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

[sancho]

@sancho

I do think that HAL would have to make minimal design changes on the air frame

Quiet possible, especially with the new engine coming with the PMF, which most likely will get new engine coverings and possibly new nozzles too. The bulk of their design part however, was meant to be the change to twin seat config and possibly to design a naval version. So that is the issue the media now cooks up, ignoring the fact that HAL has no part in the current T50 or Pak Fa development, which makes complaining about a low workshare now, completelly pointless. Our workshare will increase, the further we go with the PMF development, as simple as that.

Think logically if major design change does happens on FFGA then it would take further time for testing it's aerodynamic design on a new prototype
& it would be technologically not feasible to build a same plane with 2 different looking platforms .

That's why we compromised on the same single seat config as Pak Fa today, that however doesn't mean that we have to use the same ammount of composites, since that doesn't change the design of the fighter, but replaces parts and can be done with any fighter. Even more important will be the integration of Indian cockpit avionics and EW sensors, since that are fields where we actually can contribute and that also have not much to do with the airframe design and therefor wouldn't need much changes.

 

[ANPP]

@sancho

I do think that HAL would have to make minimal design changes on the air frame even after signing the 2nd contract exclusively for indian
FFGA .Because of the strict timelines of induction .

Think logically if major design change does happens on FFGA then it would take further time for testing it's aerodynamic design on a new prototype
& it would be technologically not feasible to build a same plane with 2 different looking platforms .

Basically PAK-fa of russia or FFGA for india would have same design with minor structural changes eg 2 seater or some enhanced composities on it's airframe.

Avionics wise it might be different but structurally i dont beleive major design changes would be feasible economically & technologically


CHEERS

I am also with you. Structural wise it won't be that much different from pakfa. IAF already show red eyes to HAL on low participation. 1st flight will be 2015, so design phase is completed by now.

 

[sancho]

Translated:

Russia until the end of the year will begin testing a new missile for fighter T-50

Test aircraft missiles flying copies promising aviation complex tactical aircraft (PAK FA) T-50 will begin in the current year, the general director of "Corporation" Tactical Missiles "Boris Obnosov.
"We showed the well-coordinated work, now it all depends on the technique. Field tests at landfills is not so easy to organize, but nevertheless, all charged to ensure that the job done efficiently and on time. This year the test will begin," - said Obnosov reporters on Saturday during a "Gidroaviasalon 2014" held in Gelendzhik.

According to him, work on weapons for future Russian fighter is going according to schedule. Portages reported that work on the creation of new aircraft missiles to fighter T-50 is scheduled for completion in 2016.

Россия до конца года начнет испытания новой ракеты для истребителя Т-50 - Интерфакс


There is also talk about upgraded T50 prototypes coming soon, will be interesting to see if there are visible changes or if they are internal only, but these prototypes should be pretty close to what the Russians will start inducting in 2016.

 

[kurup]

Translated:



Россия до конца года начнет испытания новой ракеты для истребителя Т-50 - Интерфакс


There is also talk about upgraded T50 prototypes coming soon, will be interesting to see if there are visible changes or if they are internal only, but these prototypes should be pretty close to what the Russians will start inducting in 2016.

I pray there be visual changes ...... especially underbelly ......

 

[he-man]

I pray there be visual changes ...... especially underbelly ......

No chance of that really...........
But chances are that engine nozzles may undergo change,,,and that irst ball on the front too will be shielded.

 

[kurup]

No chance of that really...........
But chances are that engine nozzles may undergo change,,,and that irst ball on the front too will be shielded.

I know .... just dreaming ....

 

[he-man]

I know .... just dreaming ....

Really man,,,that underbelly is plane horrible.
People defending it are typical fanboys.

Russians should have gone for s-ducts,pure and simple

 

[kurup]

Really man,,,that underbelly is plane horrible.
People defending it are typical fanboys.

Russians should have gone for s-ducts,pure and simple

Russians developed two 5G TDs in the past with S-duct and flat underbelly .

Yet they did not adopt it for T50 ..... there must be some reason for that .

 

[ejaz007]

PAK-FA/FGFA/T50: India, Russia Cooperate on 5th-Gen Fighter

Latest Update:

Russia still making hopeful noises about a production contract, but there’s reportedly lots of unhappiness on India’s side. Some of that is self-generated.

Aug 30/14: Tension. India isn’t pleased with the lack of response to its questions concerning the recent PAK-FA engine fire (q.v. June 10/14), NPO Saturn AL-41FI jet engine performance, Byelka AESA radar performance, the lack of permission for its pilots to fly the jet in Russia, and HAL’s low workshare. India’s lack of a firm development agreement is the 1-sentence argument for much of this situation, except for the engine fire question and HAL’s workshare.

HAL’s workshare has reportedly dropped from 25% to just 13%: tires, the VOR-DME basic navigation avionics, coolant for the radar, a laser designation pod and the head-up display. This list appears to justify analysis that HAL simply doesn’t yet have the capability to be a full partner in such a sophisticated aircraft, and may also be a function iof Indian dithering as Russia simply goes ahead and makes final decisions about the PAK-FA’s development..

Within HAL’s workshare, the Laser Designation pod itself is unlikely to come from India, but may be produced under license. Israel’s RAFAEL LITENING pods equip many Indian aircraft, including the SU-30MKI, but Eastern European and American pressure on Israel makes SU-50 integration tough to contemplate. Thales’ Damocles pod, which already equips Malaysia’s Su-30MKMs and would equip Indian Rafales, would be a more logical choice.

The real challenge here is twofold. One is the M-MRCA program, whose $10 billion cost growth really shrinks the overall room for PGF funding within India’s budgets. The related challenge is time, and “IAF sources told IHS Jane’s that this deadline [to begin Indian production in 2020 - 2021] would be missed by several years.” Sources: Daily Mail India, “India-Russia jet deal hits turbulence over ‘technical worries’ ” | IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Indian Air Force unhappy at progress of PAK-FA fifth-gen fighter”.

PAK-FA/FGFA/T50: India, Russia Cooperate on 5th-Gen Fighter

 

[he-man]

Russians developed two 5G TDs in the past with S-duct and flat underbelly .

Yet they did not adopt it for T50 ..... there must be some reason for that .

It was weight according to them.
Plus they say the space between the engines will give the plane more lift and make it more agile.

Whatever the reason wrt to stealth it sucks,,,as simple as that

 

[sancho]

I pray there be visual changes ...... especially underbelly ......

There is no issue with the belly and the round engine coverings might go only with the new engine, otherwise the Russians would had done it from the start.

 

[sancho]

Russians developed two 5G TDs in the past with S-duct and flat underbelly .

Yet they did not adopt it for T50 ..... there must be some reason for that .

The US also had 2 x 5th gen fighters as options:

The Boing X32 with flat belly, complete shaped airframe, shaped nozzles

And the LM X35 with rounded engine coverings, a lot of rounded parts at the belly and around the airframe, as well as normal nozzles

And we all know which one was chosen right?

 

[he-man]

There is no issue with the belly and the round engine coverings might go only with the new engine, otherwise the Russians would had done it from the start.

There are lot of issues with underbelly,,,,no need to skirt the issue each time

The US also had 2 x 5th gen fighters as options:

The Boing X32 with flat belly, complete shaped airframe, shaped nozzles

And the LM X35 with rounded engine coverings, a lot of rounded parts at the belly and around the airframe, as well as normal nozzles

And we all know which one was chosen right?

Useless comparison...............pakfa underbelly is by far the worst in all the 5 th generations,,,,,and issue with the nozzles is their non saw tooth approach.

Flat nozzles are too costly and difficult plus it will provide only 2d thrust vectoring vs 3d for round ones and there will be some 10% loss of thrust too.So yeah i will pass that but underbelly is simply horrendous in pakfa

 

[sancho]

Useless comparison...............pakfa underbelly is by far the worst in all the 5 th generations,,,,,and issue with the nozzles is their non saw tooth approach.

Not really, the only non shaped part of the "belly" are the engine coverings, which are not even painted for obvious reasons. And when you take a closer look at the F35 prototype you will also see that no saw tooths were available for the early TDs either. So it's just silly to claim that would be a problem of the T50, since it's just in TD stage as well and before knowing what the changes with the new engine actually will be.

You have the same problem again and again, getting into conclusions, that leads you into a lot of misconceptions.

 

[he-man]

Not really, the only non shaped part of the "belly" are the engine coverings, which are not even painted for obvious reasons. And when you take a closer look at the F35 prototype you will also see that no saw tooths were available for the early TDs either. So it's just silly to claim that would be a problem of the T50, since it's just in TD stage as well and before knowing what the changes with the new engine actually will be.

You have the same problem again and again, getting into conclusions, that leads you into a lot of misconceptions.

The problem is u are trying to be too smart when whole world knows,,,,there has been a proper analysis on air power australia by carlo who is a known flanker fan on this.

Its a fact that pakfa has by far the worst stealth and the reason is underbelly and the nozzles.Its frontal aspect stealth is good enough.

And there are multiple reports from indo-russia newspaper that quote the stealth at just .5 m2.

Still have problems/doubts??
Go to paralay.com

That too mentions .5 figure quoting the designer himself.

Now .5m2 is the average stealth according to russians and it still is far far worse than required for a dedicated stealth jet.
As usual u will ask for sources of my claim which i don't have,,,some things are just too obvious anyways.

Russians simply had to sacrifice stealth for agility as they lag in electronics,,,so they had to utilize the strengths that they can have hence this design.Had they got the same tech as usa/west we would have had s-ducts instead of straight ducts with stupid radar blocker which will never be as efficient.Everyone knows it,,certainly russians too