Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/146289/

Topic: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-18 23:41:04 and read 23571 times.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...5-billion/articleshow/15551929.cms

India to sign biggest ever defence deal worth $35B for Fifth Gen Su-50 fighters, says Times of India. DEVILFISH, time for some pics  

[Edited 2012-08-18 23:42:01]

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: AirRyan
Posted 2012-08-19 07:05:50 and read 23476 times.

While I would expect the t-50 to close the gap on the F-22, I do not expect it to fully compare. However, at 2.5x times the price, one might find it difficult to justify an F-22 over the T-50. India is going to takeover the British for the 2nd most powerful military in the world with they way they are going.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-19 07:29:53 and read 23463 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
While I would expect the t-50 to close the gap on the F-22, I do not expect it to fully compare. However, at 2.5x times the price, one might find it difficult to justify an F-22 over the T-50. India is going to takeover the British for the 2nd most powerful military in the world with they way they are going.

...spending on defence like a drunken sailor, but how long will the party last? Deficits, inflation, ratings cuts may all call for a pull back.

I think the T-50 becomes a foil for the Chinese J20; not looking to go head on with the F22.

Meanwhile, back in the States, Bill Gates is trying to design a toilet for the 600 million in India who don't have access to sanitation.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-08-19 14:02:59 and read 23321 times.

Rafels, C-17s, C-130Js, Su-50s, P-8Is, a new tanker, and that's just for the IAF. Through in the Navy and Army and you have a full shopping list.

[Edited 2012-08-19 14:03:32]

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Ozair
Posted 2012-08-19 14:14:11 and read 23301 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
While I would expect the t-50 to close the gap on the F-22, I do not expect it to fully compare.

The T-50 purchase has never really been about capability. It has always been about Indian industrial participation and technology transfer.

Interesting as well that the article talks of them going all single seat compared to the two seat version India was going to fund the design of. The irony of this whole deal is that India will more than likely operate the largest fleet of T-50 in the world, including Russia.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: PIEAvantiP180
Posted 2012-08-19 22:58:25 and read 23156 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):

I believe that Britain has lost that spot along time ago, I'm not sure if it was WWI or WWII. US and USSR-Russia have had the top two spots for the last 60+ years. And today I would certainly put them behind US, Russia and China when it comes to military strength.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: sturmovik
Posted 2012-08-20 23:45:42 and read 22886 times.

The Russians were shrewd in coming up with the idea of 'joint development'. Circumvents the tedious procurement process quite nicely. Imagine if this were a tender like the one for the MMRCA.   

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-08-20 23:56:34 and read 22882 times.

If only the Russians can solve the cracking issues which have grounded the prototypes...

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2012-08-21 15:11:41 and read 22724 times.

Quoting comorin (Thread starter):
DEVILFISH, time for some pics

Sure...here you are.....

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_PAK-FA_MAKS-2011_Sukhoi_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...AIR_PAK-FA_MAKS-2011_Sukhoi_lg.jpg

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 6):
The Russians were shrewd in coming up with the idea of 'joint development'. Circumvents the tedious procurement process quite nicely. Imagine if this were a tender like the one for the MMRCA.

Imagine if it was the Vikramaditya instead.....   

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-22 00:00:00 and read 22601 times.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 8):

Thanks, Man!   

You're right to bring up the Vikramaditya boondoggle - India's acquisition of the carrier Admiral Gorshkov that led to huge cost overruns.

I think India should pay China or the US $1B/year as war insurance (protection money) and save big bucks on defense; the rest is better spent on infrastructure and hygiene.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-08-22 13:42:51 and read 22474 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
If only the Russians can solve the cracking issues which have grounded the prototypes...

Plus get the 5th gen engines developed and tested.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-08-23 07:57:05 and read 22339 times.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
While I would expect the t-50 to close the gap on the F-22, I do not expect it to fully compare.

The T-50 was designed to be stealthy enough to force the F-35(and less so, the F-22) into getting down and dirty with it and then try to outmanouver it in close combat.
Sukhoi didn't want to sacrifice performance for the sake of stealth

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):

If only the Russians can solve the cracking issues which have grounded the prototypes...

The only prototype grounded was T-50-1. T-50-2 is still flying and did a show during the 100 years of Russian Aviation celebration and T-50-3 had its first flight a few weeks ago, with T-50-4 planned first flight by the end of the year.

T-50-2 a week or so ago
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/526/c383a3ec37174c9c90192f7.jpg

T-50-3
http://russianplanes.net/id79836

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-23 09:16:03 and read 22305 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 11):

That is one fine looking plane! It should be a credible peacekeeper fitted with Brahmos hypersonic A2A missiles, not?

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Ozair
Posted 2012-08-23 13:54:33 and read 22230 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
It should be a credible peacekeeper fitted with Brahmos hypersonic A2A missiles, not?

The current Brahmos is an 8m long cruise missile with a max speed of mach 3. You don't typically use an 8m long missile for A2A, especially as you could only fit one on the aircraft externally. That means you lose most of the advantages you gain from a T-50 over a vanilla Su-30.

Are you talking about some sort of new development?

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-23 20:31:58 and read 22163 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Are you talking about some sort of new development?

No, I remember reading about it vaguely somewhere; I'll follow up and let you know and clear up any misinformation.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-08-23 23:39:50 and read 22139 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 11):
The only prototype grounded was T-50-1. T-50-2 is still flying and did a show during the 100 years of Russian Aviation celebration and T-50-3 had its first flight a few weeks ago, with T-50-4 planned first flight by the end of the year.

T-50-2 a week or so ago

2 of the 3 flying examples of the PAK-FA are grounded due to significant cracking and the 4th is undergoing significant structural modifications. Come again?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 11):
The T-50 was designed to be stealthy enough to force the F-35(and less so, the F-22) into getting down and dirty with it and then try to outmanouver it in close combat.
Sukhoi didn't want to sacrifice performance for the sake of stealth

Performance is useless if a enemy can find you first and engage you. As soon as you are being forced to react to an opponent, you 'loose'. The Russians believe that once a plane has been targeted, its only remaining defense is to try to maneuver out of the crosshairs or dodge the missile/bullets. That's true enough, but the way it's stated here neglects the primary importance of avoiding being targeted in the first place.

People in other fighters flying with Raptors (not necessarily in combat simulations, where they wouldn't usually even get close enough for this) have repeatedly reported that the Raptors danced all around them to such an extent that they felt like they were just being played with. The Russian design is a copy of the Raptor, but there are significant issues with the design that warrants pointing out.

T-50 has an inferior thrust to weight ratio, even with the promised future engines that aren't ready yet. And that bit at the end might be the most absurd of all. The Raptor is the plane in which the thrust vectoring is integrated with the rest of the flight control system; the pilot doesn't think about whether he's using the thrust vectoring or not but just moves the stick, the same way he moves the flaps & fins. Russian thrust vectoring systems are the ones in which the thrust vectoring is operated by separate switches, not integrated. They got this exactly backward.

One thing in there that I will grant them is Russian thrust vectoring being "three-dimensional" instead of "two-dimensional". But that only means it can be applied to a roll (or even yaw, although that would be insane) as well as pitch, and that's a negligible difference which makes the mechanism slightly heavier & more complicated and conflicts with stealth.

We know that T-50 is heavier, has been promised engines that are weaker, and has actually been flying with engines that are weaker than promised. That will limit not only speed and acceleration and the engines' contribution to turning rates, but also its maximum altitude. We also know what to expect from leading edges that are less swept: they can deflect air up or down more but slice through it less, so the slight gain in lift or turning speed comes with a loss in speed and fuel efficiency.

With F-35 and F-22, they have advanced sensors and weapons that allow off-bore sight engagement capabilities, F-35 especially. Performance is required to a point to help point the nose in the right direction (and even then, the requirement is limited), and to get into an advantageous firing position.

And as long as we're looking at overall effects on war-fighting ability instead of just plane versus plane, we also have to consider maintenance and supplies, and this is an area in which Russian planes have lagged and nobody's even making a single claim about this one being any improvement. For example, a similarly-powered Russian engine has less than half the life span of its American or European counterpart and burns more fuel, thus forcing its operators to build more engines, stock more spare parts, and deliver more fuel.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-08-24 15:03:17 and read 22020 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
2 of the 3 flying examples of the PAK-FA are grounded due to significant cracking and the 4th is undergoing significant structural modifications.

Again, only T-50-1 is grounded and close to being returned to service. T-50-2 and T-50-3 are operational with number 3 being in the process of having the N036 radar fitted and tested, and T-50-4 and T-50-5 are under completion.

If you have sources stating otherwise, post them.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
Performance is useless if a enemy can find you first and engage you. As soon as you are being forced to react to an opponent, you 'loose'. The Russians believe that once a plane has been targeted, its only remaining defense is to try to maneuver out of the crosshairs or dodge the missile/bullets. That's true enough, but the way it's stated here neglects the primary importance of avoiding being targeted in the first place.

If the plane is stealth enough that it forces the enemy stealth plane into getting closer and clearer image and it brings him within the range of the passive sensors and the L-band radars of the PAK-FA, and makes locking and tracking for BVR as difficult as possible, it did its job.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
The Russian design is a copy of the Raptor.

Oh Goodness...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
T-50 has an inferior thrust to weight ratio, even with the promised future engines that aren't ready yet. And that bit at the end might be the most absurd of all.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
We know that T-50 is heavier

Inferior compared to what exactly and under what conditions?.
And you do know the exact weight of a plane that hasn't even left the prototype stage?. Please do post sources, I'm curious.

I wanna see how Sukhoi was able to make a plane with a T/W inferior to that of a Flanker, let alone a Su-30MKI as you seem to be implying despite making the skin out of composite panels.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
The Raptor is the plane in which the thrust vectoring is integrated with the rest of the flight control system; the pilot doesn't think about whether he's using the thrust vectoring or not but just moves the stick, the same way he moves the flaps & fins. Russian thrust vectoring systems are the ones in which the thrust vectoring is operated by separate switches, not integrated. They got this exactly backward.

So you don't have the slightest idea of how russian thrust vectoring operates. Glad we have cleared that out.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2vd0bo3.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWfswKkpnK4

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
has been promised engines that are weaker, and has actually been flying with engines that are weaker than promised.

Weaker than what?. They are more powerfull than your standar AL-31F engine.
And using the 117S engines have been part of the flight testing plans since the thing first flew while the development of the definitive engine is finished. They are still capable of supercruising.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
That will limit not only speed and acceleration and the engines' contribution to turning rates, but also its maximum altitude. We also know what to expect from leading edges that are less swept: they can deflect air up or down more but slice through it less, so the slight gain in lift or turning speed comes with a loss in speed and fuel efficiency.

Good thing the wings of the PAK-FA are more swept than that of the F-35, F-22 and Su-27, then.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
And as long as we're looking at overall effects on war-fighting ability instead of just plane versus plane, we also have to consider maintenance and supplies, and this is an area in which Russian planes have lagged and nobody's even making a single claim about this one being any improvement.

Well, if you were less busy being an obvious fanboy and more busy reading about it and trying to be objective, you would know Sukhoi has improved in this area.
Latest versions of the Flanker family are modular and employ LRU in the avionics.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
For example, a similarly-powered Russian engine has less than half the life span of its American or European counterpart and burns more fuel, thus forcing its operators to build more engines, stock more spare parts, and deliver more fuel.

AL-31FM3 engines currently have TBO of over 1000 hours which is similar to that of the Snecma M53 and M88.
The Izd 117 is a derivative of this one and further improves upon these numbers.

The fuel comsumption is actually better for the Salyut engine, with MAX SFC of 1.96 lb/h/lb st for the AL-31F as fitted on early Flankers compared to a MAX SFC of 2.060 lb/h/lb st for an F100-PW-229.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-24 23:12:06 and read 21963 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):

Man, you know your stuff. It looks like you have engaged Pointblank in a VR dogfight and shot him down with your fact cannon.   But is the battle over?

btw, I have also been following this on the very interesting and very 'jingo' Indian Defence blog Bharat Rakshak and everything you would want to know about the PAKFA is discussed there.

My big concern is that with the world economy in a nose dive, China and India will have to cut back seriously on spending. There will be a lot of order cancellations and R&D rollbacks in the near future.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-08-25 13:35:14 and read 21815 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):
Again, only T-50-1 is grounded and close to being returned to service. T-50-2 and T-50-3 are operational with number 3 being in the process of having the N036 radar fitted and tested, and T-50-4 and T-50-5 are under completion.

If you have sources stating otherwise, post them.

Please read Air International magazine, April 2012 edition.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):
If the plane is stealth enough that it forces the enemy stealth plane into getting closer and clearer image and it brings him within the range of the passive sensors and the L-band radars of the PAK-FA, and makes locking and tracking for BVR as difficult as possible, it did its job.

And F-35 has a similar passive sensor system. It is planned that F-22 will be backfitted with it, based upon F-35 technology.

The Russians have published the plane's expected radar cross section, and although it's lower than that of a plane in which no effort at radar signature reduction has been made at all, it's still many times as high as those of the latest American planes. It's more like what happens if you take an originally non-stealthy design and try to reduce its signature as much as you can from that starting point, like with the Superhornet and Lancer, and those are not "stealth" planes. Also, there has been no mention of signature reduction efforts in the infra-red spectrum for the PAK-FA, whereas American stealth planes do have infra-red signal reduction measures.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):
Weaker than what?. They are more powerfull than your standar AL-31F engine.
And using the 117S engines have been part of the flight testing plans since the thing first flew while the development of the definitive engine is finished. They are still capable of supercruising.

The engine is not meeting power targets. According to Russian sources (in Russian), serial production has slide significantly to around 2020 to work out the issues.
http://www.arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=96312&cid=25

Quoting Acheron (Reply 17):
Inferior compared to what exactly and under what conditions?.
And you do know the exact weight of a plane that hasn't even left the prototype stage?. Please do post sources, I'm curious.

I wanna see how Sukhoi was able to make a plane with a T/W inferior to that of a Flanker, let alone a Su-30MKI as you seem to be implying despite making the skin out of composite panels.

PAK-FA is bigger aircraft, and all currently revealed specs would indicate a larger, heavier aircraft. The engines at best would match the F-22's engines.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 16):
Well, if you were less busy being an obvious fanboy and more busy reading about it and trying to be objective, you would know Sukhoi has improved in this area.
Latest versions of the Flanker family are modular and employ LRU in the avionics.

Improved from the 1970's to the 1980's you mean. At least they stopped adding a stopwatch in the instrument panel that pilots would use to calculate when a missile will impact to have the avionics do the math. Even the latest MiG's and Sukhoi's still have the stopwatch.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 16):
AL-31FM3 engines currently have TBO of over 1000 hours which is similar to that of the Snecma M53 and M88.
The Izd 117 is a derivative of this one and further improves upon these numbers.

The fuel comsumption is actually better for the Salyut engine, with MAX SFC of 1.96 lb/h/lb st for the AL-31F as fitted on early Flankers compared to a MAX SFC of 2.060 lb/h/lb st for an F100-PW-229.

GE F404 & F414 has a MTBO of 2,000 hours.

The Russians have never been able to meet their promised MTBO rates; for example, the RD-33 engine in the MiG-29 never met its promised 300 hours MTBO, except through derating the engine for peacetime. Ditto fuel consumption.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-25 20:15:01 and read 21769 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
It should be a credible peacekeeper fitted with Brahmos hypersonic A2A missiles, not?

The current Brahmos is an 8m long cruise missile with a max speed of mach 3. You don't typically use an 8m long missile for A2A, especially as you could only fit one on the aircraft externally. That means you lose most of the advantages you gain from a T-50 over a vanilla Su-30.

Are you talking about some sort of new development?

Please see today's Times of India article on Brahmos as ALCM:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...hoi-30MKI/articleshow/15721343.cms

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-08-25 23:29:12 and read 21734 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Please read Air International magazine, April 2012 edition.

Back from April?. I see
The picture of T-50-3 I posted are from the end of June and there are pictures of it during the 100 years airshow a couple of weeks ago.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
And F-35 has a similar passive sensor system.

Which isn't of much use if you don't carry SRAAMs unless the EODAS can guide the AIM-120's.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
The Russians have published the plane's expected radar cross section, and although it's lower than that of a plane in which no effort at radar signature reduction has been made at all, it's still many times as high as those of the latest American planes

You mean an anonymous "defense ministry official"?. Because the Russians are going to release actual RCS numbers to the media...

Almost as silly as believing any RCS number for the F-22 that is floating around.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
The engine is not meeting power targets. According to Russian sources (in Russian), serial production has slide significantly to around 2020 to work out the issues.

Nowhere in your link talks about the engines and only talks about general estimated dates about the plane production itself.

General Alexander Zelin stated a few weeks ago that they expect to have the pre-series plane in service by 2015.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
PAK-FA is bigger aircraft, and all currently revealed specs would indicate a larger, heavier aircraft.

If you are going to make assumptions, might as well get the size right first.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2970/su27t50f22comp1.jpg
It is smaller than a Flanker, and for a plane where 70% of its skin is of composite materials and a similar number its made titanium for its internal structure, I doubt its heavier than Flanker.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
At least they stopped adding a stopwatch in the instrument panel that pilots would use to calculate when a missile will impact to have the avionics do the math. Even the latest MiG's and Sukhoi's still have the stopwatch.

Most fighters of the 70's and 80's used stopwatchs to compesate for the limitations of SARH missiles and figure out if the thing was still chasing or missed the target.
Nowadays they don't, including the latest russian fighters.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
The Russians have never been able to meet their promised MTBO rates;

Quite the statement given how little you seem to know about russian technology.

So, first things first:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
for example, the RD-33 engine in the MiG-29 never met its promised 300 hours MTBO, except through derating the engine for peacetime. Ditto fuel consumption.

Klimov =/= NPO Saturn
Klimov has always been the less-than-stellar performer of all the russian engines manufacturers and yes, the RD-33(and derivatives) is a shitty engine in all aspects.

NPO Saturn is in a whole different ballpark altogether.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Also, there has been no mention of signature reduction efforts in the infra-red spectrum for the PAK-FA, whereas American stealth planes do have infra-red signal reduction measures.

Its a trade-off. You can't have full IR reduction if you want thrust vectoring at the extent the russians employ it.
Just like you have to sacrifice performance for the sake of stealth or sacrifice stealth for the sake of performance so it will depend on which basket you want to put most of your eggs.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Ozair
Posted 2012-08-26 03:28:51 and read 21700 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 19):
Please see today's Times of India article on Brahmos as ALCM:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...3.cms

India have been talking about fitting the Brahmos to the Flanker since they started the co-development. Its a big missile though and given the modifications required to fit a Flanker it shows how unsuited the two really are. What India is lacking is a medium bomber in the size of a B-6, with payload and persistence that they don't currently have in their inventory. A B-6 would be able to carry two Brahmos and have twice the range of a Flanker.

I still don't think Brahmos will make a very good A2A missile though.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-26 08:51:54 and read 21621 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 21):
I still don't think Brahmos will make a very good A2A missile though.

Thanks Ozair. Is that because ALCMs are not supposed to be A2A? Just wondering as a 'noob'...

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Ozair
Posted 2012-08-26 14:15:17 and read 21541 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 22):
Thanks Ozair. Is that because ALCMs are not supposed to be A2A? Just wondering as a 'noob'...

More that the size and features do not match the requirement.

What makes the Brahmos unique as an ALCM is its speed. In the AAM world though its speed is nothing special. The Meteor will move at the same of a higher speed throughout its time of flight. The range of the Brahmos is too great as well. The radars on fighter aircraft, once you remove the bluster of marketing, wouldn't give you targeting confidence to exploit the range of the weapon. Finally it is just too big. It's weight and size mean a Flanker, which is just about the biggest fighter sized aircraft available, would struggle to carry anything else. To sacrifice all that space for only one missile and maybe a couple of WVR AAMs is a poor use of the platform, especially when the major capabilities of the weapon, its speed, range and warhead size, don't give it any advantages in the AAM world.

By the time you modify a Brahmos to make it suitable for A2A you could have designed a new missile that is probably half the size and weight at a minimum and far more suitable for use as an AAM.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-08-26 15:15:37 and read 21526 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Finally it is just too big. It's weight and size mean a Flanker, which is just about the biggest fighter sized aircraft available, would struggle to carry anything else.

Carrying the BrahMos is within the capabilities of a Flanker.
The Brahmos weights around the same that 4 Kh-31A(600kg each) missiles or 4 Kh-29(around 600 kg as well) or less than 4 Kh-59(around 900kg for each) missiles, all of the within the capabilities of a Flanker including defensive armament.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2074/su30mkkfull.jpg

2x Kh-59, 2x Kh-31, 2x R-77, 2x R-73, 2x Sorbtsiya ECM pods, 1x APK-9E pod for the Kh-59 missiles.

[Edited 2012-08-26 15:19:24]

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Ozair
Posted 2012-08-27 06:02:55 and read 21640 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 24):
Carrying the BrahMos is within the capabilities of a Flanker.
The Brahmos weights around the same that 4 Kh-31A(600kg each) missiles or 4 Kh-29(around 600 kg as well) or less than 4 Kh-59(around 900kg for each) missiles, all of the within the capabilities of a Flanker including defensive armament.

I stand corrected, although the weight of the Brahmos must force a strengthening of the pylons given those four missiles are typically distributed over four pylons. Do you see a Brahmos being carried on the centreline only?

Quoting Acheron (Reply 24):
2x Kh-59, 2x Kh-31, 2x R-77, 2x R-73, 2x Sorbtsiya ECM pods, 1x APK-9E pod for the Kh-59 missiles.

What is the range of the aircraft with that type of loadout? We see western aircraft, while capable of carrying similar loads, not fly with them on operations due primarily to range considerations (and they are usually supported by volumes of tanker support).

Back on topic, do you see an Indian T-50 carrying Brahmos or will that be left to the Su-30 fleet?

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-08-27 11:34:12 and read 21573 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 25):
Do you see a Brahmos being carried on the centreline only?

That's the idea.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/4768-4/This+is+more+like+it+-+Sukhoi+with+a+single+Brahmos.jpg

The centerline hardpoints has been considered for heavy loads for a while now.

http://data3.gallery.ru/albums/gallery/40120-120ac-23646060-m750x740.jpg

Quoting Ozair (Reply 25):
What is the range of the aircraft with that type of loadout? We see western aircraft, while capable of carrying similar loads, not fly with them on operations due primarily to range considerations (and they are usually supported by volumes of tanker support).

The range will not only depend on the loadout but also mission profile, among other things.

Typically, a clean Flanker has a range of 2600 to 3000km on internal fuel alone.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 25):
Back on topic, do you see an Indian T-50 carrying Brahmos or will that be left to the Su-30 fleet?

They have mentioned something about the Brahmos 2 and the FGFA but I'm not sure how achievable are they.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-08-27 11:50:00 and read 21886 times.

Expanding on the T-50 vs F-22 talk a bit...it's quite fruitless to argue anything at this point. The T-50 is still at the prototype stage. If anything it should be compared to the YF-22. Further still, the Russians would never release RCS data to the media and if anyone claims this data to be true is a fool. Hell they haven't even released official data for basic dimensions and weight. I doubt they even have any RCS data yet. Secondly, RCS data is not simply a number...it is complicated array of data which takes into account many things such as the angle from which the aircraft is "painted", the type of radar, the frequency and amplitude of the radar, the distance, etc... and simply stating a number such as "F-22 has a RCS of 0.05m^2" without providing any of this other info is completely useless.

The 117S engines and the T-50 aren't completed yet. Let's wait and see what happens first before comparing. And don't forget that the T-50 is not really designed to compete against the F-22. It is more of a F-35 rival since the F-22 is only in service in the USA.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: india1
Posted 2012-08-28 03:49:42 and read 21686 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 27):
And don't forget that the T-50 is not really designed to compete against the F-22. It is more of a F-35 rival since the F-22 is only in service in the USA.

This was similar to something I had commented in a previous post (which was removed by the mods) that we Indians primarily foresee the PAKFA as up against whatever China &/or Pakistan would throw up against us, so as long as it can best those perceived future threats, it will have done its job for us. Russia themselves may want more, may want less, but here, we don't see the F22 being engaged in our skies just yet!!!

The deal itself makes sense prima facie, as the Russians would get much needed funds, and us Indians, technology sharing. If the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya deal wasn't exemplary, the Brahmos one worked out better, so fingers crossed that it will result in win:win.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-08-28 09:15:40 and read 21623 times.

Quoting india1 (Reply 28):

Good post! India's capital is close enough to both borders - only seconds to respond. India and Israel (politics aside) both need fast and furious weaponry as deterrent, because of geography.

Given that scenario, the T-50 makes eminent sense, as does the Brahmos, don't you think?

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2012-08-28 12:07:30 and read 21554 times.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
That is one fine looking plane! It should be a credible peacekeeper fitted with Brahmos hypersonic A2A missiles, not?

I am not sure the Brahmos would ever make much of an Air to Air Missile without substantial modifications. Brahmos as a whole is a nice missile but is vastly overrated. It is a ramjet powered missile that is fast. This is really nothing revolutionary. The technology for most of that has existed since the 1950's. Again, it is a nice piece of kit but hardly the earth shattering development it is often portrayed as.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-08-31 20:46:50 and read 21236 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
Which isn't of much use if you don't carry SRAAMs unless the EODAS can guide the AIM-120's.

It can. EODAS is integrated into the F-35's avionics. The AIM-120 uses a two way datalink with mid-course correction and the information for course corrections can be fed either via the aircraft's radar, datalinks, or through other sensors. Essentially, a F-35 can shoot at an aircraft behind it with a AIM-120 and have it fed with course corrections from data provided by EODAS.

A lot of talk about F-35 is about the level of sensor fusion present with F-35's sensors. Every sensor feeds into another sensor to create a single unified picture for the pilot and weapons.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):

General Alexander Zelin stated a few weeks ago that they expect to have the pre-series plane in service by 2015.

Using interim standard engines. The full production engines are still behind schedule. Realistically, the engine may only achieve a lower thrust. It is still being developed, and Pogosyan stresses that the engine will not be ready before 2015 and could take up to 12 additional years to develop fully.
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=81615&cid=25

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
Klimov =/= NPO Saturn
Klimov has always been the less-than-stellar performer of all the russian engines manufacturers and yes, the RD-33(and derivatives) is a shitty engine in all aspects.

NPO Saturn is in a whole different ballpark altogether.

Ask the Indians how they are doing with their AL-31 engines on their Su-30 MKI's. Less than steller reliability has been noted by the Indians, necessitating frequent engine changes. And the 117 engine is a derivative of this engine.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
If you are going to make assumptions, might as well get the size right first.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2970/su27t50f22comp1.jpg
It is smaller than a Flanker, and for a plane where 70% of its skin is of composite materials and a similar number its made titanium for its internal structure, I doubt its heavier than Flanker.

Get your sizes right:
http://www.afa.org/edop/2010/PAK-FA%27sFirstFlighton29JAN10REV5.pdf
The US Air Force Association did a presentation on PAK-FA and by all measures, PAK-FA is bigger than the F-22; in fact, it's almost as big as the YF-23. The wingspan of PAK-FA is about a foot wider, it's also 4 ft taller, and 8ft longer compared to F-22.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
Its a trade-off. You can't have full IR reduction if you want thrust vectoring at the extent the russians employ it.
Just like you have to sacrifice performance for the sake of stealth or sacrifice stealth for the sake of performance so it will depend on which basket you want to put most of your eggs.

Heavy duty maneuvering is being rapidly obsolete with the current off-bore sight weapons now in service. You need enough performance to put yourself in an advantageous shooting position against your opponent.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
You mean an anonymous "defense ministry official"?. Because the Russians are going to release actual RCS numbers to the media...

Almost as silly as believing any RCS number for the F-22 that is floating around.

The reference is hearsay, but very believeable. Pogosian told a gathering of Indian ministers of defense he was trying to sell the plane to that the RCS was 0.5 m2. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/...ia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html This has been reported in numerous places and Shukla is a very respected aviation journalist. The exact RCS of the Super Hornet is not known, but general estimates would put that at anywhere from half the SH's RCS to twice the SH's RCS. But roughly in the same range as the SH.

Why would they do that?
1) For the same reason we built the SH. We could, and they probably could. It's not true stealth, but it offers real advantages. It reduces the range at which the plane can be detected (probably more useful against ground radars the plane can outright avoid than A2A threats that can move with it), increases the chance of breaking missile lock (stealth works better against small radars than large ones), and reduces the amount of "noise" required to hide the plane in a jamming environment.

2) Because it saved money they didn't have. Like the SH, the PAK-FA is clearly derived in large part from existing aircraft. The PAK-FA is more different from the Su-27 than the SH is from the H, but the US had far more experience with stealth at the time and wanted a much shorter development track as an interim plane.

3) Because they couldn't do that much better anyway. Stealth is a detail-oriented technology, and Russian manufacturing has never before had a detail-oriented mindset. And they have no experience with stealth before now. Shaping is the easy part, and at least the back half of the plane got even that wrong. Manufacturing the plane to micrometer tolerances, hiding the holes you have to put in the shape to make it work as an airplane, hiding the antennae behind properly selected and oriented bandpass filters, coating it with proper materials to join all the assembled parts into the one shape the whole collection of pieces is supposed to be, having the passive sensors and the computers to make them work, and (if you're going to have a fighter rather than a sneak bomber like the F-117) having usable LPI radar to make it worthwhile. The US had several operational and development stealth designs under the belt by the time the SH was created. Russia hasn't even produced something comparable to the F-117 yet, and don't want to go that route (the export market for a small bomber with a high operating cost and zero A2A capability is tiny). In contrast, they have a large advertising and reputation investment in supermaneuverability.

4) They can't afford to do any better. Real VLO isn't cheap, even when a nation with decades of experience with it tries. Their intended customers aren't deep-pocket nations like the US, Japan, Europe, etc. They're selling to third-world countries who couldn't absorb the purchase and operating costs of a fleet of real F-22 equivalents. Russia itself can't afford a fleet of F-22s. They're taking a sensible LO-plus-maneuverability development path for their economics, that is different from the VLO-at-any-cost-/-kinematics-much-later path the US took. They can sell a very agile LO aircraft they can build at moderate cost now, gain actual operating experience with LO tech now, and maybe move up to real VLO in later designs if they can sell enough PAK-FA now.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-09-01 10:48:18 and read 21148 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Using interim standard engines. The full production engines are still behind schedule. Realistically, the engine may only achieve a lower thrust. It is still being developed, and Pogosyan stresses that the engine will not be ready before 2015 and could take up to 12 additional years to develop fully.
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&ai...id=25

You are mixing up Izd 117 which is a series 1 engine while Pogosyan is talking about Izd 127, the series 2 engine. The 117 is as much of a definitive engine as the 127 will be as the russians are aproaching the matter in a production Block manner.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Ask the Indians how they are doing with their AL-31 engines on their Su-30 MKI's. Less than steller reliability has been noted by the Indians, necessitating frequent engine changes.

Quite the opposite, the reliability of the MKI's are among the best within the IAF sans the Mirages 2000, as far as I know, though indian member probably have better insight about that. Most problem seem to be related to the supply of spare parts which has always been a russian weakspot and could also something inherent to the IAF since other Flankers operator haven't much issues with them, including the Algerians and Malaysians.

On my end, the reliability of the AL-31FM hasn't been too far of that of the F100-PW-220E and we operate both engines.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
And the 117 engine is a derivative of this engine.

Again, you are mixing up your engines. 117S (Su-35S) is the derivative of the AL-31FM

Izd 117 (PAK-FA) is a new engine, made with new materials, larger diameter and new core.

Izd 117S
http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/al-41/izd117s_02.jpg

Izd 117
http://i45.tinypic.com/655u34.jpg

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Get your sizes right:
http://www.afa.org/edop/2010/PAK-FA%27sFirstFlighton29JAN10REV5.pdf
The US Air Force Association did a presentation on PAK-FA and by all measures, PAK-FA is bigger than the F-22; in fact, it's almost as big as the YF-23. The wingspan of PAK-FA is about a foot wider, it's also 4 ft taller, and 8ft longer compared to F-22.

I love the smell stale powerpoint in the morning. Most of the drawings in there are guesswork posted in several online forums soon after the PAK-FA's first flight.

It is a slightly bigger plane but not by much. Your measures would make it as tall and almost as long as a Flanker, and no way in hell it is.

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz79/gabo852006/PAK-FA_Flanker.jpg

Flying next to a MiG-29M
[url]http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/100th-Anniversary-of-RuAF/i-kjnGvsC/0/O/100letpart206.jpg[/img]

So yeah, the image I posted before is closer to reality than many of the earlier guesswork in that .pdf

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
The reference is hearsay, but very believeable.

Only for those eager to believe it.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Pogosian told a gathering of Indian ministers of defense he was trying to sell the plane to that the RCS was 0.5 m2.

Pogosyan has never mentioned the RCS of the PAK-FA. You should read what you post since the only mention of the 0.5m RCS is again that misterious unnamed indian "MoD official".

Quote:
According to an MoD official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metres as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
This has been reported in numerous places and Shukla is a very respected aviation journalist.

Lol, no he isn't.

He is massive a fanboy of anything DRDO made and hater of anything Russian. He has been called out several times in the comments.
Probably as respected as Carlo Kopp when it comes to the F-35.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
The exact RCS of the Super Hornet is not known, but general estimates would put that at anywhere from half the SH's RCS to twice the SH's RCS. But roughly in the same range as the SH.

So, you don't know the RCS of the SH, barely know the size of the PAK-FA but yet you assume that it has a similar RCS.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Shaping is the easy part, and at least the back half of the plane got even that wrong.

Not wrong, but again different priorities for different needs. The Russians didn't want to sacrifice performance in the name of stealthiness, this has been mentioned by Sukhoi's designers multiple times.

They focused on the frontal aspect of the plane, again, as I've mentioned before, to force any incoming plane into a short range fight where Sukhoi's design typically excels at.

Problem is, to some people, anything that doesn't look like an F-22 is "wrong".

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
And they have no experience with stealth before now.

But they aren't baboons not capable of understanding concepts like RCS, either. Specially when the equations and calculations for low observability where created by a Russian.



Baseline Su-27(Right)/RAM-coated Su-27
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Manufacturing the plane to micrometer tolerances, hiding the holes you have to put in the shape to make it work as an airplane, hiding the antennae behind properly selected and oriented bandpass filters, coating it with proper materials to join all the assembled parts into the one shape the whole collection of pieces is supposed to be, having the passive sensors and the computers to make them work, and (if you're going to have a fighter rather than a sneak bomber like the F-117) having usable LPI radar to make it worthwhile.

All aspects the russians have been working on.

These are prototypes, they aren't completely refined nor coated with any sort of RAM but the russians have been working on it for a while now.

And anyone familiar with the Russian way of plane development would know that what you get to see with the prototypes doesn't always end up in the serial plane

T-10-1
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/su27/su27-1.jpg

T-10S, around 10 prototypes later.
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4164/t10s1erosvuelos.jpg

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
They can't afford to do any better. Real VLO isn't cheap, even when a nation with decades of experience with it tries. Their intended customers aren't deep-pocket nations like the US, Japan, Europe, etc. They're selling to third-world countries who couldn't absorb the purchase and operating costs of a fleet of real F-22 equivalents. Russia itself can't afford a fleet of F-22s. They're taking a sensible LO-plus-maneuverability development path for their economics, that is different from the VLO-at-any-cost-/-kinematics-much-later path the US took. They can sell a very agile LO aircraft they can build at moderate cost now, gain actual operating experience with LO tech now, and maybe move up to real VLO in later designs if they can sell enough PAK-FA now.

As if the Russians are willing to sell this plane to everybody...lol.
This plane won't wear the marking of another country other than India maybe at least until 2025-2030. And even then, the export version of the plane will be based on the indian model of the plane, not the russian one.

Plus their customers are anyone willing to purchase it. They don't focus on a particular market of "third-worlders.

You just seem to argue from the point of view that the russian somehow depend on weapons exports to fund themselves which hasn't been the case for a while.


And no one needs an F-22 equivalent, since no one will face the F-22 in combat because it will never leave the US fleet and the chances of it seeing combat against an Air Force where its capabilities are required are close to 0. Unless the US plans to go war against China any time soon.

If it can beat the F-35 and whatever the Chinese churn out, it got the job done.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
It can. EODAS is integrated into the F-35's avionics. The AIM-120 uses a two way datalink with mid-course correction and the information for course corrections can be fed either via the aircraft's radar, datalinks, or through other sensors. Essentially, a F-35 can shoot at an aircraft behind it with a AIM-120 and have it fed with course corrections from data provided by EODAS.

A lot of talk about F-35 is about the level of sensor fusion present with F-35's sensors. Every sensor feeds into another sensor to create a single unified picture for the pilot and weapons.

Interesting. Though BVRAAM's aren't exactly maneuverable at close range.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-01 22:26:09 and read 21082 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):
Quite the opposite, the reliability of the MKI's are among the best within the IAF sans the Mirages 2000, as far as I know, though indian member probably have better insight about that. Most problem seem to be related to the supply of spare parts which has always been a russian weakspot and could also something inherent to the IAF since other Flankers operator haven't much issues with them, including the Algerians and Malaysians.

On my end, the reliability of the AL-31FM hasn't been too far of that of the F100-PW-220E and we operate both engines.

Which, considering the Indian Air Force inventory, isn't much to brag about. When your inventory is predominantly dominated by older types such as the MiG-27 and MiG-21's.

The AL-31 engines have been problematic for the Indians as many "shaft bearing failures" have occurred with the engines, despite following manufacturer's recommendations, with the Indian Air Force telling the manufacturer that design changes need to occur for improved reliability.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-F...s-with-Russia/Article1-783035.aspx

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):
Not wrong, but again different priorities for different needs. The Russians didn't want to sacrifice performance in the name of stealthiness, this has been mentioned by Sukhoi's designers multiple times.

They focused on the frontal aspect of the plane, again, as I've mentioned before, to force any incoming plane into a short range fight where Sukhoi's design typically excels at.

Problem is, to some people, anything that doesn't look like an F-22 is "wrong".
Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):
All aspects the russians have been working on.

These are prototypes, they aren't completely refined nor coated with any sort of RAM but the russians have been working on it for a while now.

And anyone familiar with the Russian way of plane development would know that what you get to see with the prototypes doesn't always end up in the serial plane

The Russians are still very far behind the West and even the Chinese; even the Russians have remarked, when they visited the Shenyang plant building the Chinese versions of the Su-27, that the Chinese were building their aircraft to better design tolerances and were better put together than the Russians could assemble them.

I will point out that the F-35 is assembled using a laser-guided Electronic Mating Alignment System. The EMAS tool can automatically point the laser tracker and acquire data from targets residing in off-the-shelf nests that have been applied to each aircraft subassembly. The laser tracker can acquire 3-D coordinate target data until the large F-35 modules are adjusted to slide into position for connectivity and assembly. For example, the mating of the STOVL forward fuselage and center fuselage for BF-1, the EMAS was able to bring the targets within a ±0.005" (0.13 mm) and most of the targets were even less than that, and could do it in a few minutes.

High-precision assembly is critical for maintaining the F-35's stealth-signature requirements, which mandate that the outer mold line of the aircraft be as exact as possible. While early stealth efforts involved puttying and filling to help maintain a stealth signature, the F-35 is designed achieve stealth capability just through assembly accuracy.

The recent trend in stealth technology is to move away from applying stealth coatings to the skin of the aircraft, like with the F-117, B-2 and F-22. F-35's stealth coating is cured into the skin of the aircraft using a fibre mat, which increases durability of the stealth coating, and ease of installation. The fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):
Not wrong, but again different priorities for different needs. The Russians didn't want to sacrifice performance in the name of stealthiness, this has been mentioned by Sukhoi's designers multiple times.

They focused on the frontal aspect of the plane, again, as I've mentioned before, to force any incoming plane into a short range fight where Sukhoi's design typically excels at.

Problem is, to some people, anything that doesn't look like an F-22 is "wrong".

Performance under airshow conditions or under combat conditions? The impressive displays of Flankers and Fulcrum's at low speeds during air shows are not realistic of what is achievable under combat conditions. A Su-27 or MiG-29 won't be going into combat weapons-less and with minimal fuel flying just above stall. Flanker's maneuvering advantages are at lower airspeeds, weights, weapons load outs.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):

I love the smell stale powerpoint in the morning. Most of the drawings in there are guesswork posted in several online forums soon after the PAK-FA's first flight.

It is a slightly bigger plane but not by much. Your measures would make it as tall and almost as long as a Flanker, and no way in hell it is.

I have a real tough time buying into the notion that the production PAK-FA will be lighter than the F-22A. We’re very early in the development phase and very little concrete info is currently available. What is known, however, is the cardinal dimensions of the jet are bigger then the F-22. The jet is larger then the F-22 is several notable metrics such as internal fuel bunckerage and weapons load. There’s an old axiom that comes to mind here; ‘holes are heavy’ and the T-50 has two big ones. This will present some significant design challenges for Sukhoi engineers in order to keep weight under control.

Looking at the two other 5th Gen fighter programs may provide some guidance on what to expect. The F-22 gained 22% from prototype to EMD and the F-35A gained 25% from prototype to SDD. We don’t know for certain the empty weight of the T-50 but there have been reports of 18,500kg (40,750lbs) class. It’s likely that Sukhoi will see at least 10% weight growth so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the production PAK-FA to be in the 45,000lb weight class, perhaps more. Given that the definitive production engine is aiming for 175kn thrust range and the F119 is also in that range (168kN from what I’ve heard) and the F-22 will be lighter I doubt the PAK-FA will have any Ps advantages in any part of the envelope.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-09-01 23:04:41 and read 21073 times.

Just comparing the factory alone of the PakFa and JSF tells you the entire story.



and

http://cfile22.uf.tistory.com/original/1723DF4D4EF00DED0CD89C

Now you tell me, which of these two plants produce state of the art equipment and which one is trying to stay afloat?

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-09-02 00:51:38 and read 21052 times.

Doesn't look much different to me.

http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/su34napo/chkalovsu001-33.jpg

I think you fanboys only see what you want to see.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-09-02 02:15:41 and read 21056 times.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
When your inventory is predominantly dominated by older types such as the MiG-27 and MiG-21's.

The MiG-21 and -27 have been retired for a while now, as far as I know

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The AL-31 engines have been problematic for the Indians as many "shaft bearing failures" have occurred with the engines, despite following manufacturer's recommendations, with the Indian Air Force telling the manufacturer that design changes need to occur for improved reliability.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-F....aspx

Seems to be an issue within the IAF since Algerian's nor the Malaysians have complained about engine reliability, along with the few other Flanker operators including the ones around here.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The Russians are still very far behind the West and even the Chinese; even the Russians have remarked, when they visited the Shenyang plant building the Chinese versions of the Su-27, that the Chinese were building their aircraft to better design tolerances and were better put together than the Russians could assemble them.

Better than the earlier Su-27SK and UBK kits they delivered during the 90's, yes, though understandable given the circumstances Russia was in during the 90's and early 2000's.

Part of the problem, besides their 90's mess, is the way the production is set up. Sukhoi is mostly a design bureau and the planes would be produced by different independent factories which would be allocated the production of a particular variant of a plane, each with their own independent management, quality management, etc.

Most canard-less Flankers were produced by KnAAPO which until fairly recently, the quality of the planes weren't up to standard. The MKI family which includes the MKM and MKA variants are manufactured by IAPO and were of a better quality than those built by KnAAPO.

The Fullbacks are made by NAPO.

This changed with the recent unification of most russian manufacturing and streamlining of processes, with Sukhoi taking direct control of the KnAAPO plant which had been improved for the production of the Su-35S and PAK-FA but the results are already showing in some of the latest batch of Flankers since most of the manufacturing processes have been upgraded.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
Performance under airshow conditions or under combat conditions? The impressive displays of Flankers and Fulcrum's at low speeds during air shows are not realistic of what is achievable under combat conditions. A Su-27 or MiG-29 won't be going into combat weapons-less and with minimal fuel flying just above stall. Flanker's maneuvering advantages are at lower airspeeds, weights, weapons load outs.

One could argue the same for the F-22 and the F-35, since last time I checked, they aren't inmune to the same law of physics that affect the Flanker family.
I doubt a loaded F-35 is the epitome of nimbleness

Early Su-30MK display with an assymetric load of a Kh-31, Kh-59, R-77, R-73, R-27, Kh-29, a rack with 6 FAB-250 bombs and what seems to be KAB-500 and APK-9E pod between the nacelles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKgyywH7TN8

Mind you, the plane on the display is just a modified Su-27PU still with the original engines of the Su-27UB variants. Newers variation have come out of the factory with uprated engines.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
I have a real tough time buying into the notion that the production PAK-FA will be lighter than the F-22A. We’re very early in the development phase and very little concrete info is currently available.

True but that hasn't stopped people from making speculations on what is or what isn't regarding the PAK-FA, has it?.

Whether is actually heavier or not than the F-22 I don't know, since we don't know the actual weight for both of them, but I don't expect it to be anywhere near a late production Flanker.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The jet is larger then the F-22 is several notable metrics such as internal fuel bunckerage and weapons load. There’s an old axiom that comes to mind here; ‘holes are heavy’ and the T-50 has two big ones. This will present some significant design challenges for Sukhoi engineers in order to keep weight under control.

Indeed, which is why I can't wait to see what will be the end result of this project if the refinements process of the T-10 is anything to go by.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
Looking at the two other 5th Gen fighter programs may provide some guidance on what to expect. The F-22 gained 22% from prototype to EMD and the F-35A gained 25% from prototype to SDD. We don’t know for certain the empty weight of the T-50 but there have been reports of 18,500kg (40,750lbs) class. It’s likely that Sukhoi will see at least 10% weight growth so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the production PAK-FA to be in the 45,000lb weight class, perhaps more. Given that the definitive production engine is aiming for 175kn thrust range and the F119 is also in that range (168kN from what I’ve heard) and the F-22 will be lighter I doubt the PAK-FA will have any Ps advantages in any part of the envelope.

We'll have to wait and see. What is true is that the russians have always managed to solve problems in an unorthodox way, at least compared to western standards, as demostranted by the moveable LERX this thing sports.

Whether that creativity will work out for them or not regarding the PAK-FA, is a bit too soon to tell.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
Just comparing the factory alone of the PakFa and JSF tells you the entire story.

Except for the fact that the picture you just posted is the Static Tests Rig.

[Edited 2012-09-02 02:17:57]

[Edited 2012-09-02 02:26:32]

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-09-02 14:47:06 and read 20886 times.

The Russians by all means know how to make a VLO aircraft. The problem is not the know-how, it's the money. Until recent years there really wasn't enough money to make it, and even now there still isn't. Again, you should compare T-50 to the F-35. Russia will not develop a stealth aircraft that is the epitome of their stealth knowledge and then export it. Just like how the F-22 is the best the USA can do and will not export it either.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 36):

The MiG-21 and -27 have been retired for a while now, as far as I know

India still has hundreds of MiG-21 and 27 in service

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 31):
Shaping is the easy part, and at least the back half of the plane got even that wrong.

In that case, so did Lockheed with the F-35.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: comorin
Posted 2012-09-03 08:48:46 and read 20758 times.

The Times of India is reporting that the Indian Government is starting to feel the pinch, and may reconsider its military spending. So what does this mean for the PAK-FA and the MRCA bids, I wonder?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...-of-funds/articleshow/16238232.cms

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-09-03 09:16:01 and read 20774 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32):
Problem is, to some people, anything that doesn't look like an F-22 is "wrong".

Yeah, and anything that does look like an F-22 is a copycat. You cant win with some people.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
Just comparing the factory alone of the PakFa and JSF tells you the entire story.

Pretty sure that pic is of the static test air frame, and constructing a prototype or two is a far way off from LRIP, the line will not be nearly as refined in the earlier stages.



Pic: Lockheed trying to stay afloat.

[Edited 2012-09-03 09:17:09]

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2012-09-03 23:58:54 and read 20616 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 37):
In that case, so did Lockheed with the F-35.

The F-35 uses a Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle. This was tested on a F-16 test bed back in the late 1990's. The nozzle reduces provides a significant reduction in radar cross section and infrared signature emissions from the engine, using geometrical shaping, an advanced cooling system, and special coatings on internal and external structures. This achieves the same result as the rear of the F-22, while being most cost effective and lighter.

Due to the effectiveness of the advanced cooling system, a side effect is that the the life of the nozzle divergent flaps will be more than doubled, resulting in significant maintenance cost savings.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-10-05 21:48:48 and read 18413 times.

To expand a bit on the matter of Russian thrust vectoring and FBW, and because I just wanted an excuse to share this awesome video where there is so much going on aerodynamically

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKkmiECXwuE 

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: sweair
Posted 2012-10-06 01:40:46 and read 18348 times.

India seems to play both sides, some Russian gear and some us gear and even french gear.

India's biggest worry is China, as they use Pakistan as a proxy, growing tensions between Russia and China is also visible. Will US and Russia be on the same side in this?

Looking at how Russian engineers fubared the 748 I am not very impressed about their ability to go modern. Over engineering worked back in the cold war.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2012-10-08 05:14:42 and read 17919 times.

considering history...its not advisible to depend on only one supplier.......especially if they may not agree on India's foreign policy

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-12-14 06:29:25 and read 14745 times.

PAK-FA's 4th prototype had its first flight a few days ago. A few sensor and structural changes are visible.

http://i.imgur.com/GcFFh.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/2hxx74p.jpg

http://sukhoi.org/img/content/1.jpg

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4133/...7229822.f/0_ac9fb_bb3420ac_-2-XXXL

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-12-15 10:09:22 and read 14419 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 44):
http://sukhoi.org/img/content/1.jpg

Seems like a great way to stall out your engines at high AOA.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: sovietjet
Posted 2012-12-17 11:59:30 and read 14064 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 45):
Seems like a great way to stall out your engines at high AOA.

You're right! How could they have missed this?? I think Sukhoi needs more brilliant engineers like you!

     

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-12-17 12:45:35 and read 14023 times.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 46):
You're right! How could they have missed this?? I think Sukhoi needs more brilliant engineers like you!

I said 'seems like', not 'will', relax. I'm curious if there are any designs (aircraft) where there are moving flight control surfaces just forward of the intakes.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2012-12-17 13:11:05 and read 14009 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 45):
Seems like a great way to stall out your engines at high AOA.

That's just their neutral position with the aircraft powered down.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2012-12-17 13:25:52 and read 14009 times.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 48):
That's just their neutral position with the aircraft powered down.

Interesting. On certain western fighters that amount of downward deflection is mostly for spin recovery mode.

Topic: RE: India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username: Acheron
Posted 2013-01-18 06:46:30 and read 11264 times.

Hi-res picture of painted T-50-4 with what seems to be a rear-facing radar.

http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2...43473_104495253_01-01-01-054-4.jpg


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/