Sukhoi PAK FA

he-man

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
90
Likes
17
Be assured FGFA won't be anything cheaper then 135 Million$(if the deal includes the other things apart from just fly away cost as for rafale) and could be even more. Yes the problem is right now. But the 1 or 2 squadron of earlier models of PAKFA will not really give much advantage over Rafale, if the supposed enemy is yet to get fully operational 5th Gen fighter. I'm not concern about the funding, even if we go into more slow growth, it can be managed as the payment will be over the years and India will only grow due to its hard working population, no matter how many scams. For Russia upgrading the current version of Pakfa will be quite easy and cheap, but it won't be for us. That is the reason why the Rafale is still being pushed. Though I support your argument for going full throttle for MK2 and dump the rafale, but it still will be at the mercy of US(due to engine) for at-least a decade or even more. Uncle can always say no more engines after 300 nos. In today's scenario it all comes down to engine for the most of the part while developing a fighter jet. as other tech equipments can be bought from many other vendors though they may be of little less quality, but can always be upgraded later.
first sensible post i have read on this forum,thank u for not being a fanboy!!

u are right,also rafale is almost final now if ppl are to be believed plus its spectra counter measures are unrivalled except f-35(not f-22 as its already 10 years old and has not been upgraded)
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
first sensible post i have read on this forum,thank u for not being a fanboy!!

u are right,also rafale is almost final now if ppl are to be believed plus its spectra counter measures are unrivalled except f-35(not f-22 as its already 10 years old and has not been upgraded)
F-22 doesn't have a counter measures suite.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
why??

an/alr 94 and an/aar 56 should fall into that category??:scared2:
They are ESM suites. They are called Support Measures. Counter Measures is used when you have a jammer included in the ESM system.

ALR-94 is ESM. Spectra is ESM+ECM.
 

Austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363

This profile view of the PAK FA illustrates the extensive shaping that has been done in an effort to reduce the usual radar-returning traps around the air intakes. Source: Sukhoi

PAK FA stealth features patent published

Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved throught the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.

In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.

The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle.

Some openings and slots on the airframe's surface - such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit - are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.

The surfaces of the PAK FA's own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to 'deflect' enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing 'curtains' to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.

Antennas are recessed from the surface of the skin to reduce protuberances (the vertical empennage serves as a communications antenna), while the turret of the aircraft's nose-mounted infrared search-and-track (IRST) sight is rotated backwards into a cruise position, exposing its rear hemisphere, which is covered with a radar-absorbing coating.

The release of this list of patents follows the July 2013 release of documentation covering the configuration of the fighter's integrated avionics suite.

There are currently five T-50 prototypes - the latest, T-50-5, first flew on 27 October 2013 - supporting the development programme and they are believed to have undertaken over 300 sorties to date.

In the 'Schedule of Activity for the Russian Ministry of Defence for 2013 to 2020' published in mid-2013, the PAK FA's Initial Operational Capability and the launch of full-scale series production is scheduled for 31 December 2016. The Russian National Armament Programme stipulates that 60 production PAK FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.

The assembly of aircraft T-50-6-1 is nearing completion and three further aircraft (T-50-6-2, T-50-7 and T-50-8) are in build. One of the T-50-6 aircraft is intended for static trials and the other one is intended for flight testing.


The PAK FA's designers have paid close attention to stealthy features, which include the use of radar-absorbent coatings on the reverse of the nose-mounted IRST, the widespread use of baffles and the use of absorbent coatings in the air intakes and at the junctions between moving surfaces. (Sukhoi)
 

Lions Of Punjab

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
652
Likes
926
Country flag
According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".
Please correct me if i'm wrong . Recently one article in idrw said Tejas has an RCS of 0.1 - 0.2 m2 . The above RCS of T-50 is similar to Tejas . How ??
 

Austin

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
The Russian take RCS of the aircraft as the average RCS and not RCA based on narrow re-radiating angle which can have the lowest RCS value.

Alexander Davidenko chief designer of PAK-FA and a chief scientist from the same institute where the physical principles and architecture of modern stealth has been achieved stated average RCS of F-22 is 0.3-0.4 m2 and PAK-FA would be very close to that.

По его словам, ЭПР самолетов старого поколения (например, Су-27) составляет около 12 м², тогда как у F-22A Raptor она колеблется в диапазоне 0,3-0,4 м². ЭПР ПАК ФА "не будет превышать показатели F-22A, она будет к ним очень близка".
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Please correct me if i'm wrong . Recently one article in idrw said Tejas has an RCS of 0.1 - 0.2 m2 . The above RCS of T-50 is similar to Tejas . How ??
The frontal RCS of PAKFA would be hundreds or thousands of times smaller than LCA's. However what's advertised for LCA is the frontal RCS while that of PAKFA's is average RCS.

For eg:


Notice the large spikes at 0, 90, 180 and 270 and compare that to the ones between 30 and 60, 120 and 150 and so on. You add up all these figures along with a multitude of other figures from other angles, and then take an average. That's PAKFA's RCS figure.

You can use the figure to calculate the average RCS figure by yourself. This figure will be quite a large value.

For a 5th gen fighter, it is of interest to make sure the average RCS is below below 1m2. If average RCS of PAKFA is less than 1m2, then that makes it an all aspect stealth fighter. In order to make sure the aircraft returns the lowest RCS possible when a radar is incident on it, the pilot will have to be trained to fly his aircraft in a way that allows him to retain his stealth characteristics. That would mean he should angle his aircraft to the radar in the best possible way in order to reflect the smallest possible returns.

The RCS mentioned for F-22 and F-35 are RCS from the front. Frontal RCS is among the smallest RCS figures on a stealth aircraft. Even in the above figure, a non-stealth aircraft provides lesser returns from the front than from the sides or the rear.

More importantly, the figures advertised for PAKFA are just the objectives or goals that are to be reached. When actual RCS testing starts on the actual model, there is a high chance that PAKFA's RCS may be significantly different from the goals. Perhaps even lower.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
The frontal RCS of PAKFA would be hundreds or thousands of times smaller than LCA's. However what's advertised for LCA is the frontal RCS while that of PAKFA's is average RCS.
wrong statement as usual with no proof.

The frontal RCS of PAKFA will always be more than the frontal RCS of Tejas (if similarly treated with RAM )with hornet like under fuselage weapon bay.

Because engine blades of Tejas are completely shielded and in PAKFA , a porion of it is visible and radar blockers are used.

No on knows the efficiency of the radar blockers against new generation sensitive ASEA radar.

ALso PAKFA shaping has too many patched up planes compared to F-22.

Frontal RCS is th most important factor in head on confrontation, thats why it is considered so important.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic_Indian

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
246
Country flag
wrong statement as usual with no proof.

The frontal RCS of PAKFA will always be more than the frontal RCS of Tejas (if similarly treated with RAM )with hornet like under fuselage weapon bay.

Because engine blades of Tejas are completely shielded and in PAKFA , a porion of it is visible and radar blockers are used.

No on knows the efficiency of the radar blockers against new generation sensitive ASEA radar.

ALso PAKFA shaping has too many patched up planes compared to F-22.

Frontal RCS is th most important factor in head on confrontation, thats why it is considered so important.
engine blades of lca is completely shielded ? I guess it's partially shielded.
which is more stealthy carrying weapons inside the belly or on separate weapon pod ?
what about nose shaping ? which one is shaped for stealth ?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
engine blades of lca is completely shielded ? I guess it's partially shielded.
which is more stealthy carrying weapons inside the belly or on separate weapon pod ?
what about nose shaping ? which one is shaped for stealth ?
You don't have to guess,

the Y duct intake completely shields it. It is no rocket science, the engine is in the fuselage and intakes are at the sides of the engine with an Y duct shape, SO there is no way rdar waves can illuminate engine blades in tejas,

In PAKFA it is not.

Every one knows fully internal weapon bays are better for stealth,

But considering the weak stealth design of PAKFA it will compare very poorly to even an external stealth weapon bay contraption in Tejas is my point.

Nose shaping is better in PAKFA, But other areas of shaping like air intake is a let down in PAKFA.

Cons won't deflect that much in frontal radar reflections.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic_Indian

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
246
Country flag
You don't have to guess,

the Y duct intake completely shields it. It is no rocket science, the engine is in the fuselage and intakes are at the sides of the engine with an Y duct shape, SO there is no way rdar waves can illuminate engine blades in tejas,

In PAKFA it is not.

Every one knows fully internal weapon bays are better for stealth,

But considering the weak stealth design of PAKFA it will compare very poorly to even an external stealth weapon bay contraption in Tejas is my point.

Nose shaping is better in PAKFA, But other areas of shaping like air intake is a let down in PAKFA.

Cons won't deflect that much in frontal radar reflections.
I can't really take your words for the explanation of y duct fully covering the compressor blades unless you given me some source .let me make a similar case for jf17. " engine is in the fuselage, intakes are on the side..further more there is also a hump in the air intake..Now what ?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
I can't really take your words for the explanation of y duct fully covering the compressor blades unless you given me some source .let me make a similar case for jf17. " engine is in the fuselage, intakes are on the side..further more there is also a hump in the air intake..Now what ?




Where is the engine?

Where is the air intake?

Look at the orange jet exhaust right in front of which engine blades are located and the position of air intakes

You get my point?

What more can I do?

Tejas was designed from scratch to minimize it's RCS. Not just these engines blades, the curved shape of the wing and deltas are always good in RCS point of view because nothing juts out a right angles and the surface of Tejas is 90 percent plus composites the radar transparent material,in the same way design process was used RAFALE with a dedicated software simulation and in the labs,

You know what is the position of JF-17 in all these spheres,
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Any idea what 3D CAD design sw. Russians are using ? Is it designed in-house or bought off-the-shelf

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
Looks like something from Siemens. :p Look at the top right corner.
 

Neeraj Mathur

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
881
Likes
2,205
Country flag
PAK FA stealth features patent published




Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved throught the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.

In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.

The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle.

Some openings and slots on the airframe's surface - such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit - are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.

The surfaces of the PAK FA's own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to 'deflect' enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing 'curtains' to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.

Antennas are recessed from the surface of the skin to reduce protuberances (the vertical empennage serves as a communications antenna), while the turret of the aircraft's nose-mounted infrared search-and-track (IRST) sight is rotated backwards into a cruise position, exposing its rear hemisphere, which is covered with a radar-absorbing coating.

The release of this list of patents follows the July 2013 release of documentation covering the configuration of the fighter's integrated avionics suite.

There are currently five T-50 prototypes - the latest, T-50-5, first flew on 27 October 2013 - supporting the development programme and they are believed to have undertaken over 300 sorties to date.

In the 'Schedule of Activity for the Russian Ministry of Defence for 2013 to 2020' published in mid-2013, the PAK FA's Initial Operational Capability and the launch of full-scale series production is scheduled for 31 December 2016. The Russian National Armament Programme stipulates that 60 production PAK FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.

The assembly of aircraft T-50-6-1 is nearing completion and three further aircraft (T-50-6-2, T-50-7 and T-50-8) are in build. One of the T-50-6 aircraft is intended for static trials and the other one is intended for flight testing.

PAK FA stealth features patent published - IHS Jane's 360
 

Agnostic_Indian

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
246
Country flag




Where is the engine?

Where is the air intake?

Look at the orange jet exhaust right in front of which engine blades are located and the position of air intakes

You get my point?

What more can I do?

Tejas was designed from scratch to minimize it's RCS. Not just these engines blades, the curved shape of the wing and deltas are always good in RCS point of view because nothing juts out a right angles and the surface of Tejas is 90 percent plus composites the radar transparent material,in the same way design process was used RAFALE with a dedicated software simulation and in the labs,

You know what is the position of JF-17 in all these spheres,




look at similar profile pictures of lca and jf 17.
How is jf 17, gripen or any single engine fighter is different..all has the same advantage that engine on single engine fighter comes on center and the intakes naturally comes on sides..I am pretty sure all of them including tejas has either fully covers the blades or all of them partially covers the blades..I don't see tejas is any different from any of those.And remember pak fa could have used S DUCT but they didn't want to compromise speed and super cruise for stealth..similarly tejas would have been mach 2+ if the Intels were direct instead of y duct.
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top