HariPrasad
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 14,055
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Remember that not every plane is LCA
Ofcourse. Certainly Chinese planes are not. They are copy of something.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember that not every plane is LCA
looks like a mock up!
Nope , they have already flown .
J-31 is like the JF-17 of the next generation. It is for smaller low-budget countries to have a pretend
"stealth fighter" of their own. It is just like JF-17, it offers a 4th gen platform at cheap price for countries
who may not be able to afford anything else, but trying to put it on a par with top-of-the-line 4th/4+ gen
jets like Rafale, Eurofighter or Su-35 is utter baloney.
Same for J-31. It may be a somewhat stealth fighter but it ain't comparable to PAK-FA or F-22/35, not even J-20.
The difference between PAK-FA and J-31 is pretty much like that between F-15 and F-16.
PAK-FA radar with GaN technology (5x times more power than normal AESA T/R modules), large aperture
and beamsteering agility will outstrip even F-22 radar. It easily offsets J-31's shaping. And you seem to forget
PAK-FA has L-band AESA radars on the wings which are way more effective at detecting stealthy targets
at long range than any X-band radar - although they have lesser resolution. Also there are side-facing radars.
Add to that PAK-FA's EODAS-like IRST apertures, interferometry-based passive tracking capability,
give it 100% passive operation capability when needed. Meaning, it can detect, track & possibly kill
you without even using radar. Stealth isn't just about RCS, it's about IR stealth and electromagnetic
stealth as well.
PAK-FA can carry 8 missiles in internal bays, J-31 carries only 50% that much, 4 missiles.
In terms of performance, J-31 is a dwarf compared to PAK-FA.
PAK-FA will get the Saturn Product-30 turbofans which are extremely powerful at 176 kN each, have
a very high T/W ratio and are Variable Cycle Engines (VCE). They have potential to become the most
advanced jet engines on any fighter aircraft in the forseeable future.
PAK-FA will even have F22-like shaped nozzles to reduce IR signature.
J-31 having 100 times lesser RCS than PAK-FA is not realistically possible. Shaping is important, but
only part of the game. Have you seen YF-23 Black Widow? It was actually more stealthy than
YF-22, despite it's top portion, air ducts, and engine fan blades being visible.
That tells you a lot about PAK-FA logic.
Just one sentence: The Russians are building PAK-FA to take out F-22 and F-35. Shenyang J-31 is
not a match.
"In the late 1980s, we were engaged in the development of the flat nozzle too and conducted a thorough research. The Ufa-based Motor Scientific Production Enterprise under the guidance of Chief Designer Alexei A. Ryzhov manufactured an experimental flat nozzle that underwent a series of tests. The conclusions were as follows. Presently, the flat nozzle has two inherent snags which, in principle, have not been dealt with yet. Firstly, the turbine is round but the nozzle is flat with a distance between them being small. The distance cannot be increased because this would lead to an increase in the overall length of the aircraft, a loss of thrust, etc. While transforming the circular gas stream into the flat one, the nozzle, developed by Mr. Ryzhov, was losing 14-17% of thrust. Unfortunately, the gas stream cannot be "bent" as we would like it to. It has its own laws too. So far, no one has managed to transform the circular gas stream into the flat one without losing thrust. The very same snag was hit by the Americans in developing their F-117 featuring a non-afterburning engine. Such engines lose approximately 15% of thrust too. However, the F-117 is a specialised Stealth aircraft with the main requirement of ensuring "invisibility". It does not need a real good thrust/weight ratio. That is why the Americans put up deliberately with an unavoidable loss of thrust but benefited from reduced signatures.
Secondly, the other primary problem is weight. The circular TVC nozzle produces only tensile stress while the flat one exerts bending stress as well. Those stresses require special measures to be taken to ensure the nozzle strength in order to avoid deformation of the nozzle. Those measures mean additional weight. The flat nozzle made of metal is heavier than the circular one by approximately half a tonne. Mind you, the whole AL-31FP fitted with its circular swivel nozzle weighs a little bit more than 1500 kg only. So, the use of a flat nozzle implies an extra tonne at the rear of a plane (two-engine are meant here, which make up the most of modern fighters). The problem can be circumvented through the use of the "carbon-carbon" materials which have low specific weight and can stand high temperature. But they burn in the end anyway, since they are based on the very same coal. Nobody has solved the problem of preventing carbon-carbon units from burning during their operation as part of an aircraft engine. Currently, such materials covered by a thick layer of fire-resistant ceramics are used only in manufacturing the control surfaces of rocket engines. The latter are actually disposable since their operation never exceeds 40-50 seconds while an aircraft engine service life amounts to 1,000 hours or more.
translation:
India, another $2 billion R&D Fee please, to my Bank of Moscow account.
India has just been swindled by the Russians for 5 billion dollars to develop a Russian fighter that will only increase Russian aerospace capabilities.
India will not be allowed into the secrets of either the engine or the radar.
Better to have just brought the developed fighter as any new customer.
India will not be allowed into the secrets of either the engine or the radar.
.
There are sth that are non-transferable no matter how much you pay.
The design and production of high tech engines and radars for instance are some of the symbols of being a industrial superpower.
let alone T-50, even Rafale doesn't transfer those.
Transfer the core tech of engines or radars = transfer the entire domestic high tech knowhow and production technologies = bankrapcy of the bulk of defence industries (and related high tech civilian indutries) of Russia and France.
How much does India think that those industries cost? $ 2 billion or 20 billion Rupees?
India has just been swindled by the Russians for 5 billion dollars to develop a Russian fighter that will only increase Russian aerospace capabilities.
India will not be allowed into the secrets of either the engine or the radar.
Better to have just brought the developed fighter as any new customer.
I think that the Indians are a little naive.
They were promised "technology transfer" by Russians, French and the Jews and naively thought this meant the secrets of the radars, seekers, airframe composites and the engines. What they did not realise is that all this meant was the production of the lower-tech components and assembling the final components in the end..
To this day, very naive Indians think that Russia has transferred the full technology to produce the SU-30MKI. If this was the case then India would have been easily able to design and produce the whole of the lower-tech LCA and not have to rely on imported engines and radars.
Ofcourse. Certainly Chinese planes are not. They are copy of something.
India has just been swindled by the Russians for 5 billion dollars to develop a Russian fighter that will only increase Russian aerospace capabilities.
India will not be allowed into the secrets of either the engine or the radar.
Better to have just brought the developed fighter as any new customer.
No country fully transfers the core technologies. IAF and the other services are well aware of that.
It's not our problem if the dumb media misinforms everyone.
Offcourse a Bangladeshi residing in UK who writes in a Pakistani defence forum will determine what India will get from Russia on FGFA project .....