Sukhoi PAK-FA / FGFA: Updates,News & Discussions

[he-man]

PAKFA and FGFA are different planes.Everything is fine as of now,in short PAKFA will rule the skies.

the only major diff will be engines ie type 30 in fgfa vs al-41 modification(modified su-35 engine) in pakfa

radar will be same
indian fgfa may have rear radar for 360 degree coverage though

the external shape will unfortunately be same but even pakfa may have modifications after static tests which were scheduled for 6 th or 7 th prototype.

contrary to what ppl are saying here,2 seater is dead due to cost and rcs issues.

the equipment on this will be predominantly russian only and will not be like mki.
no one is gonna give us 5 th gen tech except russians and after crimea its even more improbable

 

[he-man]

Everything has it's pros and cons, yes they are more complex and therefor more expensive, but in operational terms a twin seat configs have clear advantages for multi role fighters. Take the Libyan conflict as an example, where single EF had difficulties to guide the LGBs in strike role and needed assistance of twin seat Tornados. That although the EF is one of the most advanced fighters when it comes to avionics and the fact that the fighters had freedom to fly over Libya. In the Indian scenario with far more capable enemies, the workload for a single pilot will be far higher and more difficult to handle, especially for the top line fighters like MKI, that are meant for long endurance and range missions.

The whole point of 5 th generation is a very competent sensor fusion to eliminate the need for second pilot.

Its universal trend all over.

Saying this no one knows the degree of automation in pakfaexcept russians so its premature to pass judgement now

 

[sancho]

The whole point of 5 th generation is a very competent sensor fusion to eliminate the need for second pilot.

Wrong, in the past we had dedicated fighters for dedicated roles, but today the pilots have to do far more and are trained in far more roles too, therefor modern sensors and sensor fusion help to handle these situations in a better way, but not to delete the need of a second pilot. No sensor can make a pilot to be less tired in a 8h long endurance mission, while the pilots of an MKIs will handle such situations far easier with a second pilot at their side.

It also has nothing to do with 5th generation, since even modern 4.5th gen fighters adds sensor fusion capabilities and still are aimed on twin seaters too.

 

[he-man]

Wrong, in the past we had dedicated fighters for dedicated roles, but today the pilots have to do far more and are trained in far more roles too, therefor modern sensors and sensor fusion help to handle these situations in a better way, but not to delete the need of a second pilot. No sensor can make a pilot to be less tired in a 8h long endurance mission, while the pilots of an MKIs will handle such situations far easier with a second pilot at their side.

It also has nothing to do with 5th generation, since even modern 4.5th gen fighters adds sensor fusion capabilities and still are aimed on twin seaters too.

U are right second pilot helps but cost to benefit ratio is too high to be implementable.

 

[sancho]

U are right second pilot helps but cost to benefit ratio is too high to be implementable.

According to you, do you know the cost of the twin seat fighter?

 

[he-man]

According to you, do you know the cost of the twin seat fighter?

No need to be so aggressive.
Its a no brainer that price will rise and so will the rcs

With average rcs of pakfa already about .5 m2 its a stupid decision.

Plus there have been at least a dozen news reports that we have shelved plans for a twin seat config

 

[sancho]

No need to be so aggressive.
Its a no brainer that price will rise and so will the rcs

With average rcs of pakfa already about .5 m2 its a stupid decision.

Agressive? Only because I asked you to prove your claim? When you look at the last few pages there are a lot of claims of you, that barely have any base. The cost difference between a single and a twin seater usually is only a few millions and given the ammount of operational benefits that would bring, it's actually a must have. The only reason why we went with the single seat version at first is, that it's cheaper to develop and produce 2 single seat versions at the begining, to keep costs under control and later, add the twin seater, when the ammount of produced numbers reducing the costs again.

Btw, the 0.5m² is the estimate in some "media reports" for the current T50 prototype, unfinished in design and untreated with coatings.

 

[he-man]

Agressive? Only because I asked you to prove your claim? When you look at the last few pages there are a lot of claims of you, that barely have any base. The cost difference between a single and a twin seater usually is only a few millions and given the ammount of operational benefits that would bring, it's actually a must have. The only reason why we went with the single seat version at first is, that it's cheaper to develop and produce 2 single seat versions at the begining, to keep costs under control and later, add the twin seater, when the ammount of produced numbers reducing the costs again.

Btw, the 0.5m² is the estimate in some "media reports" for the current T50 prototype, unfinished in design and untreated with coatings.

What did I say?
I said the same thing.

Plus not only india,majority of 5 th gen planes are single seaters only.
Again ppl must have thought hard.

On the rcs part the average value is .5 m2 according to russian yardstick that says f-22 is only .3-.4 m2 but even in patent analysis same figure is used repeatedly.

They say it will be 30 times or so less than su-27 which is at about 20 m2 .

And yes u are just trying to prove something rejected by all airforces going for 5 th gen .

 

[sancho]

What did I say?
I said the same thing.

Not really, you said the cost benefit ratio would be against the twin seater, but neither do you know the actual cost of the twin seater, nor did you actually thought about the benefits of the twin seater.

Plus not only india,majority of 5 th gen planes are single seaters only.
Again ppl must have thought hard.

Already explained earlier, the twin seat developments were cancelled or on hold for funding reasons, because the development of F22 and F35 already were too high, not because there wasn't an operational benefit or need for it:

Intriguingly, Romig said that if the US Air Force returns to the days of “back-seat” electronic warfare officers, the F-35 could control a swarm of four “buddy” UAVs. He didn’t directly say that Lockheed is considering two-seat F-35s, but the possibility tanatalises. (Two years ago, we reported that Israeli industry officials already anticipated the emergence of a two-seat F-35 eventually

Chief skunk on 6th-gen fighters, 2-seat F-35s & classified UAVs - The DEW Line

That's the same reason why we also get FGFA in common single seat version to Russias Pak Fa and LATER add the twin seater, when the costs of the whole development are more reasonable.

On the rcs part the average value is .5 m2 according to russian yardstick that says f-22 is only .3-.4 m2 but even in patent analysis same figure is used repeatedly.

They say it will be 30 times or so less than su-27 which is at about 20 m2 .

And yes u are just trying to prove something rejected by all airforces going for 5 th gen .

Why should I? The point was only that the current estimate is based on the T50 prototypes, not on the serial production and fully developed Pak Fa, let alone the FGFA. We don't even know what futher design changes, coatings or technical additions will come, so I take these estimates now with a pinch of salt anyway. But you base the "estimate" of the prototype, add an unknown increase for the twin seater and conclude that it's bad and not worth it. That is what I take as baseless!

 

[he-man]

Not really, you said the cost benefit ratio would be against the twin seater, but neither do you know the actual cost of the twin seater, nor did you actually thought about the benefits of the twin seater.



Already explained earlier, the twin seat developments were cancelled or on hold for funding reasons, because the development of F22 and F35 already were too high, not because there wasn't an operational benefit or need for it:


Chief skunk on 6th-gen fighters, 2-seat F-35s & classified UAVs - The DEW Line

That's the same reason why we also get FGFA in common single seat version to Russias Pak Fa and LATER add the twin seater, when the costs of the whole development are more reasonable.




Why should I? The point was only that the current estimate is based on the T50 prototypes, not on the serial production and fully developed Pak Fa, let alone the FGFA. We don't even know what futher design changes, coatings or technical additions will come, so I take these estimates now with a pinch of salt anyway. But you base the "estimate" of the prototype, add an unknown increase for the twin seater and conclude that it's bad and not worth it. That is what I take as baseless!

U can keep living or believing as u please but hear what I am writing here.

There will be no major structural change,none.after static test of 6 th or 7 th proto which is non flying version some minor adjustment be made,thats all.

We are gonna get the same machine with a diff engine and maybe an extra rear radar.

Internals will be same and have same processor,elbrus most probably and so will be irst etc.

We may opt for a french or israeli pod though,the lcd displays maybe samtel ones,thats it.

Composites maybe yes,ram=no chance.that will be russian only.

U may ask for proof,i have none but I will be proved right eventually

 

[sancho]

U can keep living or believing as u please but hear what I am writing here.

There will be no major structural change,none.after static test of 6 th or 7 th proto which is non flying version some minor adjustment be made,thats all.

Which is not surprising, since these are still prototypes for Russias early Pak Fa! But their later version and our FGFA version should be clearly different, by the simple fact that they will integrate the new engines, which then will come with changes of the engine coverings, that now are neither shaped, coated or even painted. The rest is still sectret and we can only speculate on radar blockers, S-ducts, shaped IRST or optical sensors, new TVN...
But if you think you know all that today, well...

 

[he-man]

Which is not surprising, since these are still prototypes for Russias early Pak Fa! But their later version and our FGFA version should be clearly different, by the simple fact that they will integrate the new engines, which then will come with changes of the engine coverings, that now are neither shaped, coated or even painted. The rest is still sectret and we can only speculate on radar blockers, S-ducts, shaped IRST or optical sensors, new TVN...
But if you think you know all that today, well...

I would love the changes u are suggesting but ain't gonna happen yaar,nope.

Structurally same straight ducts with stupid radar blocker

 

[MilSpec]

U can keep living or believing as u please but hear what I am writing here.

There will be no major structural change,none.after static test of 6 th or 7 th proto which is non flying version some minor adjustment be made,thats all.

Static test of What?

What kind of static test?

 

[he-man]

Static test of What?

What kind of static test?

There will be a static test for rcs and minor adjustments can occur after that.

6 th or 7 th proto

 

[sancho]

Some nice PS's from the Key forum, credits to crow11

FGFA

Pak Fa desert camo