Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK FA, T-50: News

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:10 am

    No, it uses a RAM coating.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:19 am

    What corrosion is referring to is how the areas where the fasteners are on the panels I think.

    Applying RAM coatings is not something a front line mechanic would do, but they might want to take a few panels off to access certain items inside the aircraft like avionics boxes or run diagnostics directly to harddrives installed inside the aircraft.
    With the F-22 when they do this they have to remove the tape, undo the fasteners... do the work, which could be just a jumper check or to replace something and then put the panel back on and screw it in place and then apply a tape over the fasteners so they don't effect the RCS.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:22 am

    Again, no... it doesn't use any tape. It has access panels with special tipped fasteners.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:46 am

    Cool

    That is a sensible idea.

    The Russians are often accused of simply blindly copying, but most of the time they think things through and only copy what suits them.

    The Buran is a case in point... it would have been much more efficient than the US Space Shuttle for most tasks because it was designed to avoid a lot of the problems that make the US Space Shuttle expensive to operate. (like the reusable main fuel tank, the solid rocket boosters, the heat tiles...)

    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Corrosion on Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:03 am

    I meant this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-22A/1410046/
    I agree right now UAC wont be concerned with these things, maybe in couple of years things will be more clear. I think if they went for absolute stealth it wont be affordable in any good numbers(200-250 airframes) for either Russia or India.

    BTW things are looking good for the official agreement on FGFA to be signed during Medvedev's visit to India in early December this year.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:30 am

    The reality is that there is no such thing as absolute stealth... even Klingon cloaking technology and predator cloaking technology isn't perfect and they are not even restricted by the laws of physics.

    The decision about the level of stealth is governed by the laws of diminished return.

    In other words you could take a stock standard Mig-29 and reduce its radar cross section by half really easily. Reducing it by half again however is harder because you have made the easy obvious changes so you can never get that level of improvement again.
    A general rule of thumb is that the easy stuff might cost 1 million per plane. The next step up wont give you as much of a reduction and will cost ten times more. The next step will give even less of a reduction and will cost 100 times more. Each further step effects RCS less and less and costs more and more and for the designer it comes down to what level you can afford. A Mig-29 will never be an F-117 in regards to stealth. Designing for stealth from the start makes an enormous difference but every design choice leads to good things and bad things. Vertical tails are good for stability and manoeuvre capability. If you can get rid of them with thrust vectored engines however it makes it simpler and cheaper to remove them and it reduces visibility in all wavelengths as well as RCS.

    That photo you posted shows all the joins and panels in the F-22.
    You will notice all the forward edges are dogtoothed to reduce RCS from the front. Most of those on the fuselage sides will be access panels.

    In the 1950s every kid thought the fighters of the 21st century would be mach 3 or faster, but as the US worked out high speed has a cost in extra cost. The Soviets learned that too, which is why they relaxed the requirements for the Mig-25 which was originally expected to go as fast as the bomber version of the SR-71 (about Mach 3.5 or so). When that bomber was cancelled however they saved a lot of money and design effort by relaxing the speed of the Mig-25 to Mach 2.83. It meant they could use steel instead of expensive difficult to work Titanium. (Of course the cost was not that important as most of the worlds Titanium comes from Russia... they made entire submarines out of the stuff...)
    Speed is like stealth... if you want extreme speed like extreme stealth then you have to pay for it. So you don't throw money away it is a good idea to decide first of all how much stealth or speed you need before you start the design.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:45 pm

    Fifth generation fighters to plug into satellite network

    The Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), already planned to be loaded with top-end combat features like advanced stealth and super-cruise capability, could also be plugged, uniquely, into a network of satellites. With Moscow willing to grant India unprecedented access to military signals from Russia’s constellation of GLONASS (GLObal NAvigation Satellite System) satellites, the FGFA could access real-time details of its own and enemy positions, terrain information, and have the ability to communicate with Indian forces anywhere on the globe.

    A senior Russian diplomat, speaking anonymously to Business Standard, reveals that after extended negotiations with India, Moscow has okayed the provision of military data from GLONASS, in the form of digitized signals. So far, Russia had only agreed to provide India with civilian-grade navigation signals, which permitted an accuracy of 25-30 metres. Now, the military grade signals will allow a far higher accuracy, crucial for military operations.

    Speaking on condition of anonymity, the New Delhi-based Russian diplomat explained, “India is the only country that Moscow is willing to supply GLONASS military data to. Russia has recently okayed an agreement which officials from both sides have been negotiating for some time. From our side, we are ready to sign, even during (Russian president Dmitry) Medvedev’s visit to India this December.”

    Business Standard first reported (11th Sept 10: “India, Russia to Ink gen-5 fighter pact”) that India and Russia were set to sign a Preliminary Design Contract, to co-develop the FGFA, during Russian president Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to India this December. The FGFA programme, towards which each partner will contribute an initial US $6 billion, aims to develop the world’s premier fighter. The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to buy 250-300 of these aircraft.

    Providing satellite navigation and communications to the FGFA would place the aircraft at a higher technological level than even the F-35 Lightning II, the futuristic fighter that America is currently developing. The F-35 uses satellite communications, but not satellite navigation.

    Says the Russian diplomat, “It is next-generation features like real-time satellite navigation that will take the FGFA technologically far beyond Sukhoi’s T-50 prototype fighter, which made its first flight in January.”

    Russia’s GLONASS network will provide navigational signals worldwide through a constellation of 24 satellites, 18 of which are already operational. America already has an operational satellite navigation system, called the Global Positioning System (GPS). The European Union is implementing its own Galileo system, while India is planning its own network, called Gagan.

    India and Russia had earlier agreed to cooperate on the civilian aspects of GLONASS. In January 2007, during President Putin’s visit to India, Russia’s Federal Space Agency and the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) signed agreements to launch GLONASS satellites on Indian booster rockets and to jointly build new-generation satellites.

    With President Medvedev’s visit a month after President Obama’s, Moscow has successfully lined up a slew of high-profile signings and events that underscore the strategic nature of the Russia-India partnership. Besides the signing of the FGFA development contract and the possible GLONASS agreement, Russia is racing against time to hand over during this period an Akula-class nuclear attack submarine to the Indian Navy. The INS Chakra, as the Indian Navy will call this submarine, has been provided by Russia on a 10-year lease for an estimated US $900 million.

    “All this shows the depth of the Russia-India strategic relationship”, points out the Russian diplomat. “There are other countries that might be having better technology than Russia, though I cannot say for sure. But they are not willing to part with it.”

    Captain Melon
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 9
    Join date : 2010-11-15

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Captain Melon on Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:03 am

    Whats the news with the PAK FA? Any new information about it get out?

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:30 pm

    @Garry

    In the 1950s every kid thought the fighters of the 21st century would be mach 3 or faster, but as the US worked out high speed has a cost in extra cost. The Soviets learned that too, which is why they relaxed the requirements for the Mig-25 which was originally expected to go as fast as the bomber version of the SR-71 (about Mach 3.5 or so). When that bomber was cancelled however they saved a lot of money and design effort by relaxing the speed of the Mig-25 to Mach 2.83. It meant they could use steel instead of expensive difficult to work Titanium. (Of course the cost was not that important as most of the worlds Titanium comes from Russia... they made entire submarines out of the stuff...)
    Speed is like stealth... if you want extreme speed like extreme stealth then you have to pay for it. So you don't throw money away it is a good idea to decide first of all how much stealth or speed you need before you start the design.

    I repect your opinion; but I don't think so that cost was the real issue if not speeding up the ewarplanes...
    The introduction off boresight missile arsenal was the real reason & ofcoarse the Soviets before hand had introduced the BVR concept via Novator. Missile can pull more than 50Gs which only can be a dream for a warplane....plus the introduction of complex datalinks;sensors & miniaturized technology more emphasis today is given to missile arsenal.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:44 pm

    Cost is an issue for higher speed because a high speed aircraft will have issues with heating , it will need exotic expensive materials to withstand those heat , it will need exotic engine to speed that aircraft to say Mach 6 , it will need great amount of fuel which will affect size , it will have impact on weapons as internal weapons needs to be carried and then all the thing needs to be within the weight.

    A BVR missile will get better with high speed aircraft because of the kinematic impact of releasing a missile at mach 5 compared to mach 2.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Viktor on Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:59 pm

    When you have war wining machine ... cost is not an issue.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:44 pm

    Unless it's the F-22. censored

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Viktor on Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:32 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Unless it's the F-22. censored

    Even than. Its a victim of politics.

    Japan would take it in no time just as India decided on PAK-FA.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:44 am

    I repect your opinion; but I don't think so that cost was the real issue if not speeding up the ewarplanes...
    The introduction off boresight missile arsenal was the real reason & ofcoarse the Soviets before hand had introduced the BVR concept via Novator. Missile can pull more than 50Gs which only can be a dream for a warplane....plus the introduction of complex datalinks;sensors & miniaturized technology more emphasis today is given to missile arsenal.

    In the 50s and 60s there were lots of plans for very high speed aircraft. Mach 3 bombers made of titanium to replace the previous mach 2 bombers... and then they stopped. The only aircraft that were mach 3 that entered service were the SR-71s and they had all sorts of quirks and problems that complicated their operations. They were also very expensive. In comparison the Mig-25 which was a mach 2.83 aircraft was also expensive to own and operate but was made in much larger numbers and operated more widely including India and Bulgaria. Most other aircraft that are on paper mach 2 aircraft rarely ever fly at that speed because it burns up fuel and reduces manouvere capability. You mention missiles able to turn at 50gs, well g force increases with speed so the faster you go the slower a 50 g turn would be. In fact at subsonic speeds it would probably be impossible to turn at 50 gs without thrust vectoring. Missiles don't turn by magic, they turn because of the force generated by their control surfaces and those little control surfaces on a missile will not make it turn 90 degrees rapidly enough to pull 50gs unless the missile is travelling very fast.

    Just look at the replacement for the Tu-22. It was the Tu-22M. A mach 2 bomber replaced by... a mach 2 bomber. The T-4 that was being developed by Sukhoi was going to be a mach 3 bomber but was also going to be enormously expensive... to buy and to operate. Tupolev stepped in and offered a much more conventional solution which was accepted... and thank goodness. Going faster and faster without a revolution in propulsion technologies (like a scramjet) is a bit of a waste of resources and energy.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:03 am

    it will need great amount of fuel which will affect size , it will have impact on weapons as internal weapons needs to be carried and then all the thing needs to be within the weight.

    Exactly... when designing a bomber you decide on the payload weight and the distance that payload needs to be delivered. You then look at propulsion options and aerodynamic designs and sizes. If you want a specific speed capability that makes everything bigger and harder to design. The F-18 could have been designed to fly faster than mach 1.8, but it was supposed to be a cheap long range light strike aircraft... well originally it was fighter competition with the F-16 but it lost and became the strike component to the F-14 fighter. Then it became the fighter and the strike aircraft. Now with the naval F-35 it will become the fighter.
    They could have made it mach 2.5 capable, but at the cost of shorter range and lots of other changes that would make it more expensive to buy and to fly.

    Think of it in terms of anti ship missiles. A Moskit has a range of about 120km in its original ship launched version and the Harpoon has a similar range. Now the Moskit is a 4.5 ton 9 metre long missile, compared to the Harpoon and the only differences is in warhead weight and flight speed. It is the flight speed that demands a combined rocket ramjet propulsion system while the Harpoons subsonic flight speed means a small much more efficient engine makes it much smaller and lighter. At the end of the day both solutions have their advantages and problems. A Harpoon isn't actually that much cheaper than a Moskit, but you can carry more Harpoons on a wider variety of platforms. Obviously a Harpoon will not have much of a chance against a carrier group or a modern ship with S-400 based SAMs either, whereas a low flying mach 2.5 missile might sneak through. (remember very few things fly at supersonic speeds at sea level... a sidewinder fired at sea level has a range of about 5kms or so.)

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  nightcrawler on Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:01 am

    @Austin

    A BVR missile will get better with high speed aircraft because of the kinematic impact of releasing a missile at mach 5 compared to mach 2.

    I think this rule applies only to ramjet/ramrocket/scarmjet...powered missiles & not the conventional solid fueled missiles composed of boosters/sustainers/& again boosters

    @GarryB

    You mention missiles able to turn at 50gs, well g force increases with speed so the faster you go the slower a 50 g turn would be. In fact at subsonic speeds it would probably be impossible to turn at 50 gs without thrust vectoring. Missiles don't turn by magic, they turn because of the force generated by their control surfaces and those little control surfaces on a missile will not make it turn 90 degrees rapidly enough to pull 50gs unless the missile is travelling very fast.
    Thnx for elaboration but I do know the physics;


    Missile guidance and control systems
    By George M. Siouris p.335
    http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&lpg=PA335&ots=H_zjxtPKpk&dq=missile%20able%20to%20turn%2050%20Gs&pg=PA335#v=onepage&q&f=false

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:16 am

    Viktor wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Unless it's the F-22. censored

    Even than. Its a victim of politics.

    Japan would take it in no time just as India decided on PAK-FA.

    I'd happily disagree to be quite honest. I do believe the F-22 is the greatest fighter ever contemplated by man, but at 1/3 of a BILLION USD a piece, creating a sizable fighting force is just an economic pressure we can't handle

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Viktor on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:30 pm

    If build in greater numbers its price would not be as its weight in gold since all the R&D dropped to too few pieces build, but the reason for it was purely political.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:09 am

    I think this rule applies only to ramjet/ramrocket/scarmjet...powered missiles & not the conventional solid fueled missiles composed of boosters/sustainers/& again boosters

    It all depends on the missile itself, but fired from a Mig-25 at altitude and high speed Kh-58 anti radiation missiles, which are solid fuelled rockets got range increases of double to about 250km over slower and lower launch parameters which is the more normal 120km range.

    Most air launched missiles of any range using solid rockets usually have an initial burn of high energy fuel for accelerating the missile to its normal flight speed. This burns very quickly however so filling a missile completely with such fuel would result in a higher flight speed, but much shorter range. Normally weapons are filled with high thrust booster fuel in a relatively small amount that burns for a few seconds and then a lower power longer burning fuel that basically overcomes drag and maintains the speed achieved by the initial high burn fuel. At high altitude where the air is thinner and colder a rocket engine is more efficient at pushing the missile to high speeds and if it is already travelling quickly then the speed of the missile is often added to the launch speed which greatly improves range performance.

    One of the advantages of supercruise is that it extends the flight range of missiles like the AMRAAM while in dry thrust mode... sort of giving you the advantage of the high ground.

    Obviously most high speed missiles are designed to be low drag so the extra flight speed will add speed to its top flight speed.
    If you carried a large slow subsonic missile like Harpoon and fired it with a rocket booster it might remain supersonic after launch for a short period while its rocket motor burned but its subsonic shaped would mean the drag would be enormous and it would slow to high subsonic speed rapidly so the added range would be marginal and more to do with the extra height of the launch than the high launch speed. In fact a supersonic launch would probably do more damage than good and might stall the jet engine and damage it.

    Missile guidance and control systems

    From the clip you posted the 90 mile range of the JSF is from its AESA radar... the Mig-35 also has an AESA radar and when it is fully developed for the T-50 there is no reason why the Su-35 couldn't have a rather larger AESA radar than that fitted to the JSF, and both the Russian -35s (Mig and Sukhoi) have had their helmet mounted sight, IRST and Radars connected so a lock from any of the three could be used to direct weapons seekers onto air or ground targets.
    In fact even the Mig-23 had the ability to display radar information directly into its HUD in the late 1970s so moving it to a helmet mounted sight is no great trick.

    I'd happily disagree to be quite honest. I do believe the F-22 is the greatest fighter ever contemplated by man, but at 1/3 of a BILLION USD a piece, creating a sizable fighting force is just an economic pressure we can't handle

    If the F-22 was made in the same states as the C-17 then it would have been made in much larger numbers. The US military stopped asking for C-17s because it seems that the C-17 is important to some very influential people in the US government and they will be made and sold to the military whether they ask for them or not.
    They can use them of course but when you get them anyway why include them in your christmas wish list?

    Quarter of a billion dollars for a medium transport plane!

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:40 am

    Actually, the C-17 was produced in relatively small numbers, comparable to that of the F-22, and it also cost less than a fifth of a billion USD.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:49 am

    Numbers I have seen for it are $250 million each.

    More disconcerting is that when sold they have a clause that states the C-17 can't be used from short rough strips.

    It seems the low operating costs promised only work out if the aircraft is not put under too much stress.

    This means that you can either have a transport that can operate from anywhere, or you can have what is basically a C-141 with a better payload capacity and long airframe/engine life which means lower cost of ownership, but you can't have both.

    Needless to say the Australians sent a C-17 over for the Warbirds over Wanaka airshow but the C-17 didnt land because the airstrip was shorter than the contract allows.

    It was "Combat Aircraft", an American aircraft magazine that described the politics behind the C-17. It seems the senator of the state where the C-17s are made wants to keep the factory working so money is voted for the production of a certain number of C-17s every year whether the Pentagon asks for them or not. They realised they could ask for money for other things and get the C-17s they need tacked on too without asking for them... because it keeps a Boeing factory open.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:56 am

    Which reminds me, how does this relate to the PAK-FA?

    I will agree though that Politics will affect the MIC, just ask the guys at Uralz-something.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:01 am

    GarryB wrote:Numbers I have seen for it are $250 million each.

    GarryB , you are badly mistaken they are charging us $5.8 Billion for 10 C-17 , thats like $580 million per aircraft.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68L0TX20100922

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:51 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Actually, the C-17 was produced in relatively small numbers, comparable to that of the F-22, and it also cost less than a fifth of a billion USD.

    C-17 costs over $500 million as per the Indian order.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:13 pm


    Second prototype fifth-generation fighter to fly before yearend

    RIA Novosti

    12:13 22/11/2010

    KHANTY-MANSIISK, November 22 (RIA Novosti) - Flight trials of the second prototype of Sukhoi's fifth-generation T-50 fighter aircraft are due before the end of the year, Sukhoi holding CEO Mikhail Pogosyan said on Monday.

    The first prototype of the aircraft made its maiden flight in late January and has conducted 40 in total, Pogosyan said.

    "The flight trial program is moving ahead faster than we expected," Pogosyan said.

    He said talks with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) on the joint development of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft are due to conclude before the end of the year.

    Earlier reports said an agreement would be signed in December.

    The new warplane is expected to enter service with the Russian Air Force in 2015.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-101122-rianovosti01.htm

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK FA, T-50: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:20 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:20 pm