What's new

F-60 / J-31 stealth fighter aircraft for Pakistan Air Force?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take a look at F-15 SE's background.... and then take a look at the PakFa..many similarities from an engine and airframe's standpoint. Both have 5th gen electronics and tweaked sonic cruise capability. But....both are STILL based on 4.5 gen foundation, i.e. the airframes.
Both Raptor (operational) and J-20 (even still in design) represent a leap over F-15 SE or the PakFa. If you don't want to admit reality, its up to you. If the F-15 SE was that potent to compare with the F-22, trust me, you'd be seeing hundreds of orders already inked. Similarly, if the PakFa was really as true stealth and advanced as other major competition, you'd have seen about a dozen Russian allies putting advanced purchase orders on it. But nope. That's not the case. As far as the J-20 is concerned, the engine issue is a whole different discussion but doesn't jeopardize its operational capability if they keep using AL-31 engines. Engine has nothing to do with its stealth or advanced technology related characteristics, as long as the engine can provide the thrust the jet requires. J-20 is based on the Western tech as its known, stolen tech at that. But PakFa is a traditional Russian design with stealthy features.

Based on 4.5th airframes... were you part of Sukhoi's DFMEA to claim that... visual cues are not the basis to analyse any design....

So I ticked you guys off because PakFa would become an Indian plane and only God knows, the Indian people or their products can't have anything missing and they are better than everything else? Common guys, when does the blind patriotism become common sense? Wish to see sense taking over important discussions.
Read my post three times and then read your responses. I think you sound like a smart guy, you'll see disproportional responses to a credible fact based discussion.
I never said J-20 is on par with the Raptor. Let's make sure we are on the same page. There is NOTHING on par with the Raptor at this time in the entire world or all the way till 2025. J-20, however will be second to the Raptor and the JSF (although J-20 is STILL inferior to the Raptor).
Now when I say SECOND to the Raptor and the JSF, that's coming from analyzing other Stealth projects around the world. The J-20 is based on very modern Western stolen tech. Like the F-22 and the JSF, it is ALSO based on a brand new airframe with many sensitive techs and capabilities. Russians are smart people, no doubt about it. But they also produce planes with certain things in mind, the use of nano-tech is barely there in their Jet manufacturing. If you just take a look at their top line jet cockpits just 5-7 years ago vs. a Western top line jet's cockpit from 10 years ago, you'll understand what I am saying here.
So I am more than positive that the PakFa is a very potent plane and it'll probably have super low RCS, enough to consider it "Stealthy", but its SU based airframes come with their own issues by design and you couldn't make a "Stealth" plane out of that.
Remember, Stealth and Stealthy are two VERY different things. So back to what I was saying, the Raptor and the JSF will rule the skies around the world. The J-20 will be the second thing to them and then the PakFa, and then the Japanese or Korean stealthy planes.

Air frame analysis on Appearance, Stealth validity on skin profile, Engine analysis on perceived manufacturing capabilities... Quick question what does ruling the sky means?
 
Last edited:
.
Based on 4.5th airframes... were you part of Sukhoi's DFMEA to claim that... visual cues are not the basis to analyse any design....

Based on 4.5th airframes... were you part of Sukhoi's DFMEA to claim that... visual cues are not the basis to analyse any design....

Air frame analysis on Appearance, Stealth validity on skin profile, Engine analysis on perceived manufacturing capabilities... Quick question what does ruling the sky means?


I wasn't a part of the Shkhoi's design team but what if I told you I know enough about it enough? There are no visual cues here. If SU airframes were to be converted into anything Stealth, TRUST ME, the Russians and the Chinese would've done that long time ago, JUST for good press or marketing against the Raptor. The Russians actually spent a few hundred millions in trying to "do something" but it didn't work. They aren't big on nano-tech. But VERY sharp with one dimensional, older mainframe computing. And it is visible in their designs. Your want to see a basic comparison of technology? Google any Russian top line jet's cockpit pics in 2000 and then compare it with any modern American jet's cockpit (doesn't have to be top line). You'll see the magic of smaller - distributed / modular computing and architecture, paving the way for higher powered nano-tech devices that are currently being used in almost all kinds of new jets, specially, the Stealthy ones.

The SU's and overall Russian airframes and engines are ALWAYS known to be extremely high maintenance. Same was true for SU-30 just a couple of years ago. Add another complexity to it, that is the Stealth. Imagine the maintenance now. The MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is extremely low during flight within the SU series planes, including SU-30. In SU-35 series, the quality is much better. MTBF means a LOT of maintenance and major depot maintenance also with a few hundred hours of flight at times......imagine the risks due to this.

Also do this (you are about to dislike me a lot), take a look at the size of the Russian air force and its jet count. SU-30 supposedly is one of their top air superiority fighters. Why is it inducted in less than 5% of the air force like total around 100 or below? An X super power trying to "revive" its force.....why didn't they fulfill their needs first but sold hundreds of these to other places like India and China? The answer is, it was a great plane to show off force in the Indo-Pak or Indo-Chinese theater. It's not as great (for many reasons) to be facing off the US warplanes or NATO's advanced military might. Also, there was a reason why India went for Rafale :) ??? If this plane was such a success, it would've seen similar success than the Mig-29. But its success comes from exports. Says a lot about the capability that this isn't adapted in house by the Russians. They moved on to SU-35, etc.
Now reason for the above issues lies in what you ignored from my post and tried to twist facts around. The lack of real advance engineering, lack of advance nano-tech based avionics, lack of proper quality measurement and control. At the end, you have a jet that has great features in some dimensions but lacks a lot in others. Such as maintenance, design, mufti-role, or something else. The Chinese are much ahead compared to the Russians if you take both the countries military industrial complex' starting and mid point. Reason is, the Chinese have learned a lot from the West and the US. Their tech base is on distributed computing and on PC / open architecture technology (which then gives birth to nano-tech). Which Russians spend decades using good old Unix and mainframes for their advance designs and technology. Sorry buddy. It is what it is!
 
.
I wasn't a part of the Shkhoi's design team but what if I told you I know enough about it enough? There are no visual cues here. If SU airframes were to be converted into anything Stealth, TRUST ME, the Russians and the Chinese would've done that long time ago, JUST for good press or marketing against the Raptor. The Russians actually spent a few hundred millions in trying to "do something" but it didn't work. They aren't big on nano-tech. But VERY sharp with one dimensional, older mainframe computing. And it is visible in their designs. Your want to see a basic comparison of technology? Google any Russian top line jet's cockpit pics in 2000 and then compare it with any modern American jet's cockpit (doesn't have to be top line). You'll see the magic of smaller - distributed / modular computing and architecture, paving the way for higher powered nano-tech devices that are currently being used in almost all kinds of new jets, specially, the Stealthy ones.

The SU's and overall Russian airframes and engines are ALWAYS known to be extremely high maintenance. Same was true for SU-30 just a couple of years ago. Add another complexity to it, that is the Stealth. Imagine the maintenance now. The MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is extremely low during flight within the SU series planes, including SU-30. In SU-35 series, the quality is much better. MTBF means a LOT of maintenance and major depot maintenance also with a few hundred hours of flight at times......imagine the risks due to this.

Also do this (you are about to dislike me a lot), take a look at the size of the Russian air force and its jet count. SU-30 supposedly is one of their top air superiority fighters. Why is it inducted in less than 5% of the air force like total around 100 or below? An X super power trying to "revive" its force.....why didn't they fulfill their needs first but sold hundreds of these to other places like India and China? The answer is, it was a great plane to show off force in the Indo-Pak or Indo-Chinese theater. It's not as great (for many reasons) to be facing off the US warplanes or NATO's advanced military might. Also, there was a reason why India went for Rafale :) ??? If this plane was such a success, it would've seen similar success than the Mig-29. But its success comes from exports. Says a lot about the capability that this isn't adapted in house by the Russians. They moved on to SU-35, etc.
Now reason for the above issues lies in what you ignored from my post and tried to twist facts around. The lack of real advance engineering, lack of advance nano-tech based avionics, lack of proper quality measurement and control. At the end, you have a jet that has great features in some dimensions but lacks a lot in others. Such as maintenance, design, mufti-role, or something else. The Chinese are much ahead compared to the Russians if you take both the countries military industrial complex' starting and mid point. Reason is, the Chinese have learned a lot from the West and the US. Their tech base is on distributed computing and on PC / open architecture technology (which then gives birth to nano-tech). Which Russians spend decades using good old Unix and mainframes for their advance designs and technology. Sorry buddy. It is what it is!

Interesting post,

Seems like you are claiming to know a lot about Sukhoi's design process. Let's try to keep it simple.

Please enlighten us with the process f designing an airframe for a combat aircraft?

How do you Design an air frame for stealth, how is it different from an airframe for say a prop plane?

In your post you mentioned one dimensional computing, what does that mean, and how is it relevant to design of the airframe?

Can you also please educate us on efficacy of nano technology currently employed on combat jets and the amount of advantage it brings to the battlefield.
 
.
Interesting post, Seems like you are claiming to know a lot about Sukhoi's design process. Let's try to keep it simple.

Please enlighten us with the process f designing an airframe for a combat aircraft?
How do you Design an air frame for stealth, how is it different from an airframe for say a prop plane?
In your post you mentioned one dimensional computing, what does that mean, and how is it relevant to design of the airframe?
Can you also please educate us on efficacy of nano technology currently employed on combat jets and the amount of advantage it brings to the battlefield.

Interesting answer. Definitely tells me clear difference between a fan boy reader vs. an expert questioning. I am afraid I can't answer you on here. Here's why answering in the same order your questions came in:
1) Enlighten you on the process of designing of the aircraft. The answer in detail will make me write here for hours and if you think I have that much time, you are absolutely insane. Not to mention the post would turn into multiple pages. But, here's a low down for ya: A plane's design is actually a full program within itself. First, it starts with the end-user requirements. For example, when the US wanted F-14, F-15 all the way to F-22, there are very detailed analysis put into an RFP for Boeing's, Lockheeds, etc of the world. Those hundreds of pages at times worth of details tell ya' the requirements, end-mission, specifications, functionality sought and capability needed and the competition that they want to match (usually kill in the US's case as each new aircraft usually goes two decades beyond what the market has).
Then, those requirements get solidify and priorities are given as to what's expected out of a program and in how much budget with what capability and with what "delivered" capability. Then the competing organizations start towards winning the contract by creating their baseline versions. The actual physical design starts from a concept on the paper majority of the time.
Then goes through a significant phase of computer aided design AND modeling. Then modifications are made. Then, more computer aided designs are conducted. Then, finally a small prototype or a proof of concept is created. That then goes through internal testing (static, flight - air-tunnel, etc). When this is being done, usually, in parallel to it, are the avionics engineering being done in simulator cockpits, etc. Many teams work together to create different parts of this program like the weapons package, perceived flight profiles, mission modules, radars, engines, metallurgy, physicists and chemical composition of the surface, material, paints, user interaction (or the Man-Machine Interface as used in the industry).
Then, all this comes together in the shape of a version 1 or small batch 1 airframe. This first iteration is primarily used for static tests initially. Later, the engines and basic set of avionics are installed and simulation flights are conducted under controlled patterns on the ground.
Then, eventually, when a ground safety clearance is given, a flight occurs, usually very short and sweet to ensure test pilots familiarization with the plane and to ensure his safety. During this short flight, many sensors are installed that provide reading on ALL basic flight components.
Based on which, later, more design changes are added and eventually, a plane flies with its initial desired flight performance package that traces back the capability sought initially to its maturity model (or Capability Maturity Model as the industry calls it).....validation of capability vs. the requirements is checked and enhancements are made.
Then the gov't awards a contract based after a ton of tests and competition. Once first batch serial production starts, the baseline is further enhance and blocks are created as a strategy (export vs. internal only with added features). I am dumbing this down as i can write all night on this. This process means thousands of highly qualified people working on the program and many companies that specialize in certain areas producing different parts of the "jet" you casually referred to. Hope this helps.
2) How do you design an airframe from Stealth :). I can't answer that for you all the way. You can read up, in aeronautical, avionics and metallurgy schools, they teach basics of this. May want to take a course somewhere if you want to make a profession out of it.
Some useful information is available on different forums also like alert5, etc. From its basics, its a combination of highly synthetic materials, super sensitive technology, specific special chemicals, highly skilled metals and computer tech that makes all that work together. Or you can be cheaper like semi-stealthy planes the Russians are building and create airframe based stealthiness that would work for many. Just don't bring it around the JSF or the Raptor. The pilot may never realize what hit it and how and where it came from.......in a conflict with the Raptor the only computerized sensor that works is the one that shows "EJECT.......EJECT.....EJECT" on the screen with loud beeping noise :)

3) On nano-tech and other advance tech being used in the stealth jets (i mean REAL stealth jets)....these are the key to achieving air superiority due to many reasons. I won't waste my time on here as you can research this yourself. Google will get you good basics.
4) What does advanced technology has to do with the airframe and jet design? What's the difference in Indian Maruti's and a BMW 3.5 twin turbo? Technology that had enabled the BMW to move beyond 1950's Maruti types of cars and really create a high performance, high tech sports coupe..... I HOPE this answers it. I have a feeling, just like your countrymen, you WILL still come back with another set of silly question.

You ignored details from my post and changed the topic (just like you guys do to divert attention from topics you don't want people to discuss). Answer me, if the SU-30 was SUCH a GREAT platform and air superiority fighter, why is it that the manufacturer of that plane, the Russians decide to induct it in VERY Little numbers but gave it to China and India in VERY Large numbers???? I'd really like to hear this from you or others who think SU-30 is the mother of all advanced jets.
 
.
Interesting answer. Definitely tells me clear difference between a fan boy reader vs. an expert questioning. I am afraid I can't answer you on here. Here's why answering in the same order your questions came in:
1) Enlighten you on the process of designing of the aircraft. The answer in detail will make me write here for hours and if you think I have that much time, you are absolutely insane. Not to mention the post would turn into multiple pages. But, here's a low down for ya: A plane's design is actually a full program within itself. First, it starts with the end-user requirements. For example, when the US wanted F-14, F-15 all the way to F-22, there are very detailed analysis put into an RFP for Boeing's, Lockheeds, etc of the world. Those hundreds of pages at times worth of details tell ya' the requirements, end-mission, specifications, functionality sought and capability needed and the competition that they want to match (usually kill in the US's case as each new aircraft usually goes two decades beyond what the market has).
Then, those requirements get solidify and priorities are given as to what's expected out of a program and in how much budget with what capability and with what "delivered" capability. Then the competing organizations start towards winning the contract by creating their baseline versions. The actual physical design starts from a concept on the paper majority of the time.
Then goes through a significant phase of computer aided design AND modeling. Then modifications are made. Then, more computer aided designs are conducted. Then, finally a small prototype or a proof of concept is created. That then goes through internal testing (static, flight - air-tunnel, etc). When this is being done, usually, in parallel to it, are the avionics engineering being done in simulator cockpits, etc. Many teams work together to create different parts of this program like the weapons package, perceived flight profiles, mission modules, radars, engines, metallurgy, physicists and chemical composition of the surface, material, paints, user interaction (or the Man-Machine Interface as used in the industry).
Then, all this comes together in the shape of a version 1 or small batch 1 airframe. This first iteration is primarily used for static tests initially. Later, the engines and basic set of avionics are installed and simulation flights are conducted under controlled patterns on the ground.
Then, eventually, when a ground safety clearance is given, a flight occurs, usually very short and sweet to ensure test pilots familiarization with the plane and to ensure his safety. During this short flight, many sensors are installed that provide reading on ALL basic flight components.
Based on which, later, more design changes are added and eventually, a plane flies with its initial desired flight performance package that traces back the capability sought initially to its maturity model (or Capability Maturity Model as the industry calls it).....validation of capability vs. the requirements is checked and enhancements are made.
Then the gov't awards a contract based after a ton of tests and competition. Once first batch serial production starts, the baseline is further enhance and blocks are created as a strategy (export vs. internal only with added features). I am dumbing this down as i can write all night on this. This process means thousands of highly qualified people working on the program and many companies that specialize in certain areas producing different parts of the "jet" you casually referred to. Hope this helps.
2) How do you design an airframe from Stealth :). I can't answer that for you all the way. You can read up, in aeronautical, avionics and metallurgy schools, they teach basics of this. May want to take a course somewhere if you want to make a profession out of it.
Some useful information is available on different forums also like alert5, etc. From its basics, its a combination of highly synthetic materials, super sensitive technology, specific special chemicals, highly skilled metals and computer tech that makes all that work together. Or you can be cheaper like semi-stealthy planes the Russians are building and create airframe based stealthiness that would work for many. Just don't bring it around the JSF or the Raptor. The pilot may never realize what hit it and how and where it came from.......in a conflict with the Raptor the only computerized sensor that works is the one that shows "EJECT.......EJECT.....EJECT" on the screen with loud beeping noise :)

3) On nano-tech and other advance tech being used in the stealth jets (i mean REAL stealth jets)....these are the key to achieving air superiority due to many reasons. I won't waste my time on here as you can research this yourself. Google will get you good basics.
4) What does advanced technology has to do with the airframe and jet design? What's the difference in Indian Maruti's and a BMW 3.5 twin turbo? Technology that had enabled the BMW to move beyond 1950's Maruti types of cars and really create a high performance, high tech sports coupe..... I HOPE this answers it. I have a feeling, just like your countrymen, you WILL still come back with another set of silly question.

You ignored details from my post and changed the topic (just like you guys do to divert attention from topics you don't want people to discuss). Answer me, if the SU-30 was SUCH a GREAT platform and air superiority fighter, why is it that the manufacturer of that plane, the Russians decide to induct it in VERY Little numbers but gave it to China and India in VERY Large numbers???? I'd really like to hear this from you or others who think SU-30 is the mother of all advanced jets.

OK... you had time to the post all this but not to answer simple questions.

As far as SU30's deployment is concerned.. lets see how many have been deployed, and I will quote the example of IAF, One of World's largest airforces. With 272 projected a/c's which is deployed 5 times the mirage 2K and Mig29's, flankers evaluation by IAF contradicts your claims. As far as RuAF is concerned, I am sure you do understand the events that have occurred in the three decades which have undermined their deployments. I hope that answers your question on SU30 deployments. Also I would like to mention that RuAF has ordered Su30 a/c which are very similar to MKI configuration last year, which say a lot about the platform.

And btw my first question wasj not on design of aircraft but design on airframe. As you are throwing design and manufacturing rhetoric all over, the reason why I asked the question was to point out that air frames are not designed for stealth, instead they are designed to Flexural rigidity and tensile strength on edgewise and flapwise configuration in static strain limits to mimic max G + 10% safety, and fatigue configuration to 1/2 of max G loading to million cycles at full amplitude and 350K cycles in 0.75 of Max G amplitude. In other words modern 4+ gen airframes profile design is not specific to any radar signature but purely to static and dynamic stresses .
Now the stress loading on a airframe is designed based on the aerofoil of the structure, which gives you the resultant Lift and drag coefficients> which in turn will provide you the load factors based on the acceleration that is desired from the structure. Thus you design the air-frame to load coefficients based on an aero profile. My interest was to understand, if there is something I am missing that has revolutionized airframe design that you were referring to.

Next is the claims that you throw around, In one of your posts you categorically state that
The SU's and overall Russian airframes and engines are ALWAYS known to be extremely high maintenance.
That is quite interesting because I haven't even found any instance where there was "high maintenance" required even on mig21 and Mig27 Airframes, on which i worked. Now LGU's are different and from what I have heard, USAF's platforms even have a higher mismatch LGU life compared to the airframe.

Also it will help if could shed some light on "one dimensional computing" and it's relation to airframe design as you ignored it your reply.

As far your dumbing down is concerned, If I do come across something that is beyond my comprehension skills, I will point out my difficulties. You can be as technical as you wan't to be when it comes to design and manufacturing. I have significant experience in design and testing of composite aerofoils along with stress analysis of landing gear units, in addition my specialization during my masters program was in non-linear structural analysis, so you can as technical as you want to be...

Btw Thanks for your career advise, but right now I am all set.

Next time just a simple coherent reply will do.

thanks
 
Last edited:
.
@orangzaib you logic about Induction of Su-30MKI in RuAF is very flawed. They already have Su-27s in large numbers(350+) on which Su-30 was based on. And still they ordered 60 Su-30SM aircrafts(MKI standard) last year and also they ordered Su-35 in small numbers too so does it make Su-35 a bad aircraft too just because they are inducting it in small number?
Similarly consider that USA doesn't operate most advance variant(Block60) of F-16 but does it make Block60 inferior than Block50 or 52?
PS: not saying MKI is most advanced flanker, su-35 would still beat it and only Super sukhoi will be close to or as good as Su-35.
 
Last edited:
.
OK... you had time to the post all this but not to answer simple questions.

As far as SU30's deployment is concerned.. lets see how many have been deployed, and I will quote the example of IAF, One of World's largest airforces. With 272 projected a/c's which is deployed 5 times the mirage 2K and Mig29's, flankers evaluation by IAF contradicts your claims. As far as RuAF is concerned, I am sure you do understand the events that have occurred in the three decades which have undermined their deployments. I hope that answers your question on SU30 deployments. Also I would like to mention that RuAF has ordered Su30 a/c which are very similar to MKI configuration last year, which say a lot about the platform.

And btw my first question wasj not on design of aircraft but design on airframe. As you are throwing design and manufacturing rhetoric all over, the reason why I asked the question was to point out that air frames are not designed for stealth, instead they are designed to Flexural rigidity and tensile strength on edgewise and flapwise configuration in static strain limits to mimic max G + 10% safety, and fatigue configuration to 1/2 of max G loading to million cycles at full amplitude and 350K cycles in 0.75 of Max G amplitude. In other words modern 4+ gen airframes profile design is not specific to any radar signature but purely to static and dynamic stresses .
Now the stress loading on a airframe is designed based on the aerofoil of the structure, which gives you the resultant Lift and drag coefficients> which in turn will provide you the load factors based on the acceleration that is desired from the structure. Thus you design the air-frame to load coefficients based on an aero profile. My interest was to understand, if there is something I am missing that has revolutionized airframe design that you were referring to.

Next is the claims that you throw around, In one of your posts you categorically state that That is quite interesting because I haven't even found any instance where there was "high maintenance" required even on mig21 and Mig27 Airframes, on which i worked. Now LGU's are different and from what I have heard, USAF's platforms even have a higher mismatch LGU life compared to the airframe.

Also it will help if could shed some light on "one dimensional computing" and it's relation to airframe design as you ignored it your reply.

As far your dumbing down is concerned, If I do come across something that is beyond my comprehension skills, I will point out my difficulties. You can be as technical as you wan't to be when it comes to design and manufacturing. I have significant experience in design and testing of composite aerofoils along with stress analysis of landing gear units, in addition my specialization during my masters program was in non-linear structural analysis, so you can as technical as you want to be...

Btw Thanks for your career advise, but right now I am all set.

Next time just a simple coherent reply will do.

thanks

I think the perception of Russian aircraft has always been reported incorrectly. The issue with Russian systems was their engines(poor service life and quality).. antiquated manufacturing techniques for electronics..and most importantly.. very poor ergonomics.

However, the Russian airframe.. regardless of what it was manufactured of.. has always been rugged and built to take the weather. As an example, both the Mig-29 and Su-27 were equipped to take off from snowy or unprepared airfields full of FoD risk. By contrast, neither the F-15 or F-16 have the ability to operate out of unprepared strips. The only western country that built aircraft with that provision was perhaps sweden..and that too was a risk

Yes, by contrast the western aircraft are built to a higher standard in terms of precision perhaps.. but that was years ago. Today's Russian equipment has come far ahead of what it used to be. It still suffers from certain hangover from the Soviet era.. but many private Russian firms have overcome it. As an e.g. there is a particular ELINT requirement for a platform in Pakistan that was met best by a Russian firm. it is another story that the equipment was reverse engineered locally on a war footing to avoid the Indian lobby getting wind of the rather sophisticated purchase. But the russians have come quite far.

The Su-30SM purchase by Russia has less to do with the MKI purchase by India and more to do with the need to build up multirole fighter-bomber solutions. The Su-34 is compared to the F-15E but I see it as more of an analogue to the F-111. Sure it can perform greater tasks but it is focused more on Air to ground than a comparable F-15E. The rest of Russias fighters are air defence systems. The Su-24's are aging rapidly and just Su-34s cannot replace them all.

@orangzaib you logic about Induction of Su-30MKI in RuAF is very flawed. They already have Su-27s in large numbers(350+) on which Su-30 was based on. And still they ordered 60 Su-30SM aircrafts(MKI standard) last year and also they ordered Su-35 in small numbers too so does it make Su-35 a bad aircraft too just because they are inducting it in small number?
Similarly consider that USA doesn't operate most advance variant(Block60) of F-16 but does it make Block60 inferior than Block50 or 52?
PS: not saying MKI is most advanced flanker, su-35 would still beat it and only Super sukhoi will be close to or as good as Su-35.
I can see where the logic comes from, as the Su-27SM and Su-30SM are far apart when it comes to design intent and capability.
moreover, the Su-30SMs may be serving as a stop gap order increase until the Russians have a more capable(suited for their needs) aircraft ready to more fully replace their attack fleet.
 
.
OK... you had time to the post all this but not to answer simple questions.
With 272 projected a/c's which is deployed 5 times the mirage 2K and Mig29's, flankers evaluation by IAF contradicts your claims. As far as RuAF is concerned, I am sure you do understand the events that have occurred in the three decades which have undermined their deployments. I hope that answers your question on SU30 deployments.
And btw my first question wasj not on design of aircraft but design on airframe. As you are throwing design and manufacturing rhetoric all over, the reason why I asked the question was to point out that air frames are not designed for stealth, instead they are designed to Flexural rigidity and tensile strength on edgewise and flapwise configuration in static strain limits to mimic max G + 10% safety, and fatigue configuration to 1/2 of max G loading to million cycles at full amplitude and 350K cycles in 0.75 of Max G amplitude. In other words modern 4+ gen airframes profile design is not specific to any radar signature but purely to static and dynamic stresses .
Now the stress loading on a airframe is designed based on the aerofoil of the structure.
I haven't even found any instance where there was "high maintenance" required even on mig21 and Mig27 Airframes, on which i worked.
Also it will help if could shed some light on "one dimensional computing" and it's relation to airframe design as you ignored it your reply.
Btw Thanks for your career advise, but right now I am all set.

Next time just a simple coherent reply will do.

thanks

Here we go again, just like I predicted. This will go on. If I was to bring the chief engineer of the F-22 on here, you'd still question him nonsense all day long until he would get tired of it and would simply stop.
"A simple reply would do?" Didn't you ask me to enlighten you on the process? Had you known the whole thing yourself instead of checking on me as to what I knew, that question would have been stupid to even ask for as its very detailed, no matter what you do. And here, you write three lines worth of crap and tell me I was talking manufacturing??? You sound like an airframe tech who has no idea what happens in an entire program.
If my response was short, you'd then question my credibility that I didn't know enough.....sucks to argue with people who's brain waves change like their heart's EKG!

Flanker's "Evaluation" by IAF contractors means.....jack shi*t. These guys are paid and they want the deal done. You don't understand a thing man. Having an engineer background may make you smart in that, but that's all your focus is. You can't comprehend strategy.
Yet you keep arguing without having that bigger background. When the contractors are chosen to "review", majority of the time (90%) in the case of Russia - India or China - Pakistan or Saudia-US or Israel - US cases, the product has been sold ALREADY at a much higher level. This is just to ensure the package is what it should be from capability's standpoint.

The fact remains, the Russians don't think too much of the SU-30. They in fact have upgraded their Mig 29's to SM standards and will keep them (which is a two gen lower air craft in my opinion). I will tell you this, the Russians WILL field SU-35 or the next one in LARGE numbers as they desperately need more top line fighters. Otherwise, their air power will be out of touch with the reality in less then half the week in case of a war with the NATO (conventional I might add). And that's against their new global power ambitions. So that's that for the SU-30. Nothing else will be added to this topic, take it or leave it.

Flexural rigidity and tensile strength and 350 Cycles stuff you put down, is JUST a small part of the process and its really airframe's strength static and dynamic. And I totally disagree with you that 4th gen has nothing to do with the Radar signature and its just static and dynamic stress that play a role. That was the 70's. You are still reading last generations technology.

EVERY plane being designed now a days, as basic as the Chinese win engine trainer to JFT to F-16 Block 60+ or F-15 SE, etc, has a most critical need to reduce the cross section. There are literally teams that do Radar cross section analysis and actually the RCS reduction parameters NOW dictate the design change and the airframe profile. If people with your opinion are designing PakFa.....I could probably catch its signals with my CB Radio used for car emergencies.
Last, Russian planes are very high maintenance. If that's hard to swallow, ask anyone on here who's flown an SU-30 anywhere or other Russian products. The maintenance is getting better......but it is still way behind the Western world. Google it if you want. You'll find plenty of evidence. Why are you buying Rafale btw? Stick to the SU-30 :) ? Enough said !!

In fact, back to my basic argument, the Chinese are producing more maintenance friendly machines than the Russians. The Chinese industry is based on distributed computing versus mainframes (the BIGGEST difference between the US and Russians military industrial complex many decades ago when they set their foundation). THAT is WHY, the top technologies come out of the US as the US had made hi-tech computing cheap and cost effective for everyone to go innovate.
The Russians wanted a mainframe based industry and didn't realize the way to go was distributed - PC computing. It is very visible in their design shapes too.
After this post, no matter how much your panties are on fire, I won't respond as it's become counter productive. I am not here to satisfy your personal or national opinion about how Indian products are so much superior to everything else. I am here to write the truth based on the knowledge that I have gained over a couple of decades.
 
Last edited:
.
@orangzaib you logic about Induction of Su-30MKI in RuAF is very flawed. They already have Su-27s in large numbers(350+) on which Su-30 was based on. And still they ordered 60 Su-30SM aircrafts(MKI standard) last year and also they ordered Su-35 in small numbers too so does it make Su-35 a bad aircraft too just because they are inducting it in small number?
Similarly consider that USA doesn't operate most advance variant(Block60) of F-16 but does it make Block60 inferior than Block50 or 52?
PS: not saying MKI is most advanced flanker, su-35 would still beat it and only Super sukhoi will be close to or as good as Su-35.

I wish I was talking to you vs. the other dude. Your post sounds very reasonable and isn't filled with "how dare you call out a product we use rant". The fact is, 60 or 100 SU-30 order is peanuts for an air force that wants to project itself globally again (the Russian Empire) and they are in desperate need to fill the gap vs. the NATO with potent fighters. Frankly speaking, they'd rather use their Mig 29 SM's then getting more SU-30's. That's just the reality. It is a great plane but not for that theater. Its great for other countries like India, China, etc,etc. The Russians are smart, their eyes are on SU-35 or later blocks like SU-47 (may not remember the exact model, so sorry for that). These two will be inducted in large numbers. Watch the next few years as Russians try to rebuild their air units. Btw, the Su-27 and Su-30 may share similar air frames, but they are two different planes. Similarly, the SU-35 and onwards are totally different planes (that's also why the Russians screamed at the Chinese when they started to build SU-35 variants, otherwise, the Chinese had SU-27 air frames for decades, why scream now???).
The US case of the F-16 Block 52 vs. the most advanced block 60.....again what's the theater?? The US block 52 may look less advanced based on looks from Block 60 or more. But in fact, they are more advanced in many regards (AESA upgrade pending I know). The US uses highly sensitive technologies for its own fleet of aircraft that are never sold outside to anyone. Israel may be one exception to the rule. So a block 52 functionally is more advanced than a block 60 export version (with AESA being a small issue currently which is being upgraded right now). If the Block 60 was so much different in capability, the US would've added a few hundred and let the older block 40's go. That's not the case as what they are offering in exports for Block 60 export version .....was used by the USAF decades ago in its block 40 and then in B 52.
 
.
@orangzaib Dude I understand what are you trying to say but Its more to do with requirements and doctorines of different airforces in light of their future plan.
Russia is operating Su-27s from 80s and they can't Just throw it away and induct 400+ Su-30SM/35s(which came much later) when they already have plans for PAK-FA in near future. I mean its doesn't make any sense. They are buying few of Su-30SMs and 35s(around 150 combined) only for stop gap measure till PAK-FA is inducted to replace older Mig-29s and Su-27s.
Their future fleet will consist of Pak-Fa(250+), Upgraded Su-27SM(around 200), Su-35 (48 as Initial order, may be more in future), Su-30M/SM(100+) and along with few hundred ground attack Fighters like Su-34 etc.
 
Last edited:
.
H. I am here to write the truth based on the knowledge that I have gained over a couple of decades.

I have agreements and disagreements with a lot of what you said... but you need to be absolutely certain of the Truth to call it that.
five decades ago there was a "truth" that missiles and radars had made dogfights irrelevant. A truth that cost countless American lives until the mistakes were learnt.

The Russians may have stuck to mainframe ideals but the end of the cold war brought in a lot of private firms that changed that thinking. Today's Russian tech in no longer the same. Nor should it be gauged in that regard.. just as Chinese tech today is no longer the same. What is important is understanding why certain equipment meets certain requirements of particular forces. Here, the doctrine of the force, the area to project/defend and budgetary constraints all pile up in the decision matrix.

The F-16 block-50 that flies in the USAF is quite different than the F-16 block-50 that the TuAF flies. In some places the TuAF has better systems on it.. but there are certain aspects that the US does not release to the Turks. Yet, that example cannot be taken as a comparision to the Su-30MKI and the SM. the Russians have a difference force mindset in mind as compared to India. However, the platform of the MKI may offer a certain complementary advantage to the RuAF to the Su-34.much akin to the F-15E did to the F-111 in the cold. war.

RCS reduction is important.. after all a massive aircraft with canards and huge tails will stick out like a sore thumb. Sure it can have a huge jammer, but that will only help in detecting it and planning a move against it. But that is the force's requirement and what it wants.
Perhaps the Russians are ok with a fighter with a massive RCS as their threat perception does not have it hopelessly outgunned.
 
.
Here we go again, just like I predicted. This will go on. If I was to bring the chief engineer of the F-22 on here, you'd still question him nonsense all day long until he would get tired of it and would simply stop.
"A simple reply would do?" Didn't you ask me to enlighten you on the process? Had you known the whole thing yourself instead of checking on me as to what I knew, that question would have been stupid to even ask for as its very detailed, no matter what you do. And here, you write three lines worth of crap and tell me I was talking manufacturing??? You sound like an airframe tech who has no idea what happens in an entire program.
If my response was short, you'd then question my credibility that I didn't know enough.....sucks to argue with people who's brain waves change like their heart's EKG!

Flanker's "Evaluation" by IAF contractors means.....jack shi*t. These guys are paid and they want the deal done. You don't understand a thing man. Having an engineer background may make you smart in that, but that's all your focus is. You can't comprehend strategy.
Yet you keep arguing without having that bigger background. When the contractors are chosen to "review", majority of the time (90%) in the case of Russia - India or China - Pakistan or Saudia-US or Israel - US cases, the product has been sold ALREADY at a much higher level. This is just to ensure the package is what it should be from capability's standpoint.

The fact remains, the Russians don't think too much of the SU-30. They in fact have upgraded their Mig 29's to SM standards and will keep them (which is a two gen lower air craft in my opinion). I will tell you this, the Russians WILL field SU-35 or the next one in LARGE numbers as they desperately need more top line fighters. Otherwise, their air power will be out of touch with the reality in less then half the week in case of a war with the NATO (conventional I might add). And that's against their new global power ambitions. So that's that for the SU-30. Nothing else will be added to this topic, take it or leave it.

Flexural rigidity and tensile strength and 350 Cycles stuff you put down, is JUST a small part of the process and its really airframe's strength static and dynamic. And I totally disagree with you that 4th gen has nothing to do with the Radar signature and its just static and dynamic stress that play a role. That was the 70's. You are still reading last generations technology.

EVERY plane being designed now a days, as basic as the Chinese win engine trainer to JFT to F-16 Block 60+ or F-15 SE, etc, has a most critical need to reduce the cross section. There are literally teams that do Radar cross section analysis and actually the RCS reduction parameters NOW dictate the design change and the airframe profile. If people with your opinion are designing PakFa.....I could probably catch its signals with my CB Radio used for car emergencies.

Last, Russian planes are very high maintenance. If that's hard to swallow, ask anyone on here who's flown an SU-30 anywhere or other Russian products. The maintenance is getting better......but it is still way behind the Western world. Google it if you want. You'll find plenty of evidence. Why are you buying Rafale btw? Stick to the SU-30 :) ? Enough said !!

In fact, back to my basic argument, the Chinese are producing more maintenance friendly machines than the Russians. The Chinese industry is based on distributed computing versus mainframes (the BIGGEST difference between the US and Russians military industrial complex many decades ago when they set their foundation). THAT is WHY, the top technologies come out of the US as the US had made hi-tech computing cheap and cost effective for everyone to go innovate.
The Russians wanted a mainframe based industry and didn't realize the way to go was distributed - PC computing. It is very visible in their design shapes too.
After this post, no matter how much your panties are on fire, I won't respond as it's become counter productive. I am not here to satisfy your personal or national opinion about how Indian products are so much superior to everything else. I am here to write the truth based on the knowledge that I have gained over a couple of decades.

Again all of this incoherent ranting has nothing to do with what you claimed and my counter questions....

It is quite visible from the tone of the post, whose clutching for straws.

Because of the erratic-ness of your rant, it is quite confusing to deconstruct and simplify the simple issue at hand.
but still let me give it a humble try:

First: I have never said Su30 is the greatest fighter in the world, you are free to visit other threads on the subject matter to know my position.

So let me clarify that my sequence of posts have nothing to do with me taking any offence if you try to belittle the MKI. The reason for me to post my comment was purely due the blanket statements that you offer in your posts, which have no justification such as implying that russians do not know how to design an airframe for a stealth aircraft, or PAKFA airframe is SU30 derivative, or Su30 air frame is high maintenance, especially when the Pressure and Aft Spar of the airframe for Su 30 is actually higher than the service life of the aircraft itself, same goes for the Mig21 and Mig27's....

My series of question were not to point at your lack of the design or manufacturing acumen but to highlight that you come up with this sweeping statements but do not offer any explanation behind the claims that you make. Like in this post you claim that my knowledge is limited to 70's with a counterclaim that airframes are designed to lower radar signatures. Please explain how, so even we can learn from your knowledge... (sharing wont diminish it)

Another example of this was your remark about "one dimensional computing" which if I am not mistaken refers to single array structures and I cannot find it's application in any airframe modelling or fem.

Finally if I could come back to your "jack $hit" retort where Indian Airforce Staff headquarters requirements seem insignificant to your understanding, I wonder why did US government submit F16 and F/A18 super hornet to the same entity for evaluation.

And me being a technician or a chief engineer has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just when you make overt claims, back them up. simple

Thanks
 
Last edited:
.
specially when the Pressure and Aft Spar of the airframe for Su 30 is actually higher than the service life of the aircraft itself, same goes for the Mig21 and Mig27's....

My series of question were not to point at your lack of the design or manufacturing acumen but to highlight that you come up with this sweeping statements but do not offer any explanation behind the claims that you make.

Like in this post you claim that my knowledge is limited to 70's with a counterclaim that airframes are designed to lower radar signatures. Please explain how, so even we can learn from your knowledge... (sharing wont diminish it)

Another example of this was your remark about "one dimensional computing" which if I am not mistaken refers to single array structures and I cannot find it's application in any airframe modelling or fem.

Finally if I could come back to your "jack $hit" retort where Indian Airforce Staff headquarters requirements seem insignificant to your understanding, I wonder why did US government submit F16 and F/A18 super hornet to the same entity for evaluation.

And me being a technician or a chief engineer has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just when you make overt claims, back them up. simple. Thanks

- I don't think i was specifically referring to SU-30's airframe maintenance extensive. It's about the entire plane, engine overhauls, etc are usually needed much earlier than Western engines. That's one of the reasons why you guys went for the GE engines in the first place for your own LCA. Plus, there is also a valid reason why the MKI has Israeli tech.....the manufacturer could provide that much higher tech in certain aspects. I can leave it at that as everyone knows the meaning behind it.
- My lack of knowledge or you being in denial? The later has to deal with psychology that we all see on these forums. No matter what Indian product comes into debate......
- If googling taught people how to design airframes then you'd see local shops next to your ice cream shops building airframes and planes. Go figure. One dimensional modeling used to be how planes would get designed under mainframe environment as they weren't able to process three-dimensional or five-dimensional (known as multi-dimensional) design, simulation and tests. Unlike trying to google it, I know precisely what I am talking about as I belong to the industry. Here is a good link as an example, see the application of multi-dimensional capability in works on engines:
How Stanford's Million-Core, Five Dimensional Super Computer Will Silence Jet Engines

- I don't think I ever said the staff requirements of anyone were insignificant. You don't want to understand how these deals work, so be it. The US will always submit bids to all the RFP's out there. It is called business. What they need to understand is that you won't buy from us. That whole "Strategic Partner B.S" only exist as long as the benefit goes to India, whether that's American jobs or anything else. You guys are climbing on American shoulders to go on the top of the world. People giving you that shoulder don't quite understand that you are doing so and there really is no "strategic partnership" between the US and India once you reach a certain level with economy. These guys who came up with the idea will sure be upset in the next decade or two. I can bet my money on it!

- I don't think i was specifically referring to SU-30's airframe maintenance extensive. It's about the entire plane, engine overhauls, etc are usually needed much earlier than Western engines. That's one of the reasons why you guys went for the GE engines in the first place for your own LCA. Plus, there is also a valid reason why the MKI has Israeli tech.....the manufacturer could provide that much higher tech in certain aspects. I can leave it at that as everyone knows the meaning behind it.
- My lack of knowledge or you being in denial? The later has to deal with psychology that we all see on these forums. No matter what Indian product comes into debate......
- If googling taught people how to design airframes then you'd see local shops next to your ice cream shops building airframes and planes. Go figure. One dimensional modeling used to be how planes would get designed under mainframe environment as they weren't able to process three-dimensional or five-dimensional (known as multi-dimensional) design, simulation and tests. Unlike trying to google it, I know precisely what I am talking about as I belong to the industry. Here is a good link as an example, see the application of multi-dimensional capability in works on engines:
How Stanford's Million-Core, Five Dimensional Super Computer Will Silence Jet Engines

- I don't think I ever said the staff requirements of anyone were insignificant. You don't want to understand how these deals work, so be it. The US will always submit bids to all the RFP's out there. It is called business. What they need to understand is that you won't buy from us. That whole "Strategic Partner B.S" only exist as long as the benefit goes to India, whether that's American jobs or anything else. You guys are climbing on American shoulders to go on the top of the world. People giving you that shoulder don't quite understand that you are doing so and there really is no "strategic partnership" between the US and India once you reach a certain level with economy. These guys who came up with the idea will sure be upset in the next decade or two. I can bet my money on it!

@orangzaib Dude I understand what are you trying to say but Its more to do with requirements and doctorines of different airforces in light of their future plan.
Russia is operating Su-27s from 80s and they can't Just throw it away and induct 400+ Su-30SM/35s(which came much later) when they already have plans for PAK-FA in near future.

I am actually with you all the way. I don't think I have disagreements. The discussion (or argument at this point) started due to the fact that I am calling PakFa a derivative of the Russian SU-Family air frame. Second, I am also highlighting the fact that these airframes are hard to turn into Stealth and that the plane has stealthy features but not a true stealth like the Raptor. Then, another issue seems to be the fact that I called the Chinese weapons industry in a place where it is becoming more advance as they catch up as they've based their engineering and systems based on distributed super computing models vs. what the Russans did....which is using mainframes and they got left behind due to limitation. I know Russians produce good fighters, that wasn't the point. The points were the above. Then folks drag the topic in so many directions as they didn't like hearing these things.......I am actually with you and we are saying the same thing.
 
Last edited:
.
I have agreements and disagreements with a lot of what you said... but you need to be absolutely certain of the Truth to call it that.
five decades ago there was a "truth" that missiles and radars had made dogfights irrelevant. A truth that cost countless American lives until the mistakes were learnt.
RCS reduction is important.. after all a massive aircraft with canards and huge tails will stick out like a sore thumb. Sure it can have a huge jammer, but that will only help in detecting it and planning a move against it. But that is the force's requirement and what it wants.
Perhaps the Russians are ok with a fighter with a massive RCS as their threat perception does not have it hopelessly outgunned.
Oscar - I think we are both saying the same thing about the main topic. Go see my post above to KarKay's response. The other guy has blown this issue out of proportion and even I don't know what my past three posts have to do with the core issue that started this random firing of irrelevant questions...
- RCS reduction in 2010 era has become a major design issue. Everyone spends a lot of money in studying, adding and using certain composites and techniques to reduce the RCS. That's just the design process that's evolved over the years. The cardiac bypass isn't done the same way it was being done just ten years ago. Now you have even robots doing it. So these things go through evolution and new features become a must have.
- Last, you said "countless American lives were lost due to misconception about the dog fights", care to tell me where this happened, when and how many lives were lost? I disagree with this part of your post strongly as is. Would love to see references....
 
.
- Last, you said "countless American lives were lost due to misconception about the dog fights", care to tell me where this happened, when and how many lives were lost? I disagree with this part of your post strongly as is. Would love to see references....

Something called the Vietnam war. RoEs aside, US aviators had been misinformed about the strength of the missile. Where do you think the Ault report and Red flag came out from?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom