PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chrom

New Member
Sorry, I disagree with the prev summary by some margin.

I attended a LO "Stealth" concepts Conf for Aircraft and UAV's in the UK about 18 months ago. It was attended by all the major tech advanced nations and included Russian and Chinese represenatatives.

Everyone universally agreed that 5th Gen aircraft were those that were designed from the outset with LO minimisation and network fusion capabilities.

TVC steering aircraft and off boresight are not standard evolutionary features - and are countered by other solutions such as all aspect TVC missiles. Supercruise is not a generational feature and its been about for 30 years.

The fundamental acceptance is that LO management is the core feature as it defines fundamental design and operational capabilities.
Aircrafts, what where considered LO 50 years ago - e.g. SR-71 - now present bigger RCS than such "standard" bird as Mig-29. Low RCS can be countered with more powerfull radar. TVC, for example, allow much better controlabilty on low speed - which is also still very important.

I named 5th gen aircraft featured - and as i said one can throw off any of them and still have 5th gen aircraft. EVEN stealth. Becouse, realistically, if a fighter have all these properties EXCEPT stealth - it cant be named 4th gen already. It IS 5 gen.
 

Chrom

New Member
it does actually. it refers to an aicraft where the primary design intent is to make an oder of magnitude RCS reduction to commonly accepted 4th gen platforms such as F-15nn's and Su-27/30nn's.

the conf included aviation engineers, air force personnel, design houses (incl Sukhoi) etc.... I'm much more inclined to agree with professional peers rather than unprofessional assumptions.

you don't have to like it, esp as you're not designing planes and counter systems anyway....;)
As i said, this "primary" design intent, however, doesnt mean what LO feature should be achieved at the expence of other, just as usefull features. This was F-117 and B-2 problem (and why noone else followed such design) - and they are NOT 5th gen by any means.

Fighter without stealth - can be 5th gen fighter. Just as fighter without even supersonic speed (only subsonic capable) - still can be 3th or 4th gen.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aircrafts, what where considered LO 50 years ago - e.g. SR-71 - now present bigger RCS than such "standard" bird as Mig-29. Low RCS can be countered with more powerfull radar. TVC, for example, allow much better controlabilty on low speed - which is also still very important.

I named 5th gen aircraft featured - and as i said one can throw off any of them and still have 5th gen aircraft. EVEN stealth. Becouse, realistically, if a fighter have all these properties EXCEPT stealth - it cant be named 4th gen already. It IS 5 gen.
You are entitled to believe and redefine anything that suits your view of the world.

As for me, I'll stick with opinions of my peers and those who actually work in this area.

When you start working in the industry as opposed to having a forthright unprofessional opinion - then we can have another discussion. Beyond that I've made my point.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As i said, this "primary" design intent, however, doesnt mean what LO feature should be achieved at the expence of other, just as usefull features. This was F-117 and B-2 problem (and why noone else followed such design) - and they are NOT 5th gen by any means.
Good grief. They are also not fighters in any capacity. The "F" in F-117 was a marketing sleight of hand to get it funded, it had nothing to do with the platforms tasking requirements. Ditto for the RS-SR-71 - its mission was not strike, interception or mainstream combat (so don't try and drag up the A-12).

You are being specious when you bring up niche platforms that aren't even fighters into this discussion.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This was F-117 and B-2 problem (and why noone else followed such design)
No one else followed the F-117 design and/or B2 design for a reason - it had nothing to do with LO management issues. And again, both aircraft are not tier 1 fighter roles.

Bombers and UAV's are classified differently at a generational level.

Make the effort to understand the principles of LO before re-entering this discussion.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aircrafts, what where considered LO 50 years ago - e.g. SR-71 - now present bigger RCS than such "standard" bird as Mig-29. Low RCS can be countered with more powerfull radar.
Again, thats patently incorrect. RCS footprint is directional. Detection is directional against an aspect.

You don't necessarily need power to detect some LO developments. Considering that there are more than 5 types of LO management currently in play, I can assure you that some will be detected by some systems, but not all.

You're making fundamental technical mistakes here....
 

Chrom

New Member
Again, thats patently incorrect. RCS footprint is directional. Detection is directional against an aspect.

You don't necessarily need power to detect some LO developments. Considering that there are more than 5 types of LO management currently in play, I can assure you that some will be detected by some systems, but not all.

You're making fundamental technical mistakes here....
1. What gen is subsonic Harrier? Upgraded with latest avionic? According to your logic - something like 1st gen. Becouse even 2nd gen were supersonic by definition.

2. Industry agree - next gen fighter should have LO aspect. This, however, DO NOT mean what any most advanced fighter, just without LO cant be entitled to 5th gen. At most you can call it "5th gen without LO" - but thats it. Else we come, just as with Harrier, to absurd definition.
 

Chrom

New Member
No one else followed the F-117 design and/or B2 design for a reason - it had nothing to do with LO management issues. And again, both aircraft are not tier 1 fighter roles.

Bombers and UAV's are classified differently at a generational level.

Make the effort to understand the principles of LO before re-entering this discussion.
I have very good understanding of such principles. Noone told they are fighters - they are dedicated strike aircrafts. However, they LO property GREATLY reduced they effectivity compared to counterporary B-1B and older F-111 (speed, payload, handling, self-defence, etc). Noone in right mind would entitle F-117 as "higher" gen than f.e. Su-34 or F-15E just cuz of LO. The very some is true for fighters.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
1. What gen is subsonic Harrier? Upgraded with latest avionic? According to your logic - something like 1st gen. Becouse even 2nd gen were supersonic by definition..
what in hades name has the config of the Harrier got to do with any of what I've discussed? It's not regarded as 5th generation by a long shot - its not even 4.5. It's got nothing to do with absolute speed - period.

2. Industry agree - next gen fighter should have LO aspect. This, however, DO NOT mean what any most advanced fighter, just without LO cant be entitled to 5th gen. At most you can call it "5th gen without LO" - but thats it. Else we come, just as with Harrier, to absurd definition.
See above. and my prev. I'm not interested in your definition - I'm placing more credibility on those who work in the industry. You are, as I said entitled to make up your own definitions as it seems to be an issue for you.

I don't know of any aviation engineers or manufacturers (incl russian) who remotely would agree with you.

This is my last on this. Its going nowhere and you obviously want to believe that you know more than manufacturers and engineering profressionals.

If you want to carry on then PM me.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have very good understanding of such principles. Noone told they are fighters - they are dedicated strike aircrafts. However, they LO property GREATLY reduced they effectivity compared to counterporary B-1B and older F-111 (speed, payload, handling, self-defence, etc). Noone in right mind would entitle F-117 as "higher" gen than f.e. Su-34 or F-15E just cuz of LO. The very some is true for fighters.
You obviously do not understand the concepts. Go back and read the overview I gave on the history of LO aircraft.

The F-117 was made up from over 7 different aircraft - its never been regarded as a 5th generation fighter.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
1. What gen is subsonic Harrier? Upgraded with latest avionic? According to your logic - something like 1st gen. Becouse even 2nd gen were supersonic by definition.

2. Industry agree - next gen fighter should have LO aspect. This, however, DO NOT mean what any most advanced fighter, just without LO cant be entitled to 5th gen. At most you can call it "5th gen without LO" - but thats it. Else we come, just as with Harrier, to absurd definition.
We seem to be getting hung up on semantics. FYI a 5th gen platform without LO is charecterised as a 4.5th gen aircraft, like F/A-18E/F B2, EF-2000, SU-30 ext. They are not "5th gen without LO" theya re 4.5th gen. To qualify as a 5th gen fighter the platform must have LO as a fundimental part of its design, as i understand it. As for the harrier, being supersonic is not a core elemt of 4th gen, sure it is pert of the definition, but because its STOVL it is kindo of different and could be an exception to the rule. 4th gen should really be defined by agregate capability rather than individual aspects like speed. however VLO has to be an intrinsic aspect of 5th gen fighters because it has such a massive effect on said platforms capability, therefore there can never be a 5th gen fighter without VLO, because it would be a 4.5th gen.
 

funtz

New Member
Sorry, I disagree with the prev summary by some margin.

I attended a LO "Stealth" concepts Conf for Aircraft and UAV's in the UK about 18 months ago. It was attended by all the major tech advanced nations and included Russian and Chinese represenatatives.

Everyone universally agreed that 5th Gen aircraft were those that were designed from the outset with LO minimisation and network fusion capabilities.

TVC steering aircraft and off boresight are not standard evolutionary features - and are countered by other solutions such as all aspect TVC missiles. Supercruise is not a generational feature and its been about for 30 years.

The fundamental acceptance is that LO management is the core feature as it defines fundamental design and operational capabilities.
Well sir, as i see it, different generations of airplanes that the Russians have come up with (not talking about the global scene), are flatly 4, rest were modifications of these platforms, and a truly new generation from Russian aviation firms would be the PAK-FA or whatever comes out of it.

Is the generation terminology specifically a global one? i ask as the topic read, "Russian 5th generation fighter", this English is not that easy for some in terms of language logic.

And what is the
LO-VLO-Stealth cut-off? :D
 

deathomen

New Member
Su-47 is a technology demonstrator

Su-47 is a technology demonstrator, Russia & India agreed on the joint development of PAK-FA fighter which is derived from the technology of Su-47 !!!!!
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Su-47 is a technology demonstrator, Russia & India agreed on the joint development of PAK-FA fighter which is derived from the technology of Su-47 !!!!!
Indeed it is. AFAIk the aircraft does not have a radar, a combat management system, a stores management system or even any hardpoints!
 

funtz

New Member
What was the result of the SU-47 project?
What was the technology side of the technology demonstrator?
What was the importance of it in terms of the technology derived/tested to the Sukhoi Company? (forward swept wings/composite materials/RAM coatings/engine/avionics/weapon stations etc. etc.)
 
Last edited:

Chrom

New Member
What was the result of the SU-47 project?
What was the technology side of the technology demonstrator?
What was the importance of it in terms of the technology derived/tested to the Sukhoi Company? (forward swept wings/composite materials/RAM coatings/engine/avionics/weapon stations etc. etc.)
As much as i know - pure aerodinamical demonstrator (FSW concept). Nothing else was tested.

P.S. I agree, it looks very appealing and unusual. But with recent advances in avionic and A-A missiles i sometimes think something like Tu-22 with huge radar and very long range A-A missiles will be ideal fighter...
 

funtz

New Member
Sunday, Feb 17, 2008
IAF-HAL team to visit Russia

Ravi Sharma

The fifth generation fighter aircraft to be discussed

Aircraft to be modelled on the lines of the BrahMos missile

It is likely to be operational around 2015

BANGALORE: Indo-Russian military-technical cooperation will get a boost next week. A team of senior officials from the Indian Air Force and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is visiting Russia to discuss and negotiate issues pertaining to the futuristic fifth generation fighter aircraft that the two countries are planning to jointly design, develop and eventually produce.

Led by the Air Force’s Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Plans) Air Vice Marshal N.V. Tyagi, the team, which also has among its members an official from HAL’s Aircraft Research and Development Centre, Bangalore and another from HAL’s Aircraft Upgrades Research and Development Centre, Nashik, will leave for Moscow on Monday.

Under an intergovernmental agreement inked during last October’s session of the Indo-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation in Moscow the two countries will jointly design, develop, and manufacture the fifth generation multi-role jet fighter.

Already under design by Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft company (the prototype is scheduled to fly in 2009), work on the fifth generation aircraft is to be modelled on the lines of the successful BrahMos missile joint venture between the two countries.

The funding, engineering and intellectual property is to be shared by the two sides in an equal measure. The fighter will be inducted into the air forces of both countries, besides being exported to third countries.

Official sources told The Hindu that issues pertaining to the preparation of a preliminary project report on the project, details of the work that has already been carried out by the Russian side, the eventual work share between the two sides, the work that Indian companies, especially HAL, should undertake, and costs will be discussed during the meetings.

While the Russian version will have a Russian engine, the Indian version could have a western engine. The aircraft is likely to be operational around 2015.

Both India and Russia are pining hopes on the fifth generation aircraft giving a new fillip to ties between the two countries. During the signing of the agreement, Defence Minister A.K. Antony had remarked that it marked “the start of cooperation in the development of state-of-the-art new-technology weapon systems.”
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/17/stories/2008021755230900.htm

this was in todays Hindu.

So this is what i make of all of the above.

- IP rights will be defined before the project, however if the project runs on the lines of the BrahMos project, then technology derived by each nation will belong to them. Unless this depends on the funds that will be shared mutually translating directly on the overall "rights" to the project?

- Brahmos project was a efficient way to get beuracratic file pushing delays out of the way, so as long as the project does not turn out to be far too expensive than the project cost, it will do fine in this area, and there will be time and or money related problems to a certain degree, that is the nature of all ambitious projects.

- If the Project will see production of prototypes in 2009, So HAL will negotiate about its share of work on what? sub-systems(??)

- The Indian version having a western engine, what are the chances of that happening?
does this not degrade the whole report, i mean why HAL-IAF involved in production of a aircraft look for a foreign engine, that just degrades the whole program and gives control to a third party.

This all could be logical if the program was facing a 2020 deadline for production or if the version being discussed was a custom based version for the IAF.

As much as i know - pure aerodinamical demonstrator (FSW concept). Nothing else was tested.

P.S. I agree, it looks very appealing and unusual. But with recent advances in avionic and A-A missiles i sometimes think something like Tu-22 with huge radar and very long range A-A missiles will be ideal fighter...
For what type of situations? Aerial combat in the coming decades seems too complex to ignore any aspects at all, you could pick up hostile threats as far out as possible, however they will also have a good look at you. And the bigger (Tu-22) you are the worse off you are.

The longer a missile has to travel the more complex the situation gets, at the long ranges that will come, knowing that a missile is coming at you from some distance away will it self compromise the missiles effectiveness, although i doubt if any one will like to hang around and see what the missile will do. It will mission kill a few planes.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I feel the whole concept of very long range AAMs is not that way to go in view of possible VLO targets. Long range AAMs were valid in an interceptor scenario as during the Cold War where primary targets were incoming strategic bombers. Today's scenario is compounded by acquisition and tracking VLOs.

While air-to-air combat is probably more exciting, we also need to look at air-to-ground capabilities since most air missions are in the realm down low closer to the ground.
 

funtz

New Member
:D
I feel so stupid saying this however for a good time to come, the VLO wont be very commonly observable plane, i.e not many nations will possess them in the coming decade. And it might be difficult for them to posses the electronic skills to combat such a plane

However its no use making yesterdays technology today for using it tomorrow.
and people might have thought of this long and hard in the previous decades with good reason behind not fielding such planes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top