Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+63
gbu48098
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
wilhelm
TMA1
zepia
lyle6
Backman
mnztr
lancelot
The-thing-next-door
Sujoy
KoTeMoRe
Singular_Transform
Tsavo Lion
thegopnik
SeigSoloyvov
dino00
GunshipDemocracy
ATLASCUB
miketheterrible
Admin
Rodion_Romanovic
Hole
marcellogo
GarryB
LMFS
Svyatoslavich
OminousSpudd
Rmf
hoom
Azi
PapaDragon
kvs
eridan
Isos
Cyberspec
rtech
Flanky
medo
sepheronx
GJ Flanker
EKS
AlfaT8
Book.
Mike E
Flyingdutchman
Stealthflanker
mack8
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
sheytanelkebir
CaptainPakistan
Firebird
KomissarBojanchev
Viktor
gloriousfatherland
Austin
SOC
TR1
George1
Ogannisyan8887
67 posters

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18228
    Points : 18729
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  George1 Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:25 am

    Hole wrote:5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Image10
    From Charly015

    During an interview with the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia for the defense industry Yuri Borisov to RBC correspondents, a model of a new single-engine fighter accidentally fell into the frame of operators. The head of Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, spoke about the development of such a combat aircraft at the beginning of December.

    As conceived by Russian designers, the new combat aircraft should include the possibility of unmanned control. At the same time, Chemezov noted that the corporation has not yet received an order from the defense department for the development of such a fighter, but Rostec is confident in the feasibility of creating such an aircraft, the project of which can also be implemented with the help of foreign partners with further plans to sell the fighter in foreign markets.

    Three years ago, the Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov spoke about the plans to develop a light single-engine fighter of the fifth generation. According to the head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar, Sukhoi Corporation and RSK MiG will participate in the project.

    According to Aleksandr Vatagin, executive director of UEC-Klimov JSC, the Russian military-industrial complex may resume the production program for light jet fighters, the engine for which can be created on the basis of the existing RD-33. The Air Force of the Russian Federation refused to create such a combat aircraft in the 90s of the last century - then the Su-17M, MiG-23 and MiG-27 in various modifications were in service.

    https://topcor.ru/17916-model-rossijskogo-odnodvigatelnogo-istrebitelja-sluchajno-popala-v-kadr.html?yrwinfo=1608812338408678-371315086628692087000098-production-app-host-man-web-yp-265
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:12 am

    George1 wrote:
    https://topcor.ru/17916-model-rossijskogo-odnodvigatelnogo-istrebitelja-sluchajno-popala-v-kadr.html?yrwinfo=1608812338408678-371315086628692087000098-production-app-host-man-web-yp-265

    Oh shit, my model again as if it had something to do with Borisov's one lol1 lol1

    Now I understand how the news end up filled with crap... Embarassed

    miketheterrible likes this post

    Backman
    Backman


    Posts : 2600
    Points : 2612
    Join date : 2020-11-10

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Backman Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:59 am

    LMFS wrote:
    George1 wrote:
    https://topcor.ru/17916-model-rossijskogo-odnodvigatelnogo-istrebitelja-sluchajno-popala-v-kadr.html?yrwinfo=1608812338408678-371315086628692087000098-production-app-host-man-web-yp-265

    Oh shit, my model again as if it had something to do with Borisov's one lol1 lol1

    Now I understand how the news end up filled with crap... Embarassed

    That's your model eh.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Thu Dec 24, 2020 6:27 am

    Backman wrote:That's your model eh.

    Sure it is, it was published in this same thread two and a half years ago, but some forums and sites posted it in relation with the Borisov picture and now journos are doing the rest, confusing it all... it is amazing so see that happen with something you have created you know? censored

    Backman likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:54 pm

    Regarding the lack of single engine planes in Russian military, this is the S-56, a very interesting proposal by Sukhoi. Pictures and patent by Paralay and flateric thumbsup

    https://yandex.ru/patents/doc/RU2138423C1_19990927

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 I_110
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 I_210
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 I10
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Lfs10
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 S5610
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 S-56-110
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 S-56-210

    thegopnik and TMA1 like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11236
    Points : 11206
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:19 am

    That's an old design. It's just an amputated su-27.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Mon Dec 28, 2020 3:05 am

    Isos wrote:That's an old design. It's just an amputated su-27.

    Nobody said it was new, it is widely known that S-54/55/56 are a relatively old series of Sukhoi models.
    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 1104
    Points : 1104
    Join date : 2020-11-29

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  TMA1 Mon Dec 28, 2020 4:23 am

    love that design. reminds me of the mikoyan project 33, the single engine fighter. was partly the inspiration for the jf-17
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:30 pm

    From here:
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3335p475-pak-dp-prospective-long-range-interceptor#311736

    https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/russia-researching-future-interceptor-technologies-new-light

    Butowski is well informed, this cannot be denied...

    Light Strike Aircraft, With or Without Pilot

    RSK MiG, and Sukhoi too undoubtedly, are conducting conceptual work on variants of lightweight tactical combat aircraft. They all have a lower status than the PAK DP project, given there is no procurement or government financing for the variants under study.

    Sergey Chemezov, the CEO of Rostec, to which UAC, RSK MiG and Sukhoi belong, told reporters in early December 2020 that the corporation is developing the concept of a fifth-generation fighter “in the light- and medium-weight class.”

    “This could be a universal platform in manned and unmanned versions,” he added. On Dec. 16, 2020, Andrei Yelchaninov, deputy chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission board, told the Izvestia newspaper that “MiG is working on the creation of a light strike aircraft, which can be either manned or unmanned.”

    Both Chemezov and Yelchaninov underlined that the work “is conducted on an initiative basis and is not funded by the state.” They also emphasized the export orientation of this project and possible cooperation with a foreign partner.

    One of Russia’s possible partners is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In February 2017, during the IDEX 2017 exhibition, Chemezov announced that Russia and the UAE had agreed to jointly create a new-generation lightweight fighter. Chemezov proclaimed the signing of an appropriate contract later that year.

    The aircraft would be produced in the UAE and was intended for the UAE Air Force and neighbor services. In the following years, apart from a few general declarations that the project is up to date, details were not available.

    There are three known acronyms for Russia’s new lightweight fighter project.

    The official strategy of UAC for 2016-2035 was published in December 2016. That document interchangeably uses “LFI,” an acronym translated as Lightweight Tactical Fighter, or “PLIB,” translated as the Future Lightweight Fighter-Bomber, as the names of this program.

    In 2018, the United Engine Corp. (UEC) said in a presentation that the LFI/PLIB’s powerplant could be a single “izdeliye 30” turbofan developed for the Su-57 fighter. According to the same presentation, two modified “izdeliye 30” engines would be used to provide propulsion for the PAK DP.

    The RSK MiG uses the acronym “LMFS” for its lightweight fighter project. In December 2019, RSK MiG ordered TsAGI to “calculate the aerodynamics of a lightweight multifunction tactical aircraft (LMFS) in a twin-engine configuration” and compare it with foreign counterparts. One of the known RSK MiG LMFS designs is a canard that has a large delta wing, with small control surfaces at the rear and on the sides of the engine nacelles. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 kg (54,000 lb.) and is designed to reach speeds of up to Mach 2. The ferry range with additional fuel tanks will be 2,160 nm, and the basic weapon load is to be carried inside the fuselage.

    The current conceptual work on the RSK MiG LFMS is a continuation of the LFI lightweight tactical fighter program launched by MiG as early as 1986. The LFI fighter was later refreshed in the form of the E-721 project for the purposes of the PAK FA stealth fighter program. In 2002, the MiG E-721 lost the PAK FA competition for the Sukhoi T-50 project, the present Su-57.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4557
    Points : 4549
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:58 pm

    LMFS wrote:Butowski is well informed, this cannot be denied...

    ...except that he makes this clunker of a BS statement

    Current trends in the Russian economy and the aviation industry indicate that Russia will not be able to afford such an aircraft.

    Suspect

    magnumcromagnon, x_54_u43 and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38522
    Points : 39022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:29 am

    In December 2019, RSK MiG ordered TsAGI to “calculate the aerodynamics of a lightweight multifunction tactical aircraft (LMFS) in a twin-engine configuration”

    And the new British et al 6th gen fighter the Tempest is a twin engine design too...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:20 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:...except that he makes this clunker of a BS statement

    Do you expect Western media to publish 100% neutral materials? That would be catalogued as Russian disinformation! Rolling Eyes

    GarryB wrote:In December 2019, RSK MiG ordered TsAGI to “calculate the aerodynamics of a lightweight multifunction tactical aircraft (LMFS) in a twin-engine configuration”

    And the new British et al 6th gen fighter the Tempest is a twin engine design too...

    Yes, this was known. What I did not know is that UEC had officially proposed the izd. 30 for the singled engine light fighter (the mention of the modified izd. 30 for the PAK-DP is also worth attention as per our discussions about the supercruising interceptor) and that what Butowski refers as the known aero layout of the LMFS is the same, LMFI based one with control surfaces ahead and after CoG I chose too. Canards and that you know... Wink

    As to Tempest, it is the ugliest, most hyped fantasy crap I have seen in my life and I pray anything Russia does is as different from it as possible...

    Backman likes this post

    Backman
    Backman


    Posts : 2600
    Points : 2612
    Join date : 2020-11-10

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Backman Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:53 pm

    Carrying on from the Mig 35 thread

    I like the idea of a 2 engine LMFS to be honest.

    @LMFS. What is the size going to be ? Are we talking a stealth F-16 or a stealth J-10 ? We can see with the F-35 that if you start packing too much into it , then it should just have 2 engines. In a paragraph , what is your sales pitch for making it 1 engine ?
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:38 pm

    Backman wrote:Carrying on from the Mig 35 thread

    I like the idea of a 2 engine LMFS to be honest.

    @LMFS. What is the size going to be ? Are we talking a stealth F-16 or a stealth J-10 ?  We can see with the F-35 that if you start packing too much into it , then it should just have 2 engines. In a paragraph , what is your sales pitch for making it 1 engine ?

    I guess that is the big question, not even the Russians seem to know by now what is best and will be in more demand. 5G demands imply a plane with less than 10-9 t empty is not going to have useful weapon bays in all probability. Russians are mentioning both options, twin and single engine. I guess MiG would like it to be a medium fighter based on the MiG-29, to build on what they have, while others (Chemezov sounded more like pushing the single engine, UEC proposed the izd. 30 based PLIB concept) prefer a solution that avoids the traps the MiG-29 fell into
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Uec_2019

    The single engine layout favours a smaller plane, up to 10 t empty, using the engines from the PAK-FA program. The big advantage is the smaller size and costs, commonality with the Su-57 and the good export prospects. IMO it complements better the Su-57 and is also better to be developed also in an unmanned version, as suggested by Chemezov. The challenge can be to find the space for decent weapon bays.

    The twin engine favours a somehow bigger plane (11-13 t empty), the advantage for me is that it can be easier to design with weapon bays and also that for some airforces that will not have heavy fighters it can make sense to have these medium fighters as a reasonable compromise. For bigger, better equipped ones, this solution does not offer neither the capability of bigger planes nor the economy of smaller ones, IMHO this is the main reason for the apparent lack of interest of the VKS in the MiG-29 of late. It will not be substantially cheaper than a heavy fighter unless many compromises are placed in capability and therefore to combine with them defeats the purpose of having a "numbers" plane. Most 5G designs follow this path, but there can be many reasons for this apart from it being necessarily superior:

    > A sophisticated layout is something only very few countries can risk doing. Most follow the trivial F-22 type, but we very well know that the PAK-FA layout has huge advantages and has left the US concept in the past.
    > There is no Western engine that could be used for 5G single engine plane without it having poor performance. The logical option, the F119, is both very specialised (heavy 2D TVC, low BPR) and practically unavailable. The F135 is huge and therefore not valid for a "stealth F-16" type of plane, while the F100 and F110 series are not up to the task in terms of technology or performance.

    So Russia may use either the izd. 117 or even better, the izd. 30, and be enabled to do what Western designers cannot, a proper 5G plane but with reduced size and corresponding economy that could be a massive success. Wink

    As to the F-35, it is a botched program in so many ways that it is difficult to say what has been the worst failure. The prototype, even when being saddled by the STOVL requirements, was roughly 10 t empty and managed to do with a version of the F119. Weight creep and a ridiculous approach (give the bomb truck role the smaller platform) turned it into a plane heavier than an F-15 and with no hope of having decent kinematics. Keeping the STOVL requirement out (unless in a very well studied layout) and having bombers, shturmoviks and strike fighters in the airforce, Russia has no need to turn a light fighter into a fat plane like the F-35, I would say... my two cents

    dino00, x_54_u43, thegopnik and Backman like this post

    x_54_u43
    x_54_u43


    Posts : 336
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2015-09-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  x_54_u43 Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:19 pm

    Why bother spending enormous amounts of money on a development program for a twin Izd.30 "light" fighter when you already have the Su-57M with twin Izd 30s already, and will already be vastly superior? Not to mention cheaper overall since Su-57M development paid for and production ramping up, which means unit costs coming down. I just don't see the point of making a skinnier Su-57M when the cost differences will be marginal.

    I think it would be best(and I'm quite confident that LMFS will be) to go with a single Izd.30, and making both a manned and unmanned version, for both land and carrier runways.

    With the 6th gen PAK-DP, Su-57M, S-70, LMFS, and Grom, I think Russia has an absolutely excellent tactical/theatre aviation core. I hope soon that Russia focuses on fleshing out other less thought of aspects in her aviation fleet, specifically in terms of long range recon and surveillance, there was a recent patent by Beriev for a massive recon UAV and I really hope it gets built, I know Altius exists but it doesn't really have the same speed or performance that a Global Hawk equivalent that the Beriev patent would have. Plus additional focus on anti-submarine platforms and transport aviation.

    dino00 likes this post

    Backman
    Backman


    Posts : 2600
    Points : 2612
    Join date : 2020-11-10

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Backman Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:05 pm

    @LMFS
    The single engine layout favours a smaller plane, up to 10 t empty, using the engines from the PAK-FA program. The big advantage is the smaller size and costs, commonality with the Su-57 and the good export prospects

    Ah. Yeah that's a good idea. Build a jet around one su 57M engine.

    Here's the one engine Mig 1.41 just for kicks Cool

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 30f34063e002b9e720df87dc243691b1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13207
    Points : 13249
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:35 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:...I think it would be best(and I'm quite confident that LMFS will be) to go with a single Izd.30, and making both a manned and unmanned version, for both land and carrier runways....

    It was already done long ago with Su-33, prototype was ready for test flight but then Yeltsin

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 ESMEg-XXkAAUmdn



    They even used variant of it on the render of Varan carrier (we been over this on AC tread)

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Caza%2Bdesconocido%2Bmonomotor


    They just need to repeat the same thing with I-30 engine and Su-57 only finish the job this time


    miketheterrible and Backman like this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7383
    Points : 7341
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  miketheterrible Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:19 pm

    They could always bring back the test unit but using new engines to test the concept of a single jet engine modern jet.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38522
    Points : 39022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:59 pm

    What I did not know is that UEC had officially proposed the izd. 30 for the singled engine light fighter (the mention of the modified izd. 30 for the PAK-DP is also worth attention as per our discussions about the supercruising interceptor) and that what Butowski refers as the known aero layout of the LMFS is the same, LMFI based one with control surfaces ahead and after CoG I chose too. Canards and that you know..

    The two things from that article I think are least believable and most likely put down to BS spin, is one the idea of a manned and unmanned version that could be developed together to save money, and the idea of using one engine for the Su-57, the PAK DP, and a new light/medium 5th gen fighter.

    It is just bollocks.

    No country on the planet has ever followed through with a drone design approaching the cost of a manned fighter equivalent, and while the idea might make the fighter seem able to be made cheaper because instead of 500 fighters you can make 500 fighters and 1,000 drones... the fact of the matter is that those unmanned drones are going to cost 10 times more than a drone designed from scratch to be a drone.

    It is a terrible false economy that accountants and politicians might believe but I suspect engineers grind their teeth when hearing because they know making a decent fighter is difficult enough as it is without that added pressure.

    You are taking one difficult task and tacking on another one... just to add pressure and stress and complication.

    And using the same engine for a medium cheap 5th gen fighter, a heavy 5th gen capable fighter, and a mach 4.2 long range high speed interceptor is just silly too... or is the PAK DA going to have three or four of these engines?

    There is no savings in just having one 5th gen engine.... putting an NK-32 on the Blackjack and Backfire makes enormous sense because one is essentially a shorter range version of the other with about half the payload, but it does not make sense to also use the NK-32 on the Bear.

    Using a medium bypass engine with the NK-32 as a non afterburning hot core driving a turbofan that shifts a lot of cold air optimised for subsonic flight for the PAK DA makes sense because propellers are not an option... I really don't think a Bear would benefit from getting that subsonic engine fitted to it either, nor a PD-35 for that matter.

    Having two engines with thrust vectoring nozzles and using the separated creates a useful body wing lift effect that is good for performance.

    Honestly the levicons on the Su-57 render canard fore planes on fighters redundant...

    @LMFS. What is the size going to be ? Are we talking a stealth F-16 or a stealth J-10 ? We can see with the F-35 that if you start packing too much into it , then it should just have 2 engines. In a paragraph , what is your sales pitch for making it 1 engine ?

    You can do your homework and revise this whole thread before asking such questions...

    I guess MiG would like it to be a medium fighter based on the MiG-29, to build on what they have, while others (Chemezov sounded more like pushing the single engine, UEC proposed the izd. 30 based PLIB concept) prefer a solution that avoids the traps the MiG-29 fell into

    What traps, the MiG-35 looks to be a very useful lighter fighter that is cheap to operate... what is not to like?

    The challenge can be to find the space for decent weapon bays.

    Which means not stealthy most of the time with external weapons being a normal requirement... they might as well keep using MiG-35s which are known to be cheaper...

    It will not be substantially cheaper than a heavy fighter unless many compromises are placed in capability and therefore to combine with them defeats the purpose of having a "numbers" plane.

    Cheaper to operate is the goal, with all the new 5th gen tech it is never going to be cheap to buy that is just silly... but it certainly wont be 120 million to buy and then 90K pounds per hour to operate like the British F-35s...

    So Russia may use either the izd. 117 or even better, the izd. 30, and be enabled to do what Western designers cannot, a proper 5G plane but with reduced size and corresponding economy that could be a massive success.

    And every country that wants to buy it wont because of US sanctions.

    As to the F-35, it is a botched program in so many ways that it is difficult to say what has been the worst failure

    They specifically made it not to fail.... they used the same tactics they tested successfully with the C-17... the already knew it would make it eye wateringly expensive and they did it anyway.

    Keeping the STOVL requirement out (unless in a very well studied layout) and having bombers, shturmoviks and strike fighters in the airforce, Russia has no need to turn a light fighter into a fat plane like the F-35, I would say... my two cents

    Giving it two engines makes it easier to make with a decent thrust to weight ratio, and can be done cheaply enough like the MiG-35 and F-5.

    Why bother spending enormous amounts of money on a development program for a twin Izd.30 "light" fighter when you already have the Su-57M with twin Izd 30s already, and will already be vastly superior? Not to mention cheaper overall since Su-57M development paid for and production ramping up, which means unit costs coming down. I just don't see the point of making a skinnier Su-57M when the cost differences will be marginal.

    This is a slide from an engine maker... Saturn... they make that engine and want it put in everything. I am surprised they didn't include the new PAK Sha, replacement for the Su-25 showing it with one of the Su-57s engines too...

    I think it would be best(and I'm quite confident that LMFS will be) to go with a single Izd.30, and making both a manned and unmanned version, for both land and carrier runways.

    They haven't got the go ahead and funding to do this yet so being more conservative with two engines... make it land and carrier capable, but don't worry about unmanned versions... they will never be as cheap as a custom designed drone.

    When countries start flying drones instead of fighters then unmanned fighters can be made fairly easily like robot BMP-3s and robot T-14 Armata tanks.

    Expecting someone wanting a robot vehicle that costs as much as a BMP-3 or T-14 or Su-57, however is silly. In the case of an aircraft if the pilot looses consciousness or is injured and the auto pilot could take over and return him to base that is a good thing, but leaving the pilot behind is ignoring the huge value a Pilot provides most missions.

    Ah. Yeah that's a good idea. Build a jet around one su 57M engine.

    Here's the one engine Mig 1.41 just for kicks

    Typhoon one... one of your engines is not responding... do you copy...

    They just need to repeat the same thing with I-30 engine and Su-57 only finish the job this time

    Or they could look at other designs with much better potential... like this:

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 X011011
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2573
    Points : 2571
    Join date : 2020-10-17

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  lancelot Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:The two things from that article I think are least believable and most likely put down to BS spin, is one the idea of a manned and unmanned version that could be developed together to save money, and the idea of using one engine for the Su-57, the PAK DP, and a new light/medium 5th gen fighter.

    It is just bollocks.

    No country on the planet has ever followed through with a drone design approaching the cost of a manned fighter equivalent, and while the idea might make the fighter seem able to be made cheaper because instead of 500 fighters you can make 500 fighters and 1,000 drones... the fact of the matter is that those unmanned drones are going to cost 10 times more than a drone designed from scratch to be a drone.

    It is a terrible false economy that accountants and politicians might believe but I suspect engineers grind their teeth when hearing because they know making a decent fighter is difficult enough as it is without that added pressure.
    ...
    And using the same engine for a medium cheap 5th gen fighter, a heavy 5th gen capable fighter, and a mach 4.2 long range high speed interceptor is just silly too... or is the PAK DA going to have three or four of these engines?

    If you have seen the slides about the engine posted around here by LMFS they basically say all those Izd 30 derived engines will share the same hot section.
    It says there engines will share the Izd 30 gas generator. That is basically the hot high-pressure part of the engine.

    The way they might do this:

    The light fighter will basically have a single engine. The Su-57 will have two.

    If for whatever reason they plan to make a twin engine light fighter they might just reduce the diameter of the fan of the engine and eliminate stages.

    Just look at how the several PD-14 variants work with the same gas generator design to get an idea of the basic concept of the family of the Izd 30 engines.
    The PD-14A, PD-14, PD-14M, all use the same gas generator. They have power levels of 123 kN/137 kN/153 kN respectively.
    The PD-10 has the same gas generator but with a smaller diameter fan. It has 107 kN power level.

    The PAK DP would have a modified version of the engine which looks like a variable cycle engine.
    A variable cycle engine basically has a modified low-pressure section or an extra mid-pressure section in it.
    Or if they want to make a turboramjet they would add bypass ducts around the engine for the ramjet.
    Anyway the idea is to use the same high-pressure section of the Izd 30 and build around it to create the engine for the PAK DP.

    The PAK DA is already expected to use the NK-32-02 engine no?
    I doubt the Izd 30 hot section has enough capacity to scale to NK-32 levels of power.
    At best they could try to reuse the PD-35 high-pressure section for a heavy bomber engine but this does not seem to be planned.
    The PAK DA is not mentioned in the slides LMFS posted at all.

    LMFS likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:39 am

    GarryB wrote:The two things from that article I think are least believable and most likely put down to BS spin, is one the idea of a manned and unmanned version that could be developed together to save money, and the idea of using one engine for the Su-57, the PAK DP, and a new light/medium 5th gen fighter.

    It is just bollocks.

    I think you are deeply mistaken here

    No country on the planet has ever followed through with a drone design approaching the cost of a manned fighter equivalent, and while the idea might make the fighter seem able to be made cheaper because instead of 500 fighters you can make 500 fighters and 1,000 drones... the fact of the matter is that those unmanned drones are going to cost 10 times more than a drone designed from scratch to be a drone.

    It is a terrible false economy that accountants and politicians might believe but I suspect engineers grind their teeth when hearing because they know making a decent fighter is difficult enough as it is without that added pressure.

    When Sukhoi is saying the same Su-57 can be manned or unmanned, as are doing most air forces about their new platforms, do you think there was no engineer involved even in consultations? How do you think they have done the unmanned tests of the plane without their help?

    This is the core of one of the discussions we had, the high end of the capability looks very similar in terms of design decisions and costs, be the platform manned or unmanned. You seem to think that a drone can take 30 g because it is a drone, but you do not realize that a regular fighter cannot GENERATE more than 5 g at high altitude due to aero, not structural constraints. The size of the platform is given by the tons fuel needed for range and tons of payload, not the 100 kg guy inside. Avionics is demanded by the threat, not by the pilot. Supersonic and high agility requirements are also not a matter of manned or unmanned, once the UCAV portfolio develops you can be sure there will be specialised platforms to take out other UCAVs and then it will not be possible to build only glorified Cessnas with 5 min mean expected life in the battlefield, but you will need fighter-like models capable of holding their own. And of course as explained, once your platform can be manned or unmanned, it is very easy to transition from the current air force structure to the future, strongly unmanned one, because you can do the transition and develop the doctrine and tactics progressively. This is a major practical issue and one that will strongly talk in favour of one same platform with two versions. Also to develop today a manned fighter that cannot be unmanned makes no sense and no airforce would buy it.

    And using the same engine for a medium cheap 5th gen fighter, a heavy 5th gen capable fighter, and a mach 4.2 long range high speed interceptor is just silly too...

    Lancelot already explained that. For the PLIB or PAK-DP they talk about using the gas generator. For the PLIB the commonality is rather obvious, since we talk about turbofan engines for roughly the same flight regimes. Only if the izd. 30 was a very low BPR engine for a supercruising plane could there be needs for making big changes in the engine for PLIB, if it was moderate BPR or 2 stream VCE then it should be usable in the single engined plane directly.

    As for PAK-DP, I remind you the most similar example to the engine we are talking about is the RTA based on the YF120. That is an ABVCE based on a VCE designed for the ATF with almost exactly the same flight speeds as hinted for the new interceptor, so you don't need to be very intelligent to see why they talk about izd. 30 in this case.

    The rest of the applications are just using the technologies of izd. 30 for other engines, like a 3 stream VCE for 6G planes

    There is no savings in just having one 5th gen engine....

    There is the massive savings of not having to develop another one...

    Having two engines with thrust vectoring nozzles and using the separated creates a useful body wing lift effect that is good for performance.

    The integral aerodynamic design has nothing to do with the number of engines. A single engine can have that increased body lift too, despite not having a central tunnel. That is central for instance for the sketch I did and is present since the F-16 onwards in almost any single engine fighter.

    Honestly the levicons on the Su-57 render canard fore planes on fighters redundant...

    I think that is a rather complex aero discussion not even engineers in the field could close conclusively. What is clear is that the classic delta-canard layout does not make the sense now that in the past, or not for the same reasons, since relaxed stability planes with conventional layout are not a problem anymore in terms of lift generation. But triplane or equivalent configuration (MFI, many Sukhois and the PAK-FA belong here) is indeed better than purely conventional or delta canard.

    What traps, the MiG-35 looks to be a very useful lighter fighter that is cheap to operate... what is not to like?

    I think we have discussed this one million times Laughing

    Which means not stealthy most of the time with external weapons being a normal requirement... they might as well keep using MiG-35s which are known to be cheaper...

    Nope. It can be done, but again, not without searching further for not so conventional layouts. The model at Borisov's table was quite interesting in that regard, be it actually related to anything real or not.

    And every country that wants to buy it wont because of US sanctions.

    Wait five to ten years and see what remains of the US sanctions...

    Giving it two engines makes it easier to make with a decent thrust to weight ratio, and can be done cheaply enough like the MiG-35 and F-5.

    As said before, TWR and number of engines is unrelated, while the reason for going single engine is precisely costs...

    I am surprised they didn't include the new PAK Sha, replacement for the Su-25 showing it with one of the Su-57s engines too...

    They did... and BTW the presentation is by UEC so it carries some weight

    Or they could look at other designs with much better potential... like this:

    That is a totally unrelated model
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13207
    Points : 13249
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:00 pm


    Speaking of single engine fighter jets take a look at this engine promo slide from UEC and observe the gray single engine jet in lower left corner apparently designed around I-30 engine

    Seems familiar?

    Does​ it remind you of something​ from couple of images I posted above?

    I am not saying it's anything official but I am also noticing a pattern emerging here...

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Uec_2010

    Backman likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38522
    Points : 39022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:27 pm

    When Sukhoi is saying the same Su-57 can be manned or unmanned, as are doing most air forces about their new platforms, do you think there was no engineer involved even in consultations? How do you think they have done the unmanned tests of the plane without their help?

    And how many countries around the world have actually implemented such a scheme.... lets take the F-22... the F-22 at 250 million per airframe... they couldn't afford making the manned fighter, let alone lots of drone models.

    In such a case I would think the unmanned option would be to operate the F-22s in unmanned modes where the probability of survival is zero.

    Separate the human from the machine.

    The F-35 would not be affordable either, and how many other international attempts are there that would turn into concrete hardware.

    Ironically Russia is the only country making stealth fighters as cheap as western large drones... but even for them it would not make sense to make 50-60 million dollar manned Su-57s and 40-50 million dollar unmanned S-57s.

    I would suggest the only sensible reason for being able to fly them unmanned is when the enemy has given up the F-35s and F-15s and F-22s and Rafales and Typhoons as just being too expensive and they start using unmanned drones that can pull enormous g that a manned fighter simply can't match in a dogfight... but even then the manned fighters of today would be of no use because the aircraft are designed for humans so are not intended for more than 9 g... just taking the man out does not make them able to match a drone designed for high g manouvering.

    You seem to think that a drone can take 30 g because it is a drone, but you do not realize that a regular fighter cannot GENERATE more than 5 g at high altitude due to aero, not structural constraints.

    The point is that a drone based on a platform designed to carry a human wont have the control surface limits and structure to pull much more g than it does and flying high or low g limit is more about speed than altitude... the transition from WWI biplanes to high speed mono planes of WWII was such a shock because in slow little biplanes it would not be possible to turn hard enough to pull more than 4-5g and the speed would bleed off so quickly you couldn't maintain it.

    With modern transonic and supersonic drones enormous g can be achieved easily and quickly... a 5 g turn at subsonic speeds can become a 15 g turn at mach 2.

    The size of the platform is given by the tons fuel needed for range and tons of payload, not the 100 kg guy inside.

    That is very true, but a whole section of the aircraft is dedicated for containing that pilot and keeping him safe while offering him a view of the world and a view of the information collected by sensors and other platforms.

    Replacing analog dial instruments with digital instruments and CRT displays... note that is cathode ray tube displays... not much lighter LCD ones in the MiG-29M from 1988 reduced the weight of the cockpit by 500kgs... the ejection seat weighs 250kgs and includes survival equipment and other bits and pieces too and 100kg for the pilot himself... not to mention the weight of the canopy, which is quite heavy compared with aluminium structure.

    The point is that the oxygen system and the cooling and heating systems to give him a comfortable operating environment all add up in weight and cost... that would be wasted in a drone design.

    Avionics is demanded by the threat, not by the pilot.

    Very true but making the pilot aware of the information the Avionics collect requires LCDs and displays and controls and buttons and levers...

    Supersonic and high agility requirements are also not a matter of manned or unmanned, once the UCAV portfolio develops you can be sure there will be specialised platforms to take out other UCAVs and then it will not be possible to build only glorified Cessnas with 5 min mean expected life in the battlefield, but you will need fighter-like models capable of holding their own.

    I am not disputing that, what I am saying is that basing a drone on a manned version is just stupid, because from a design perspective a manned platform makes a lot of compromises that are not needed in an unmanned drone.

    Take an MPA... is a drone replacement going to look like an Orion or a Tu-142 or P-8?

    Surely you would save lots of money making an MPA drone based on the current manned model.... that is what you are saying for fighters.

    There is an argument that fighters don't need to be super manouverable... they just need to carry enough missiles and let the missiles do the high speed manouvering... for many roles and missions that is probably true... certainly for interception a MiG-31 doesn't need to be manouverable to shoot down strategic bombers and cruise missiles.... speed and range are more important, so fighter drones used for interception in open empty places wont need to perform 30g turns at mach 4...

    And of course as explained, once your platform can be manned or unmanned, it is very easy to transition from the current air force structure to the future, strongly unmanned one, because you can do the transition and develop the doctrine and tactics progressively.

    Who cares about the transition... it only happens once, and when the enemy threats do it you will rapidly find your dual manned and unmanned fighter is at an enormous disadvantage to a custom designed unmanned one.

    Ask yourself why the S-70 and other fighter support drones don't look like current generation fighters... they essentially perform a bomb truck role with air to ground or air to air missiles.... an extra set of eyes and extra munitions for the job.

    This is a major practical issue and one that will strongly talk in favour of one same platform with two versions. Also to develop today a manned fighter that cannot be unmanned makes no sense and no airforce would buy it.

    What a stupid thing to say or suggest.

    The L39, the MiG-23 and MiG-21 and indeed F-4 and F-16 are aircraft that are obsolete, particularly the older models and yet were made in enormous numbers... so it is a popular and common thing to convert them to remote or telecontrol for use as target drones for testing air defence forces.

    On land they are doing the same with BMP-3s and other vehicles... because converting manned vehicles into remote control unmanned vehicles is not a 6th or 10th gen technology... it is already something that can be done and done to much older less automated aircraft than the brand new ones of today.

    Automatic pilot control systems were invented in WWI... basic, but still functional.

    As for PAK-DP, I remind you the most similar example to the engine we are talking about is the RTA based on the YF120. That is an ABVCE based on a VCE designed for the ATF with almost exactly the same flight speeds as hinted for the new interceptor, so you don't need to be very intelligent to see why they talk about izd. 30 in this case.

    You don't also need to be very intelligent to recognise this suggestion is coming from the company that makes the damn engine and would have it running vacuum cleaners and washing machines too.

    MiG works with Klimov and not Saturn and I would expect Klimov probably has a few engines in mind for the LMFS and the MiG-41.

    The rest of the applications are just using the technologies of izd. 30 for other engines, like a 3 stream VCE for 6G planes

    I am sure the engine has a bright future from powering fighter aircraft to drones and even land and sea based power generation turbines, but their job is to promote those engines.... I am sure they probably thought the MiG-29 should have had a single Al-31 as its power supply, which might have worked fine, but they would not be selling them to China and Pakistan like they are with the RD-93 they do sell.

    Having different engines is not a bad thing except when they are different but almost otherwise identical... like the NK-32 and NK-25.... that makes no sense at all.

    There is the massive savings of not having to develop another one...

    Saturn don't have to develop any others, Klimov is likely already working on engines for the LMFS and the MiG-41, so no money wasted at all.


    I think we have discussed this one million times

    You mean like the bullshit about single engined aircraft always being smaller and lighter and cheaper and canards always being better... yet here we are discussing them again...


    Nope. It can be done, but again, not without searching further for not so conventional layouts.

    You can say that but how about we wait until someone actually achieves it in the real world before we accept it could be true.

    Certainly the Americans can't do it.


    Wait five to ten years and see what remains of the US sanctions...

    Honestly I hope they continue forever... it keeps Russia separated and not cooperating with the west, and shows the west can't compete on equal terms so it is just them cheating.... but their customers suffer, and it forces Russia to look beyond the west for replacement customers.... which is good for Russia.

    As said before, TWR and number of engines is unrelated, while the reason for going single engine is precisely costs...

    Twin engined aircraft never have half the engine power of a single engined aircraft unless that twin engined aircraft is in a heavy class.

    Two medium weight fighters where one is a single engined fighter and the other is a twin engined fighter, the twin engines are normally 2/3rds the power of the single engined fighter engine.

    1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan (for Block 52 version), 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry, 29,560 lbf (131.5 kN) with afterburner.

    2 x General Electric F404-GE-402 afterburning turbofan engines, 11,000 lbf (49 kN) thrust each dry, 17,750 lbf (79.0 kN) with afterburner.

    So F-16 = 79 kN dry, and 131.5kN in full AB (the more powerful of the two engine options for the F-16).

    The F-18 = 49kN + 49kN = 98kN dry thrust, and 79kN + 79kN = 158kN in AB.

    MiG-29 with Al-31 engine would be

    75.22kN dry and 122.6kN in AB for the Al-31F of the Su-27SK model

    Original MiG-29 with old RD-33 engines to be a fair comparison with Al-31 equipped model:

    49.42 dry and 81.58 AB means 98.84 kN dry and 163.16kN in AB.

    So the single engined MiG-29 has 75.22kN dry and 122.6kN full AB, while the twin engined actual MiG-29 with RD-33s has 98.84kN in dry thrust and 163.16kN in full AB.

    More to the point when the Al-31 gets an improvement that increases the thrust by 1,000kgs, and the RD-33s get improvements that also increase thrust by 1,000kgs, having two engines means the single engined MiG gains 1 ton of extra thrust, but the twin engined MiG gains 2 tons extra thrust.

    They did... and BTW the presentation is by UEC so it carries some weight

    UEC Saturn... a jet engine maker. Surely they would show the MiG-41 and LMFS with Klimov engines too just to be fair and honest...

    But it is not their job to be fair, it is their job to sell Saturn engines... which is what they are doing.

    That is a totally unrelated model

    Totally unrelated to Saturn... yes, I know.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38522
    Points : 39022
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:30 pm

    If I made that engine I would want the new light or medium Russian fighter to be a single engined model because if it is a twin engined design then the engine I have available for use is not really suitable.

    That does not mean the new fighter will have a single engine... in fact I think it will make it rather more likely it will be a twin, unless the new engine from Klimov fails and even then they could do what Sukhoi and Saturn did and use current working engines for the prototypes and early production models and use the new engine when that is ready.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2573
    Points : 2571
    Join date : 2020-10-17

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  lancelot Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:38 pm

    Does Klimov even have the capacity with all the demand in helicopter engines they need to deliver?

    Their other possible customer for this RD-33MK sequel would be Pakistan.
    But by that time the Chinese will likely have the WS-19 engine in production.
    The prototype of the WS-19 has allegedly already ran successfully a couple years back and is ahead of the WS-15 is which their Izd 30 counter.

    Sponsored content


    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 23 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 28, 2024 2:03 pm