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


    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:50 am

    GarryB wrote:And how many countries around the world have actually implemented such a scheme....

    You are moving the goalposts, the question was whether this was a pipe dream or something sustained by engineering, I demonstrated it is the second

    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.

    Odds are that a Su-35 is RUB2B, Su-57 RUB3B, Okhotnik RUB1B. Not cheap for a subsonic bomb truck, even when it is single engine. How much more expensive do you think a 5G light fighter would be?

    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...

    Easy then, fly higher and avoid high g turns. UAVs with huge wings to sustain the g you keep on suggesting would suck major time at high speed.

    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.

    What makes you think the Su-57 for instance is necessarily limited to 9 g? Why would they limit the plane, if they:
    > have created a plane capable of sustaining 9 g continuously (propulsion wise)
    > already know the future is unmanned

    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.

    The drone capable of sustaining and actually using much higher g will be much heavier and way slower because of the big wings. I have already explained this

    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.

    What is the aero / propulsion / altitude combination needed to make 15 g at 2 M?? Do you even realize what you are saying?

    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.

    The avionics for making the plane autonomous takes some space too. In any case you will probably add some fuel (not even 1 t) to the unmanned version, slightly improved aero and that's it. It is very nice, but it does not mean an unmanned plane si going to be half the size with the same range and payload.

    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.

    I would like some sources for that... for instance the installed weight of a Zvezda K-36 is 100 kg. My point above stands.

    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.

    Not wasted, you just need to design with the two versions in mind and remove all unnecessary items in the unmanned one, substituting them with the additional avionics needed plus additional fuel.

    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.

    Says GarryB the internet authority, correcting Rostec?

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

    Has the Orion the payload and range of the others? You are the one saying AEW drones cannot substitute manned AWACS BTW...

    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.

    You are being disingenuous. It would be absurd to make a huge fuselage for carrying people when there is no people on board. That is a far cry from the crew factor o a fighter

    There is an argument that fighters don't need to be super manouverable...

    Yes, that is a BS argument defended by F-35 salesmen and by you...

    Who cares about the transition...

    Professionals responsible for air force operational planing do care a lot about that. Do you not understand why?

    you will rapidly find your dual manned and unmanned fighter is at an enormous disadvantage to a custom designed unmanned one.

    No, it is just you imagining magical capacities to unmanned drones, completely oblivious of physical realities.

    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.

    No shit, Sherlock! Because they are mainly extreme endurance, low RCS strike aircraft...

    What a stupid thing to say or suggest.

    Being civil is not a bad habit for an admin. Regardless, just look and see this manned / unmanned becoming the new normal.

    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.

    Again, it comes from UEC. And the only 5G engine they have is izd. 30. Maybe if you give them the money, the engineers and the capabilities needed, they will build you the 5G Klimov you want.

    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.

    Sure they have, do they also fancy Saturn making turboprop and helo engines to compete with them? It is for UEC to decide what company specialises in what type of engines, otherwise the holding will turn into a circus.

    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.

    On the contrary, I am sure a lighter MiG-29 with one AL-31 would be in high demand even now.

    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.

    Agreed. Until then, this is the best we have, and it looks damn good

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Boriso10
    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.

    Appalling

    Who says a medium fighter can be powered by one of those engines? It is only a light fighter that works that way, that is the whole point of the concept...

    RD-33 is not half the thrust of the AL-31, it makes no sense to substitute two of them with one AL


    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.

    1 tf increase for the RD-33 is much more improvement than 1 tf for the AL-31...

    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...

    Again, this is signed by UEC, not Saturn for god's sake... all the bureaus are represented in that presentation. Should UAC create yet another plane, so that Salut can also have their 5G ambitions satisfied?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:03 pm

    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

    But will that WS-19 engine be good enough or will it still be inferior to the RD-33, while an new and improved more powerful model with better fuel efficiency that is more reliable and longer life...

    Who knows with China, but Russia needs to look to her own needs rather than worry about what China does or does not want.

    Another aircraft engine option is a good thing, and if Saturn can be building large gas turbines and gear boxes for Russias new Naval fleet as well as their Sukhoi based fighters and strike aircraft then I would think Klimov could cope with making a few fighter engines...

    You are moving the goalposts, the question was whether this was a pipe dream or something sustained by engineering, I demonstrated it is the second

    Not really. You are interpreting the idea that their next gen fighters can be manned or unmanned as meaning in lieu of drones that operate with fighters they will just buy double the number of fighters.

    I am suggesting that would be not practical because of the cost of such drones and the fact that a design with a human on board is going to differ quite radically from one intended to be unmanned.

    When Yak was trying to sell their Yak-130 LIFT they included charts that showed single seat light fighters and also unmanned versions of the aircraft, but nothing has been shown so far because it simply does not make sense to take an expensive jet trainer and try to make a cheap UAV or light fighter out of them because they are not cheap to start with.

    Odds are that a Su-35 is RUB2B, Su-57 RUB3B, Okhotnik RUB1B. Not cheap for a subsonic bomb truck, even when it is single engine. How much more expensive do you think a 5G light fighter would be?

    Probably three quarters the buying price but less than half the operational costs which is where it makes sense.

    Easy then, fly higher and avoid high g turns.

    Amusing you think Russia will get the choice of altitude to fight...

    UAVs with huge wings to sustain the g you keep on suggesting would suck major time at high speed.

    American fighters... F-35 and F-16 and F-18 already suck at high speed...

    It was not the first priority in their design... in the case of the latter two to save money and weight.

    What makes you think the Su-57 for instance is necessarily limited to 9 g?

    I don't, but with the little information released so far being able to exceed 9 g has not been mentioned, and besides if there is a pilot on board going beyond 9g makes little sense as the pilot would not be a functioning actor in such a case.... they would just be struggling to retain consciousness...

    The drone capable of sustaining and actually using much higher g will be much heavier and way slower because of the big wings. I have already explained this

    Your assumptions... what if it achieves its manouverability through thrust vectoring and relatively small control surfaces and lift devices?

    What is the aero / propulsion / altitude combination needed to make 15 g at 2 M?? Do you even realize what you are saying?

    Are you saying it is impossible?

    The avionics for making the plane autonomous takes some space too.

    With modern auto pilots becoming rather sophisticated and the flight controls being more like force feedback digital joysticks, I would say no... remote signals replicating input to digital controls via the autopilot system.... shouldn't be a problem... and should become easier as aircraft and land vehicles become more digital and computer controlled.

    In any case you will probably add some fuel (not even 1 t) to the unmanned version, slightly improved aero and that's it. It is very nice, but it does not mean an unmanned plane si going to be half the size with the same range and payload.

    That is exactly why I am saying making manned aircraft also drones does not make sense and that drones should be custom designed from the outset to be unmanned and for their specific job...

    I would like some sources for that... for instance the installed weight of a Zvezda K-36 is 100 kg. My point above stands.

    Your point above that the difference removing a pilot from an aircraft design does not make enough of a difference is my point that drones should be custom made and not just manned designs with their seats and cockpits removed.

    Not wasted, you just need to design with the two versions in mind and remove all unnecessary items in the unmanned one, substituting them with the additional avionics needed plus additional fuel.

    Completely wasted... taking out the bits where the pilot sits and filling it with fuel does not make a good drone.


    Says GarryB the internet authority, correcting Rostec?

    There is no right or wrong for them.... they are selling a product and trying to get a contract... in fact they are trying to get two contracts... light 5th gen fighter and light 5th gen drone...

    Has the Orion the payload and range of the others?

    Well obviously the Orion is not an MPA it is a MALE, but if they wanted to use it as an MPA they could revise the design rather more efficiently and effectively without starting with the manned version and replacing the human areas with extra fuel like you are suggesting.

    You are the one saying AEW drones cannot substitute manned AWACS BTW...

    Please tell me you are joking.... no AEW platform can substitute an AWACS manned or otherwise... airborne early warning and airborne warning and control are different things.

    An AEW platform transmits enormous amounts of raw data to another platform for processing... a Ka-31 for example... it is not normally a huge problem from the emissions security perspective because to gather all that raw data it essentially spews radio waves 360 degrees with its belly mounted radar so transmitting the data to a nearby ship for processing is not the end of the world.

    Any platform... manned or otherwise could perform that task easily enough.

    AWACS includes sending that radar signal around the place to detect targets but onboard processing and interpretation of that data is used to form commands... generally moving ships and subs and aircraft in response to threats and targets.

    An aircraft that is an AWACS can send commands without giving away the location of the platforms it is directing.

    AEW by necessity gives away the location of the platform that is processing the data and then giving directives and commands to ships and aircraft.

    You are being disingenuous. It would be absurd to make a huge fuselage for carrying people when there is no people on board. That is a far cry from the crew factor o a fighter

    I am applying your logic to show it to be absurd. Making unmanned platforms based directly on manned models ignores all the potential improvements in design that eliminating the manned element from the equation can achieve.

    You are limiting yourself... in the hope of commonality that wouldn't make sense anyway... you are not going to be reverting them back and forth between being manned and unmanned.

    Yes, that is a BS argument defended by F-35 salesmen and by you...

    I disagree... the purpose of super manouverability is to ensure you can get into the best firing position to engage your enemy, ie on his tail.... which also happens to be his most weak position as his radar and weapons are pointed directly away.

    But supermanouverability doesn't mean much if he can just look and lock and fire a missile as you approach each other and get a kill without even turning.

    Supermanouverability does not mean being able to dodge missiles, and requires very serious compromises in the design of the aircraft.

    With full fuel and weapons most fighters are not even close to being agile.

    How agile will the F-15EX be with 22 air to air missiles attached to it?

    When the missiles do all the dogfighting why compromise the design of the fighter to do the same.

    Super manouvering is one solution but if we look at the cannon test for the Su-57 the circular pattern cannot be random luck.... that aircraft can aim its gun... and at that short distance the field of aim is clearly not enormous but it should allow an accurate lead to get kills more efficiently than having to get the angle of the whole aircraft right before you can fire.

    The Soviets had a range of gunpods where the guns could elevate for engaging ground targets without needing to be in a dive, but they also had gunpods that had the ability to traverse too... being able to aim guns at targets could mean agility is not so critical and of course thrust vector engines could allow a brick to point his guns at the target long enough to fire off a burst and kill a much more agile aircraft...

    Professionals responsible for air force operational planing do care a lot about that. Do you not understand why?

    If manned fighters become obsolete then they are already designing and testing drones... S-70 by 2024 or something... it is not like overnight all manned aircraft will become obsolete and will not be able to be used and a sudden scramble to create drones from scratch begins... they will have drones and a fully intact ground based IADS...


    No, it is just you imagining magical capacities to unmanned drones, completely oblivious of physical realities.

    So if unmanned drones can't be made any better than manned aircraft WTF are we talking about... manned or unmanned Su-57s... it clearly makes no difference except where the pilot sits.

    Regardless, just look and see this manned / unmanned becoming the new normal.

    Yeah , from the people who bought you gay and bi curious.

    It is a sales pitch to pretend you are selling two products but really only making one and modifying it slightly.

    The Yak-130 is not a single seat fighter and nor is it a drone despite promises made and a family tree design chart shown.

    The Yak design bureau also developed the Yak-141... have not seen one of those in a while either but they don't get things wrong, and never make mistakes...

    Being civil is not a bad habit for an admin.

    I am being civil.

    Again, it comes from UEC. And the only 5G engine they have is izd. 30. Maybe if you give them the money, the engineers and the capabilities needed, they will build you the 5G Klimov you want.

    What makes you think Klimov is sitting on its arse waiting for Saturn engines to be ready to put in planes?

    Do you not think they are working on their own engine designs?

    Sure they have, do they also fancy Saturn making turboprop and helo engines to compete with them?

    So LMFS is now Saturns turf and MiG has to stop working with Klimov for medium and light fighter engine designs and they have to work with Saturn.

    Just because you like the idea of a single engined fighter does not mean the Russian AF has approved of the idea.

    It is for UEC to decide what company specialises in what type of engines, otherwise the holding will turn into a circus.

    If MiG is designing the plane then I would think the decision as to single or twin engine design is up to them really.... and don't be a dick... circuses can be fun... Razz

    On the contrary, I am sure a lighter MiG-29 with one AL-31 would be in high demand even now.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day a single engined MiG-29 would still have the reduced range and payload capacity issues that led to most air forces choosing the Flanker.

    Being a bit more underpowered would have required it to be even lighter which would probably have further reduced performance.


    Agreed. Until then, this is the best we have, and it looks damn good

    Good?

    It looks like the Boeing attempt at the JSF programme... it is hideous.

    Someone is missing a gold fish...

    RD-33 is not half the thrust of the AL-31, it makes no sense to substitute two of them with one AL

    By moving it into a slightly heavier weight class it means it can carry more fuel and weapons than it would otherwise be carrying...

    Again, this is signed by UEC, not Saturn for god's sake... all the bureaus are represented in that presentation.

    Then why are only Saturn products shown?

    It says UEC because that is the org Saturn works within but unless you have evidence otherwise to show this is gospel it is just a slide show pretending what if.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:But will that WS-19 engine be good enough or will it still be inferior to the RD-33, while an new and improved more powerful model with better fuel efficiency that is more reliable and longer life...

    What is clear is that for China, using Russian engines for their export planes makes quite little sense.

    Not really. You are interpreting the idea that their next gen fighters can be manned or unmanned as meaning in lieu of drones that operate with fighters they will just buy double the number of fighters.

    I am suggesting that would be not practical because of the cost of such drones and the fact that a design with a human on board is going to differ quite radically from one intended to be unmanned.

    I am saying UCAVs doing the same function of fighters will be very similar to fighters. And again I am not making things up, this is what every manufacturer out there is saying for their news generation fighters.

    You need to provide some evidence to your argument, until now there is no technical reasoning and only your opinion that drone = cheap. You see high performance drones are very expensive when they need size, modern jet engines, advanced avionics and sensors and so on. But you insist that the critical aspect in a 20 t plane is the 100 kg pilot and maybe 500 kg of extra associated weight and equipment. It simply makes no sense.

    I don't, but with the little information released so far being able to exceed 9 g has not been mentioned, and besides if there is a pilot on board going beyond 9g makes little sense as the pilot would not be a functioning actor in such a case.... they would just be struggling to retain consciousness...

    If you notice, the overload during the structural tests that Zvezda published were strictly confidential, and never has the 9 g value been mentioned in any other statement that I know. If they design the plane for extended overload capabilities in the manned version, plus unmanned use, it does not take a genius to figure out that they might have included some reserve in the design, don't you think? In any case the design value of 9 g is just your assumption, not anything supported by any proof.

    Your assumptions... what if it achieves its manouverability through thrust vectoring and relatively small control surfaces and lift devices?

    That is the problem, you don't understand how manouverability is achieved. You need LIFT at the CoG to turn a plane, it depends on the WINGS mainly, TVC is almost useless in that regard. That is why planes cannot achieve more than a fraction of their design g at high altitude, why are they not designed to generate the lift to achieve 9 g at  60k feet? Because it would mean huge wings and ridiculously bad performance.The same limitation applies to drones. So it is not like removing the pilot is going to turn aircraft in 30 g machines at any altitude. Get that out of your mind, it does no work like that.

    Are you saying it is impossible?

    If your drone is a missile, not. Then the UCAV name is not the most correct. Think about the propulsive needs of the aircraft you are referring and what range / persistence it will have.

    With modern auto pilots becoming rather sophisticated and the flight controls being more like force feedback digital joysticks, I would say no... remote signals replicating input to digital controls via the autopilot system.... shouldn't be a problem... and should become easier as aircraft and land vehicles become more digital and computer controlled.

    True, because planes are becoming more and more automatized, get some DAS, etc. It does not mean that you don't need additional functions and redundancy once the pilot is gone. Avionics equipment is quite robust and heavy, power sources too. It all takes up more space than what it seems. In any case we agree there would probably be a net increase of available internal space / weight reduction.

    That is exactly why I am saying making manned aircraft also drones does not make sense and that drones should be custom designed from the outset to be unmanned and for their specific job...

    Listen, you need to provide some argument about what is the reason for those statements? What is different in the design of a unmanned only and optionally manned fighter type of plane? An unmanned version of a fighter would have no cabin, which is better for the aero. The space for the pilot and associated equipment would be freed for fuel or avionics. What else would you change? Be concrete please.

    There is no right or wrong for them.... they are selling a product and trying to get a contract... in fact they are trying to get two contracts... light 5th gen fighter and light 5th gen drone...

    If Rostec is just thinking like an US MIC contractor Russia is royally screwed, since they own the whole aerospace defence industry. I think another explanation may be that they know better than you?

    Well obviously the Orion is not an MPA it is a MALE, but if they wanted to use it as an MPA they could revise the design rather more efficiently and effectively without starting with the manned version and replacing the human areas with extra fuel like you are suggesting.

    The problem is when you put words in my mouth that I have never said, like proposing to design an unmanned MPA based on an flying bus like the B737. And what does the layout of a plane designed for carrying people has to do with a fighter where the human payload is just 100 kg and a tinny fraction (2-5%) of the internal volume?

    Please tell me you are joking.... no AEW platform can substitute an AWACS manned or otherwise... airborne early warning and airborne warning and control are different things.

    I don't know what supremely elevated function the guys inside an AWACS fulfil in your mind that AI + networking cannot cover in the future.

    Making unmanned platforms based directly on manned models ignores all the potential improvements in design that eliminating the manned element from the equation can achieve.

    Ok name the improvements

    you are not going to be reverting them back and forth between being manned and unmanned.

    No, you would start deploying the VKS a limited amount of unmanned platforms (say 1:1 or even fully manned) and as the fleet of that aircraft increases, you can progressively transition to higher unmanned numbers, and have maybe 3:1 unmanned to manned relationship, with the advantage that they would have sensibly better performance, derived from the differences I listed above. In the USAF it may be a problem, but since VKS deploys quite progressively their planes along 10 or even 20 years, it would be a perfect, low risk way to increase numbers and transition to unmanned fleet without any extra costs in terms of fleet conversion. Again, this is a very relevant aspect, don't be surprised if you see it unfold before your eyes pretty much like I am describing it to you.

    But supermanouverability doesn't mean much if he can just look and lock and fire a missile as you approach each other and get a kill without even turning.

    Wrong. The kinematics of the engagement matter, a lot. Firing backwards against a target that can turn and accelerate quite fast and with the missile having to acquire the target after launch is not the same as doing it forward against a sloppy plane that your missile has already locked on. And we are not talking only about WVR, manouverability counts in every phase of the engagement.

    Supermanouverability does not mean being able to dodge missiles, and requires very serious compromises in the design of the aircraft.

    It seems your are sitting squarely on the USAF / F-35 side in that regard indeed. I suggest you to read some Russian sources, Aviapanorama had some interesting analysis of encounters F-35/Su-35/Mig-35 considering also those topics, done by people that actually know about the issue. Why would Russia develop the Su-57 they way they did, if what you say is true?

    If manned fighters become obsolete then they are already designing and testing drones...

    Why to scrap your manned fleet and replace it with the unmanned one, when you can create a manned / unmanned platform and deploy it in a smart way like proposed above?

    So if unmanned drones can't be made any better than manned aircraft WTF are we talking about... manned or unmanned Su-57s... it clearly makes no difference except where the pilot sits.

    The main benefit is that it becomes attritable and less prone to human failures. But physical limitations remain and modern fighters already are at the very edge of what materials and propulsion allow. An unmanned platform is not going to be cheaper, by any significant measure, for a plane with the characteristics of a Su-57.

    What makes you think Klimov is sitting on its arse waiting for Saturn engines to be ready to put in planes?

    Do you not think they are working on their own engine designs?

    They can do what they want with the part of their budget they can freely dispose of. Getting an order to produce it is something different, and by now the only serious effort in direction of a 5G fighter engine is the izd. 30. If among the consolidation and rationalization efforts ongoing in Rostec you think they are going to allow everyone to develop such an expensive engine on their own initiative, you have not been paying too much attention.

    So LMFS is now Saturns turf and MiG has to stop working with Klimov for medium and light fighter engine designs and they have to work with Saturn.

    Just because you like the idea of a single engined fighter does not mean the Russian AF has approved of the idea.

    I don't know, I just say what the presentation states. There is a twin engined plane there two, BTW.

    and don't be a dick... circuses can be fun...

    We have the US MIC for that, and if everything else fails there is (still) Ukraine  clown

    It looks like the Boeing attempt at the JSF programme... it is hideous.

    I actually think it is much prettier, by a serious margin. X-35 was a rushed prototype and it definitely did not look very pretty. The idea was not bad though, considering the requirements.

    By moving it into a slightly heavier weight class it means it can carry more fuel and weapons than it would otherwise be carrying...

    It is like discussing with a wall. After literally years you have not been able to produce a shred of evidence of your claim that twin engine = powerful, singe engine = underpowered, and refuse the proof that I provided in that F-16 and MiG-29 have essentially the same TWR and ranges, actually with advantage for the F-16. Not listening and holding irrationally to your idea, it is not easy like that.

    Then why are only Saturn products shown?

    You may want to check the whole presentation...

    It says UEC because that is the org Saturn works within but unless you have evidence otherwise to show this is gospel it is just a slide show pretending what if.

    Of course this is not 100% sure, but I guess we agree it is like 1 trillion times more valuable than our conjectures
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:20 am

    What is clear is that for China, using Russian engines for their export planes makes quite little sense.

    For China using Russian engines for any planes they make makes little sense, but for it to make sense to use such engines, either those engines have to be better than the alternatives they could make themselves.

    It is hard to say but based on Russian experience with their copies of German diesels, then I can understand why they buy Russian engines for aircraft they export.

    Of course it might be that the customer requested Russian engines for what ever reason.

    I am saying UCAVs doing the same function of fighters will be very similar to fighters.

    You mean in the same way a HALE or MALE looks like a P-8 or Tu-142?

    With 360 degree radar potential, who knows what fighter drones might look like.

    And again I am not making things up, this is what every manufacturer out there is saying for their news generation fighters.

    Plans are never set in stone.

    Maybe when the first country introduces an actual drone fighter we can consider it more practical.

    You need to provide some evidence to your argument, until now there is no technical reasoning and only your opinion that drone = cheap.

    As the price of new fighters becomes unaffordable the role of drones is to add numbers... and that wont happen if they cost more than current fighters.

    But you insist that the critical aspect in a 20 t plane is the 100 kg pilot and maybe 500 kg of extra associated weight and equipment. It simply makes no sense.

    That is not what I am saying... I am saying the opposite... take a 20T plane and take the bits out of it that are for the pilot... you have a plane design that is specifically designed for a pilot. Replacing the pilot and bits and pieces with extra fuel doesn't change the fact that a MiG-23 with no pilot and extra fuel is still a MiG-23. Because it is unmanned and no expected to have an airframe life of thousands of hours you can fly faster and pull slightly higher gs, and you can fly lower and use it in more dangerous situations but it is still essentially still a MiG-23.

    Design a drone the size and weight of a MiG-23 and you get a much better drone.

    In any case the design value of 9 g is just your assumption, not anything supported by any proof.

    In the manned version any potential beyond 9g is pointless because the pilot will be an unconscious passenger...

    They want to make the aircraft as light as possible... early in the design phase they increased the strength of the structure... sounds to me like they were not aiming for 11g or 15g or whatever you might think they were going for.

    There is no value in an aircraft being able to cope with more g than the weakest element on board can cope with (the pilot)... any extra capacity is excess weight, which as you keep saying is bad...


    That is the problem, you don't understand how manouverability is achieved. You need LIFT at the CoG to turn a plane, it depends on the WINGS mainly, TVC is almost useless in that regard.

    TVC allows the nose of the aircraft to be pointed in any direction the pilot chooses.... even in the middle of a superstall where nothing is creating lift... pointing the radar and irst and missiles directly at a target to fire means you kill first.

    That is why planes cannot achieve more than a fraction of their design g at high altitude,

    The MiG-25 has very large control surfaces, but travelling at mach 2.83 even a very shallow turn will generate g easily.

    You might be confusing turn rate with g force, turn rates dramatically decrease with altitude but also with speed.

    So it is not like removing the pilot is going to turn aircraft in 30 g machines at any altitude. Get that out of your mind, it does no work like that.

    A supersonic missile pulling 30g can be outturned by a biplane flying at 200km/h pulling 3g.

    In fact the reason mono wing fighters encountered such problems in WWII regarding g issues for the pilots was because they were fast enough to pull decent gs.

    Biplanes of WWI were just too slow to generate decent g forces.

    If your drone is a missile, not. Then the UCAV name is not the most correct. Think about the propulsive needs of the aircraft you are referring and what range / persistence it will have.

    There are drones from the size of your finger nail to the size of a bus or bigger.

    Technically the Buran was a drone in the sense that it was unmanned for its first and only flight.

    Different drones for different purpose require different performance. A suicide drone dropped from a high altitude platform could be a glider and have no propulsion at all.

    In any case we agree there would probably be a net increase of available internal space / weight reduction.

    What I am trying to say is modifying manned platforms limits the design in a way that is artificial and unnecessary.

    I think a ground up fighter type drone might look a little like a manned fighter but you can play around with weapon bays and engine locations and wing sizes and shapes and control surface locations etc etc.

    Listen, you need to provide some argument about what is the reason for those statements?

    I think it is pretty clear... if you are designing something that needs to have people in it then you will design it one way, but if it doesn't need any people in it then other design options become possible.

    Limiting the design shape of a drone to the shape of an existing manned fighter limits that drone to the aerodynamic characteristics of that fighter.

    The space for the pilot and associated equipment would be freed for fuel or avionics. What else would you change? Be concrete please.


    Well you said yourself in the discussion about the F-35... what about shifting an engine or fan... it would change the shape of the fuselage at that position and totally ruin commonality between manned and unmanned types.

    Personally rather than extra fuel I would be looking to extend weapon bays instead of extra fuel... if it is a decent fighter it should already have enough.

    [qutoe]I think another explanation may be that they know better than you?[/quote]

    They kinda have better access to a wider range of important relevant information than I do, but of course they will know better than me till we see the new MiG-LMFS and it has two engines and they will be idiots.

    The problem is when you put words in my mouth that I have never said, like proposing to design an unmanned MPA based on an flying bus like the B737.

    I am not putting any words in your mouth, you claim the best way to make a fighter drone is to take a modern front line fighter and take the pilot out and put a little extra fuel and computer hardware in the space left from removing the pilot and support stuff.

    I applied that logic to a long range MPA drone... the fact that you recognise it is stupid proves my point is correct and your original logic is flawed... not necessarily wrong, but flawed.

    At no point did I say you suggested Tu-142 or P-8 based drones.

    And what does the layout of a plane designed for carrying people has to do with a fighter where the human payload is just 100 kg and a tinny fraction (2-5%) of the internal volume?

    When you are designing things something you take into account is where the crew are or the pilot sits and that influences the whole design... why is that a good thing with a drone design?


    I don't know what supremely elevated function the guys inside an AWACS fulfil in your mind that AI + networking cannot cover in the future.

    We have AI and computers now, but currently AFAIK the brand new A-100 AWACS the Russians have developed has men at the computer consoles rather than software. The same with western AWACS aircraft.

    Ok name the improvements

    Very different g limitations.


    No, you would start deploying the VKS a limited amount of unmanned platforms (say 1:1 or even fully manned) and as the fleet of that aircraft increases, you can progressively transition to higher unmanned numbers, and have maybe 3:1 unmanned to manned relationship, with the advantage that they would have sensibly better performance, derived from the differences I listed above.

    They are already doing that without unmanned versions of fighters. The S-70 is a custom designed drone intended to support fighter pilots on various missions.

    Firing backwards against a target that can turn and accelerate quite fast and with the missile having to acquire the target after launch is not the same as doing it forward against a sloppy plane that your missile has already locked on.

    With TVC engines the ability to point your nose and therefore also your missiles at the target and launch means all the rocket fuel in the missile is used to accelerate in a straight line instead of being wasted on a 180 degree turn when all the high thrust at launch is wasted in a turn.

    Modern missiles are all aspect and shooting at an aircrafts tail is not the advantage it used to be... if it is a MiG-29OVT then it is just as likely to flip its nose over and launch a missile at you so now your missile is heading for his front instead of his engine nozzles...

    And we are not talking only about WVR, manouverability counts in every phase of the engagement.

    Manouver performance.... as opposed to speed or acceleration or altitude is largely irrelevant in BVR combat.

    Or do you think you can dodge a missile?

    ... especially a new type with the terminal attack stage engine...

    It seems your are sitting squarely on the USAF / F-35 side in that regard indeed.

    Not at all. I just think compromising everything to make your fighter light and small with a huge engine to get a plane that turns well is a waste of time because in real combat it will spend most of its time with external fuel tanks and it will never be agile enough to dodge missiles.

    Why would Russia develop the Su-57 they way they did, if what you say is true?

    Why would all their new fighters have TVC engine nozzles as options if they didn't care about manouver performance, but air to air combat depends as much on the pilot as the aircraft.

    The Americans would have been screwed in the Pacific with their big powerful but low manouver fighters against the small nimble Zero.

    Why to scrap your manned fleet and replace it with the unmanned one, when you can create a manned / unmanned platform and deploy it in a smart way like proposed above?

    Because manned fighters will be useful for a very long time yet... drones would have replaced everything by now if you believed the hype.


    The main benefit is that it becomes attritable and less prone to human failures.

    Russia can't afford thousands of Su-57s... manned or unmanned.

    An unmanned platform is not going to be cheaper, by any significant measure, for a plane with the characteristics of a Su-57.


    Which means delusions of thousands of drones is just that... delusion.

    If among the consolidation and rationalization efforts ongoing in Rostec you think they are going to allow everyone to develop such an expensive engine on their own initiative, you have not been paying too much attention.

    It is hilarious... it has been said publicly that MiG are looking at both single and twin engined fighters but you are so certain there is no advanced engine in the twin engine class... so if there is no 5th gen engine why even mention the possibility of a twin engined model?

    OOOhhh a second engine it too expensive... well in that case another Stealth fighter is probably also too expensive and they should just forget about it forever right?

    I don't know, I just say what the presentation states. There is a twin engined plane there two, BTW.

    And how is that going to work... a medium fighter to compliment the Su-57 that uses two of the exact same engines... sounds rather tricky to me.... unless there is another engine being developed to make that an actual option...

    The really funny thing is that neither looks VSTOL in design... can we put that to rest?


    I actually think it is much prettier, by a serious margin.

    Must get my rose coloured glasses from the same shop you get them.... yours sound mui strong...

    X-35 was a rushed prototype and it definitely did not look very pretty. The idea was not bad though, considering the requirements.

    A pointy nose, cockpit on top and large intake underneath.... it looks like what it is...

    After literally years you have not been able to produce a shred of evidence of your claim that twin engine = powerful, singe engine = underpowered, and refuse the proof that I provided in that F-16 and MiG-29 have essentially the same TWR and ranges, actually with advantage for the F-16.

    Scroll up a bit... a MiG-29 made as a single engined fighter with the only single engine with the power to make it a single engined fighter at the time and it has less power.

    Comparing it with the F-16 is bullshit, why not compare the actual equivalent of the MiG-29 for the F-16... the F-18... or is that because the numbers don't come out right...


    F-16 with 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.

    F-18 with 2 × 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 with 79Kn dry thrust and 131.5kN AB thrust.

    F-18 with 49 x 2 = 98 kN thrust dry and 158kN thrust in AB.

    Wow... look at that... it works with a single engined MiG-29 and the twin engined MiG-29, but it also works for the F-16 and the F-18... the twin engined aircraft has more thrust.

    Of course this is not 100% sure, but I guess we agree it is like 1 trillion times more valuable than our conjectures

    They show a twin engined option... it does not matter how much they want a single engined design to be used, the Russian AF is the customer and they might just say... twin engined safety is what we want so make it with two engines.

    The fact that they show a twin means they must also be making a 5th gen engine for a twin engined stealth fighter, so that money is already being wasted, and would be wasted even more if it is never used. Razz
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:06 pm

    @GarryB

    That is writing a lot for not advancing much. You still have not said what is different in the purpose built fighter UCAV from the manned one, only "they have more g" as if that meant anything apart from a stiffer and heavier structure, and you can play around with layout, without understanding that it is going to be essentially the same. Will you put the engine at the front, the wings out of CoG or what? The only reasonable change I can think of is the STOVL layout I proposed, there not having the pilot at the front would help a lot for a lifting fan, otherwise either propose something concrete or stop building your arguments on empty claims and wishful thinking.

    Other pearls:

    > TVC has nothing to do with g forces, again it just points the nose but does not provide the lift needed to actually turn the velocity vector of the plane.
    > We don't know what the ultimate structural overload limit of the Su-57 is
    > Overload of a fighter at anything but low altitude is lift and not pilot limited, that is the reason why the Su-57 is so flat and has so many lift augmentation tricks compared to previous generations, despite having the same mk1 human inside
    > MiG-25 at altitude creates ridiculous amounts of g force, because it has a huge wing load
    > A fast missile cannot be "outturned" by a biplane because it does not "pursuit" the target, but trivially hits it due to incomparably different speeds. The target cannot separate from the interception point fast enough, it is quasi static compared to the missile
    > As to the new F-16 vs F-18 comparison, once the MiG-29 did not serve your purpose to prove the intrinsic superiority of the twin engine, I am afraid the F-18 is actually a way worse rival:

    TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE

    In my opinion, the Viper's biggest strength is its brute force: it has lots of horsepower. The biggest kick in the pants-next to a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier-is the kick from stroking full afterburner in a General Electric-powered, bigmouth Viper on a cold winter morning. With a greater than 1.2:1 thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff gross weight, it takes all of 1,200 feet to get airborne at 160 knots, and the jet can be supersonic just two miles later, if it's left in burner. The acceleration is unbelievable! If there weren't a 7G restriction on a fueled centerline tank, I would easily have 9G available to pull straight into the vertical and accelerate on the way up. Of course, I've done the "quick climb" to 15,000 feet, and after level-off, I still have 350 knots. The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.

    To accurately compare the Hornet's performance to the Viper's, I took off from the same runway. The Hornet needed 200 feet more than the Viper to get airborne at about the same speed, and at the end of the runway it had only 330 knots versus the Viper's 500-plus. The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less. The Hornet's lack of thrust seems to be where all the critics linger, and that's valid-to a point. When a pilot flies into battle, lots of thrust is nice to have and is definitely fun to have, but it isn't necessarily a must-have-depending on the aircraft's other attributes. Like the Viper, the Hornet has different engine versions in inventory, but even with two "big motors," the GE-404-402 has 18,000 pounds of maximum thrust each, and in a drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.

    When the wheels are in the well, the Viper flight controls change from takeoff and landing gains (it automatically changes modes, as it requires different pressures for the same reaction) to cruise gains. This reduces the PIO tendency in pitch when the aircraft is slower and near the ground. The acceleration in after-burner seems to build with airspeed, and it's really a kick! The faster I go, the faster I go; this is primarily because of the fixed-geometry inlets that become more efficient as airspeed increases. Canceling afterburner (AB) at 300 knots and 2,000 feet AGL does not stop the amazing acceleration. Even in military power, the Viper easily slips above the 350-knot climb speed in a 15-degree climb. On the other hand, the Hornet has a smooth and steady acceleration and quickly reaches the standard climb profile of 300 knots in a 15-degree climb at military power. In the Hornet, the nose must be lowered to about 5 degrees at 10,000 feet for it to accelerate and maintain a 350-knot climb speed.

    Once in the air, the Viper pilot can drill around all day at 350 to 400 knots and still have fuel to spare. If there's a concern about fuel conservation, the Hornet works best in the 300- to 350-knot speed regime. Roll performance in the Viper is slightly faster than the Hornet's. A full-deflection aileron roll is eye watering in a clean Viper (about 360 degrees per second) and very impressive in a slick Hornet (about two-thirds the speed of a Viper).

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-16-vs-f-18-a-navy-test-pilots-perspective.169261/

    You still forget the translation of thrust into performance is called excess power and the F-16 trounces almost any plane in that regard, because it has an extremely small cross sectional area and drag, coupled with a big engine. If it had an engine equivalent to the F135 (scaled down with the same technology) the figures would make any pilot cry.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:57 pm

    LMFS wrote:Agreed. Until then, this is the best we have, and it looks damn good

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Boriso10
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org%2Ffiles%2Fmain_images%2Fboeing_x-32b_patuxent

    ......................................................

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 ForeverAlone

    The resemblance is startling lol! lol1

    miketheterrible likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:47 pm

    I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life:
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 F4B64E2D-0EB9-4EEC-8787-AC78470C5173_v0_l
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Agm
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 A325%20%281%29
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:41 pm

    LMFS wrote:I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 You-must-be-so-much-fun-at-parties
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:05 pm

    I am sure you are too...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7400
    Points : 7384
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Isos Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:21 pm

    It has the design of a cargo plane rather than a fighter jet.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:59 pm

    LMFS wrote:I am sure you are too...
    Look the photo you posted of the perspective light/medium fighter was a fine and passable design (although I prefer dual engines). You we're taking my light-hearted post a little too seriously, and it was obvious that I was grabbing the low hanging fruit, and busting your balls...


    ....Which come to think of it 'grabbing low hanging fruit' and 'busting your balls' sounds a bit weird in context together. Suspect I respect your posts as a whole (your among the better members on the forum), but sometimes you just got to let the joke run it's course.
    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 KO3VGpWkAMYIq7NbMtpRE5Iios09_5pzm1ohJRqG_ks

    LMFS likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:06 am

    I take no shit in regards of single engine fighters with ventral intake magnumcromagnon, make jokes with anything else but that lol1
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 180
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  gbu48098 Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:54 am

    LMFS wrote:I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life:

    All birds are beautiful and all planes are close imitation of the birds. Love the F-16 mouth.

    LMFS likes this post

    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 180
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  gbu48098 Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:58 am

    REgarding the LMFS vs Garry B discussion.....my take is with LMFS as there is practicality and realism in that, whereas I find repetition and claims out of vaccum in the other one. Garry, you are the instigator of writing books, seriously clarity comes with being concise and most beautiful proofs are short and sweat as they are usually simple and efficient. Please keep it short as some things you write are interestingn and adds value but gets lost in your novels.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:02 am

    That is writing a lot for not advancing much. You still have not said what is different in the purpose built fighter UCAV from the manned one, only "they have more g" as if that meant anything apart from a stiffer and heavier structure, and you can play around with layout, without understanding that it is going to be essentially the same.

    Well the obvious problem is that for all the talk about them most fighter escort drones are bomb trucks or missile trucks intended to increase weapon load capacity and have a set of expendable eyes that can be sent deeper into enemy airspace than is safe for a manned fighter.

    We simply have not seen any fighter drones designed for high g combat... maybe the solution is going to be weird... in terms of armour it seems that two vehicles connected by an articulated hydraulic arm is the solution in the arctic... for all we know the ideal fighter drone might have an articulated tail that can move in three dimensions like a fishes tail and yet has a jet engine inside it giving it thrust vectoring ability no current plane could match... with the whole tail moving there is no problem with loss of thrust because instead of a vectoring engine nozzle directing hot gasses it would have a vectoring air intake tube with cold air flow... much easier to design...

    What I am saying, and hinting at above is that unmanned fighter drones should not be limited to the shapes and designs of current manned fighters.

    The only reasonable change I can think of is the STOVL layout I proposed, there not having the pilot at the front would help a lot for a lifting fan, otherwise either propose something concrete or stop building your arguments on empty claims and wishful thinking.

    So it makes no sense because you can't imagine it... how about fully articulated wings that can not just change profile/curve, but change width... big wide curved wings for takeoff and thin narrow wings for low drag flight...

    > TVC has nothing to do with g forces, again it just points the nose but does not provide the lift needed to actually turn the velocity vector of the plane.

    TVC is a control force that does not rely on airflow over lift or control surfaces to impart a force on the aircraft and make it manouver.

    Flying at speed forward and direct both engine nozzles up at a 15 degree angle and the aircraft will rapidlypitch upwards... much like it would if the horizontal tail surfaces had just pitched upwards and imparted a force too... are you saying that will not effect the g forces felt in the aircraft at the time?

    The faster the aircraft is flying the more g it will achieve...

    Any change in flight direction creates a g force as the aircraft changes direction but feels the force of inertia in the direction it was travelling in to keep going that way.

    > We don't know what the ultimate structural overload limit of the Su-57 is

    Of course we don't, and ultimately any drone made out of the air frame can be reinforced to improve performance... they could even add things like canard fins poking down under the nose of the aircraft to increase nose pointing ability while in stable normal flight...

    > Overload of a fighter at anything but low altitude is lift and not pilot limited,

    So you keep saying but I am not agreeing. At high altitude a normal aircraft might have trouble pulling high g turns because conventional control surfaces like tailerons and aelerons can't develop enough force to turn the aircraft hard enough to generate high g, but g force is created when changing direction and is related to speed.

    At a walking pace you can turn or change direction fast enough to generate a 9 g turn.... even at a run turning 90 degrees wont generate a 9g turn.

    Flying at near supersonic speeds WWII fighters were found to be able to pull much higher g turns than their much slower biplane WWI counterparts, and supersonic jets are easily able to pull turns well beyond 9 g, but the pilot takes a nap and the plane would break if they did... making that nap a permanent dirt nap.

    With thrust vectoring engines an aircraft at high altitude should be able to perform high g turns if the aircraft structure allowed.

    The MiG-25/31 is 5 g limited, but why does its flight control system limit the aircraft to 5 g if no aircraft can pull more than 5 g at altitude?

    > MiG-25 at altitude creates ridiculous amounts of g force, because it has a huge wing load

    The MiG-25 is limited to 5 g, but because of the speed it flys at it would be easy for a pilot to over g because g force increases with speed.

    You can turn very tightly in a car going 10km/h in a carpark..... try to turn at the same rate at 100km/h on a motorway and you will crash... and possibly roll your car as the cars stability is lost because of the sharp turn.

    If you could do a 90 degree turn in a car at 100km/h the g force would be significant.... look up a TV series on Youtube called Automan... it had a Tron like car that did 90 degree turns which left its human passenger pressed against the side window with every turn. The main character was a hologram I think.

    > A fast missile cannot be "outturned" by a biplane because it does not "pursuit" the target, but trivially hits it due to incomparably different speeds. The target cannot separate from the interception point fast enough, it is quasi static compared to the missile

    Well actually it all depends on where the biplane is in the missiles field of view when it starts looking for its target... if the biplane can travel to the edge of the engagement box of the missile the missile will have to turn hard to get the plane into its field of view... if the biplane is already travelling in a direction that forces the missile to turn even harder the missiles control surfaces might stall and the missile miss.

    Or the biplane might try to reduce their speed and use a tail slide to break the lock, or if it is an IR guided missile fire a flare...

    > As to the new F-16 vs F-18 comparison, once the MiG-29 did not serve your purpose to prove the intrinsic superiority of the twin engine, I am afraid the F-18 is actually a way worse rival:

    I said twin engined aircraft have more thrust and both of my examples prove it.

    Even your example of F-16 and MiG-29 prove it because the MiG-29 has more installed thrust than the F-16 and it is faster.

    The Viper can out-accelerate most anything in the air, including the Hornet.

    So what...

    drag race, the Hornet would be no match for the Viper.

    So if driving really fast with womens clothes on is your thing then you go with the F-16.

    The best climb angle that I could get out of the Hornet before airspeed started to decay was 45 degrees, and I leveled off with 200 knots; the Viper's climb took one minute less.

    And in a dogfight what sort of nose pointing high AOA performance does the Viper have exactly?

    You still forget the translation of thrust into performance is called excess power and the F-16 trounces almost any plane in that regard, because it has an extremely small cross sectional area and drag, coupled with a big engine. If it had an engine equivalent to the F135 (scaled down with the same technology) the figures would make any pilot cry.


    Blah blah blah... so you are saying the Russians should ditch the MiG-29 and go back to the MiG-23... the MiG-23 had amazing acceleration... even better than the F-16s because with the wings swept it had tiny drag numbers, yet the MiG-23 has been replaced with the MiG-29 and the F-16 has been replaced with the F-35.

    Maybe making the pilots eyes water is not the best tactic in combat.... Rolling Eyes

    During testing in the 1990s the F-16 with its superior acceleration was defeated 100% of the time by MiG-29s... and that was in short range combat where the MiG did not use R-27s to start the engagement.

    I see, you think they are ugly because of the very mature reason that they look like faces with big mouths to you? Maybe your set of criteria is unrelated to what makes for a good plane in real life:

    The first is already leaving service because it is obsolete, the second is being replaced too, and the last one is smiling at you because we have no idea really what sort of plane it will be.

    Of course you missed the best one:

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Rdsarc10

    An aircraft design prototype they didn't turn into an aircraft because it had problems that could not be resolved....

    Compared with a very expensive aircraft that is retiring early because of unresolved problems perhaps?

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Mikoya10

    Twisted Evil

    It has the design of a cargo plane rather than a fighter jet.

    They make bombers and not fighters so they used the competition funding to work on stealth technologies for the bombers and didn't really take the X-32 design very seriously.

    ....Which come to think of it 'grabbing low hanging fruit' and 'busting your balls' sounds a bit weird in context together. Suspect I respect your posts as a whole (your among the better members on the forum), but sometimes you just got to let the joke run it's course.

    Dude... sorry for offtopic, but that image of Spongebob and Patrick.... does anyone else see the two guys from mythbusters... a wooly hat instead of his normal beret...

    I take no shit in regards of single engine fighters with ventral intake magnumcromagnon, make jokes with anything else but that

    It seems to be a religion for you... but it seems to be Roman Catholic rather than Russian Orthodox.... the athiest commies loved their single engined aircraft... the Su-7 through 17,20 and 22, as well as their interceptors Su-9 and 11... and of course the MiG-15, 17, 21, 23, 27... but post communism... not so much.

    Please keep it short as some things you write are interestingn and adds value but gets lost in your novels.

    But I get paid by the letter.... pirat

    most beautiful proofs are short and sweat as they are usually simple and efficient.

    There is a character wrong there and I am not sure if it was supposed to be a y on the end or another e instead of the a... but either works.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:11 am

    The thing to keep in mind that the designers of aircraft have lots of requirements they have to keep in mind and most of those requirements are contradictory.

    Claiming there is only one design possible is shortsighted... it is perfectly clear that the number of engine a small fighter can have is very much limited by its purpose... if you are designing a MiG-29 or an F-16 it can have one or two engines... each choice will influence its features and its capabilities, but the only aircraft in that size class that has something other than 1 or 2 engines are exceptions like the Yak-38 which has three engines.

    In a normal configuration normal take off jet fighter the choices are one engine or two.

    You can argue two is better till you are blue in the face, someone else might think one is the ideal solution.

    A bit like Apple Mac users and PC users.

    The fact that both exist and are used suggests both are acceptable... if one was so obvious and wonderful and perfect then no one would bother with any alternative...

    It is OK for me to like twin engined jets and think singles are for Americans and Europeans, and it is just as OK for LMFS to think single engine solutions are the best, but demanding proof and evidence that twins are better for the Russian AF?

    Exhibit A:

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Su_57m10

    dino00 likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:What I am saying, and hinting at above is that unmanned fighter drones should not be limited to the shapes and designs of current manned fighters.

    You are stubbornly taking for granted they will be different but have absolutely nothing to back it up, that is the issue.

    So it makes no sense because you can't imagine it... how about fully articulated wings that can not just change profile/curve, but change width... big wide curved wings for takeoff and thin narrow wings for low drag flight...

    I am being concrete instead of using magical thinking like you. And BTW, what has the manned / unmanned topic to do with that wing feature?

    Any change in flight direction creates a g force as the aircraft changes direction but feels the force of inertia in the direction it was travelling in to keep going that way.

    Only if there is enough lift available for the plane to actually turn, which is a big problem in thin air. You are still not getting it...

    Of course we don't, and ultimately any drone made out of the air frame can be reinforced to improve performance...


    Exactly so what is the problem to use the same airframe of the manned plane?

    So you keep saying but I am not agreeing.


    Because you don't bother analysing EM diagrams or any other materials that can teach you things work in reality. You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink, as they say.

    Well actually it all depends on where the biplane is in the missiles field of view when it starts looking for its target... if the biplane can travel to the edge of the engagement box of the missile the missile will have to turn hard to get the plane into its field of view... if the biplane is already travelling in a direction that forces the missile to turn even harder the missiles control surfaces might stall and the missile miss.

    Still not getting it? It cannot move fast enough to leave the field of view of the missile, if the guidance is properly done. Think escaping from a motorcycle at 120 kmh on a truck at 30 kmh, does it make any sense to you?

    I said twin engined aircraft have more thrust and both of my examples prove it.

    A 747 has even more thrust, so what. That metric is BS in any practical sense and a loss of time to even bring it to the discussion.

    Your very poor answers to the evidence that F-16 clearly surpasses the Hornet in terms of kinematics is just you deciding to scrap the discussion completely, so be it.

    Claiming there is only one design possible is shortsighted

    Don't pontificate about open mindedness, it is you saying it needs to be twin engine because single engine = bad.
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 180
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  gbu48098 Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:21 pm

    LMFS wrote:

    Don't pontificate about open mindedness, it is you saying it needs to be twin engine because single engine = bad.
    I actually think only reason for twin engine is more power and adds a bit of future proofing in terms of upgrades and weapon layouts but in actuality max loads are rarely used except under extreme scenarios or demonstrations. Single engines (just engines in theory) are cheaper by close to 30% in direct costs and maintenance and but they may not be in reality but that is a different topic why they are not. Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat, your odds are exponentially less in surviving as more likely you would eject. Training and other scenarios are different. TVC is not to the level to impact g changes, it is a trick to outdo in dog fighting when it comes to it or escape a SAM....More and more future seems to go back to earlier days where numbers made differences. With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter. Drones fit somewhere in that context...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:11 am

    gbu48098 wrote:I actually think only reason for twin engine is more power and adds a bit of future proofing in terms of upgrades and weapon layouts but in actuality max loads are rarely used except under extreme scenarios or demonstrations. Single engines (just engines in theory) are cheaper by close to 30% in direct costs and maintenance and but they may not be in reality but that is a different topic why they are not. Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat, your odds are exponentially less in surviving as more likely you would eject. Training and other scenarios are different. TVC is not to the level to impact g changes, it is a trick to outdo in dog fighting when it comes to it or escape a SAM....More and more future seems to go back to earlier days where numbers made differences. With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter. Drones fit somewhere in that context...

    Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout. Which is an easy, low risk undertaking valid for developing military powers but has until now not proven to be capable of delivering a single platform with the bay capacity for proper fulfilment of A2G roles, due to the swallow and short bays, and bad use of the plane's cross sectional area. Had Russia done the same instead of going the hard way with the PAK-FA, they would have another piece of junk, already surpassed before entering service, and not able as a multirole fighter. They instead created a plane with outstanding payload capability, superior supercruising, maneuverability, range, sensor integration etc., which is driving the requirements of their rivals for new platforms (speed, payload, range) and throwing their existing programs directly in the trash bin. What good is doing some half arsed PAK-FA, when you have the real thing already, and forcing you to create new engines for a plane with essentially the same costs, but worse capabilities? Go for a really different fighter profile, go for really reduced costs, go for the export markets, and save big using the same engine, equipment and technologies. I do believe (not out of thin air, but because I actually took the time to make the check in a 3D design) a small single engined plane with one izd. 30 can have more or less half the bay capacity of the Su-57, if an ambitious, non conventional, well thought layout is used. But well, we will see what is decided in the end, it seems in Russia both options are being considered, as it should be.

    As to TVC, it has many nice uses, but not what GarryB is saying. It just pitches the nose, is not going to hold the plane when the air is too thin for the wings to create the needed lift at the CoG.
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 180
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  gbu48098 Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:18 am

    LMFS wrote:
    gbu48098 wrote:I actually think only reason for twin engine is more power and adds a bit of future proofing in terms of upgrades and weapon layouts but in actuality max loads are rarely used except under extreme scenarios or demonstrations. Single engines (just engines in theory) are cheaper by close to 30% in direct costs and maintenance and but they may not be in reality but that is a different topic why they are not. Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat, your odds are exponentially less in surviving as more likely you would eject. Training and other scenarios are different. TVC is not to the level to impact g changes, it is a trick to outdo in dog fighting when it comes to it or escape a SAM....More and more future seems to go back to earlier days where numbers made differences. With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter. Drones fit somewhere in that context...

    Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout. Which is an easy, low risk undertaking valid for developing military powers but has until now not proven to be capable of delivering a single platform with the bay capacity for proper fulfilment of A2G roles, due to the swallow and short bays, and bad use of the plane's cross sectional area. Had Russia done the same instead of going the hard way with the PAK-FA, they would have another piece of junk, already surpassed before entering service, and not able as a multirole fighter. They instead created a plane with outstanding payload capability, superior supercruising, maneuverability, range, sensor integration etc., which is driving the requirements of their rivals for new platforms (speed, payload, range) and throwing their existing programs directly in the trash bin. What good is doing some half arsed PAK-FA, when you have the real thing already, and forcing you to create new engines for a plane with essentially the same costs, but worse capabilities? Go for a really different fighter profile, go for really reduced costs, go for the export markets, and save big using the same engine, equipment and technologies. I do believe (not out of thin air, but because I actually took the time to make the check  in a 3D design) a small single engined plane with one izd. 30 can have more or less half the bay capacity of the Su-57, if an ambitious, non conventional, well thought layout is used. But well, we will see what is decided in the end, it seems in Russia both options are being considered, as it should be.

    As to TVC, it has many nice uses, but not what GarryB is saying. It just pitches the nose, is not going to hold the plane when the air is too thin for the wings to create the needed lift at the CoG.

    F-22 is not crap and it is designed when they thought Russia would not exist or pose a threat and mostly will be used to take out 2nd or 4th rated powers ground radars in stealth and then its open hunting. Best american engineers are replaced by crap MBA's these days and the decisions are fully reflected in their products and lack of optimizations.

    I will wait for Russian SU-57 for real world evidence before getting gaga or make any claims. F-22 is in existence for a long time and 57 is recent, so no surprize if it has some pros on 22. Not much to brag as its expected
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:41 am


    You are stubbornly taking for granted they will be different but have absolutely nothing to back it up, that is the issue.

    We already discussed that... I have said manouverability is not as valuable as very high speed and that future fighter drones will look like AAMs with smarter guidance systems (AI).

    Why waste time manouvering with a manned fighter to try to get on his tail when you can just fly straight in to him and explode?

    Once all his manned fighters are destroyed then unmanned fighters can take on their unmanned drones and victory...


    I am being concrete instead of using magical thinking like you. And BTW, what has the manned / unmanned topic to do with that wing feature?

    This thread is not manned unmanned aircraft, it is 5th gen light Russian fighter... who knows what smart wing designs they might have come up with.


    Only if there is enough lift available for the plane to actually turn, which is a big problem in thin air. You are still not getting it...

    You are the one not getting it.... if there was no lift the plane would be falling and not flying, so the plane obviously has lift... what it requires is a turning force to make it change direction in a hard turn... you are saying no plane can do that at altitude because the air is too thin... presumably suggesting there is not enough bite or effect from taileron deflections to effect such a change in direction... which I have said several times the faster you go the less of a turn to create g force and so at very high speed g from a turn comes on very very rapidly and easily despite the thin air.

    TVC engine nozzles generate turning forces that cannot stall and are not effected by the thin cold air at altitude.


    Exactly so what is the problem to use the same airframe of the manned plane?

    A reinforced airplane is going to be heavier, so even though it can endure higher turn rates, it will be just as expensive to make as the manned version.

    The cockpit and ejection seat and cockpit displays are not what make an F-35 a 120 million dollar aircraft.

    [quoet]Because you don't bother analysing EM diagrams or any other materials that can teach you things work in reality. You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink, as they say.[/quote]

    The diagrams and things you are showing support your views that single engined fighters are lighter and cheaper and so much better, but if that were true why has the new 5th gen Fighter... the Tempest... got two engines? Why has the Rafale got two engines... surely the ideal fighter would be a Rafale with the new engine for the Su-57... except it isn't.

    Still not getting it? It cannot move fast enough to leave the field of view of the missile, if the guidance is properly done. Think escaping from a motorcycle at 120 kmh on a truck at 30 kmh, does it make any sense to you?

    So why do you think only being able to pull 8gs with folding wings is a problem and that being able to pull 11 gs is the solution?

    Especially when at altitude you say you can only pull 5gs anyway...

    How about take your super slow plane and fly it to high altitude where the high speed supersonic missile can only pull 5 g... which should mean it can only turn a tiny amount and just stall and it will miss...

    Your very poor answers to the evidence that F-16 clearly surpasses the Hornet in terms of kinematics is just you deciding to scrap the discussion completely, so be it.

    The R-73 out accelerates either so the point is moot.

    As I said, if acceleration was all it was about then the MiG-23 and some of the old US 100 series fighters would be much better than they were ever given credit for.

    Don't pontificate about open mindedness, it is you saying it needs to be twin engine because single engine = bad.

    Because I don't agree with your solution of one engine in a fighter does not mean I am not open minded on the subject.

    This is not a new problem, there is a long clear history on the matter and Russia and most of the major western powers that design and make jet aircraft have shown their preferences. Of the current generation the Gripen, a low budget model from China based on the MiG-21 and another one based on the Mirage or F-16 or something... and the F-35 which was a scam of a project from the beginning which we can ignore.

    The Typhoon and Rafale from Europe, the F-15 and F-18 from the US, and the MiG-35 and Su-35 and Su-30 and Su-57 from Russia... but single engined planes are superior you say.... with canards you say... that is OK... I just don't agree.

    Reliability in having twin engines is thin argument, if your engine is half dead in combat,

    The vast majority of the life of most combat jets will involved peace time and exercises rather than actual combat.

    As I have mentioned.... the MiG-29 was expensive to operate because it was designed for war... between overhauls you just fuelled it and armed it and jumped in and flew it. Overhauls came around rather regularly and were extensive with parts being replaced based on hours of use rather than because of damage or wear or tear.

    Reverting to an inspection method with diagnostic tools and systems dramatically reduced operational costs by an enormous margin, but it means in combat it will have to be inspected more often which will effect availability rates.

    With extended BVR, stealth and AD between equal powers, it would be the one with more numbers and the one clever enough to field a cheap but effective light fighter.

    I would think a more affordable fighter is intended to allow useful numbers to be obtained without serious and unaffordable increases in the defence budget.

    Russia doesn't lose anything with the MiG-35 not having the flight range of the Flanker or Su-57, but having a smaller lighter cheaper fighter means you can fill gaps that would otherwise be left empty.

    Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout.

    Don't you mean:

    Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" MiG-25 layout.

    Which is an easy, low risk undertaking valid for developing military powers but has until now not proven to be capable of delivering a single platform with the bay capacity for proper fulfilment of A2G roles, due to the swallow and short bays, and bad use of the plane's cross sectional area.

    That was largely because the F-22 was supposed to be an air to air fighter and was never expected to carry large payloads internally.

    Large internal weapon bays are a tricky problem for most supersonic platforms.

    As to TVC, it has many nice uses, but not what GarryB is saying. It just pitches the nose, is not going to hold the plane when the air is too thin for the wings to create the needed lift at the CoG.

    It is like a control surface ... not replacement for the main wing... the TVC just turns the aircraft in flight and the lifting surface... the wing and the body where relevant turn the aircraft and change the aircrafts flight direction... this change means inertia on the aircraft.... the tendency to continue going in the direction of travel is upset because the plane is now heading in a new direction... called a turn.

    It would be the same if the Tailerons were turned differentially at first to effect a roll and then both angled together to pull up in a turn to change direction when a 90 degree roll had been achieved.

    The tailerons don't need to support the plane and the plane will likely lose altitude when the 90 degree roll is achieved, but when the pilot returns teh stick to centre and pulls back to perform a turn he will feel g forces from the side... ie natural gravity, but as he is pulling back on the stick g forces will push him down in his seat and the aircraft turns.

    F-22 is not crap and it is designed when they thought Russia would not exist or pose a threat and mostly will be used to take out 2nd or 4th rated powers ground radars in stealth and then its open hunting. Best american engineers are replaced by crap MBA's these days and the decisions are fully reflected in their products and lack of optimizations.

    Engineers do the job you pay them to do. The managers were more interested in making sure the F-35 wouldn't be cancelled than they were in making it cheap.

    They used the same plan they used with the C-17 to ensure a successful programme... knowing it would lead to enormous problems and make the whole project very expensive.... they didn't care.... and it is not the engineers fault.

    Not much to brag as its expected

    But everything to brag about... a third world shithole gas station of a country that can't make anything made a 5th gen fighter that looks better than anything the Europeans have made... despite all their money and technology and sophistication...
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 180
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  gbu48098 Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The vast majority of the life of most combat jets will involved peace time and exercises rather than actual combat.
    Agreed, but that means single engine needs to gain more reliability. I did not see any corelation backed by data that single engines are involved in more accidents than twin engines in modern aircrafts in the last two decades. If an engine is reliable then it generally is....bird hits and maintenance lax could change the result between two but design and qc wise they are same.

    As I have mentioned.... the MiG-29 was expensive to operate because it was designed for war... between overhauls you just fuelled it and armed it and jumped in and flew it. Overhauls came around rather regularly and were extensive with parts being replaced based on hours of use rather than because of damage or wear or tear.
    RD-33 has fair amount of issues, plane is no doubt well designed. These engines are comparably inferior as they have not kept up the pace with western ones due to 90's and 1st decade of 2000.


    Reverting to an inspection method with diagnostic tools and systems dramatically reduced operational costs by an enormous margin, but it means in combat it will have to be inspected more often which will effect availability rates.
    Yes, but the frequency of it is the issue with Rd-33


    I would think a more affordable fighter is intended to allow useful numbers to be obtained without serious and unaffordable increases in the defence budget.

    Russia doesn't lose anything with the MiG-35 not having the flight range of the Flanker or Su-57, but having a smaller lighter cheaper fighter means you can fill gaps that would otherwise be left empty.
    At this point mig29 based platform has next to nothing chances in major Russian markets, execution of this project is piss poor and home country by all means is half assed in its purpose and adaptation and big one like India for migs has their own light fighter that serves their needs more or less going forward.

    Most new 5G fighters in development by "regional powers" are middle sized, twin engine with the "default" F-22 layout
    That was largely because the F-22 was supposed to be an air to air fighter and was never expected to carry large payloads internally.
    It is not that big of a deal to add external pylons, there is plenty for the airframe to support if you look at airframe for any special missions. Nothing wrong in using F-22 layout and modify it to local needs like Korea or India. Only hot zones in the world are on the borders of Russia, China, India that require any level of advanced aircrafts. Rest are either puppets under protection of major ally.....Turkey is tolerated but has no real chance to win war against major countries. Egypt and Algeria also about the same.....Israeli capabilities far exceed these countries.

    Engineers do the job you pay them to do. The managers were more interested in making sure the F-35 wouldn't be cancelled than they were in making it cheap.
    Putting a non experienced engineer background MBA/Manager idiot over core engineers is at best frustrating and at worst dilute the practice eventually over time and get 3rd graded in output. Bring one bozo in mid level and he will make sure there is a bozo explosion to feel better among talented average. First is they desire one or two liners of a complex issue....dumb down to executive but executive is not smart enough to understand beyond that.

    But everything to brag about... a third world shithole gas station of a country that can't make anything made a 5th gen fighter that looks better than anything the Europeans have made... despite all their money and technology and sophistication...
    [/quote]
    I am not sure whats with people on this forum getting uppity about some irrelevant nonsense that was said by some joker.....if you are still attached to news media and politicians and what they say...joke is on you too. 5th gen is 20 years old now.....Su-57 is not some miracle where it is doing something impossible or going at mach 3 or 4....finally they have a platform to build on. US wasted 20 years edge unfortunately in having next gen lead over others but thats about it....I still like the F-35 in looks over su -57 but thats a personal preference. Sexiest looking single engined plane of modern times for me. I like Russian migs vs Su's in looks....some how migs have coolness whether its 21, 23 or 27. Su 25 and 24 are rugged beauties too....don't really care for 20, 35 or 57 looks
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3443
    Points : 3445
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  LMFS Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:02 pm

    GarryB wrote: I have said manouverability is not as valuable as very high speed and that future fighter drones will look like AAMs with smarter guidance systems (AI).

    That is a very limited concept of manouverability. No amount of talking from my side can substitute you doing the hard work of analysing the kinematics of actual engagements. Capacity to turn, accelerate and climb at all altitudes and flight regimes and during all phases of an engagement is crucial for a fighter. If what you say is true, Russia would not have designed the PAK-FA almost obsessively reinforcing even further the lift generating features and turning characteristics from those of 4G fighters, but a MiG-31 type of plane.

    Why waste time manouvering with a manned fighter to try to get on his tail when you can just fly straight in to him and explode?

    Now you are describing a missile, not an UCAV. What is the difference between a rocket propelled, missile shaped "suicide drone" and a missile? The whole point here is the reusability / range / persistence of the UCAV, not to reinvent the wheel and give it a new name.

    Once all his manned fighters are destroyed then unmanned fighters can take on their unmanned drones and victory...

    BTW see the new concept of operations of the Lantset vs Bayraktar type of drones, A2A battle of drones already getting interesting. Let's see how long it takes until the tactical drones start flying higher, getting a jet engine, AAM and so on.

    who knows what smart wing designs they might have come up with.

    If you don't know it, stop taking it for granted, it is absurd.

    You are the one not getting it.... if there was no lift the plane would be falling and not flying, so the plane obviously has lift...

    Lift to fly (1 g), not to turn with overloading... now think coming close to the service ceiling where simply staying in the air demands very fast speeds because of the lack of density of the air, how do you want to turn 2, 5 or 9 g?

    presumably suggesting there is not enough bite or effect from taileron deflections to effect such a change in direction...

    No, I am not suggesting that, the problem is the lack of lift in the wings, not the "bite" of the control surfaces. That is the reason why planes bank before turning...

    TVC engine nozzles generate turning forces that cannot stall and are not effected by the thin cold air at altitude.

    Technically they are affected, quite a bit, since engines only produce a low fraction of their sea level thrust at altitude. Coldness of the air increases its density BTW.

    A reinforced airplane is going to be heavier, so even though it can endure higher turn rates, it will be just as expensive to make as the manned version.

    How do you expect any unmanned plane to withstand a higher g load without being reinforced and heavier?

    The cockpit and ejection seat and cockpit displays are not what make an F-35 a 120 million dollar aircraft.

    Which is the same I am saying, those elements relative to the pilot are not what determines the price and size of a fighter, only a small factor.

    The diagrams and things you are showing support your views that single engined fighters are lighter and cheaper and so much better,

    Nothing like that. EM diagrams explain reality, they cannot bypass it. I assure you the EM diagram of a Su-57 would be equally impressive.

    So why do you think only being able to pull 8gs with folding wings is a problem and that being able to pull 11 gs is the solution?

    Dodging missiles is essentially impossible if the target is much slower. But being able to turn fast and without loss of speed is important to defeat missiles kinematically (it can take many seconds and many km to do a 180 deg turn when flying fast and high), to engage and disengage and in many other phases of the combat. You are disregarding the kinematic dimension of the air combat, which is the most important one, and the result is a lot of misconceptions.

    Especially when at altitude you say you can only pull 5gs anyway...

    It depends on the design of the plane and the altitude relative to the service ceiling. A plane like the Su-57 that generates much more lift than previous models will need its structure to handle bigger overloads even when flying much higher, which in turn is beneficial for having range advantage over the enemies. Supersonic and high altitude manouverability is one of stated design goals of the Su-57, Bogdan has said that the plane is capable of spending significantly higher amounts of time at 9 g than previous models, for several minutes actually. It makes no sense to lose all those competitive advantages if it can be avoided, because they constitute the very reasons that allow the Su-57 to shoot down other planes without it being hit in turn.

    How about take your super slow plane and fly it to high altitude where the high speed supersonic missile can only pull 5 g... which should mean it can only turn a tiny amount and just stall and it will miss...

    The poor manouverability of missiles at high altitude is indeed one issue, but don't forget that they fly so fast that they can create much more lifting force than a slow aircraft. And in any case a very slow plane cannot dodge a missile as said, unless the latter's guidance is crap. The target will never move fast enough to get out of the interception window of the missile, which just needs minimal corrections in a lead pursuit.

    The R-73 out accelerates either so the point is moot.

    Sorry that I don't have time to explain in how many levels this is wrong and shows poor comprehension of the issue.

    Because I don't agree with your solution of one engine in a fighter does not mean I am not open minded on the subject.

    You did it again, you claim an open mind and following you explain that single engine planes are cheap crap while the good ones are twin engine. While in contrast I have never claimed that single engine fighters are superior, but that in the very concrete situation when an airforce already has a heavy fighter and the corresponding engine, the light fighter using one of those engines is the simplest, most economical and most sensible way towards a flexible fleet. It is like Americans accusing Russians of being imperialistic...

    That was largely because the F-22 was supposed to be an air to air fighter and was never expected to carry large payloads internally.

    Large internal weapon bays are a tricky problem for most supersonic platforms.

    Not a problem for the PAK-FA

    It is like a control surface ... not replacement for the main wing... the TVC just turns the aircraft in flight and the lifting surface... the wing and the body where relevant turn the aircraft and change the aircrafts flight direction... this change means inertia on the aircraft.... the tendency to continue going in the direction of travel is upset because the plane is now heading in a new direction... called a turn.

    It would be the same if the Tailerons were turned differentially at first to effect a roll and then both angled together to pull up in a turn to change direction when a 90 degree roll had been achieved.

    The tailerons don't need to support the plane and the plane will likely lose altitude when the 90 degree roll is achieved,  but when the pilot returns teh stick to centre and pulls back to perform a turn he will feel g forces from the side... ie natural gravity, but as he is pulling back on the stick g forces will push him down in his seat and the aircraft turns.

    Don't waste words, you still don't seem to understand how a plane turns.

    Engineers do the job you pay them to do. The managers were more interested in making sure the F-35 wouldn't be cancelled than they were in making it cheap.

    Exactly
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 228
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  lancelot Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:The diagrams and things you are showing support your views that single engined fighters are lighter and cheaper and so much better, but if that were true why has the new 5th gen Fighter... the Tempest...  got two engines? Why has the Rafale got two engines... surely the ideal fighter would be a Rafale with the new engine for the Su-57... except it isn't.

    The Tempest is a replacement to the Eurofighter. It is meant to be a high superiority air-to-air platform or perhaps long range strike.
    Since both the UK and Italy have the F-35 and Sweden has the Grippen there is no point in making another platform in the same weight class.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28938
    Points : 29466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:37 pm

    Agreed, but that means single engine needs to gain more reliability. I did not see any corelation backed by data that single engines are involved in more accidents than twin engines in modern aircrafts in the last two decades. If an engine is reliable then it generally is....bird hits and maintenance lax could change the result between two but design and qc wise they are same.

    It is a very complex issue, but most engines will have a percentage chance of failure assuming there has not been a mistake in manufacture or maintenance of that engine.

    Having two engines does not eliminate the chance of failure but the chance of failure of both engines at the same time is much smaller than the chance of one or the other failing.

    The MiG-29 lost at the Paris Airshow was bird ingestion into one engine... you can see it flare and stall... if the aircraft was in normal level flight it would not have been a problem but because the aircraft was flying very low at a very high angle of attack at very low forward flight speed the loss of power could not be compensated for so the aircraft rolled over and crashed into the ground.

    Most of the time however at normal flight speed or at altitude or both and they would not have lost a twin engined fighter but they likely would have lost a single even with extra speed and altitude.

    RD-33 has fair amount of issues, plane is no doubt well designed. These engines are comparably inferior as they have not kept up the pace with western ones due to 90's and 1st decade of 2000.

    They can't be that bad.... China buys them for their single engined JF-14 that they sell to Pakistan... and they seem to be able to cope with reverse airflows.

    In the crash I mentioned above the pilot said he restarted the engine after having a flight of birds get sucked through it, there just was not enough time to run it up to full thrust to avoid a crash.... more altitude and he would have recovered.

    At this point mig29 based platform has next to nothing chances in major Russian markets, execution of this project is piss poor and home country by all means is half assed in its purpose and adaptation and big one like India for migs has their own light fighter that serves their needs more or less going forward.

    MiG did waste their time going for the MMRCA competition because India was always going to pick the Rafale... the whole exercise was to get the French to drop the price and certainly was a waste of time for MiG, but they have been working hard and the current MiG-35 looks very good. They are in the process of introducing it into Russian AF service, and will likely take it to Syria for a test run.

    Egypt seems interested and Algeria might buy some, honestly I think Iran should licence produce the MIG-29M to replace existing MiGs and F-4s and F-5s with a more modern and capable design. I would think licence production of Su-30s would be useful to replace F-14s too.


    It is not that big of a deal to add external pylons, there is plenty for the airframe to support if you look at airframe for any special missions.

    So 250 million dollars per airframe for something with external weapon pylons that carries less than an F-15E... paying a premium for something doesn't make sense if you then ruin its primary feature that made it cost all that money in the first place.

    Would be like spending all that money to make a supersonic Harrier replacement and then find mistakes in the design and structure mean you can't run the engine at full AB for more than 90 seconds or the tail comes off... so why bother combining the Harrier VSTOL design with the F-35 in the first place.

    Getting rid of that huge fan would mean the aircraft could be shaped like a stealthy F-16 instead of a stealthy Buccaneer.

    Nothing wrong in using F-22 layout and modify it to local needs like Korea or India.

    Not fundamentally no... but expecting a plane developed by South Korea or India alone to be better than the height of Americas cold war prowess at aircraft design.... the South Korean model will likely be a lot of American parts cobbled together so not really SK to be fair.

    Only hot zones in the world are on the borders of Russia, China, India that require any level of advanced aircrafts. Rest are either puppets under protection of major ally.....Turkey is tolerated but has no real chance to win war against major countries. Egypt and Algeria also about the same.....Israeli capabilities far exceed these countries.

    Most countries don't need 5th gen fighters... it is ego and prestige for most that are trying....

    Putting a non experienced engineer background MBA/Manager idiot over core engineers is at best frustrating and at worst dilute the practice eventually over time and get 3rd graded in output.

    But that would be the problem... in the past they might promote an engineer to the job of manager... one that has good organisational skills, but these days they are not putting MBAs fresh out of uni with engineering degrees... they will be managers with degrees in management who does not understand engineering or manufacturing... to that sort of person putting a factory making parts for a plane in a poor area to create jobs where the senator in that district happens to be on the appropriations committee and who decides what gets funded at the Pentagon and what doesn't. He wont pull funding on a plane that is made in his district in an area with high unemployment.

    So its funding is secure and it wont get cut or reduced funding... but what if they can't make parts well and 50% of them are duds and get thrown out or have to be remade. What if that district is miles away from where everything else is made so transporting parts and components all over the country because everything is spread out... it is bad management for a private company, but for an MIC company that relies on funding from the Pentagon it does make sense... they don't care how much the plane costs... it wont get cancelled and numbers wont get cut.

    It was so successful with the C-17 the Pentagon stopped asking for new planes... they got new planes in every budget even when they didn't ask for them.

    That is the definition of success for these guys... not whether the product works or is even any good.

    I am not sure whats with people on this forum getting uppity about some irrelevant nonsense that was said by some joker...

    US President Obama...

    ...I still like the F-35 in looks over su -57 but thats a personal preference.

    The F-35 has more than 800 problems with the design of which over 10 are life threatening, it was detected by Russia using radars in Russian territory while it was flying along the border between Iraq and Iran.... it can't run its engine for more than 90 seconds in full AB or it damages its tail structure and stealth material burns off...

    I am sure the Su-57 has some problems ahead of it but it appears to be significantly better designed.

    Sexiest looking single engined plane of modern times for me.

    Not a lot of competition there really.

    Knowing its problems and its enormous cost all I see is a dog.

    Capacity to turn, accelerate and climb at all altitudes and flight regimes and during all phases of an engagement is crucial for a fighter.

    Funny, I would say situational awareness and support would count rather more... western policy after getting their asses kicked in simulated dogfight combat in Germany against MiG-29s with R-73s led them to focus all their attention on replacing the Sparrow and Sky Flash (british Sparrow) with AMRAAM... and all plans for dogfighting were replaced by using AMRAAM from short to medium range and avoid all WVR combat at all costs because even if a western fighter launches a missile at an aircraft with high offboresight missiles and helmet mounted cueing systems, the result is often both are killed.... because WVR missiles tend to be rather good.

    If what you say is true, Russia would not have designed the PAK-FA almost obsessively reinforcing even further the lift generating features and turning characteristics from those of 4G fighters, but a MiG-31 type of plane.

    Their expectation with that aircraft is that both sides can probably defeat any AAM either side can fire, either by jamming or DIRCMS, so being able to kill the target with guns makes sense, which makes manouvering a useful feature for a jack of all trades aircraft that might be recon or strike or fighter or interceptor.

    Ironic that Americas attempt at a jack of all trades F-35 is such a dog.


    Now you are describing a missile, not an UCAV. What is the difference between a rocket propelled, missile shaped "suicide drone" and a missile? The whole point here is the reusability / range / persistence of the UCAV, not to reinvent the wheel and give it a new name.

    Give it a scramjet engine and an AI brain and it could loiter at high altitude along a border if needed... it might have external fuel tanks to extend range or endurance, and be networked in with other platforms.

    It could even be truck mounted.... why does a fighter drone have to be big and expensive when it can be small and made in enormous volumes and deployed on platforms that don't normally carry missiles like inflight refuelling tankers or AWACS platforms.

    BTW see the new concept of operations of the Lantset vs Bayraktar type of drones, A2A battle of drones already getting interesting. Let's see how long it takes until the tactical drones start flying higher, getting a jet engine, AAM and so on.

    As they get bigger with more metal in them then they start becoming more vulnerable to normal SAMs and big enough and expensive enough to justify their use...

    Scramjet powered SAMs will have excellent speed and range... as will air launched models.

    If you don't know it, stop taking it for granted, it is absurd.

    Part of the Su-33KUB design included active wings that were able to be used in a high lift mode for takeoff and landing and a low drag mode for normal flight... why would future aircraft need separate flaps and aielerons to manouver if the actual wing changed shape instead... a wing with antenna built in for all sorts of things.

    Lift to fly (1 g), not to turn with overloading... now think coming close to the service ceiling where simply staying in the air demands very fast speeds because of the lack of density of the air, how do you want to turn 2, 5 or 9 g?

    The faster you are flying the easier it is... a slight roll to the left or right will start a turn... pulling back on the stick while in that roll will generate g... the harder you pull back the greater the g... but the faster you are going the faster high g is achieved... the thickness of the air is irrelevant in that case.

    Take a look at the size of the horizontal tail surfaces of a MiG-25 or MiG-31 it is not an accident they are that big... and if it wants to change direction then it certainly has to pull g and turn.


    No, I am not suggesting that, the problem is the lack of lift in the wings, not the "bite" of the control surfaces. That is the reason why planes bank before turning...

    So when they bank their main wing is no longer generating lift so they fall like rocks?

    Unless you are not reading what I am typing you would already have worked out I am not talking about rudder turns... differential use of tailerons to roll to an angle of bank and then return the stick to centre to stop the roll and pull back on the stick and you both turn and incur g force... the harder you pull the faster that you are going the more gs you pull for a given turn rate.

    Technically they are affected, quite a bit, since engines only produce a low fraction of their sea level thrust at altitude. Coldness of the air increases its density BTW.

    Mr Contradiction so at altitude which is it... thin or thick... thin air with height but also cold with height too... the engines in the MiG-31 and MiG-25 are designed to be their most efficient at such altitudes and I rather suspect at their operational heights of about 18km altitude that they are not generating 2 tons of thrust each... because with aircraft close enough to 45 tons, having four tons of thrust just wont maintain a mach 2.83 flight speed which both of them can achieve...

    How do you expect any unmanned plane to withstand a higher g load without being reinforced and heavier?

    I don't, which is why I think manned aircraft designs are a bad start for unmanned fighter drone designs.

    Which is the same I am saying, those elements relative to the pilot are not what determines the price and size of a fighter, only a small factor.

    Which means designing a manned aircraft for 120 million dollars a plane like the F-35 is a stupid basis for a fighter drone because it is going to be vastly more expensive than a drone designed from scratch for the job.... which I mentioned could be an R-77 with a ramjet engine and new photonic radar and IIR sensors and some AI and a datalink connection to the IADS.

    You are disregarding the kinematic dimension of the air combat, which is the most important one, and the result is a lot of misconceptions.

    It is a known fact that very long range missiles have very low kill probabilities, if the attack is detected early enough it can be trivial to evade such a missile.

    A small light fast missile with thrust vectoring and a seeker you can't jam or fool is going to kill you... whether you can pull 9g or 12g..

    The goal of 9g didn't just fall from the sky, it was found that older missiles like sidewinder had a slow target tracking rate and pulling 9g could sometime get you out of the view of the missile and it would lose lock and fail. Early missiles accelerated quickly but could only turn a few degrees in flight to track a target because of the speed they were moving at. Some missiles were handicapped by servo control motors that were not able to move to a specific angle and would move from lock to lock to command a manouver.

    This made them clunky and often overshot turns as often as didn't turn hard enough.

    And in any case a very slow plane cannot dodge a missile as said, unless the latter's guidance is crap.

    You make it sound like missiles never miss... a missile will miss for all sorts of reasons.

    The target will never move fast enough to get out of the interception window of the missile, which just needs minimal corrections in a lead pursuit.

    The Americans will be relieved to hear that... they have been worrying about hypersonic threats for a while now...

    Sorry that I don't have time to explain in how many levels this is wrong and shows poor comprehension of the issue.

    There is such a thing as dogfighting... it describes a series of manouvers that are intended to allow you to get onto the tail of an opponent to allow you to shoot them down. There is an enormous variety of manouvers that allow you to change your position from being in front of your enemy to getting onto his 6 oclock... all sorts of fancy names taken from the pilot who invented the move mostly, but it seems the plane with the best acceleration is the one that wins... don't you think very fast acceleration in front of an enemy fighter is an invitation get get an R-73 up your brightly burnin' ass...


    You did it again, you claim an open mind and following you explain that single engine planes are cheap crap while the good ones are twin engine.

    That is me giving my opinion, and has nothing to do with whether I am open minded or not.

    While in contrast I have never claimed that single engine fighters are superior,

    You are claiming it has to be a single engined fighter or it will be rubbish.

    Ironically taking your logic to its logical conclusion... for a single engined light fighter to be light and cheap it should not use one engine from a heavy fighter... it should use one engine from a medium fighter... that will make it lighter and make the difference in operational costs more noticeable and relevant.. in terms of the performance difference between the different aircraft.

    Don't waste words, you still don't seem to understand how a plane turns.

    I got to fly a plane on my birthday many years ago... my friend is a pilot... I know exactly how planes turn.

    You are the one claiming a MiG-31 is useless because it can only fly in a straight line... its rating for 5g is for operational use at altitude... where it spends most of its time because it can't fly at mach 2.5 plus at sea level.

    Since both the UK and Italy have the F-35 and Sweden has the Grippen there is no point in making another platform in the same weight class.

    It will be 10 years before we see the first Tempest fly if it does get to that stage... by that time I rather suspect it will be the F-35 they want to replace if not before then.

    I would think if the Tempest is supposed to be air superiority and strike that the F-35 becomes redundant, because the only thing it has now is supposed to be stealth and if Tempest is stealthy why keep expensive fragile F-35s?

    Sponsored content

    5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS - Page 24 Empty Re: 5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 08, 2021 4:06 am