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

[sancho]

Cant wait to see it in Indian colours

I prefer to see FGFA prototypes flying, no matter which color they have.

 

[amalakas]

With the third prototype flying now I am glad to see small adjustments made to the plane.

I would like to point out a few things I still don't like and with the 3rd prototype in life now, begin to bag me a bit.

1st. Although the framed canopy makes no difference to LO, and I have read ITAE's paper on how they can make it LO, what I do mind is the way it limits the pilots visibility.
I have sat in the cockpit of an F-16 and the field of view is remarkable.
I would guess a fighter pilot would opt for the greatest field of view he could get.

2nd. There are still antennas on the front section of the plane. Are they there to stay or still instrumentation. The seem like they are there to stay.

3rd (and by far the most worrying in my eyes) The weapons bays have a very prominent gap between the two doors are the doors mock doors.. because that gap is a bit ... not good.

4th. i would like to know if the rear lower end of the nacelles would be shaped or not. I am more interested to see why if not..

any thoughts ?

 

[angeldemon_007]

2nd. There are still antennas on the front section of the plane. Are they there to stay or still instrumentation. The seem like they are there to stay.

Even if they stay how will it effect the capability of the aircraft ?

3rd (and by far the most worrying in my eyes) The weapons bays have a very prominent gap between the two doors are the doors mock doors.. because that gap is a bit ... not good.

So what if there's a gap ? It has no effect on the capability of T50. T50 can carry more weapons than F22 and F35. Yeah its true this gives the room to increase the weapon payload.

I am happy you didn't mentioned 2d TVC nozzle. I don't get it, why people think 2d is necessary for a stealth aircraft. Russians have actually selected 3d tvc nozzle and rejected 2d nozzle.

 

[amalakas]

Even if they stay how will it effect the capability of the aircraft ?


So what if there's a gap ? It has no effect on the capability of T50. T50 can carry more weapons than F22 and F35. Yeah its true this gives the room to increase the weapon payload.

I am happy you didn't mentioned 2d TVC nozzle. I don't get it, why people think 2d is necessary for a stealth aircraft. Russians have actually selected 3d tvc nozzle and rejected 2d nozzle.

both of the points you mentioned affect the LO of the plane.

also currently we don't know if it is carrying more weapons, last i heard it was 2+2 mr an 2 sr

 

[ptldM3]

2nd. There are still antennas on the front section of the plane. Are they there to stay or still instrumentation. The seem like they are there to stay.

Sensors are for testing, each prototype has seen a gradual reduction in antennas.

4th. i would like to know if the rear lower end of the nacelles would be shaped or not. I am more interested to see why if not..

any thoughts ?

It's just speculation but by looking at the aircraft they incorporated sawtoothing in every area except the rear landing gear bays which leads me to beleive that the current configuration is temporary. And i say this not just because of the lack of sawtoothing in the landing gear bays but because the final engine configuration including nozzles is yet to be finalized.

 

[amalakas]

Sensors are for testing, each prototype has seen a gradual reduction in antennas.











It's just speculation but by looking at the aircraft they incorporated sawtoothing in every area except the rear landing gear bays which leads me to beleive that the current configuration is temporary. And i say this not just because of the lack of sawtoothing in the landing gear bays but because the final engine configuration including nozzles is yet to be finalized.

ptldM3, have you any thoughts on the gap in the weapons bays?

 

[angeldemon_007]

both of the points you mentioned affect the LO of the plane.

No it does not...

also currently we don't know if it is carrying more weapons, last i heard it was 2+2 mr an 2 sr

Well then you don't know the basic of T50. T50 is banking on this point that stealth aircrafts like F22 and F35 will finish their weapons soon while t50 will have advantage over them at that time.

 

[amalakas]

No it does not...


Well then you don't know the basic of T50. T50 is banking on this point that stealth aircrafts like F22 and F35 will finish their weapons soon while t50 will have advantage over them at that time.

I think I do and also from your comments I think you don't.
If you are in any doubt, search my posts to see how much I do know and how much I don't.

you also seem to be misinformed.

and the only reason i start something like this is because ptldM3 has access to russian sources whereas I don't since I don't speak russian nor am I in russia.

 

[ptldM3]

ptldM3, have you any thoughts on the gap in the weapons bays?

I would need a close up to see what it really is. If it is a gap it is odd considering all of the other access panels, bays, ect are uniform and tight. If i would to take a guess i would say that the weapons bay are possibly not fully closed or saging. None of the pak-fa prototypes have undergone weapons testing so most likely the bays are not fully functional yet. Once fully functinal weapons bays appear i would amagin that the weapons bays would close just as plush as all the other bays.

 

[sudhir007]

 

[sancho]

The weapons bays have a very prominent gap between the two doors are the doors mock doors.. because that gap is a bit

True, as you can see on the following pic:

The question however is, are these the final weapon bays or also just stop gaps for the test flights? The reason why I say this is, while we see the 3rd prototype flying, we didn't see or heared anything about testing any of the weapon bays during the flights (but someone correct me if I missed it). Imo that's strange, since Sukhoi is testing this on the Su 47 for a long time:

It wouldn't be a very difficult for them to test it on the T50 as well and as you can see on the first pic, it's also no problem for them to design a weapon bay without such a gap.


Wrt the size of the T50 bays I stated a few things before:

The new R77 missiles which will be developed for T50, will have folding rear control fins, which reduces the width of course. As you can see in the following pic, even the bay of the MKI could house 2 of these AAMs besides each other, while the T50 bay should be wider isn't it?

 

[ptldM3]

The question however is, are these the final weapon bays or also just stop gaps for the test flights? The reason why I say this is, while we see the 3rd prototype flying, we didn't see or heared anything about testing any of the weapon bays during the flights (but someone correct me if I missed it). Imo that's strange, since Sukhoi is testing this on the Su 47 for a long time:

There is nothing concrete but there is nothing suggesting that they are not the real weapons bays, even though they probably will not be used on the first two prototypes. As you are aware the third prototype is equipped with radar and weapons/weapons bays will be tested. As with everything else with the pak-fa the testing will be conservative, they will probably test the radar and make adjustments if needed, if everything is fine than they will move on to the weapons testing.

The pak-fa will under 2000 test flight before production so I do not expect everything to be done in such a short time span. Furthermore, with all the expected prototypes and so many test flight of course there will be changes probably not too drastic but nevertheless there should at least be subtle changes as we have seen with the previous prototypes.

 

[trident2010]

FGFA – what sort of plane is it?

Hindustan Aeronautics plane maker has posted on its website some of the specifications of the FGFA model, thus raising the curtain over the future jet fighter created by Russian and Indian developers on the basis of Russia’s PAK FA.

While some of the disclosed figures are quite predictable, some others are truly puzzling, if we believe everything that the Indian developer has to say. However, many of the basic parameters of the future jet fighter still remain undisclosed.

The Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) is an Indian fighter being developed by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi based on the T-50 aircraft (PAK FA). Russia and India signed a contract for the creation of the concept and technical design on 21 December 2010, the amount of transaction being $295 million. It was planned that front-end engineering would take 18 months. During this phase, Sukhoi will account for 80% of the total volume of work. The Russian side has not yet disclosed the T-50 characteristics.

According to the description available on the Hindustan Aeronautics website, the proposed FGFA will have air combat superiority and media exchange systems to communicate with similar aircraft in conditions of poor communication support. They do not specify what “poor communication” stands for. HAL must be referring to jamming. It is also noted that the FGFA has a network centric warfare capability by getting access to the Indian Defence Ministry’s database. (In mid-October 2010, India launched AFNET digital information grid, aiming at centralising the command of the country’s Air Force. AFNET will later be combined with information grids of the Defence Ministry, the Navy and the Army. As a result of this centralisation effort, the Indian Armed Forces will coordinate their activities via a single data management and exchange system).

Other characteristics mentioned by the Indian developer include increased stealth, cruise at speeds well above Mach, and supersonic manoeuvring capability. The last feature is not specified, because “manoeuvring” can mean both aerobatic manoeuvres, which envisage a colossal impact of G forces on the pilot at supersonic speeds, and regular changes in the height and direction.

The length of the Indian fighter is 22.6 meters, its height is 5.9 meters, and its maximum takeoff weight is 34 metric tons. With a maximum speed of 2 Mach (2,300 kilometres per hour), the jet fighter will have a range of 3,880 kilometres.

The FGFA will feature two jet engines and have thrust vector control, with jet nozzle angle of +/-150. HAL does not mention in the description whether the FGFA will get all-aspect thrust vectoring, but it seems it will, because the Russian T-50 (PAK FA) will have all-aspect thrust-vector control.

According to HAL, each engine will reach a thrust of 1,400 kgf (13.7 kN). This one is a puzzling characteristic, because this thrust will clearly be insufficient for a heavy fighter. To compare: Indian heavy fighter Su-30MKI is powered by two Al-31FP turbofans, each producing 7,670 kgf dry and 12,500 kgf in afterburner.

The Indian specialists must have lost a zero somewhere – a thrust of 14,000 kgf looks suitable for the FGFA.

In September 2011, Indian Air Force Chief Norman Anil Kumar Browne said the military had chosen the engine that would be installed in the FGFA. The power plant will be introduced in two phases, following the T-50 patters. The Al-41F1C will likely become the engine of the first stage, whereas the one selected by the Indian Air Force will be used for the second stage. There is no information about the latter yet, except for the fact that it will produce more power than that to be installed in the T-50.

According to the description on the HAL website, the FGFA will have a maximum internal weapon load of 2.25 tons and external weapon load of 5.75 tons. The FGFA weapon load will therefore total 8 tons. The fighter is still at the design stage, so the reported figures are not final and will probably be adjusted after the prototype is created. The FGFA is expected to make its first flight in 2015 and go into service in India in 2017 or 2018.

In early October 2011, Browne said the Indian Air Force would procure 214 FGFA planes in addition to the 272 Su-30MKI that it already has. Previously, Indian Defence Minister Arackaparambil Kurien Antony said some $25-30 billion would be spent on new fighters. Browne added that 166 single-seat FGFA models would be purchased, while the remaining 48 fighters would be two-seaters, although the original plan was to buy only two-seaters.

Soon after India announced its plans to buy new jet fighters, some experts said single-seat FGFA would likely be different from the T-50 in the way that the Su-30MKI is different from the Su-30 of the Russian Air Force. In February 2011, HAL Finance Director D. Shivamurti said the FGFA development project would cost a total of $6 billion, and the Indian side would account for 35%-40% of the work. Specifically, Indian specialists will be developing an onboard computer, navigation system, data displays in the cockpit and the plane’s self-protection system.

The two-seater will have more serious distinctions than just a larger cockpit. HAL Chairman of the Board Ashok Baweja said that the two-seater would have wings, fins, rudders and electronics different from those of the T-50. Also, the design of the Indian fighter must account for the use of Indian-made weapons, including Astra air-to-air missiles or Nirbhay cruise missiles.


FGFA

 

[tvsram1992]

Hope the first batch of FGFA goes for SFC rather than MRCA .

 

[sancho]

@ ptldM3

Do you have any infos about the FGFA development from Russian media? It bothers me, that there is still not even a windtunnel model that was presented, be it on Aero India or Maks 2011.