U.E.C.- Russian aircraft engines

I say build both engine sites... the two locations they can't decide on... build them both because over time you are going to get more engine types into service and existing engine types will need to be replaced as well... getting older aircraft upgraded with new engines will improve their performance and simplify maintenance and support because right now there is a mishmash of local and foreign engines of a range of different types based on different engines, but the new PD range of engines should have design and support commonality... presumably unified electronics and software that can be used for fault finding and diagnostic purposes should be standardised across the range of engine types.

New factories can be designed with the latest equipment so changing between production engine types should be easier and faster and cheaper than upgrading an older factory.... though they should be upgraded too... though not in any way to slow production speed... the purposes should be upgrades focussed on speeding up production and improving quality of the work and product being produced.

Bench tests of the first prototype of the PD-8 engine completed



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4524884.html

Those hybrid propulsion systems would be rather interesting for helicopters as electric motors for main rotors could be designed to not need a gear box so you could power each set of rotors in a coaxial design based on the power sent to each engine controlling each set of rotors.

The gearbox for the Hokum and Helix range of helicopters is very complex and weighs about 3 tons and is the reason why the west does not use helicopters in that weight class...

Being able to swap the gearbox out for electric motors would save a lot of weight and complexity and also improve performance too no doubt.

Will be interesting...

and they said the new engine is expected to make around 210kN with the afterburner and some 170 or 180kN dry thrust (Imagine that in a Mig31, Mach 3.5 easy).

Flight speed is not just about engine power... the MiG-29 and Su-27 have good power to weight ratios but are not as fast as either the MiG-25 nor the MiG-31, which are seriously underpowered in that regard.

High thrust to weight ratio does not equal high top speed, the MiG-25 only has 11 ton thrust engines... which are less powerful than the Al-31s in the Su-27s.

Ironically a super powerful main engine is not actually a good thing for a VSTOL fighter... the more powerful the engine the closer that engine exhaust nozzle has to be to the centre of gravity of the aircraft, otherwise the lift engines or lift fans at the front that balance it would need to be enormously powerful or located on the tip of the aircrafts nose for balance.

The engine on the Harrier solved the problem by taking air from the bypass region of the main jet engine and directing that cold fast air out of nozzles on the side of the fuselage near the front of the wing (the cg). The main exhaust going out two rear nozzles that would be very hot... the side nozzles making the aircraft very vulnerable to IR guided SAMs of course and being mounted on the side made them vulnerable from a very wide range of angles.

In comparison very powerful engines in conventional jet fighters are good things.

How likely is this that Russia has replaced the Izd 30 with this new relatively unknown but bonkers powerful turbofan engine?

I would guess very unlikely because it is unlikely they got that much extra power from an engine the same size and weight which means a complete redesign of the aircraft and perhaps loss of internal weapon space too.

The current engines on the Su-57 are good... they are more powerful than the engines on the Flankers, while the Su-57 seems smaller and lighter than the Flankers, while this new engine is rather more powerful again... which suggests outstanding performance without adding another engine type.

Generally Sukhoi works with one company for radars or engines and MiG works with different companies, so this new more powerful engine might be for a new MiG design, or perhaps Yak wants this new engine for another go at VSTOL.

I would think the Su-75 would benefit from sharing as many components as it can from the Su-57 including radar and engine and parts, but maybe a boost in engine power might be of benefit.

It would need to be a variable cycle engine type that can alter its bypass ratio if it was to be used in the MiG-41... I doubt an engine intended for VSTOL fighters could work efficiently to mach 4 plus speeds...

I am not surprised that AMNTK could win the contracts to power everything.

Not long ago LMFS was saying the makers of the izd 30 engine were talking about powering everything too...

They are already making engines for Tupolevs and are building yet another unknown engine for a future Illyushin heavy transport plane (Pak-VTA apparently).

Hope the new transport aircrafts engine is the PD-35.

Hell yeah it is. There is nothing by Pratt and Whitney that even comes close to it. Thats how good it is. It smaller and lighter than a NK32 Kutznetsov but makes around the same thrust.

The NK-32 is designed to operate in large aircraft at mach 2 or faster, thrust numbers alone don't tell you what an engine is capable of... the PD-35 is going to be 35tons of thrust but it is a high bypass turbofan like airliners use so it wont be supersonic no matter what aircraft you put it in.

The problem with some experts is they hear about a new system and think it should replace everything else... so the Su-57 has new generation new engines so lets replace all other fighters with Su-57s with these new engines and save money on commonality...

But that ignores the other engine companies that are also working on the same little miracles.

There was a time when everything was secret except the failures... we got an early look at the Havoc and the KS-172 AAM because they essentially failed in their bids to get into Russian service (vs the Hokum and the R-37M respectively).

At the time the Mi-28 was being offered to everyone... the Swedish even tested it, and it went to international airshows and arms shows to try to find foreign buyers... at that time we hadn't even seen the Hokum and western experts described it as a two seat side by side platform... ironic because they eventually went for a side by side two seater with the Ka-52, but the Ka-50 is a single seater.

The point is that they released information about the aircraft they wanted to export but kept quiet about the aircraft they were planning to put into service...

If we extrapolate, then hearing about the Su-57 and its new engines and how wonderful they are is likely more about exports than anything else... equally being shown the Checkmate also shows a drive to export it and get customers... we have only seen models of the single and two engined new MiG designs presumably for land and use on carriers.

The single engined MiG actually looks like a LIFT which suggests they have taken the low cost road so they can sell them in large numbers and be operated in large numbers which will make them more effective as a light multirole platform... assuming they don't just go for S-70s instead of light fighters.

BTW it is not just experts, but obviously engine companies are trying to sell product so they will of course promote their new products to fill every role and do every job, but engines have designs that suit some flight regimes and don't suit others...

For instance the PD-35 is going to be very powerful, but being a high bypass turbofan engine it will not be suitable for supersonic use no matter what plane you put it into.

For super cruise performance you need a low bypass turbofan... almost a pure turbojet because high airflow speed is important for super cruising.

Saturn is very good at making Subpar products. Tumansky has made a lot of revolutionary products in the past

I can't agree with that, the Al-31 was a very good engine in its time and the Al-41 is a natural development that further improves on performance.

Saturn has dominated for a while now with export sales of Flankers and domestic purchases of the range of Flanker types and their association with Sukhoi, and sometimes that leads to complacency, and the other engine makers have to work harder despite there being very few scraps left over for them to work towards... they become more innovative and take risks because if they don't they will remain in the shadows... the same with MiG really.

I have always had a soft spot for the underdog... except when it is contrived... growing up with American cartoons like Road Runner and Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck etc etc it was always predator prey and the natural predator... would always lose... Elmer Fudd always defeated by Bugs Bunny, Foghorn Leghorn always beats the dog, Tweety always beating Sylvester... the opposite of reality... I was always rooting for the natural winner because Disney portrayed them as lifes losers... how ironic is that.

The new model 30 engine is supposed to be a new from scratch design 5th gen engine with much better performance in all regards to their previous models...

And of course Klimov and Saturn and Soyuz are in the background already very busy making lots of other things like helicopter engines and ship propulsion systems and systems for pumping stations and power stations... at sea or on land... both have an interesting and expanding range of engine expertise and I would be very interesting in seeing any engine types they are coming out with.

Its just a monster for something about the same size as a Klimov RD33 which is a little smaller than a GE-F414.

I had heard talk of an evolution of the RD-33 using new engine technology that was going to be in the 12 ton thrust range that was specifically designed for twin engined light fighters... both land and carrier based... for a while it was speculated to be the RD-45 or something but very little official information was available.

They say they use a revolutionary compressor technology, but if they were heads and shoulders above the rest of the world then they would not be needing to make such outlandish claims.

When it is Saturn or Sukhoi you often take them at their word LMFS... making outlandish claims is pointless for them because everyone who buys will want to see proof and if you can't deliver you wont sell.

And the Russian military are not impressed by claims... if it does not work they wont buy it.

Perhaps more suitable for either a larger twin engined combat jet than the Su-57, or in single engined configuration.

The R-79 is a very big engine and was designed for single engined aircraft (not counting lift jets)... actually on a weird tangent... the lift engines in the Yak-141 are amazingly light for their power... they are like 400kg each but put out comparable thrust to the engines in the Su-25.... amazing...

If you see the available material from UEC about their roadmap, the engine for the PAK-DP should be also a development of the izd. 30, which only makes sense, since the very point of creating a conglomerate like UEC is to avoid replicating the same work at several companies,

Another point of the UEC is to keep the different companies up to date and state of the art in engine design and development... if you give all the jobs to the designer of one engine what are the other design companies going to be doing?

Traditionally they set specs for engines and all the engine companies make engines to compete for that job... the winner gets their engine put into production... the losers normally adapt their designs for other jobs... but the odds on one engine being suitable for every job is very low... for instance the engine in the Su-30, Su-34, Su-35, and Su-57 and Su-75 could be one and the same... because flight speeds and ranges and operational envelopes are all very similar and they are also similarly sized aircraft too.

The exception might be the Su-75 because if they choose a different light 5th gen fighter it might have two engines instead of one or they might decide a more powerful single engine is needed.

The PAK DP is going to be an interceptor that will spend most of its time at supersonic speeds normally operating at high to very high altitudes... it will likely also be able to supercruise very easily... the high speed will require at the very least ramjet use... which none of these other aircraft would need or use.

I think the PAK DP will have a unique engine in the same way the MiG-31 used a different engine from the Su-27... different levels of thrust and also different flight ranges.

No offense meant to Soyuz, but optimization of any parameter at modern jet engines is an extremely difficult endeavor and hence any claim about revolutionary efficiency increases needs to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

So Saturns claims are true but Soyuz can't be trusted?

Both are trying to sell engines... why can't we trust them both?

but maybe the easiest way is to enlarge the izd. 30 by adding a larger compressor (like F119 -> F135) or enlarging the core itself. Starting a parallel development path at two different companies within UEC does not seem an intelligent way of using resources.

There is no way they will find one engine that can do absolutely everything, so having different engine types is a good thing and not a bad thing.

Twin engined light fighters make sense, and as such smaller buts still powerful and fuel efficient engines are needed too...

For Su-75 it is rather clear, the plane is designed for an izd. 30 level engine, the currently presented version being export oriented and relying on some additional upgrade of the AL-41F1 of up to 16 tf. With full 18 tf of the izd. 30 the plane would be served quite well.

There are lot of reasons for commonality of engines with the Su-57, but for some export users that makes little sense if they don't also intend to buy Su-57s which will be rather more expensive to buy and operate (the whole purpose of the Su-75 is affordable to buy and to use).

Some export customers might actually want a different engine or might not be allowed a newer engine so as not to give away engine technology secrets.

Some export customers might want a twin jet lighter fighter... the Chinese managed to create a very F-35 like fighter with two engines instead of one... two smaller less powerful engines should be cheaper to buy and to operate and having two of them in the aircraft means they give nothing away in terms of power... a single engined MiG-29 with an Al-31 at about 12.5 tons of thrust would not on paper be that much superior to the actual MiG-29 with two 8 ton thrust engines allowing 16 tons thrust in the early models. Improved Al-31s have moved to 14-15 tons with a lot of work, but improving the twin engines means double the benefit... current model RD-33s at 9 tons thrust means two tons extra thrust for the aircraft with two engines.

Check UEC's own roadmap. The engine can be based on the izd. 30 and use a RTA-like technology as already explained, of course there should be specific design elements but that does not impede that the gas generator, control, base technologies and materials come from the izd.30

That slide was put together by someone promoting the izd 30... there could easily be slides showing other new prototype engines we don't know about that could do the same or perhaps even better. Traditionally it is the failed models that are shown first to get export orders while the successful products are kept secret as long as possible.

They have already said the Su-75 is for export and that the Russian AF has not committed to it in any way... which is not to say they wont be interested and wont follow development very carefully, but the plan was for Sukhoi to develop the heavy 5th gen fighter and MiG to develop the light 5th gen fighter...

See above. Soyuz has no known real order or real R579 product and they are making very bold claims. Something does not add up.

Meaning they can use very new technologies to try to get an edge... if those new technologies pay off then bold claims can be made.

There is no value in lying... they will have to prove themselves before any deals get inked... there are no investors they can be milking...

Tumansky engines had for a long time a history of being cheap engines you could redline to beat other fighters. e.g. the MiG-23 engines they made.

Most Soviet makers had a history of making weapons and equipment for war, rather than looking good in parades and faked exercises.

And that engine in the photos, it seems to use old style metallurgy and materials. It even has metal blades, which aren't even titanium, this looks like a cheap engine for a mass produced product.

The light 5th gen fighter needs to be low cost... cheap to buy and cheap to operate... using super expensive materials is not a good solution to such a problem.

Russia has a massive economic disparity with the West. They can't continue doing things Soviet style with mass produced products.

Russia is introducing technology and weapons and equipment every bit as good as western equivalents and in many areas actually better, and have managed to contain the prices of the new technology to an astounding level... 19K pounds for NLAW!!!! Their Kornets were exported for $5K US per missile and the UK spends almost four times more on a short range unguided RPG wannabe...

The real disparity between Russia and the west is that Russian companies deliver astounding value for money for national survival, while western companies extort as much cash out of their taxpayer citizens as they think they can... and then a little more.

You need combat machines with high reliability.

A full scale war with the west and reliability wont be a huge issue... the old disposable Soviet kit was very reliable for the short period it was used and then replaced... in comparison western gear is fussy and needs air conditioning and heated tents for storage at night... Russian gear is going up against many western wanderwaffle and seems to be getting the job done. Western artillery has not be eliminated over night but Russian artillery is literally decimating the enemy in a way that western military forces would simply not endure. The west relies heavily on air power for both attack and defence... and it is pretty clear that Russian air defence capacity would wear them down rapidly in both defence and attack... we talk about their air power numbers advantage over Russia, but when all those F-35s and Rafales and Typhoons and Gripens have had a bloody nose and more than half are gone in their first few attacks and the response is their airfields are hammered... which planes and from where are going to rush forward to fill the gaps... fighter aircraft can't stop a Zircon attack...

Otherwise, it becomes a war of production, which Russia alone simply cannot win long term.

War against HATO wont be limited like the current conflict.... all HATO territory near Russia or Russian territory will be targeted to eliminate military units that threaten to cross the border and enter Russian territory... this will mean Finland and Poland and the Baltic states... troop concentrations and airfields and HQs.

In 5, or 8, years you will see NATO start churning out their new kit. It's how the military industry rolls.

Russia has been churning out new kit for the last decade and if anything is only going to increase and expand.

Not sure we are talking about the same HATO... is this the HATO that complained and failed to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence spending?

Russia should cut off all gas and energy sales to the EU countries that are supporting the Ukraine... lets see what that does to their defence budget and their economies... how keen will they be for conflict then?

Russia can only win this not so covert conflict with HATO with superior technology and lightning speed.

There can be no winner in such a conflict... Ukraine needs to be sorted out and I suspect HATO will not be party to any agreements or negotiations.... they are just not helpful in such a thing... they rendered the Minsk agreements worthless and will do the same for any future agreement over the fate of Ukraine... they are not independent.