What's new

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

The Chinese does not care.

The Chinese members here will take great offense at the argument that the J-20 is based off the MIG 1.44, but that is the fact and truth. Yes, Chinese designers and engineers are well learned and trained enough, but so far, China have made no conceptual/theoretical and engineering breakthroughs in aviation in general, let alone military aviation.

That's the point, that's why Russia was neither shocked, nor even surprised by the Chinese fighter developments, since they most likely was well aware of them, be it in fighter design, radar or engine fields.


But ultimately, the Chinese designers and engineers do not care on how much behind they are compare to American aviation. The 1.44's design served them well as the foundation for an indigenous 'stealth' fighter and they succeeded. Just like the rounded cube, they smoothed out the 1.44's basic design and with their own sub-systems, they can rightly claim the J-20 to be indigenous and in many respects, they are correct.

They succeded in re-producing what they got from other sources and I have praised their capabilities in the production field often enough, but wrt to own developments, they still struggle, which is evident by the fact that they remain to be dependent on Russia for radar and engine techs. The J20 might look like a NG fighter, but unless it gets a NG radar, engine and avionics, it isn't!
It is still not confirmed if J11B has an AESA, or what kind of radar J10B gets, recent reports hints on delays possibly caused by the difficulties they have with own radar as well as engine developments.
I don't critisize that they copy, they hardly have another choice, just like to spend huge ammounts of money, but they are technically still not on a level with the Russians now.

angled faceting, the PAK is really similar to the J-20 in that both are evolutionary from existing designs.

The angled faceting is the same for any stealth fighter and is even similar to US stealth fighters. Also how is J20 evolutionary from existing designs, it it's a mix of the Mig 1.44 and the F22?
That would have been the case if they have further developed the J10 design to a stealth fighter (as early speculations suggested), but that obviously wasn't the case and that is the difference of their current capabilities, compared to Russian or US. The later have existing knowhow to base such NG developments on, China will only have it in the coming years and decades, but they will go there way.


You are not saying anything new regarding money. Wealth allows leisure and eventually creativity and I am not going to feel ashamed at how much we spends on R/D, military or else.

But then you have the answer why Russia is behind and that it doesn't have anything to do with their general capability to develop things like this.
 
.
That's the point, that's why Russia was neither shocked, nor even surprised by the Chinese fighter developments, since they most likely was well aware of them, be it in fighter design, radar or engine fields.
I doubt that the Russians had any inkling on which of their stuff the Chinese used as a foundation for a Chinese 'stealth' fighter, let alone a fighter whose sophistication -- at least by appearances -- is on a par with theirs. In this competition for 'stealth', it is between the Russians and the Chinese, no longer US, and the Chinese does not need to produce any conceptual/theoretical and/or engineering breakthroughs, they just need to either meet the Russians or near their standards, to gain respect as an aviation power and we can reasonably assume that the Russians never believed that China, who have been a steady customer, to actually produce something like the J-20.

They succeded in re-producing what they got from other sources and I have praised their capabilities in the production field often enough, but wrt to own developments, they still struggle, which is evident by the fact that they remain to be dependent on Russia for radar and engine techs. The J20 might look like a NG fighter, but unless it gets a NG radar, engine and avionics, it isn't!
It is still not confirmed if J11B has an AESA, or what kind of radar J10B gets, recent reports hints on delays possibly caused by the difficulties they have with own radar as well as engine developments.
I don't critisize that they copy, they hardly have another choice, just like to spend huge ammounts of money, but they are technically still not on a level with the Russians now.
I bet sub-systems developments are concurrent with airframe. Am not saying that all started at the same time and may be they were, but if the Chinese were willing to risk much money in trying to have their own 'stealth' fighter, they would be willing to live adapting existing level of avionics into the new J-20 until truly indigenous avionics development caught up. The Chinese do not need to achieve everything at once.

The angled faceting is the same for any stealth fighter and is even similar to US stealth fighters.
Not as prominent today. Basically, the world has learned that while the technique works, too much sacrifices are needed in other areas, notably agility, in order to have stable flight. The US explored and largely eliminated that technique as primary for a flying low radar observable body.

Also how is J20 evolutionary from existing designs, it it's a mix of the Mig 1.44 and the F22?
Not F-22. My contention is that the J-20 is an evolutionary design of the 1.44.

That would have been the case if they have further developed the J10 design to a stealth fighter (as early speculations suggested), but that obviously wasn't the case and that is the difference of their current capabilities, compared to Russian or US. The later have existing knowhow to base such NG developments on, China will only have it in the coming years and decades, but they will go there way.
The J-10 has a single vertical stab. Sorry, but that alone disqualified the J-10 as candidate for RCS reduction measures ala 'Silent Eagle'.


But then you have the answer why Russia is behind and that it doesn't have anything to do with their general capability to develop things like this.
The break up of the Soviet Union compounded the consequences of when the Soviets rejected Ufimtsev's work.

Speculate that the Soviet Union did not break up. What this mean is that the F-117 and B-2 would have been produced in larger quantities. Then when the F-22 and F-35 designs are under manufacture, there would have been no reduction in purchase quantity. Probably the F-35 would not be available for partners, or to very limited partners. Back during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was already behind US in vital areas like electronics and metallurgy, so would the Soviet Union in this speculation be able to build an F-117 equivalent when the Americans would be rolling out the F-22? Not likely. When Ufimtsev's work was rejected, it became legal for Ufimsev to publish his work in the open. Even if this Soviet Union draft Ufimtsev to build a Soviet 'stealth' aircraft, the methodology cat is already out of the bag and we ran with it for at least one generation. With the pressure of the communist threat, budget for a mostly 'stealth' air combat fleet will not be much of a problem in the US Congress. Without a 'war on terror', low radar observable UAVs will be built in droves and stationed throughout Western Europe without the Warsaw Pact the wiser on where. The Soviet Union was already economically depressed to start, MIG and Sukhoi will not be able to catch up.
 
.
Not F-22.

The cockpit section is a direct copy of the F22, althought the general design is based on the Mig, which isn't surprising since it's known that many Mig scientists went over to Chinas payrol and I am not saying this in a mean way, but to show where the design really comes from. Chinas contribution and excellence is in the production and re-design fields and they have mastered it to a high level. However, that also shows how far they are with their own R&D capabilities and I agree with you that they don't need it, as long they can achieve the same like this too, since nobody can do anything against it anyway, but that also limits their capabilities, because a copy will never the as capable as the original!

The J-10 has a single vertical stab. Sorry, but that alone disqualified the J-10 as candidate for RCS reduction measures ala 'Silent Eagle'

Not really, since it's not a big deal to re-design it to have 2 canted once, more over an evolution of J10 could be based on the same design principles, but with further developed design wrt to stealth (remember the JXX concepts, with chin mounted air intakes, which clearly was based on J10).


Speculate that the Soviet Union did not break up.

Then we would have seen a superpower with much similar capabilities than the US, keep in mind that they were building their own CATOBAR supercarriers, with AWACS aircrafts at that time too, that their missile capability was always very high, that they have easily developed coatings for their supersonic bombers and that they got quiet some infos from the German secret projects too. Stealth design would only be the next step for them to make their bomber fleet more capable and Russia and the US are still the only countries that have such a high focus on advanced bombers, which is why they are thinking about Pak Da, just like you think about a new stealth bomber as well.


Be it as it may, the point was that Russia is still clearly ahead of China in design, radar and engine technology, just like in terms of innovations and that is visible even in the T50 prototypes, while the final Pak FA / FGFA might offer even more.

So lets get back to this topic again!
 
.
705623_10151345733923604_2017923240_o.jpg


whats with the symbol on the tail cone?
 
.
That is like saying the F-15 is no different than the Dornier Do335 because both have twin engines, wings, and a cockpit.

We are talking about the overall shape of both aircrafts. Just like how the A-5 led to the MIG-25 and the F-15, not how the MIG-25 led to the F-15, like most erroneously believes. The J-20 is essentially a superior refinement of the 1.44.

I disagree. There are certain similarities for sure such as both possessing canards, twin engines, twin rudders, etc. The differences one could see just from the top aspect as you have provided includes (but no limited to) the following:

-J20 possesses lerx on the main wing
-Differences in edge alignments between the canard/wing trailing edges with consideration to stealth
-The shape of the cockpit
-The angles that the rudders are canted

One could also observe the following differences if viewing both planes from the frontal and side aspects:

-Shape of the nose (J20's nose is much more similiar to that of F22's nose, but so could the same be said of PAKFA's nose)
-Shape of the intake (this one is pretty significant here as the Mig 1.44 has intakes on the under sides, whereas the J20 has side intakes with DSI shaping)
-Shape of the rudder is completely different and the difference in the angles that the rudders are canted is much more obvious when viewed from the frontal aspect.
 
. . . . . .
Interview of NIIP director gen. yuri bely
The radar for the advanced russian-indian 5th generation fighter known as PMF(Perspective multirole fighter) is being derived from the AESA radar designed for the pak-fa.
niip.png

niip1.png

niip2.png
 
.
HAL to complete preliminary design phase for FGFA next month. R&D to begin after that.

HAL to build 3 FGFA prototypes after R&D..
 
.
HAL to complete preliminary design phase for FGFA next month. R&D to begin after that.

HAL to build 3 FGFA prototypes after R&D..

More confusion :hitwall:

If you can share Where did you get the information sir ???

If HAL is going to build the protos then what are we planning to do with the protos coming from Russia in 2014,2016 and 2018 ??? Or that thing is gone with the dual seat ???

If true , we might get FGFA well before 2020 :)
@SpArK: old profile pic was cool
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
More confusion :hitwall:

If you can share Where did you get the information sir ???

If HAL is going to build the protos then what are we planning to do with the protos coming from Russia in 2014,2016 and 2018 ??? Or that thing is gone with the dual seat ???

If true , we might get FGFA well before 2020 :)
@SpArK: old profile pic was cool

HAL press conference....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
More confusion :hitwall:

If you can share Where did you get the information sir ???

If HAL is going to build the protos then what are we planning to do with the protos coming from Russia in 2014,2016 and 2018 ??? Or that thing is gone with the dual seat ???

If true , we might get FGFA well before 2020 :)
@SpArK: old profile pic was cool


The earlier news actually said that India will get prototypes in 2014..., but not from where right? So we might not get prototypes from Russia at all and will build them in India according to our configs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom