Sukhoi PAK FA

[gadeshi]

extensive use of composites,less use of metals,radar absorbing materials,design shape which reflects most of radar waves...

agm-129 is one time use missile.f-22 is not such.so not much of these were used for agm-129

i am not sure of rcs values

No way.

B-2 has outstandingly low RCS thanking very thick leading edges, where the RAMs structure is. This structure resembles much the peaks, pears and pyramides, which you can see on the echo-less RCS measurement chamber walls.
Relatively small F-22 doesn't allow this - it simply has no space and vollumes for this. And it has strength limitations on embedded RAMs usage in leading edges structure due to high supersonic speeds airflow on them, which B-2 lacks.

In the other words, it can allow several thin layers of embedded RAMs on the problem zones (not on the whole airframe, like the lamers think), which have combined thickness ~1cm. But X-band radars have 3-4cm wave length. According to physics, if you want to absorb or re-reflect the radar wave, you have to apply the RAMs layer which will be 2 times thicker, than the wave length. This is 6-8cm, which is too much for a fighter, especially if you have to go into compromise with strength, aerodynamics and thermal endurance measures.

The most indicative example of the 6 to 12 cm RAM covers is F-117. But we all know, how did it flew and how did it ended...

AGM-129 has small dimensions and almost ideal RCS-friendly shape (RCS-shaped nose, forward-swept wings, hidden air intake and so on), uses RAMs and so on, but it has 0.01m2 RCS. How can 5-6 times bigger F-22 having less RCS-optimized shape and RAMs distribution, to have 100 times less RCS???

BTW, there were one very interesting judicial trial process with LM engineer against LM, where this engineer have disclosed the details of F-22 RCS testing and LM frauds in this process:
Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/38/cases/1203/1686/lockheed-martin-olsen_complaint.pdf

 

[arnabmit]

India's share in FGFA likely to grow to 50 % | idrw.org
SOURCE: INDRUS

India's share in research-and-development work for the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia is currently limited by India's domestic industrial capabilities but will gradually increase with the project's implementation, a Russian military expert said.

The Economic Times recently reported that Indian military officials were concerned over the country's work share in the FGFA project, which is currently only 15 percent even though New Delhi is bearing 50 percent of the cost.According to the paper, India's defence minister is expected to raise that issue during his visit to Russia beginning November 15.

"The figure cited by the Indian side reflects current capabilities of India's industry, in particular the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] corporation," said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade.

"With the progress in the implementation of this project, we expect the Indian engineers and designers to approach the share determined in the [Russian-Indian] agreement: 50 percent," Korotchenko said in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.

Russia will certainly provide all necessary knowledge and logistics support to Indian specialists, but developing skills and acquiring experience in design and development of advanced fighter aircraft takes a long time and substantial effort, the expert added.

The FGFA project began following a Russian-Indian agreement on cooperation in the development and production of the perspective multirole fighter, signed on October 18, 2007.

The Indian fighter jet will be based on the Russian single-seat Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter, which now has four prototypes flying, but it will be designed to meet about 50 specific requirements by the Indian Air Force (IAF).

In December 2010, Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi Company signed a preliminary design development contract worth $295 million for the new aircraft.

Currently the $11 billion final design and research-and-development contract is under negotiation between the two countries. The total program is expected to cost India about $25 billion to 30 billion.

The IAF had initially planned to order 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but India's chief of air staff said in October last year that New Delhi would now go for only 144 single-seat jets, with domestic production slated to begin in 2020.

 

[drkrn]

No way.

B-2 has outstandingly low RCS thanking very thick leading edges, where the RAMs structure is. This structure resembles much the peaks, pears and pyramides, which you can see on the echo-less RCS measurement chamber walls.
Relatively small F-22 doesn't allow this - it simply has no space and vollumes for this. And it has strength limitations on embedded RAMs usage in leading edges structure due to high supersonic speeds airflow on them, which B-2 lacks.

In the other words, it can allow several thin layers of embedded RAMs on the problem zones (not on the whole airframe, like the lamers think), which have combined thickness ~1cm. But X-band radars have 3-4cm wave length. According to physics, if you want to absorb or re-reflect the radar wave, you have to apply the RAMs layer which will be 2 times thicker, than the wave length. This is 6-8cm, which is too much for a fighter, especially if you have to go into compromise with strength, aerodynamics and thermal endurance measures.

The most indicative example of the 6 to 12 cm RAM covers is F-117. But we all know, how did it flew and how did it ended...

AGM-129 has small dimensions and almost ideal RCS-friendly shape (RCS-shaped nose, forward-swept wings, hidden air intake and so on), uses RAMs and so on, but it has 0.01m2 RCS. How can 5-6 times bigger F-22 having less RCS-optimized shape and RAMs distribution, to have 100 times less RCS???

BTW, there were one very interesting judicial trial process with LM engineer against LM, where this engineer have disclosed the details of F-22 RCS testing and LM frauds in this process:
Ex-F-22 engineer to sue Lockheed for stealth design
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ass/contractors/38/cases/1203/1686/lockheed-martin-olsen_complaint.pdf

seems you have extensive info....

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel:
Yeah, the great aviation guru, tell us the truth about G5 requirements, we are begging you!

1 - VLO is only one of the list, and as for now is not the most important one. Logics is simple: F-22 has been created as FDOW agressor, meaning a knife which has to cut a breach in the Soviet AD armed with Su-27 and MiG-31. So, the only chance to do this was VLO (at least this was believed in the 80-es).
Americans have sacrificed all the capabilities to VLO - inoptimal single-mode non-controlled air intakes with awfull losses on the other modes, small MWBs, "not a pound to earth" (non-multifunctional), rediculously small combat radius with a supercruise leap - 100NM only and many-many others.
2 - As we all have knew after 90-s, when the Soviet secrecy fell down, Soviet radars have used LPI modes since MiG-31 Zaslon, so Russians can detect F-22 using passive surviallance from 150km, as LPI is not something new for them.
3 - There are no toe-to-toe duels between fighters - there are battle systems who does the war actions. Stealth works only against the more weak enemy, having rare modern weapons and detection capabilities. The enemy who has no passive surviallance networks compatible to Russian one, and of course who lack modern network-centric battlespace.

So, now G5 requirements are:
1 - Supercruise (tactical agility)
2 - VLO (possibility to infiltrate to enemy space through little gaps between enemy radar fields, not work with comparable foes)
3 - Multifunctionality
4 - Integrated network-centric avoinics complexes, capable of being information unit in the common battlespace (which increases situation awareness a times)
5 - Reduced TCO (less maintenance, self-test and self-control, modular construction)
6 - Supermaneurability

So, is PAK FA a true G5 fighter or not?

RCS of 0.2-0.3 m2 is estimated for prototyles or Phase 1 aircrafts. What will be in Phase 2 and FGFA - we don't know. Regarding the info about the major external differences on the LRIP-1 jets, I would prefer to shut up and wait.

As for Chinese with their J-20... Are you serious?

Why couldn't the russians implement serpentine air intake kike the chinese and Americans have done on their 5th gen plane to keep the RCS of PAKFA in the range of F-22 and J-20?

They can have all their super agility after fulfilling his basic function of 5th gen is my contention.

Because ASEA radar sensitivity is going to only increase in the lifetime of PAKFA fighter. So 0.2 or 0.3 sq meter RCS is not revolutionary in any 5th gen sense.

J-20 copies the shape of F-22 . SO it is only fair to assume that it will have many times lower RCS than the PAKFA.

I feel disappointed that IAF which held ADA's nose to the grind wheel rejecting the 94 percent stealth design of AMCA untill ADA came with much better stealth complaint design is keeping quite and itching to spend 10s of billions of dollars on much inferior RCS paltform.

HAL has next to nothing design capability. They are experiencing difficulty even in the design of IJT Sitara. SO there is not a hope in the hell for them to design better stealth FGFA from Sukhoi PAKFA design. ADA is the competent agency to that. Not HAL. But ADA is not engaged in FGFA project. It is the next to nothing design capability HAL which is expected to design stricter stealth FGFA from PAKFA. Not going to happen.

What was the RCS spec IAF gave to SUKHOI for FGFA?

Did they give any ASR or not?

 

[Austin]

Not sure this was posted before from MAKS report quoting HAL

Indo-Russian military aviation projects on schedule: HAL executive | Russia & India Report

Joint military aviation projects between India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Russian companies are running on schedule, a senior HAL executive told RIR at the MAKS-2013 international air and space show.

"The FGFA (fifth generation fighter aircraft) is on the right track and on schedule," R. P. Chakraborty, Deputy General Manager (IMM) at HAL said on Wednesday.

When asked about the delays in the project, Chakraborty said they were on account of the design documentation in the contract, an issue that has already been resolved. The contract to develop a sketch and technical project of the fighter was completed in April 2013.

"A team of Indians is already in Russia and a Russian team is already in the design centre to go ahead with the work on the design," Chakraborty said.

 

[jmj_overlord]

Not sure this was posted before from MAKS report quoting HAL

Indo-Russian military aviation projects on schedule: HAL executive | Russia & India Report

so the project will go ahead despite all the rumours. What is meant by design documentation for fgfa ?

 

[p2prada]

What is meant by design documentation for fgfa ?

The full design and technical specs of the PAKFA. Detailed information on everything what Sukhoi has done till date and plan to do in the future.

 

[Abhi9]

 

[Abhi9]

 

[Abhi9]

 

[gadeshi]

Insiders from KnA have promised us to see a very unusual painting scheme.
Waiting with passion :thumb:

 

[p2prada]

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/11/14/2045/

Russia renews PAK-FA overtures to South Korea - IHS Jane's 360

 

[Anshu Attri]

 

[Anshu Attri]

 

[gadeshi]

T-50-5 (01-5) Has successfully landed in Zhukovskiy (Gordiy) airbase of LII fligt tests institute:

And video:

And an official Hi Res from Sukhoi:

 

[Anshu Attri]

repost.................

 

[gadeshi]

And spotting in Shagol (Cheliabinsk Region):

 

[Anshu Attri]

 

[gadeshi]

And HiRes video:

 

[gadeshi]