PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

Deep Throat wrote:QUESTION : Why did Russia choose NOT to develop a Vertical Take Off version of the PAKFA ? They could have used this on the MISTRAL LPH as well ?

Because it would be a terrible idea, when you consider the resources needed and the result.

Easier to just build big new carrier down the line.

AK Antony to take up issues related to FGFA project with Russia

NEW DELHI: Not happy with its share of work in the multi-billion dollar Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, India is expected to flag the issue with that country during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit there next month.

Though India is investing 50 per cent of the cost of the multi-billion dollar programme, its work share in the research and development and other aspects of the programme at the moment is only around 15 per cent, IAF officials said here.

The Defence Minister is expected to flag this issue during his Russia visit beginning November 15 as this will have an impact on India's indigenous capabilities to develop such an advanced fighter aircraft, they said.

The IAF expressed its objection over the issue at a CII event on energising aerospace sector in India.

"We have a major opportunity in the FGFA programme. At the moment it is not very much in favour of Indian development. We are flagging it through the Government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability," IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S Sukumar said here.

The senior IAF officer was commenting on the programme and the opportunities that it could provide for the Indian defence sector.

The FGFA is a joint venture programme between India and Russia and its preliminary design phase was completed recently.

The programme is expected to cost over 1.5 lakh crore to the Government. The two sides are now in discussion over the main Research and Development part of the programme, which is expected to take another year to be concluded.

Deep Throat wrote:QUESTION : Why did Russia choose NOT to develop a Vertical Take Off version of the PAKFA ? They could have used this on the MISTRAL LPH as well ?

The number one problem in the aeronautical sense, with VTOL, is you’re trying to have it all, and in aviation, everything is a tradeoff.

Bear in mind that more often than not the VTOL aircrafts are actually used in STOL mode with thrust only partially vectored down and lift provided partially by aerodynamical lift and partially by downward thrust . Why ? Because for any VTOL design, weight is a critical consideration. The plane will lift only if the thrust-to-weight ratio is above 1 . Thus with a full fuel and weapons load, the plane is too heavy to lift.

Contrary to popular perception VTOL aircrafts behave differently from a helicopter. Unlike helos , torque is absent for a jet engine. The aircraft does not in itself develop a tendency to yaw when lifting off the ground. However, the roll stability is dramatically different in hover flight. One can think of a helicopter as the mass of the helicopter body hanging underneath the lifting rotor. Thus, when the body of the helicopter starts to roll, it has a tendency to swing like a pendulum underneath the rotor, but the roll doesn’t grow by itself. In contrast, the VTOL aircraft is a mass balanced upon a column of lifting thrust, so any roll tendency will not lead to a pendulum motion but will be self-reinforcing, and if it is not corrected will lead to an unstable condition.

As already answered the vertical thrust engines need to be balanced to allow the aircraft to take off vertically.

What has also been hinted at is that there are actually puffer jets at the nose, tail and wing tips of VSTOL aircraft so that they can manouver in the hover.

The extra lift near the front of the aircraft to balance the thrust of the main engines at the rear, whether it is a fan or lift engines is dead weight in normal flight and also takes up considerable internal volume that can't be used for fuel.

Equally the piping of pressurised air to the nose, tail and wing tips for the manouvering puffer jets also take up more volume and also add weight.

All this space and weight reduce normal flight performance with the only benefit of being able to be used from fairly small ships.

It is far more cost effective to use conventional take off aircraft on slightly larger ships and carry more aircraft at a time so the deployed force becomes more potent too.

A VSTOL aircraft on a Mistral carrier would not add hugely to the performance of the carrier... it would move to fast to support the other helos, yet not so fast as to be useful as an interceptor.

The Mistral is a helicopter carrier and a mix of Ka-52, Ka-29 and Ka-226T helos is pretty much the best operational air component it could operate... adding any other aircraft and I would suggest a Ka-31 AEW helo would be far more valuable than a Yak-36M or equivalent.

The performance of the F-35 was shattered by the requirement of a VSTOL model... it could have been a 5th gen F-16, but the size and weight and shape problems caused by needing to have a VSTOL model ruined the design and made it more expensive than it needed to be.

Deep Throat wrote:QUESTION : Why did Russia choose NOT to develop a Vertical Take Off version of the PAKFA ? They could have used this on the MISTRAL LPH as well ?

yeah as other have said.. Vertical take off is a very very bad idea.. kills the flight performance of the plane and significantly reduce
its weapons storage space.

This [b]analysis by Pierre M. Spey[/b], a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams, cast sharp doubt on the F-35′s capabilities: “Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’ If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter… [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot… less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam… payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay… With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’… too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods… What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft… As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35′s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.” wrote:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

As it is now ,F-35 seems will be limited for surprise strikes , special missions and beyond visual range combat.
But is not a combat plane that you will want to use for close air support or in the front line in any war.

T-50-5 flying soon.

Austin wrote:AK Antony to take up issues related to FGFA project with Russia

NEW DELHI: Not happy with its share of work in the multi-billion dollar Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, India is expected to flag the issue with that country during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit there next month.

Though India is investing 50 per cent of the cost of the multi-billion dollar programme, its work share in the research and development and other aspects of the programme at the moment is only around 15 per cent, IAF officials said here.

The Defence Minister is expected to flag this issue during his Russia visit beginning November 15 as this will have an impact on India's indigenous capabilities to develop such an advanced fighter aircraft, they said.

The IAF expressed its objection over the issue at a CII event on energising aerospace sector in India.

"We have a major opportunity in the FGFA programme. At the moment it is not very much in favour of Indian development. We are flagging it through the Government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability," IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S Sukumar said here.

The senior IAF officer was commenting on the programme and the opportunities that it could provide for the Indian defence sector.

The FGFA is a joint venture programme between India and Russia and its preliminary design phase was completed recently.

The programme is expected to cost over 1.5 lakh crore to the Government. The two sides are now in discussion over the main Research and Development part of the programme, which is expected to take another year to be concluded.

At the end of the day - it's a take it or leave it kind of thing.
If India doesn't want the FGFA - it's only other option is the F-35.

What is it with these people?

The FGFA fighter will not be a joint Russian Indian fighter in the sense that it will be created together and used by the Russian and Indian air forces'.

The basics of the PAK FA are ready for all to see though there is plenty of work left to do with likely new radars and new engines and other new systems added and changed during the life of the aircraft.

The FGFA is an Indian aircraft based on the PAK FA but basically designed for the Indian Air Force.

Anything the Indian Air Force wants to have they can have as long as they are prepared to pay for it.

The PAK FA wont be finished development for some time and ongoing upgrades will keep it up to date for some time but naval versions alone will keep Sukhoi busy for a while now anyway.

In the same way that the Russian Air Force has put into service some Su-30s with features from the Su-30MKI they might introduce some of the features they develop with India for the FGFA on the PAK FA if they feel it is worth while... with permission of course.

Think of the PAK FA as the Su-35S and the FGFA as the Su-30MKI..

Either way India is pretty much getting more for its money than it is getting from France in the Rafale deal, or indeed the UK is getting from the US in the F-35 deal.

The news out of official Indian sources, like HAL, has quite frankly been laughable at times. Remember the recent FGFA article?

The actual details between India and Russia are out of the public sphere, and will only be revealed in time. Let's wait instead of making useless speculation. I think the Indian delegations who have visited Sukhoi are a bit more informed on the matter than all these internet warriors screaming hilarity like "dumb FGFA and compare T-50 to F-35". lol.

flamming_python wrote:

Austin wrote:AK Antony to take up issues related to FGFA project with Russia

NEW DELHI: Not happy with its share of work in the multi-billion dollar Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, India is expected to flag the issue with that country during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit there next month.

Though India is investing 50 per cent of the cost of the multi-billion dollar programme, its work share in the research and development and other aspects of the programme at the moment is only around 15 per cent, IAF officials said here.

The Defence Minister is expected to flag this issue during his Russia visit beginning November 15 as this will have an impact on India's indigenous capabilities to develop such an advanced fighter aircraft, they said.

The IAF expressed its objection over the issue at a CII event on energising aerospace sector in India.

"We have a major opportunity in the FGFA programme. At the moment it is not very much in favour of Indian development. We are flagging it through the Government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability," IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S Sukumar said here.

The senior IAF officer was commenting on the programme and the opportunities that it could provide for the Indian defence sector.

The FGFA is a joint venture programme between India and Russia and its preliminary design phase was completed recently.

The programme is expected to cost over 1.5 lakh crore to the Government. The two sides are now in discussion over the main Research and Development part of the programme, which is expected to take another year to be concluded.

At the end of the day - it's a take it or leave it kind of thing.
If India doesn't want the FGFA - it's only other option is the F-35.

I don't even see how it is an option.
The f-35 will not, cannot have the same kinematic performance as the T-50. If they want a compromised (impressive given the requirments, but nontheless) glorified bomb-truck, then by all means, but that is not India's requirment for the FGFA.

JSF and PAK-FA are different breed ...... PAK-FA is in F-22 class heavy fighter and JSF is single engine medium fighter.
So comparision is not equal to begin with.

FGFA JV is also a business opportunity to export and earn revenue for the next 2 decade and even though indiginous technoligy will be 15 % this time , its not a static and permenant feature and will bound to grow in years and decades ahead.

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Austin wrote:AK Antony to take up issues related to FGFA project with Russia

NEW DELHI: Not happy with its share of work in the multi-billion dollar Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, India is expected to flag the issue with that country during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit there next month.

Though India is investing 50 per cent of the cost of the multi-billion dollar programme, its work share in the research and development and other aspects of the programme at the moment is only around 15 per cent, IAF officials said here.

The Defence Minister is expected to flag this issue during his Russia visit beginning November 15 as this will have an impact on India's indigenous capabilities to develop such an advanced fighter aircraft, they said.

The IAF expressed its objection over the issue at a CII event on energising aerospace sector in India.

"We have a major opportunity in the FGFA programme. At the moment it is not very much in favour of Indian development. We are flagging it through the Government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability," IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S Sukumar said here.

The senior IAF officer was commenting on the programme and the opportunities that it could provide for the Indian defence sector.

The FGFA is a joint venture programme between India and Russia and its preliminary design phase was completed recently.

The programme is expected to cost over 1.5 lakh crore to the Government. The two sides are now in discussion over the main Research and Development part of the programme, which is expected to take another year to be concluded.

At the end of the day - it's a take it or leave it kind of thing.
If India doesn't want the FGFA - it's only other option is the F-35.

I don't even see how it is an option.
The f-35 will not, cannot have the same kinematic performance as the T-50. If they want a compromised (impressive given the requirments, but nontheless) glorified bomb-truck, then by all means, but that is not India's requirment for the FGFA.

So then that means that India is in even less of a position to bargain.

Not that I have anything against Indian participation; I'm all for joint-ventures; but when it comes to the very latest and sensitive Russian tech; then certain restrictions and safeguards should be in place; even when it comes to friendly countries such as India.

The FGFA is basically a modification of the PAK-FA design, far as I can tell - it's not a new aircraft; so just what involvement India wants in R&D is not apparent to me; most of this R&D is/has already being performed in the PAK-FA project AFAIK.

Austin wrote:FGFA JV is also a business opportunity to export and earn revenue for the next 2 decade and even though indiginous technoligy will be 15 % this time , its not a static and permenant feature and will bound to grow in years and decades ahead.

Yes, but apparently one of the positions of the Indian delegation, is that the FGFA should not be exported at all?

TR1 wrote:T-50-5 flying soon.

...and here it is:

flamming_python wrote:At the end of the day - it's a take it or leave it kind of thing.
If India doesn't want the FGFA - it's only other option is the F-35.

No . F 35 was never an option  . More importantly PAKFA is not F 35 and vice versa.

GarryB wrote:What is it with these people?

You know I was reading this article written by Kaspersky a couple of days ago where he said something that really hit home .

"What's more important than the news , is it's source " . And I can say this ad nauseam .

This is a typical example of  journalist being too lazy to do adequate research on the subject-matter & therefore jumping to ill-conceived conclusions with an erroneous & mischievous news-headline.  

All that the IAF has flagged is the need to have more focused quantum of India-origin R & D solutions & innovations. What this means is that Russia cannot be faulted if India’s R & D agencies & military-industrial entities fail to meet the required/mandated 35% quantum of effort . Period .

For want of having to repost post #87 again and guide people through it in a condescending and patronizing manner, this is what I will say : The PAKFA project was half way through before India was roped in  as Russia needed the $$ not just for further R & D but to make a financially viable product . India NEVER asked for total ToT and will not get that either . India will only carry out system integration and thereafter MRO .

SOC wrote:

TR1 wrote:T-50-5 flying soon.

...and here it is:

Nice selfie... do one with the armata in the background.

and here it is:

This is T-50-5 ?

Arrow wrote:

and here it is:

This is T-50-5 ?

Yes, hangared at KnAAPO preparing for its first flight, and no, that's not me  

SOC wrote:

Arrow wrote:

and here it is:

This is T-50-5 ?

Yes, hangared at KnAAPO preparing for its first flight, and no, that's not me  

No way SOC is a little leprechaun like everyone in Russia (Putin, Medvedev, Shoigu).

5th Prototype Airborne

Today, October 27, from the airfield of Komsomolsk-on-Amur aviation plant. YA Gagarin (KnAAZ) first flew on the 5th flying prototype fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA).

T-50-5 - the first car of the initial batch, whose appearance is as close to the look of a serial fighter. After a cycle of factory acceptance testing of the aircraft will be transferred to the State Flight Test Center for Defense Akhtubinsk state joint tests.
It is planned that in the next year to test connect 3 more aircraft.

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/42656/

Is T-50-5 still prototype or 1st preserial plane?

medo wrote:Is T-50-5 still prototype or 1st preserial plane?

Still a prototype . Infact we will have to wait till the T-50-07 breaks cover with it's significant external differences in appearance compared to the early prototypes . Apparently '56' will not be showcased right now.

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/2524/2524609.htm

Distant picture of apparently T-50-5 together with Su-30MK bort 504 chase plane. (from paralay.com)
http://www.pixic.ru/i/4030322702g458D4.jpg

mack8 wrote:Distant picture of apparently T-50-5 together with Su-30MK bort 504 chase plane. (from paralay.com)
http://www.pixic.ru/i/4030322702g458D4.jpg

Aesthetically pleasing...thanks for that!
Cheers.

Is T-50-5 still prototype or 1st preserial plane?

From what I have read the 5th prototype will have all the radars and the weapon bays and external weapon pylons all wired in for testing weapons and radar sensors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWp12rQUltg

Looks like T-50-5 is without optical sensors. Maybe they will be installed later. Interesting is, it have again a glass ball sensor behind cockpit, which T-50-4 doesn't have.