Sukhoi PAK FA

[death.by.chocolate]

I want to believe you but there are so many contradictions may be this subject is worthy of a separate discussion.
For instance the DRDO website list the pay scale for the most senior "Distinguished Scientist" as USD 1745 - that is preposterous.

Now that's silly. ALH is 75% composites and that did not stop us from making a 100 and another 500 on order. It is not a challenge. We have been doing it for over 2 decades now. Carbon composite fabrication and assembly is taken for granted here.

Right now the level is such that pretty soon people will start asking for carbon composite cups and spoons too.

I hope you're not planning on waiting on composite silverware to eat!

The official maintained that while export would give the Dhruv a badge of quality, the criticality of the domestic demand cannot be negated.According to informed sources, demand on the home front has been more than what HAL is capable of supplying. "The ALH production line can churn out only two-three machines per month. At this rate it will take years to supply its present order for 200 choppers," the official added.

More at : HAL choppers going places but unable to meet domestic demand http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...-domestic-demand_100201931.html#ixzz0oUZu7GQB

You think India and Russia have production capability - I do not. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

 

[p2prada]

I want to believe you but there are so many contradictions may be this subject is worthy of a separate discussion.
For instance the DRDO website list the pay scale for the most senior "Distinguished Scientist" as USD 1745 - that is preposterous.

$1745/month = Rs 78000/month.
There are many DFI members who will tell you that is a hefty pay package especially for someone working in the govt. That is exactly what PPP(Purchasing Power parity) means. It means the cost of living is very low here compared to the US. The difference is 3 to 5 times. So, what costs $100 here costs $300 or even $500 in the US for basic commodities.

That's why India and China are seen as low cost destinations. The very reason why everybody wants to invest in these countries.The difference between our currencies are big and the returns will be bigger over the years.

If a college graduate works in a BPO, his starting pay/month is $250. For an engineering graduate it is $500 in a MNC.

For a manager of a MNC, it will be huge in comparison because he gets paid in dollars that is converted here into Rupees.

So if a plane part costs $10000 in the US, it will cost half that or even lesser in India.

This isn't something magical that we are conjuring out of thin air. That's why terms like 3rd world and 1st world are made up and that's the very reason why China is feared. Their unofficial defence budget of $100billion+ seems small in comparison to the US. But in real terms it is quite significant and comparable to the US expenditure.

You think India and Russia have production capability - I do not. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

That's why India and Russia are currently building up industrial capability quickly. We are building it up from scratch and nobody knows exactly where it will end.

Eg: Russia says they are working on boosting production capability.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Russia_To_Build_Over_4500_Aircraft_By_2025_999.html

HAL is also investing $6Billion to boost production.
http://machinist.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2476&Itemid=2

HAL has 19 production facilities. Since ALH and LCA are new products, first of its kind in India, we still have some ways to go before reaching certain capability. It is not built overnight and mainly depends on the size of the orders. Money matters. Since the orders for ALH are good and LCA seems to be nearly ready, HAL announced a $6Billion upgrade package to upgrade the existing 19 facilities and also build new ones. Work has already started.

If you are talking about having the capability right now, we don't. Russia does have it to some extent. But, we don't. Our LCA production will be nothing till 2012. We may scale up from 15 aircraft/ year to 20 and the final figure of 40 over a few years. But, this has nothing to do with composites. Rather it has more to do with training personnel, securing funds and raw materials.

The US too, they said they will produce 300 F-35s a year because the demand is too high. But, they also said full production capability will be reached only 2-3 years after serial production starts since it cannot be done overnight. The 300/year number may possibly be reached only in 2017 or 2018 and this was even before the F-35 development delay was announced. So, it isn't like the US don't have similar problems.

Building an aircraft itself is tough. Actually it will take longer to build the LCA had it been all metal instead of all composites. It takes 7 months for the current LCA frame to be built and assembled. The equivalent metallic frame would take 11 months. So, carbon composites have made aircraft assembly quicker and easier.

Cheers.

 

[SATISH]

off-topic

Huh, Isnt there a special exam and interview for those who want to join the DRDO and ISRO?

 

[Rahul Singh]

While watching this video i saw something interesting between 0:04 to 0:07 on leading wing root of port side which i think is LEVCON(same as in N-LCA)

PS:I have not followed this thread regularly and i know very little about PAK-FA so seeking help. Forgive me if this had already been discussed.

 

[prahladh]

Still waiting for the near vertical take-off like F-22.

 

[p2prada]

off-topic

Huh, Isnt there a special exam and interview for those who want to join the DRDO and ISRO?

Routine. It is held even by MNCs.

To join ISRO there is an entrance exam with 80 Questions out of which you need to answer 60 correctly or something like that. Don't know the exact details. For both DRDO and ISRO you need to have an aggregate of 65%. DRDO and ISRO look at your technical competence while the MNCs mainly test your IQ. Technical rounds are important too but not as stringent as ISRO and DRDO.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Building an aircraft itself is tough. Actually it will take longer to build the LCA had it been all metal instead of all composites. It takes 7 months for the current LCA frame to be built and assembled. The equivalent metallic frame would take 11 months. So, carbon composites have made aircraft assembly quicker and easier.

Cheers.

"Building an aircraft itself is tough" - building a fifth generation LO observable fighter like the Raptor is tougher. Below I've quoted Gambit to drive home my point, the surface materials including composites need much higher manufacturing tolerance. Any irregularity on the surface will compromise stealth - you and I both know you can't get manufacturing tolerance by just throwing bodies at the problem. Sophisticated tools and testing equipment is needed to manufacture a plane like the F-22.

"But against an aircraft whose survivability depends on surface integrity, I cannot take the chance of slipping and having my speed handle gouging the panel, thereby creating those dreaded corner reflectors. So instead of a minute or two to remove a panel, I would need to call a sheetmetal specialist with proper tools to remove the difficult fastener that will not create any surface harm to the panel. Yes...I and the sheetmetal specialist have to be extra careful on the F-22 compared to the F-16"

An example of the kind of specialized equipment and facilities that are needed is the anechoic chamber.

The original project consisted of an anechoic chamber to support ground testing of electronic warfare systems on full-scale aircraft such as the B-1B and B-2 bombers. The chamber–the largest in the world–is a massive, 250 x 264 x 70-foot steel plate box enclosed in a metal hangar building. The walls, ceiling, and floor are covered in 816,000 pyramidal foam cones designed to absorb radio frequency signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anechoic_chamber

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Just a general statement, If Russians can place ICBM'S, rockets and space stations in orbit for decades, composites may not be such a major problem??

 

[SATISH]

"Building an aircraft itself is tough" - building a fifth generation LO observable fighter like the Raptor is tougher. Below I've quoted Gambit to drive home my point, the surface materials including composites need much higher manufacturing tolerance. Any irregularity on the surface will compromise stealth - you and I both know you can't get manufacturing tolerance by just throwing bodies at the problem. Sophisticated tools and testing equipment is needed to manufacture a plane like the F-22.




An example of the kind of specialized equipment and facilities that are needed is the anechoic chamber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anechoic_chamber

Or a simpler idea exists...simulate it on a computer by developing a software with Israelis. Does France have an Anechoic chamber to test their SPECTRA or does Israel have it to test their EW equipments? The ones we are getting is more than enough for us for the next decade DBC. And I dont know what the Russians are getting. Whatever we are getting is a generation ahead of anything our rivals in our immediate neighbourhood can field. You always tend to miss out the geo-strategy. We are not Russia nor China to look in the eye of US. And also read the same wikipedia post you can see that it can be replicated using a scale model. I heard even BMW plant in Germany and Chennai has an Anechoic chamber to test their engine noise.

 

[death.by.chocolate]

Or a simpler idea exists...simulate it on a computer by developing a software with Israelis. Does France have an Anechoic chamber to test their SPECTRA or does Israel have it to test their EW equipments? The ones we are getting is more than enough for us for the next decade DBC. And I dont know what the Russians are getting. Whatever we are getting is a generation ahead of anything our rivals in our immediate neighbourhood can field. You always tend to miss out the geo-strategy. We are not Russia nor China to look in the eye of US. And also read the same wikipedia post you can see that it can be replicated using a scale model. I heard even BMW plant in Germany and Chennai has an Anechoic chamber to test their engine noise.

Software simulation is a cheaper alternative, but is severally limited. France has a RF Anechoic chamber at the Centre d'Etudes de Gramat.
Anechoic chamber for RF is more complex and expensive than sound chambers. The discussion started with someone claiming that the PAK-FA radar is better than the APG-77.

 

[plugwater]

PAK-FA to get 5th generation ejection seat

The fifth- generation fighter jet, which is being tested in Zhukovsky near Moscow, has a new ejection seat, Zvezda General Director and Designer Sergei Pozdnyakov told Interfax-AVN.

"The jet will have a fifth-generation ejection seat, which is better than ejection seats in existent warplanes by several parameters," he said.

The ejection seat for the second fifth-generation plane has been supplied to Sukhoi, he added.

The ejection seat is being tested alongside the tests of the jet, Pozdnyakov said. The tests are taking place on land, because Russia has no flying laboratories. "The country used to have several aircraft with double cockpits, one of which tested ejection seats with dummies. For instance, we had Mikoyan MiG-31 and MiG-25 and Antonov An-12. There is not a single flying laboratory left, so the ejection seat is being tested at the Faustovo range in the Moscow region," he said.

The flying laboratories were accompanied by another plane, which filmed the entire process of the ejection seat's separation from the jet and landing. Now the tests are being filmed with video cameras placed along the test bench.

http://www.russiandefenseblog.org/?p=1128

 

[p2prada]

An example of the kind of specialized equipment and facilities that are needed is the anechoic chamber.

I am aware of this. Russia and India can only test it on models as of now. It is not a perfect method, but it works to a certain extent.

There is another method of testing it too. Build a flying prototype, subject it to every single radio and infra-red frequency known to man and measure it in real time conditions like rain, snow, lightning, fog etc. If some deficiencies in its low observability are found the newer prototypes will see design changes.

American design philosophy is significantly different from the Russia one.

The Americans first design a plane, study the structure using computers and other facilities like the Anechoic chamber and then freeze the design before flight testing takes place.

The Russians build a prototype and then subject it to hundreds of changes through different prototypes before finding the right one.

This is the first Flanker: T10-1

This is the latest and also the last Flanker: Su-35

PAKFA is no different. What you have seen today is only the first set of prototypes. Newer prototypes will slowly start looking different from the first one.

The serial production PAKFA will look very different from what you see today.

 

[AJSINGH]

the aircraft has been designed with a clear understanding of the effects of 'stealth' on air combat when both sides present with low-observable aircraft. Obviously, the combatants will be closer when their radar sensors detect the other side, so close in fact that the Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST) might be the first sensor to detect the presence of an enemy aircraft. The problem is this: the PAK-FA has IRST capability and the F-22A does not. Worse, the extreme agility of the PAK-FA will allow it to dodge the F-22A's AIM-120 missile shots, while the Raptor will likely not be able to out-turn the more advanced Russian (and Chinese) missiles. Surviving F-22As would then be committed to what fighter pilots call a 'knife fight' – close-in dogfights where superior agility wins – and the PAK-FA will out-manoeuvre the F-22A.

 

[AJSINGH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mZM1y8rcyE

 

[AJSINGH]

 

[AJSINGH]

 

[AJSINGH]

some of the pictures i found

 

[AJSINGH]

What, Me Worry? - USAF on PAK-FA
Solomon reminded me that I hadn't commented on reports of the USAF leadership's view of the Sukhoi T-50, the prototype for the Russian PAK-FA future tactical fighter. That's because at first sight I found the statements unremarkable - but then I realized that, in itself, that is worthy of comment.

In the Cold War, you could rely on the Pentagon and the USAF to play up the Soviet threat for all it was worth. The MiG-25? Not only Mach 3 but an agile dogfighter. The Tu-22M Backfire was a B-1 equivalent with the range for strategic attacks against the US. And if you disagreed with the USAF that the nation consequently needed lots of F-15s and B-1s, you were clearly some kind of fluoride-swilling crypto-Commie prevert.

There was actually a running fight between the military intelligence agencies and the CIA, which bypassed the Pentagon and took its data to black-program teams within industry. The most public rumpus was over Backfire, where the boss of USAF intelligence tried to force McDonnell Douglas to recant the conclusions of a CIA-contracted team within the company, whose estimates of the bomber's performance were lower and far more accurate than those of Air Force analysts and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So it's ironic to see USAF leaders downplaying the potential of the T-50, as in this report from Air Force Times. "I didn't see anything "¦ that would cause me to rethink plans for the F-22 or F-35," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley was quoted as saying. Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Gary North, added: "I guess the greatest flattery is how much they copy you."

Donley's comment, of course, is a demonstration of the Mandy Rice-Davies principle in action: He would say that, wouldn't he? His immediate predecessor was canned for (among other things) expressing incorrect and counter-revolutionary sentiments regarding his boss's F-22/F-35 plan.

Gen. North, meanwhile, is falling into the old technical intelligence trap called mirror-imaging: we want the B-1, so the Soviets must want a B-1 as well. The PAK-FA's front end bears a superficial resemblance to the F-22, but its hindquarters could not be more different, and - just for starters - it's a reasonable assessment that the Russian concept of balancing stealth with other requirements is very different from that which informed the F-22 design.

I'm not sure that anyone has an accurate assessment of the PAK-FA threat, in terms of timing, numbers and detailed capability - that will depend on how fast the Russia-India relationship can move things forward, which in turn depends on money, as well as on technical resources. But it is pretty clearly a supercruiser, probably a good one, with some unique features that are there to combine speed and high agility without counter-stealthy aerodynamic surfaces all over the place.

And had you started thinking about this kind of design in the late 1990s, and if "eating F-35s for breakfast" was on the requirements list, you'd end up with something like T-50. So I'd suggest that writing it off as a me-too F-22 is a bit premature.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:dbd52f86-c8bd-4c9d-8378-cfd4224d634e

 

[sunnyv]

The discussion started with someone claiming that the PAK-FA radar is better than the APG-77.

Finally a sensible line in last three pages . What the hell does NIIP and Radar have to do with LCa having golden bubble canopy , no of IItians in DRDO .
Let us get on track -
Post the radar specs of F22 esp Antennae diameter , no of TR modules and Gain and Duty cycle of APG-77 .
And we can compare which one is better.

 

[AJSINGH]

Finally a sensible line in last three pages . What the hell does NIIP and Radar have to do with LCa having golden bubble canopy , no of IItians in DRDO .
Let us get on track -
Post the radar specs of F22 esp Antennae diameter , no of TR modules and Gain and Duty cycle of APG-77 .
And we can compare which one is better.

look i feel the time is not mature yet to compare both the radar , you see PAK FA is still in development till 2017 and F-22 is in service