PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter
- Thread starter vrus
- Start date
- Status
Thats just not the case.
Every released manned LO/VLO aircraft since 1957 has utilized different signature management principles. Shape is just one subset of the design requirements - and the emphasis has shifted into active signal management as opposed to shape and passive management. Even this has gone into a cycle.
The sig management for the F-117 is completely different to F-22 or the JSF - and yet the JSF is regarded unofficially as having superior RCS at various interrogation parameters.
I'm curious as to why you think that JSF compromised the principle when its design requirements and mission profiles are inherently but significantly different from the F-22 anyway.
The only common requirement for both platforms is that they are manned. Their individual platform design was determined by doctrine and mission. profile. Aspect and RCS are a legacy of this.
Wasnt the F 35 built with reduced stealth as compared to the F 22 as it was destined for export? even the nozzles are not 2D which is more stealthier than a rounded 1? Or am I missing something?
Btw found this article. Not sure how reliable this is, but if this is true, then there is basically 2 projects being worked on simultenously by Russia. The PAK FA for Russia, and the FGFA for export to India, offered for Brazil, and Russia retaining the option of buying it. PAK FA being the single seater 24 ton fighter, and the FGFA a 17.5 ton dual seater plane.
October 3, 2008
FGFA conundrum explained
The limited soundbytes coming from Dr Ashok K Baweja, Chairman of the Ministry of Defence-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), notwithstanding (when he walked into the ‘ambush alley’ laid out by scribes waiting to be briefed on the outcome of the 8th India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation, or IRIGC-MTC), the past seven days have produced considerable clarity as well as raised several queries on the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project, which was originally known within India as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) and will now be co-developed Indian and Russian military-industrial enterprises. However, before proceeding further, one stark reality needs to be recognised: The delayed delivery of the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (estimated by 2012), and the joint India-Russia R & D slippages of two futuristic programmes—the FGFA and the multi-role transport aircraft (MTA)—all have one thing in common: the delays are being caused by an acute shortage of trained technical manpower that currently prevails throughout the Russian Federation. For Moscow has since mid-2007 decided to focus the majority of its scarce human resources firstly towards the creation of new-generation strategic weapon systems, and secondly towards the creation of new military-industrial facilities within Russia that will enable Russia to forever eliminate its current dependence on existing manufacturing facilities located in Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Russia believes that such dependency has, since the early 1990s, robbed it of tens of billions of dollars in terms of revenues earned from exports of weapon systems whose intellectual property rights are those of Russia. The implications for India of such measures adopted by Moscow are obvious: the United Aerospace Corp (UAC)—which now includes Sukhoi Aircraft Corp and RAC-MiG—along with the Tsentralniy Aerogidrodinamicheskiy Institut (Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, or TsAGI), has now decided to co-develop with India’s state-owned Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) the twin-engined 17.2-tonne FGFA (which in Russia is known as the Mnogofunktsyonalniy Frontovoy Samolyot, or MFS project) for the export market ONLY, for the time-being, meaning for already identified customers such as India and Brazil (which are being offered the aircraft by 2012), while retaining the option to induct the MFS by 2018. It is, however, according top priority to develop the heavier, 24-tonne T-50 Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi (PAK-FA) that will be optimised for air dominance, much like the Lockheed Martin-built F/A-22 Raptor. Consequently, the FGFA’s Russian R & D effort will henceforth be funded by private institutions, will be co-developed only for export and all Russian R & D contributions will henceforth be reduced by 85% and the void will be filled up by HAL and reportedly Embraer of Brazil, which inked a collaborative agreement to this effect with Rosoboronexport State Corp on April 15 this year. It also means that in terms of service induction schedule, the T-50 PAK-FA will be the first to become operational in Russia by 2012, followed by the MFS/FGFA by 2015. The T-50 PAK-FA’s prototypes will initially be powered by twin 117S turbofans developed and built by MMPP Salyut Moscow Salyut Machine Building Production Enterprise. The 117S, which is a highly upgraded Lyulka AL-31F, now has a total thrust with afterburning of 14.5 tonnes, or 2 tonnes more than the AL-31F, and is also qualified for a 1,500-hour time between overhauls (TBO). Production variants of the T-50 PAK-FA, however, will be powered by the AL-41F, which will be produced by MMPP Salyut, and the aircraft’s final assembly will be undertaken by UAC’s Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Organisation (KnAAPO) facility.
The genesis of India’s participation in Russia’s MFS project goes back to November 2002 when both Moscow and New Delhi inked a Memorandum of Understanding that, broadly speaking, called for India to begin evaluating its options for a risk-sharing R & D participation in the programme. By then, however, Russia had already decided to go it alone with the T-50 PAK-FA first, but lacked the necessary funding for completing the MFS/FGFA’s R & D effort. Moscow had, in 1998, already selected Sukhoi OKB’s T-50 PAK-FA proposal over the competing I-2000 LFI twin-engined design from RAC-MiG, Mikoyan OKB and Yakovlev OKB. The powerplant selected for the T-50 PAK-FA was NPO Saturn’s AL-41F, rated at 155kN (35,000lb) thrust and under development since 1985. Between 2002 and 2004 the P-50 PAK-FA’s all-digital mock-up was completed. On May 18, 2003 the P-50 PAK-FA’s engineering development-cum-production effort officially took off after an agreement to this effect was inked by the Russian Aerospace Agency Rosaviakosmos, Sukhoi OKB, the Sukhoi Military Production Complex, NPO Saturn, Vympel, Zvezda-Strela, TsAGI, Aerospace Equipment Corp, Ramenskoye RPKB, Polet, Tekhnocomplex, Tikhomirov NIIP, Urals Optics Mechanical plant, KNIIRTI, UMPO of Ufa, Gromov Flight Test and Research Institute in Zhukovsky, and MMPP Salyut of Moscow. The Russian R & D masterplan then had called for the T-50 PAK-FA to make its maiden flight in 2009, construction of seven flying prototypes, commencement of series production by 2011 and service entry a year later. Grin
In early 2005, when Sukhoi OKB gave its first generic presentation on the T-50 PAK-FA FGFA to Indian Air Force (IAF) HQ, it was quite surprised to hear that the IAF wanted a twin-engined, tandem-seat 17.2-tonne aircraft that was at least 5 tonnes lighter than the T-50 PAK-FA. Going back to the drawing boards, Sukhoi OKB returned in mid-2005 to give Air HQ a limited technical proposal for a single-engined variant of the T-50 PAK-FA, which was rejected outright by the IAF as being over-ambitious and unrealistic in terms of both the R & D costs to be incurred and the project implementation timetable. This was followed in December the same year by a separate, detailed presentation being given by Sukhoi OKB on its twin-engined MFS/FGFA design (Sukhoi’s proposal featured forward-swept wings at that time). The proposal also offered a 50% workshare for the Indian R & D/aerospace industrial entities, as stipulated earlier by IAF HQ. It was following these presentations that India selected committed itself to furnishing Russia with an initial sum of US$300 million that was urgently required by Sukhoi OKB to complete the MFS/FGFA’s detailed design phase and begin metal-cutting. In addition, NPO Saturn and UMPO committed themselves to set a parallel engine production facility at HAL’s Koraput-based facility to licence-produce an uprated variant of the AL-31FP turbofan with the help of raw materials supplied in Russia, with all moulding and machining work being done in India. For both Moscow and New Delhi this was seen as a very big concession, as Russia had never before transferred its engine production technologies abroad, with even the 1,500+ AL-31FPs for the Su-30MKIs now being supplied off-the-shelf to HAL as fully assembled engines.
Under the new scheme of things now, India and possibly Brazil will ultimately contribute 90% of the $2 billion required for completing the MFS/FGFA’s R & D phase. The single-seat airframe for the Russian Air Force (photos 1, 2 & 3), which was re-conceptualised late last year by doing away with the forward-swept wings, will be rolled out by late 2009, with its tandem-seat variant (which the IAF wants to induct into service) following two years later. Russia will fund the development of the uprated AL-31FP turbofan (which will be uprated by 20%, according to Dr Baweja), which will provide non-afterburning supersonic cruise speeds, will have a 6,000-hour technical service life, and will come equipped with three-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles (moving +/-15 degrees vertically and +/-8 degrees horizontally) as well as full authority digital electronic controls. The single-crystal turbine blades of the turbofan will be treated with a new-generation corrosion-protection coating developed by Urals-based PRAD, which will dramatically extend the service life of those AL-31FPs that are exposed to severe sand erosion. As for the distributed avionics suite of the MFS/FGFA, Russia has given the DRDO and HAL a free hand to define and design the open-architecture cockpit and mission avionics suites and an integrated self-defence suite. The quadruplex fly-by-light flight control system (yes, the IAF has insisted on it, while the Russian version of the MFS/FGFA will use fly-by-wire flight controls) will be jointly developed by the DRDO and Embraer, while potential suppliers of active phased-array radars include THALES of France, Israel Aerospace Industries, Phazotron JSC, Ericsson Microwave Systems, and EADS. Unit price of each tandem-seat variant of MFS/FGFA (another design configuration that the IAF has specified) is currently estimated at $65 million.
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/fgfa-conundrum-explained.html
October 3, 2008
FGFA conundrum explained
The limited soundbytes coming from Dr Ashok K Baweja, Chairman of the Ministry of Defence-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), notwithstanding (when he walked into the ‘ambush alley’ laid out by scribes waiting to be briefed on the outcome of the 8th India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation, or IRIGC-MTC), the past seven days have produced considerable clarity as well as raised several queries on the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project, which was originally known within India as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) and will now be co-developed Indian and Russian military-industrial enterprises. However, before proceeding further, one stark reality needs to be recognised: The delayed delivery of the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (estimated by 2012), and the joint India-Russia R & D slippages of two futuristic programmes—the FGFA and the multi-role transport aircraft (MTA)—all have one thing in common: the delays are being caused by an acute shortage of trained technical manpower that currently prevails throughout the Russian Federation. For Moscow has since mid-2007 decided to focus the majority of its scarce human resources firstly towards the creation of new-generation strategic weapon systems, and secondly towards the creation of new military-industrial facilities within Russia that will enable Russia to forever eliminate its current dependence on existing manufacturing facilities located in Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Russia believes that such dependency has, since the early 1990s, robbed it of tens of billions of dollars in terms of revenues earned from exports of weapon systems whose intellectual property rights are those of Russia. The implications for India of such measures adopted by Moscow are obvious: the United Aerospace Corp (UAC)—which now includes Sukhoi Aircraft Corp and RAC-MiG—along with the Tsentralniy Aerogidrodinamicheskiy Institut (Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, or TsAGI), has now decided to co-develop with India’s state-owned Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) the twin-engined 17.2-tonne FGFA (which in Russia is known as the Mnogofunktsyonalniy Frontovoy Samolyot, or MFS project) for the export market ONLY, for the time-being, meaning for already identified customers such as India and Brazil (which are being offered the aircraft by 2012), while retaining the option to induct the MFS by 2018. It is, however, according top priority to develop the heavier, 24-tonne T-50 Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi (PAK-FA) that will be optimised for air dominance, much like the Lockheed Martin-built F/A-22 Raptor. Consequently, the FGFA’s Russian R & D effort will henceforth be funded by private institutions, will be co-developed only for export and all Russian R & D contributions will henceforth be reduced by 85% and the void will be filled up by HAL and reportedly Embraer of Brazil, which inked a collaborative agreement to this effect with Rosoboronexport State Corp on April 15 this year. It also means that in terms of service induction schedule, the T-50 PAK-FA will be the first to become operational in Russia by 2012, followed by the MFS/FGFA by 2015. The T-50 PAK-FA’s prototypes will initially be powered by twin 117S turbofans developed and built by MMPP Salyut Moscow Salyut Machine Building Production Enterprise. The 117S, which is a highly upgraded Lyulka AL-31F, now has a total thrust with afterburning of 14.5 tonnes, or 2 tonnes more than the AL-31F, and is also qualified for a 1,500-hour time between overhauls (TBO). Production variants of the T-50 PAK-FA, however, will be powered by the AL-41F, which will be produced by MMPP Salyut, and the aircraft’s final assembly will be undertaken by UAC’s Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Organisation (KnAAPO) facility.
The genesis of India’s participation in Russia’s MFS project goes back to November 2002 when both Moscow and New Delhi inked a Memorandum of Understanding that, broadly speaking, called for India to begin evaluating its options for a risk-sharing R & D participation in the programme. By then, however, Russia had already decided to go it alone with the T-50 PAK-FA first, but lacked the necessary funding for completing the MFS/FGFA’s R & D effort. Moscow had, in 1998, already selected Sukhoi OKB’s T-50 PAK-FA proposal over the competing I-2000 LFI twin-engined design from RAC-MiG, Mikoyan OKB and Yakovlev OKB. The powerplant selected for the T-50 PAK-FA was NPO Saturn’s AL-41F, rated at 155kN (35,000lb) thrust and under development since 1985. Between 2002 and 2004 the P-50 PAK-FA’s all-digital mock-up was completed. On May 18, 2003 the P-50 PAK-FA’s engineering development-cum-production effort officially took off after an agreement to this effect was inked by the Russian Aerospace Agency Rosaviakosmos, Sukhoi OKB, the Sukhoi Military Production Complex, NPO Saturn, Vympel, Zvezda-Strela, TsAGI, Aerospace Equipment Corp, Ramenskoye RPKB, Polet, Tekhnocomplex, Tikhomirov NIIP, Urals Optics Mechanical plant, KNIIRTI, UMPO of Ufa, Gromov Flight Test and Research Institute in Zhukovsky, and MMPP Salyut of Moscow. The Russian R & D masterplan then had called for the T-50 PAK-FA to make its maiden flight in 2009, construction of seven flying prototypes, commencement of series production by 2011 and service entry a year later. Grin
In early 2005, when Sukhoi OKB gave its first generic presentation on the T-50 PAK-FA FGFA to Indian Air Force (IAF) HQ, it was quite surprised to hear that the IAF wanted a twin-engined, tandem-seat 17.2-tonne aircraft that was at least 5 tonnes lighter than the T-50 PAK-FA. Going back to the drawing boards, Sukhoi OKB returned in mid-2005 to give Air HQ a limited technical proposal for a single-engined variant of the T-50 PAK-FA, which was rejected outright by the IAF as being over-ambitious and unrealistic in terms of both the R & D costs to be incurred and the project implementation timetable. This was followed in December the same year by a separate, detailed presentation being given by Sukhoi OKB on its twin-engined MFS/FGFA design (Sukhoi’s proposal featured forward-swept wings at that time). The proposal also offered a 50% workshare for the Indian R & D/aerospace industrial entities, as stipulated earlier by IAF HQ. It was following these presentations that India selected committed itself to furnishing Russia with an initial sum of US$300 million that was urgently required by Sukhoi OKB to complete the MFS/FGFA’s detailed design phase and begin metal-cutting. In addition, NPO Saturn and UMPO committed themselves to set a parallel engine production facility at HAL’s Koraput-based facility to licence-produce an uprated variant of the AL-31FP turbofan with the help of raw materials supplied in Russia, with all moulding and machining work being done in India. For both Moscow and New Delhi this was seen as a very big concession, as Russia had never before transferred its engine production technologies abroad, with even the 1,500+ AL-31FPs for the Su-30MKIs now being supplied off-the-shelf to HAL as fully assembled engines.
Under the new scheme of things now, India and possibly Brazil will ultimately contribute 90% of the $2 billion required for completing the MFS/FGFA’s R & D phase. The single-seat airframe for the Russian Air Force (photos 1, 2 & 3), which was re-conceptualised late last year by doing away with the forward-swept wings, will be rolled out by late 2009, with its tandem-seat variant (which the IAF wants to induct into service) following two years later. Russia will fund the development of the uprated AL-31FP turbofan (which will be uprated by 20%, according to Dr Baweja), which will provide non-afterburning supersonic cruise speeds, will have a 6,000-hour technical service life, and will come equipped with three-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles (moving +/-15 degrees vertically and +/-8 degrees horizontally) as well as full authority digital electronic controls. The single-crystal turbine blades of the turbofan will be treated with a new-generation corrosion-protection coating developed by Urals-based PRAD, which will dramatically extend the service life of those AL-31FPs that are exposed to severe sand erosion. As for the distributed avionics suite of the MFS/FGFA, Russia has given the DRDO and HAL a free hand to define and design the open-architecture cockpit and mission avionics suites and an integrated self-defence suite. The quadruplex fly-by-light flight control system (yes, the IAF has insisted on it, while the Russian version of the MFS/FGFA will use fly-by-wire flight controls) will be jointly developed by the DRDO and Embraer, while potential suppliers of active phased-array radars include THALES of France, Israel Aerospace Industries, Phazotron JSC, Ericsson Microwave Systems, and EADS. Unit price of each tandem-seat variant of MFS/FGFA (another design configuration that the IAF has specified) is currently estimated at $65 million.
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/fgfa-conundrum-explained.html
The JSF is certainly less signature secure in the rear than the F-22 - but I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of my response.
Both are legacies of design requirements against their mission requirements and doctrine. The F-22 through various methods (not just physical) is the initial superior LO/VLO manager against contemp threats. The JSF however has a superior through life development architecture - and as such is far more sympathetic to various management upgrades. It's already regarded as superior to the F-22 in areas such as software upgrades, software modularity, hardware modularity, etc..... ie it will be easier to migrate future solutions to it and conduct faster iterative development - the F-22 (stemming from the ATF base design) never considered those requirements to the same detail and degree of "future proofing" as the requirements curve was very different..
So, in 5-10 years time the LO/VLO platform specific management gap advantage will inexorably shift towards the JSF - despite it having a "fat arse"
TVC on aircraft is not the big deal that it used to be - the weapons system solution is far more important. eg flight response and profile of the weapons system is far more important than the flight profile and handling of the platform itself.
People are getting hung up on TVC when its absolute benefit was eroded years ago.
i doubt the authencity of that article.indias FGFA wont be that much of difference as said in the article 17.5ton vs 24ton PAK FA,since the differnce will be like F35 and F22 which needs a lot of investment,just look how expensive is the F35 with so many nations participating.
IMO the indian version will be a two seator with different avionics,and may have a different rador.
IMO the indian version will be a two seator with different avionics,and may have a different rador.
But it conforms with the whole debacle of getting India to join the program, with sukhoi proposing, India rejecting, and they re propose to fit indian requirement, and then india accepting a dual seater config, etc2.
If this is true, it would be very interesting as the difference in weight would indicate a big difference in design, as compared to slapping a 2 seater cockpit on the PAK FA like with Sukhoi 30, Mig 35 etc2.
Softwares are always upgradable. Sure the F22 lacks in that dept as it was designed much earlier, but it surely has more internal space for a big modification, hardware/software to bring it into the league of F 35, or even surpass it coz it would be done much later after F 35 is in service. The latest plane always gets the latest electronics/software/hardware, but design wise they remain the same, which is what my original view is. As per mission requirement being different and such, the B2 is a dedicated bomber, and the F 22 a dedicated A2A, but both could be designed for maximum stealth. I feel that the F 35 even with its different requirement of various threats could still have been designed to be more stealthier towards contemporary threats.
TVC has nothing to do with 2D nozzles, I mentioned it as I thought it was 1 area of compromise that the designers made with the F 35. Another 1 I feel is the vertical tail.
Btw this is getting beyond the thread topic. What do you think about that article?
new news
Russia Committed to Development of Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA, Fifth Generation Fighter Jet
Dated 19/1/2009
Printer Friendly Subscribe
Moscow continues to pursue a Sukhoi-based fifth-generation fighter. After five years of effort, Russia finally found an international partner for the development project. In 2007 India entered an agreement to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter based on the Sukhoi.
The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA -- standing for Advanced Frontline Aviation Aircraft System -- is a stealth-enabled fighter jet designed to compete with the American Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Aircraft and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. Russian air force watchers already christened it "Raptorsky," after the F-22 Raptor, with which it is supposed to compete.
The developers describe the T-50 PAK FA as having excellent maneuverability, supersonic cruising speed, long range and high protective properties. PAK FA will have a takeoff weight of 20 tons, which falls between the takeoff weight of the two American competitor airplanes, the F-35 JSF (17.2 tons) and the F-22 (24 tons).
The new fighter -- a medium version -- will have a traditional wing form, though the dramatic-looking reverse-delta wing of the Su-47 Berkut influenced the Russian fighter's designers.
The Russian fifth-generation fighter is supposed to make its first test flight this year. The testing dates have been postponed from the end of 2008, as had been previously announced by Sergei Ivanov, the Russian deputy prime minister in charge of defense production.
Some Russian spokesmen promised deployment of the T-50 in 2013, but according to the earlier statements by Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan, the new Russian-Indian fifth-generation fighter might enter mass production by 2015.
According to Russian sources, the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA will incorporate technology from the two experimental predecessors: the Su-47 and the MiG Project 1.44.
The flagships of the Russian aerospace technology -- Tekhnokompleks Scientific and Production Center, Ramenskoye Instrument Building Design Bureau, the Instrument Building Scientific Research Institute in Zhukovskiy, the Ural'sk Optical and Mechanical Plant in Yekaterinburg, the Polet firm in Nizhniy Novgorod and the Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute in Moscow -- were selected to develop the avionics suite for the fifth-generation airplane.
NPO Saturn has been determined to lead the work on the engines. The Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association has begun construction of the fifth-generation fighter at its renowned Komsomol'sk-on-Amure Chkalov plant where most Sukhoi fighters are made.
However, considering the current economic recession and the track record of delayed deadlines, the Russian fifth-generation fighter may stay on paper for a longer time. This would give Washington and its allies sufficient time to launch mass production of F-35s, deploy them on American bases and fulfill orders from international customers such as Britain, the Netherlands and Israel.
The F-35 is expected to enter service no later than 2012, while the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is certain to be in mass production by that time.
The future may not be bright for the next generation of the Russian fighter. Many Western defense experts believe Russia's fourth-generation fighter jets cannot withstand the U.S. stealth-enabled tandem of F-35 and F-22, which offer high maneuverability and near invisibility to surface radars because of advanced radar suppression equipment. Moreover, U.S.-based simulations and tests suggest that the stealth-enabled fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current aircraft, including the Raptorsky.
Russia Committed to Development of Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA, Fifth Generation Fighter Jet
Dated 19/1/2009
Printer Friendly Subscribe
Moscow continues to pursue a Sukhoi-based fifth-generation fighter. After five years of effort, Russia finally found an international partner for the development project. In 2007 India entered an agreement to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter based on the Sukhoi.
The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA -- standing for Advanced Frontline Aviation Aircraft System -- is a stealth-enabled fighter jet designed to compete with the American Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Aircraft and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. Russian air force watchers already christened it "Raptorsky," after the F-22 Raptor, with which it is supposed to compete.
The developers describe the T-50 PAK FA as having excellent maneuverability, supersonic cruising speed, long range and high protective properties. PAK FA will have a takeoff weight of 20 tons, which falls between the takeoff weight of the two American competitor airplanes, the F-35 JSF (17.2 tons) and the F-22 (24 tons).
The new fighter -- a medium version -- will have a traditional wing form, though the dramatic-looking reverse-delta wing of the Su-47 Berkut influenced the Russian fighter's designers.
The Russian fifth-generation fighter is supposed to make its first test flight this year. The testing dates have been postponed from the end of 2008, as had been previously announced by Sergei Ivanov, the Russian deputy prime minister in charge of defense production.
Some Russian spokesmen promised deployment of the T-50 in 2013, but according to the earlier statements by Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan, the new Russian-Indian fifth-generation fighter might enter mass production by 2015.
According to Russian sources, the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA will incorporate technology from the two experimental predecessors: the Su-47 and the MiG Project 1.44.
The flagships of the Russian aerospace technology -- Tekhnokompleks Scientific and Production Center, Ramenskoye Instrument Building Design Bureau, the Instrument Building Scientific Research Institute in Zhukovskiy, the Ural'sk Optical and Mechanical Plant in Yekaterinburg, the Polet firm in Nizhniy Novgorod and the Central Scientific Research Radio Engineering Institute in Moscow -- were selected to develop the avionics suite for the fifth-generation airplane.
NPO Saturn has been determined to lead the work on the engines. The Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association has begun construction of the fifth-generation fighter at its renowned Komsomol'sk-on-Amure Chkalov plant where most Sukhoi fighters are made.
However, considering the current economic recession and the track record of delayed deadlines, the Russian fifth-generation fighter may stay on paper for a longer time. This would give Washington and its allies sufficient time to launch mass production of F-35s, deploy them on American bases and fulfill orders from international customers such as Britain, the Netherlands and Israel.
The F-35 is expected to enter service no later than 2012, while the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is certain to be in mass production by that time.
The future may not be bright for the next generation of the Russian fighter. Many Western defense experts believe Russia's fourth-generation fighter jets cannot withstand the U.S. stealth-enabled tandem of F-35 and F-22, which offer high maneuverability and near invisibility to surface radars because of advanced radar suppression equipment. Moreover, U.S.-based simulations and tests suggest that the stealth-enabled fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current aircraft, including the Raptorsky.
First off, no sh*t F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current fighters. Second off nothing is known about the PAK-FA so how they can make that statement is beyond me. The article reads like something out of a blog.
Are they saying NAPO owns KnAAPO?
EDIT:Posts moved to appropriate thread. Kay-man don't post news articles without your own commentary or input. It's against forum rules, as it does little to promote a discussion.
Why is everybody speaking about PAK-FA as about real existing aircraft or "Raptorsky"??
Nobody has even SEEN prototype or something else - there are only rumors in internet and nothinf exact. So there is only info about the model of some AA misiles and their characteristics, about Radar that it will be some AESA (nothing more is said) and that new engines would be called AL-41F (even real characteristics of engines are unknown). So how could they compare F-22 and F-35 with PAK-FA and even with MiG-29SMT and SU-35??
Second - F-22 is not INVISIBLE, it has a low radar-visibility yes but as is said AESA Juk which would be put on MiG-35 can detect it in 90km - but this is also only a statement. So only a statement is F-22 invisibility for land-based radars - who tested it against newest RuRadars from S-400?? If there were such tests then please show a link if it is possible.
Nobody has even SEEN prototype or something else - there are only rumors in internet and nothinf exact. So there is only info about the model of some AA misiles and their characteristics, about Radar that it will be some AESA (nothing more is said) and that new engines would be called AL-41F (even real characteristics of engines are unknown). So how could they compare F-22 and F-35 with PAK-FA and even with MiG-29SMT and SU-35??
Second - F-22 is not INVISIBLE, it has a low radar-visibility yes but as is said AESA Juk which would be put on MiG-35 can detect it in 90km - but this is also only a statement. So only a statement is F-22 invisibility for land-based radars - who tested it against newest RuRadars from S-400?? If there were such tests then please show a link if it is possible.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I'd take any arguments that are not based on either hard evidence or logical assumptions with a pinch of salt, be they Russian, European, Chinese or American. How would the USAF know how the PAK-FA will perform considering it is still in the earliest of development stage? They can guesstimate on its likely capabilities from known facts on Russian technical ability on the various technologies involved but there is no way they can know. How con Zhuk claim their small, developmental, 1st gen and non state of the art AESA radar (ZHUK-AE) can detect an F-22A at 90km when they don't even know its RCS?
As for the mythical S-400, that system is simply an upgrade to teh S-300PMU series (it doesnt even have a new radar AFAIK), the US has comparable systems to Big Bird aka SPY-1D and PATRIOT. I dare say they can estimate S-400's capability with a reasonable level of accuracy, and know the F-22A's detection and engagement radii. That doesn't mean this guy does though.
The fact is these platforms are evolutionary developments of earlier 4th gen platforms, namely the MiG-29 and Su-27, thus they operate within a set of design limitations. Both these platforms do not have information dominance as a primary design goal, and their avionics capabilities can be estimated with a reasonable level of accuracy. Thus, unless a 4th gen platform has photon torpedoes or the like, a 5th gen fighter is going to hold a significant advantage, period. That stands whether its a MiG-35, Rafale, F/A-18F, Typhoon or J10, its going to be in serious trouble facing a 5th gen threat.
By the way the MiG-29SMT's capabilities are well known, its simply a limited avionics upgrade (new modes for the radar and HUI) allowing R-77 and PGM use. Its basically a slightly modified MiG-29.
So you can estimate what Ruarmy can do or what can't in future, yes?
on MiG-29SMT is also put AESA Juk and it is highly modernized.
In 80-s USAF also fought that F-15, F-16 is much more better then SU-27 and MiG-29 and then was realised that it was not so impossible that F-15,16 could lose. I mean that nobody has exact info and talking about a virtual thing that doesn't really exists.
on MiG-29SMT is also put AESA Juk and it is highly modernized.
In 80-s USAF also fought that F-15, F-16 is much more better then SU-27 and MiG-29 and then was realised that it was not so impossible that F-15,16 could lose. I mean that nobody has exact info and talking about a virtual thing that doesn't really exists.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sure, that's how people wargame future scenario's.
I think you are mistaken sir. MiG-29SMT does NOT have an AESA radar. The only AESA the Russians are anywhere near to fielding is the ZHUK-AE for the MiG-35 not the SMT, and that platform is not even in production yet. The SMT is a late 90's upgrade program intended to allow the baseline MiG-29 to employ the same weapons systems as the MiG-29M providing multirole capability. The Russians have not even deployed an AESA operationally yet.
But we're not talking about F-15 vs Su-27, we're talking about F-15 vs MiG-21 i.e. a generational difference, which, even if the legacy platform is super duper its going to be outclassed. That's a fact of life.
No no no. I can't totally agree with this. MiG-21 and F-15 are not only in different generations but also in different class - MiG-21 is much more near F-16 then F-15 and fro the F-15 there was SU-15 and MiG-25 (the 1 aircraft of 4 gen)
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_SMT_e.htm
read this in the official site of MiG
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_SMT_e.htm
read this in the official site of MiG
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Fine F-16 vs MiG-21, the outcome is the same.
From your link
The ZHUK-ME is a mechanically scanned, slotted planar array, pulse dopler radar. That is a totally different form of array design to AESA. Its the same radar as the original Mig-29, with some additional upgrades and modes.Russian Aircraft Corporation said:
Here's the difference:
Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array
Passive Electronically Scanned Array (PESA) radar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_electronically_scanned_array
Slotted Waveguide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotted_waveguide
MiG-35 and its AESA radar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-35
Zhuk range of FCR's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuk_N010
- Status