords it to do a better role.

Boils down to Individual Airforces Doctrine , Ability of the country to develop such a platform ( for eg had Russia been a country importing most of the fighter then it would have settled for multirole types for obvious reasons ) , Threat Perception and Money.

Either way its good to see country still develop a specialised typed though not in the number we saw in 60/70 or 80's as an Aviation Enthusiastic I am excited to see them leaving all the War Doctrine and nuances aside.

The so called multi role RAFALE, TYPHOONs are nothing but air superiority fighters,

that can engage any other air superiority fighter in close combat and give a decent account.

With the advances in jet engine tech and aerodynamics,

the present manned fighter tech has reached a tipping point,

and it is no more possible for the pilot to take on the excessive G forces at the next evolution of fighter tech.

The G forces of RAFLE and TYPHOON despite them engineered to be multirole (with some excess empty weight for carrying heavy ground attack munition ),

is also closer to the limits that can be taken on by Human body of the pilot.

SO if they were built with bit lesser empty weight air superiority fighters, we can not say their close combat specs would have improved,

because it will be highly doubtful if the pilot's body will take on those G forces in high G onset rate maneuvers.


Also with the advent of heavy weight long range BVR missile game ,

even air superiority fighters or interceptors need to have a heavy weight carrying strengthened airframes to carry as many BVR missiles as possible.

It is no longer relevant to have high maneuvering low weight carrying air superiority fighters as defender of skies because they won't be able to carry a heavy air to air missile load .


That is why next stage in fighter evolution as far as more g inducing maneuvers will be done on un manned fighters.

So it may be good in the older days of lower level engine thrusts ,to build lighter short legged low load carrying air to air interceptors like Mig-21,29 and going in for heavier long range flankers for ground bombing.

Low level ground attack in the pre-RSS canard or compound delta days,

also imposed their own restrictions on wing design ,

which led to ground level bombers being high wing loading relatively straight wing fighters.

But with the advent of RSS delta canards and compound deltas that take care of nap of th earth flying with the hel[ of terrain hugging radar ground mode and RSS taking care of flight stability,



With the arrival of high altitude laser guided ground attack munitions the air superiority fighters

need not come low altitude to engage the enemy in precision strikes,

So they are now doubling up as ground attack fighters leading to multi role or now omni role RAFALEs,

In low engine tech days IAF preferred the low thrust weight ratio Mirage-2000 for precision bombing and high TWR Mig-29s as escorts in kargil conflict.

Add to that the simple fact with the proliferation shoulder fired or short range missiles from ground vehicle,

the very low altitude flying ground attack fighters expose the machine and the man to very highly unacceptable risk.

So mostly cruise misslies, drones and stealth UCAVS are going to take over those roles.

but with high thrust to weight multi role or omnirole fighters like RAFALE, Su-30 MKI and Tejas mk-2 both the escort and ground attack roles can be done on the same platform.

In the same way IAF is going to use FGFA for both the roles ground attack and air superiority as well.

The flexibility of this approach is critical in first days of war.Especially IAf which will have to face the prospect of two front war with no prospect of help from any super powers in strategic alliance.

Air superiority becomes all critical in these situations.


It won't be comforting for the air chief to know that half his fighters are not geared for air superiority role and restricted to ground attack role,

when the enemy has all multi role fleet that can give decent account on both ground attack and air superiority role,

So the Saturn guy is wildly off the mark with his statement that multi roles are good only for peace time.

The practice around the world contradicts his statement.

UAV/UCAV is at its in infancy stage there is decades to go before it would replace even half of any airforces manned fighter fleet ...... G limit of Aircraft is just one part of the game since even today missiles can pull G many times over that it can beat any unmanned fighter flying today.

There is lot of hype around unmanned fighter much like in the 80's if you picked up any credible defence magazine or looked at Pentagon reports of the time it would have led you to believe that Hypersonic Fighter and Space based weapons would be common thing in 90's and beyond and we know today that we are far away from it.

Like i said for country that imports most of the fighter and does not have base to develop different types or specialised types Multirole is the way to go as it offers more bang per buck and suits in respective AF doctrine same goes for west where defence spending is falling and relying on single type to do most of the role is preffered choice .... there are just 2 countries in the world that has the experience and resources to build specialised fighter and they tend to exploit it for their own benefit ...RuAF has the liberty to have specialized type and multirole variant ( Ground Attack/Tactical Bomber , CAS , Air Superiority , Multirole , Substragetic and Strategic bombers ) so go for USAF.

In the end every airforce has their own choice based on doctrine , numbers and resources available and they would built their fleet around these limitations.

when we going to make our own weapons i mean what the hell we do not have