PAK FA, T-50: News #1

IAF decides on 144 Fifth Generation Fighters

Austin wrote:IAF decides on 144 Fifth Generation Fighters

That is a big cut! What happened?!?!

Cut MMRCA instead.

The Indian Air Force with the help of our wacko journalists are confusing the paying public. One day they say it is 200+ , another day 144 .

Whatever , the number is two things are for sure .

a) The initial figure provided is for the first lot of procurements ONLY. Subsequent follow up orders will be placed exactly like what we have seen for the SU 30 MKI . Infact today a deal for a further 42 Super Sukhois will be signed.

b) Any first lot procurement figure is entirely speculative as of now and the Air chiefs do this just because the media forces them to provide some sound bytes . The FGFA’s first prototype is due for roll out tentatively in 2014 for fatigue tests, followed by another in 2017 and another in 2019. Until then all procurement figures are second guesses, regardless of who makes them.

Of the 214 FGFAs to be procured, 144 will be single-seaters.

Sujoy wrote:The Indian Air Force with the help of our wacko journalists are confusing the paying public. One day they say it is 200+ , another day 144 .

Whatever , the number is two things are for sure .

a) The initial figure provided is for the first lot of procurements ONLY. Subsequent follow up orders will be placed exactly like what we have seen for the SU 30 MKI . Infact today a deal for a further 42 Super Sukhois will be signed.

b) Any first lot procurement figure is entirely speculative as of now and the Air chiefs do this just because the media forces them to provide some sound bytes . The FGFA’s first prototype is due for roll out tentatively in 2014 for fatigue tests, followed by another in 2017 and another in 2019. Until then all procurement figures are second guesses, regardless of who makes them.

sujoy do u know if india is making its own stealth fighter as well ?

ricky123 wrote:sujoy do u know if india is making its own stealth fighter as well ?

In the near future NO .In the distant future there is this Urban Legend called AMCA .

Even I would wait for some times before a final figure emerges on the numbers needs.

From past experience we know that just like MKI numbers increased over period of time FGFA might end up following its footstep

Indeed, Russia is only ordering 60 at first as well, obviously the total number will be much larger.

What the IAF CAS has said is 144 single-seat FGFAs would be procured. He hasn’t said that the order for tandem-seat FGFAs has been cancelled. Had it been cancelled then the IAF CAS would have stated that all 214 FGFAs would be single-seaters. However, our journalists immediately jumped to the conclusion that orders for the FGFA has been cancelled . Also, we must not loose sight of the fact that the Indian Navy will most likely place an order for a naval version of the FGFA.

AW&ST: Throttling Back

https://i.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/td110.jpg

T-50 Trials on Schedule ( pg 18 )

http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746

APA is very pleased to release a new paper, APA-2012-03, entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype, authored by Dr Michael Pelosi and Dr Carlo Kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

From link abour this would hurt PAK-FA LO the most as design cannot be changed

Where the PAK-FA falls well short of the F-22A and YF-23 is the shaping design of the lower fuselage and side fuselage, where the general configuration, wing/fuselage join angles, and inlet/engine nacelle join angles introduce similar intractable specular return problems as observed with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design. These are inherent in the current shaping design and cannot be significantly improved by materials application. .... the PAK-FA prototype design will produce a large specular return in any manoeuvre where the lower fuselage is exposed to a threat emitter, and this problem will be prominent from the Ku-band down to the L-band.

This problem is exacerbated by the inboard ventral wing root fairings, claimed by some Russian sources to be pods for the concealed carriage of folding fin close combat AAMs, such as the RVV-MD/R-74 series. While these fairings do not introduce large RCS contributions from fore or aft aspects, they will adversely contribute to beam aspect RCS, especially for threats well below the plane of flight of the aircraft.

Austin wrote:APA is very pleased to release a new paper, APA-2012-03, entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype, authored by Dr Michael Pelosi and Dr Carlo Kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

Now i really want much better software than the POFACETS that i currently have and run.

Err BTW Austin have anyone tried to replicate the APA's simulations ? espcially the JSF one.

Austin wrote:APA is very pleased to release a new paper, APA-2012-03, entitled A Preliminary Assessment of Specular Radar Cross Section Performance in the Sukhoi T-50 Prototype, authored by Dr Michael Pelosi and Dr Carlo Kopp.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

The faster APA will place itself at distance from those PO representations of not uniform conducting and edge rich objects the better it will be for the defense of its good name (APA represent,at today, one of the most serious and scientifically round public open source on similar subjects).


Naturaly ,at that point, also APA's opinion on the tactical impact and, above all, real metric orders of magnitude involved in VLO design will change radically and ,likely ,will become easier for it also to understand the reasons -obviously deeply buried- for radical U-tun on US's tactical aircraft design toward : lowerd technical requirements, high number, adn low cost .....at least in the intial JSF planning

In a way this article is a coming of age for Dr.Copp . Possibly for the first time Copp has acknowledged that the PAK FA is well poised to take on the F 22A in both WVR as well as BVR conflict . In his previous assessments of the PAK FA , Copp has steadfastly maintained that the PAK FA should not fancy it's chances against the F 22A in a BVR conflict .

As far as the criticism of the shaping of the lower fuselage goes , one needs to bear in mind that the PAKFA is not designed to carry out deep penetrating strikes on ground based SAMs deep inside enemy territory and therefore the current shaping of the lower fuselage is adequate.

Stealthflanker wrote:have anyone tried to replicate the APA's simulations ? espcially the JSF one.

I maybe deviating a bit but Lockheed's latest claim is that the RAM coating gets better over time .So they clearly haven't tried out APA's simulations.

In the latest issue of Air Force magazine, O’Bryan insisted the single-engine JSF, which is projected to cost $1 trillion to develop, buy and maintain, is fundamentally different than its predecessors. “The surface material smooths out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official

Sujoy wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:have anyone tried to replicate the APA's simulations ? espcially the JSF one.

I maybe deviating a bit but Lockheed's latest claim is that the RAM coating gets better over time .So they clearly haven't tried out APA's simulations.

And this would means i'm the only one here trying to replicate it.

Stealthflanker wrote:And this would means i'm the only one here trying to replicate it.

I wish you success

psg wrote:http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100x100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_23_hires.jpg

that is not the compressor face. could it be the radar blocker?

Most trustworthy accounts say there is no blocker on current prototypes. It's an open question whether a blocker is needed at all. There are hints that the intakes are designed to deflect the radio waves without a blocker

To be clear the inside of the air intakes will be coated with RAM so any radar beam heading down the intakes to the front fans on the engines, if they can enter directly, hit the front fans and then exit again will be a strong radar signal.

The thing is however that most aircraft fly slightly nose up, so to get that ideal angle would require an airborne radar. Equally as shown with the Tu-160 the front fan blades on a jet engine are not high temperature blades and can be coated in RAM while any radar signal entering the intake tubes might bounce of the wall twice on the way in and twice on the way out. If the RAM coatings are any good and reduce the signal by y percent that means that teh radar strength reduction with two bounces in and two out plus the RAM on the blades themselves means a reduction in radar energy of 5y.

If a radar blocker is used that can be greatly increased... the Su-27 has a grid that can be lowered to cover the air intake to stop stones entering the intake during operations on rough air strips... making a grid that is fixed that blocks half the radar energy with another grid behind it, but offset so it blocks the rest would not be that difficult and they could do double time as FOD deflectors for landing and takeoff.


Normal turbojet engines can't burn fuel supersonically, so the intake shape is variable to allow the incoming air to be slowed down to subsonic before it enters the hot section of the engine... having radar blockers could be part of that system to prevent the engine from choking on supersonic air.

I am noticing a few self contradictions in Copp's article .

The shaping of the T-50 is inferior to that of the F-22 Raptor. But the F-35 and T-50, exhibit similar … RCS behavior

.

Now Copp has stated in this very article that the stealth features of the PAKFA , with the exception of the lower fuselage are as good as the F 22 . And yet he compares the RCS of the PAKFA with the F 35 , an aircraft which in his own words has only good frontal stealth shaping .

He goes on to say that to match the stealthiness of the F-35

Sukhoi’s engineers will have to, among other changes, modify the T-50′s engines to a less obtrusive fitting and add a layer of radar-absorbing material to the plane’s skin.

only to contradict it by saying that

U.S. sensors are among the worst at detecting the T-50′s unique shape

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/11/16/1344/

Soon PAK FA will start testings with weapons and T-50-4 will join tests soon (in 2012). In 2013 RuAF will get 10 pre-serial PAK-FA, serial will come in 2015. 60 is for now ordered.

In between Russian scientists have achieved some breakthrough in EW technology .

http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2012-11-09/12_planes.html

I wonder if this will be incorporated in the PAK FA

medo wrote:http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/11/16/1344/

Soon PAK FA will start testings with weapons and T-50-4 will join tests soon (in 2012). In 2013 RuAF will get 10 pre-serial PAK-FA, serial will come in 2015. 60 is for now ordered.

6 Su-35 were built this year, and they want 10 T-50s in 2013?

Seems absurdly optimistic and hurried.