Sukhoi PAK FA

Galaxy

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag

According to the forecasts of Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade (CAWAT), at least 1000 PAK FA fighters will be manufactured in the network of production program by 2050. The expected order of Russian air forces is 200-250 aircraft, Sukhoi Company reports.

At present Russia and India are taking part in PAK FA program. The Indian order, already announced by the officials of its armed forces, is assessed at 250 jets.

Among the possible customers of PAK FA's export variant are: Algeria (approximate period of deliveries – 2025-2030), Argentina (2035-2040), Brazil (2030-2035), Venezuela (2027-2032), Vietnam (2030-2035), Indonesia (2028-2032), Iran (in case embargo on deliveries of arms is removed, 2035-2040), Kazakhstan (2025-2035), China (under the specific conditions, 2025-2035), Malaysia (2035-2040), Syria (2025-2030).

The total potential order of these countries is assessed by CAWAT at 274-388 jets.

The geography of fifth-generation Russia-India fighter's export may appear to be significantly wider, for example, by means of CIS Region. It is also possible that some countries from Western Europe will become the PAK FA's export variant customers when it will be adapted to their requirements.

According to the experts of CAWAT, the claimed aircraft performance of the new Russian fighter corresponds to the state-of-the-art American F-22 air superiority fighter.


 
Last edited:

Dovah

Untermensch
New Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
1000 Pakfa until 2050 is BR, In 2050 ordering Pakfa is like ordering Mig-21 now.
I meant the Chinese buying them...
And that too 2025-30, won't J-xx be complete by then?
 

plugwater

New Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
4,154
Likes
1,082
I meant the Chinese buying them...
And that too 2025-30, won't J-xx be complete by then?
Sorry, I should have quoted the article. Pakfa will never go to chinese. J-xx is their only hope of 5th gen fighter.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
The eighth part pf the report from MAKS-2011.

Irbis-E radar






L-band AESA






Optic-electronic station 101KS-U with sensors from 101KS system for T-50






Optic-location station 101KS-O from 101KS system for T-50






Optic-location station 101KS-V from 101KS system for T-50






Observation sighting-searching system pod 101KS-N from 101KS system for T-50






Escort jamming station SAP 14






Active towed ECM decoy from ECM system President-S






Laser DIRCM system from ECM system President-S
 

niceguy2011

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
656
Likes
17
Look the ugly 2 pieces cockpit, Idont think it can competed with J20.

BTW,The time for j20 go to PLAAF is only depend on geo politic circumstance of China. Now, F22 is sick and stay home ,then the pace of development is slower.

J20 will the second equiped 5G fighter, but it very likely will be the first going to a real war.
 
Last edited:

Dovah

Untermensch
New Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
Idont think it can competed with J20.
You're the boss.

BTW,The time for j20 go to PLAAF is only depend on geo politic circumstance of China. Now, F22 is sick and stay home ,then the pace of development is slower.
I won't even attempt to find a meaning in that.

J20 will the second equiped 5G fighter, but it very likely will be the first going to a real war.
J-20 is not 5 Gen.
What war are you talking about? Most likely, it would meet the fate of F-22, OTOH, it would save you guys the humiliation of seeing it fall out of the sky.


Oh wait...you came here just to derail the thread, didn't you?
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
New Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
I am pretty sure the 2-piece canopy will be replaced with a one-piece version in the production model. The frontal/ side RCS of a 2-piece canopy is 10 times that of a one piece bubble, and the Russians cannot claim to have a 0.1 m2 RCS for the PAK-FA with a 2-piece canopy.

As to Badguy's word - the famous YF-23 prototypes also did not have a one piece bubble canopy - it had a two-piece canopy - like this. The idea was to upgrade to a one piece canopy during production phase.

 

gambit

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
91
Likes
47
Very interesting - I have a few questions - if anyone can answer them ...

1. Is that a diagram for the FGFA or just the twin seater PAK-FA?
2. Is there any plans for a bubble canopy on the PAK-FA or the FGFA? What type of coating are they planning? Or else how are they planing to keep the RCS low for the canopy?
3. What IS the planed / expected RCS for the FGFA - frontal, side and rear? Top view and bottom view?
4. Are the wingroot bays going to carry any A2A weapons? I read somewhere that the WVR missiles are supposed to be housed there - but this diagram is only showing gravity bombs.
Before we start making baseless assumptions on the radar cross section (RCS) of the latest designs some basic understanding of radar detection is necessary...

In radar detection, there are vital 'target resolutions':

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

In order to calculate those resolutions, a constant stream of EM energy across the distance will not help. All of those resolutions are in the time domain, as do most of everything we do: Measure in and by time indexes or (slices).

So instead of a constant stream of EM energy that give us no information in the time domain, we must create individual time slices or 'pulses'...



Each pulse has:

- Leading edge
- Trailing edge
- Duration

All three give us a characteristic call 'finite pulse length'. The corollary to 'finite pulse length' is a finite amount of energy per pulse. Therefore, a pulse has two time indexes: When the pulse begins life and when it ends. The radar system remembers this crucial information along with duration. Other pulse characteristics listed in the above illustration are for a different discussion. The above is applicable to all wavelengths, from the meters length HF/VHF/UHF bands to the ghz centimetric and millmetric bands.

For any wavelength, the shortest pulse we can create is that equal to one cycle. However, such a short pulse will deny us the ability to create other pulse characteristics such as the variable PRI and manipulate them for other purposes such as ECM and that is for another and more complex discussion.

It is then obvious that the greater the amount of time slices we have inside a duration and across a physical distance, the higher those vital target resolutions. The analogy here is high speed photography where the shutter speed creates time slices of visible wavelengths to give us those sports 'slo-mo' action. Or in nightclubs where strobe lights create 'jerky' and 'disjointed' movements. We want pulses that are greater than one cycle but not too long that it will give us too coarse information. This is a delicate balancing act for any system engineering team when designing a radar for a specific purpose.

What this mean is that each frequency band, from the meters length HF/VHF/UHF to the ghz centimetric and millimetric bands, has their advantages and disadvantages because of the characteristic 'finite pulse length' which equals to useful packets of energy. The centimetric and millimetric bands will allow us to create pulses that are much closer to each other to give high target resolutions the same way the camera's high shutter speed can give us so fine motion resolutions that we can 'slo-mo' the athlete's run.

Air defense radars will have different antennas transmitting different wavelengths because of these advantages and disadvantages:

- Long wavelengths give us long pulses that contains the highest amount of energy but the poorest target resolutions. This is useful for long distance search where coarse target information will suffice. For an airport, traffic at 200 km distance is not as important as traffic at 50 km.

- Low end centimetric and millimetric give us shorter pulses and finer grain target resolutions but because there is less amount of energy per pulse, we are restricted to use these bands at closer distances. For the military, it is for threat assessment and assignment, for the civilian airport it is for landing permission and priority.

- High end centimetric and millimetric give us even shorter pulses and higher target resolutions but the least amount of energy per pulse. Atmospheric attenuation (loss) can sap the pulse of its energy before it reach the target. This highest target resolution capability but against this disadvantage confined these bands to missile guidance, either from the ground or contained in a missile. At this point there no longer are potential threats. All targets are assigned as threats and missiles launched.

This is where the X-band proved to be useful as the best compromise for threat assignment and missile guidance => X band - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer to the highlighted question is based upon some unofficial official 'laws' of RCS control measures for the military and under the fact that active cancellation is not yet available. The first and most important law is:

1- Target the threat frequency. In other words, the design should be shaped to act against the X-band.

Next are:

2- Use angled facetings technique to deny the seeking radar large expanse of surface areas as much as possible.

3- Use absorber (lossy) material whenever possible to control surface wave behaviors.

4- Enforce tolerances across surfaces.

5- Treat trailing edges to control edge diffraction signals. This includes plan forming all flight control elements.

6- Avoid corner reflectors of any degree whenever possible. If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg kind.

7- Avoid straight line cavities such as inlet tunnels whenever possible. If not possible, diffuse entrant signals prior to them entering said cavities. Inlet tunnels can create 'resonance' or 'ringing' in the EM spectrum that will exit both ends of the tunnels.

8- Shield one's own high-gain radar antenna from non-threat frequencies. In other words, use law 2 to deny other frequencies from exposing one's aircraft via direct reflection from the antenna.

9- Avoid surface discontinuities whenever possible. If not possible, see law 5.

Some examples of how these laws are applicable: During competition, the Boeing design had a single vertical stabilator, severely violating law 6 and forced the company out of competition. Law 6 is why all 'stealth' designs will have twin canted vertical stabs or in the case of the B-2 -- none at all, and law 6 is why all weapons will be carried internally. Laws 2, 5, and 9 are most evident on the F-117. Law 5 is applicable to all. Law 3 is minimally used on the F-22 and F-35.

Some critics of the F-35 called out the alleged fact that it is less 'stealthy' than the F-22. The critics missed the point completely that mission requirements can trump certain laws, in other words, mission requirements compelled the design team to focus more on some laws than others.



The result of the compromises between mission requirements and RCS control laws will give us the three generally accepted RCS shapes above. The process goes: Modeling, Estimation, and Measurement. With today's sophisticated software, the first two items can change positions but nothing is known until the measurement step, and the data from measurement will be hidden from the public.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
The answer to the highlighted question is based upon some unofficial official 'laws' of RCS control measures for the military and under the fact that active cancellation is not yet available. The first and most important law is:

1- Target the threat frequency. In other words, the design should be shaped to act against the X-band.

Next are:

2- Use angled facetings technique to deny the seeking radar large expanse of surface areas as much as possible.

3- Use absorber (lossy) material whenever possible to control surface wave behaviors.

4- Enforce tolerances across surfaces.

5- Treat trailing edges to control edge diffraction signals. This includes plan forming all flight control elements.

6- Avoid corner reflectors of any degree whenever possible. If not possible, then avoid the 90 deg kind.

7- Avoid straight line cavities such as inlet tunnels whenever possible. If not possible, diffuse entrant signals prior to them entering said cavities. Inlet tunnels can create 'resonance' or 'ringing' in the EM spectrum that will exit both ends of the tunnels.

8- Shield one's own high-gain radar antenna from non-threat frequencies. In other words, use law 2 to deny other frequencies from exposing one's aircraft via direct reflection from the antenna.

9- Avoid surface discontinuities whenever possible. If not possible, see law 5.
Not to sound rude, are these laws that are generally accepted by engineers and physicists in theory like Newton's laws or are these your interpretation of stealth?

Anyway a noobie question , how well do you feel both PAKFA and J-20 have incorporated these laws?

Law 3 is minimally used on the F-22 and F-35.
Aren't composites 24% by weight on the F-22. The Sukhoi director was known to say the PAKFA will also have 24% composites by weight and 70% by surface area. So wouldn't it suffice to say the F-22 would be similar if not the same.

Some critics of the F-35 called out the alleged fact that it is less 'stealthy' than the F-22. The critics missed the point completely that mission requirements can trump certain laws, in other words, mission requirements compelled the design team to focus more on some laws than others.
A question that a lot of people may be looking for. In the chance that the PAKFA or J-20 reach -30dB or greater reduction, similar to a F-22(maybe), then how will the USAF balance force levels with only small orders for F-22? The F-35 may not be enough to beat a F-22 equivalent aircraft theoretically. Are there more orders in the pipeline for the F-22 or is this it? I am of the opinion more may come with time, based on changing geo-political situation and also the American and world economic health.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
The cancellation of the F22 program may not be accidental at all or due to the worsened economic climate of the US. Remember that the Americans will not give an inch for anything for their security. I'd like to believe that there is a rational strategic thinking into the cancelation. The war planners in Pentagon seem to be shifting their focus from the traditional fighters to a new platforms. But whatever it is we will find clarity to the strategy in about 5-10 years from now.

In the meantime, the Russians and Chinese are racing to catch up with the F22.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
New Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
Thank you gambit. I had picked up a fair bit about RCS from different forums but this is really good explanation.

My questions are -

1. For F-22, the frontal RCS is claimed to be 0.001 m^2 and for F-35 it is claimed to be 0.01 m^2. How do these calculate against your Bowtie DB figures and how accurate are these? Also, what will be the lateral RCS for the F-22 and the F-35?

2. For PAK-FA, what will be the comparable figures, in your opinion?

As for P2Prada - the USAF together with Boeing, LM and General Dynamics are looking to build a 6th generation fighter. A supersonic stealthy fighter drone - about the size of the F-22, but remotely operated, with 25G+ performance and using hypersonic A2A missiles. Something like that will be even deadlier and can have a 5:1 kill ratio to a 5th gen fighter. The Chinese bloggers claim that the US 6th Gen aircraft might have directed energy weapons (laser/ plasma) etc.

Have a look at these ...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...0c9c983f85e7952c2adc426b189&tab=core&_cview=1
http://defensetech.org/2010/11/05/air-force-kicks-off-search-for-6th-gen-fighter/
Navy unveils first official glimpse of FA-XX strategy - The DEW Line

And then there is internet speculation -
Air Force to End the Need for Pilots In 6th Generation Fighters
Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet | AVIATION WEEK

More of such handwaving -

China Military Report: U.S. 6th generation fighter will be equipped with directed energy weapons, which combat targets against China and Russian
The Sixth Generation Fighter
 

gambit

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
91
Likes
47
Not to sound rude, are these laws that are generally accepted by engineers and physicists in theory like Newton's laws or are these your interpretation of stealth?
Generally accepted in light that active cancellation is not yet feasible, at least for others anyway. Physicists reveals how things behave. Engineers exploits those behaviors. An old saying attributed to Einstein goes: 'Scientists investigate that which already is; Engineers create that which has never been.' These laws are not so much laws as they are guidelines IF there are X, Y, and Z goals.

Anyway a noobie question , how well do you feel both PAKFA and J-20 have incorporated these laws?
Quite well, in my opinion.

Aren't composites 24% by weight on the F-22. The Sukhoi director was known to say the PAKFA will also have 24% composites by weight and 70% by surface area. So wouldn't it suffice to say the F-22 would be similar if not the same.
Composites do not necessarily mean absorbers. If we go by weight alone, we could argue that composites are used for weight saving and not for RCS control. Look at it this way: Concrete and plywood are composites.

A question that a lot of people may be looking for. In the chance that the PAKFA or J-20 reach -30dB or greater reduction, similar to a F-22(maybe), then how will the USAF balance force levels with only small orders for F-22? The F-35 may not be enough to beat a F-22 equivalent aircraft theoretically. Are there more orders in the pipeline for the F-22 or is this it? I am of the opinion more may come with time, based on changing geo-political situation and also the American and world economic health.
In the event that a potential adversary field an F-22 equivalent or even better, the solution then is to be more creative in tactics in both the technical and non-technical arenas. I understand that the cancellation of the F-22 may be out of financial necessities, but that does not mean the line cannot be resurrected out of military necessities.
 

Articles

Top