Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia  
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 23234 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]

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 23139 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.

User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 23126 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.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22984 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]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 22964 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.


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 weeks ago) and read 22819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 22549 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.   


'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 22545 times:

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

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 22387 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.....   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 22264 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.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 22137 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.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 22002 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


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 21968 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 11):

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


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 21893 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?


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 21826 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.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 21802 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.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21683 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.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 21626 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.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 21478 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.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 21432 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


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21397 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.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 21363 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.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21284 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'...


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21204 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.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 21189 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]

25 Ozair : I stand corrected, although the weight of the Brahmos must force a strengthening of the pylons given those four missiles are typically distributed ov
26 Post contains links and images Acheron : That's the idea. The centerline hardpoints has been considered for heavy loads for a while now. The range will not only depend on the loadout but als
27 sovietjet : 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
28 india1 : 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 ag
29 comorin : 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 we
30 BigJKU : 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 i
31 Post contains links ThePointblank : 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 c
32 Post contains links and images Acheron : 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
33 Post contains links ThePointblank : Which, considering the Indian Air Force inventory, isn't much to brag about. When your inventory is predominantly dominated by older types such as th
34 Post contains links and images Powerslide : Just comparing the factory alone of the PakFa and JSF tells you the entire story. and Now you tell me, which of these two plants produce state of the
35 Post contains links and images KiwiRob : Doesn't look much different to me. I think you fanboys only see what you want to see.
36 Post contains links Acheron : The MiG-21 and -27 have been retired for a while now, as far as I know Seems to be an issue within the IAF since Algerian's nor the Malaysians have c
37 sovietjet : 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 eno
38 Post contains links comorin : 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
39 Post contains images Oroka : Yeah, and anything that does look like an F-22 is a copycat. You cant win with some people. Pretty sure that pic is of the static test air frame, and
40 ThePointblank : 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 significa
41 Post contains links and images Acheron : 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 m
42 sweair : 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 pro
43 HAWK21M : considering history...its not advisible to depend on only one supplier.......especially if they may not agree on India's foreign policy
44 Post contains links and images Acheron : PAK-FA's 4th prototype had its first flight a few days ago. A few sensor and structural changes are visible. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4133/...72
45 Powerslide : Seems like a great way to stall out your engines at high AOA.
46 Post contains images sovietjet : You're right! How could they have missed this?? I think Sukhoi needs more brilliant engineers like you!
47 Powerslide : 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 o
48 Acheron : That's just their neutral position with the aircraft powered down.
49 Powerslide : Interesting. On certain western fighters that amount of downward deflection is mostly for spin recovery mode.
50 Post contains links Acheron : 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic India To Ink $35B Su-T50 Deal With Russia
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
India To Manufacture Su-30MK-I Fighters posted Tue Jan 29 2002 00:00:22 by Aviatsiya
What's The Deal With Beale Air Force Base? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 10:29:34 by 26point2
India Purchases 42 More Su-30MKIs For 3 Billion posted Fri Jun 25 2010 19:32:45 by Shmertspionem
India To Spend $736m On 12 AW-101's.... posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:39:21 by AirRyan
SU-47 Berkut Outside Russia? posted Fri Oct 2 2009 15:24:17 by Wolverine
India To Launch Lunar Mission posted Tue Oct 21 2008 17:27:45 by ZANL188
India To Built Agni IV. posted Tue May 6 2008 23:04:51 by HAWK21M
India To Purchase 6 C-130Js posted Tue Feb 5 2008 04:58:02 by Lumberton
What Is The Deal With The Space Shuttle? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 21:01:20 by BR715-A1-30
Multi $bn US Weapon Deal With Mid-East States posted Sat Jul 28 2007 17:02:46 by Ant72LBA
India Purchases 42 More Su-30MKIs For 3 Billion posted Fri Jun 25 2010 19:32:45 by Shmertspionem
India To Spend $736m On 12 AW-101's.... posted Tue Mar 16 2010 11:39:21 by AirRyan
SU-47 Berkut Outside Russia? posted Fri Oct 2 2009 15:24:17 by Wolverine
India To Launch Lunar Mission posted Tue Oct 21 2008 17:27:45 by ZANL188
India To Built Agni IV. posted Tue May 6 2008 23:04:51 by HAWK21M
India To Purchase 6 C-130Js posted Tue Feb 5 2008 04:58:02 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format