Sukhoi PAK FA news and speculation (T-50, I-21) Part I [2006-2008]

[medal64]

Do you have any information about is it at the final assembly ?And I think march is an optimistic date for the first flight but I hope this date happens right.

 

[avatar]

http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_jun4.html#25jun

 

[donnage99]

I'm preparing myself to see all the antiamericans post impossible long rants about how the PAK-FA is better than F-22 when it comes out from the dark. : Youtube will probably be a good place to start with.

 

[Just call me Ray]

I'm preparing myself to see all the antiamericans post impossible long rants about how the PAK-FA is better than F-22 when it comes out from the dark. : Youtube will probably be a good place to start with.

A lot of people will probably see it as an analogy to the F-15/Su-27, where people recognize the Su-27 as having superior aerodynamics and being a superior dogfighter with the F-15 having better tracking/detection ability and better missiles to make use of that ability. Of course the story has now changed since Russian missiles and radar have pretty much caught up with with their Western counterparts, and the Russians are less likely to downgrade their equipment for export - not to mention that the latest Western aircraft (most of them anyway) were designed to be "super-agile" specifically to counter the Flanker family. Ultimately comparisons between the PAK-FA and F-22 will hinge on the Russians' ability to match or exceed the F-22's stealth signature and/or the ability of the F-22 to defeat Russian detection and tracking systems.

 

[LowObservable]

The aspect where the PAK-FA really needs to beat the F-22 is affordability. Outstanding as the F-22 is, its utility is limited when the world's richest customer can only afford 183 of them.

 

[sferrin]

The aspect where the PAK-FA really needs to beat the F-22 is affordability. Outstanding as the F-22 is, its utility is limited when the world's richest customer can only afford 183 of them.

I think it's less "can't afford" than it is those at the head of the DoD think we'll just be fighting insurgents living in caves for the next 40 years. LM is actually getting the price more reasonable as they get better at make them- just in time to shut the line down. And as you're well aware, anything is more expensive when you only buy a few of them. How much would the Typhoon be if they only bought 183 of them?

 

[avatar]

sferrin,

while you are absolutely right that the initial investment needs to be spread out over as many units as possible, the fact is air forces have to look at the opex as well . and indeed the opportunity cost . And since this is a stealth jet , maintaining the stealth part is expensive.

Say , for instance you want a 600 raptor air force and we keep aside the initial costs, the incremental gain at the margin from this does not outweigh the incremental costs of the same , even if we assign higher than usual probablities to conflicts that may see the raptor making itself useful.

In the sense while modelling the raptor's risk /return structure ( which all airforces have to do) , just one thing is in the favour of the raptor= that presently it is unmatched in certain profiles and so you keep a certain "restricted number" just for those kinds of contingencies.

so even if the raptor came in for half its current price , spiking the procurement numbers will not be a simple equation.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin,

while you are absolutely right that the initial investment needs to be spread out over as many units as possible, the fact is air forces have to look at the opex as well . and indeed the opportunity cost . And since this is a stealth jet , maintaining the stealth part is expensive.

Say , for instance you want a 600 raptor air force and we keep aside the initial costs, the incremental gain at the margin from this does not outweigh the incremental costs of the same , even if we assign higher than usual probablities to conflicts that may see the raptor making itself useful.

In the sense while modelling the raptor's risk /return structure ( which all airforces have to do) , just one thing is in the favour of the raptor= that presently it is unmatched in certain profiles and so you keep a certain "restricted number" just for those kinds of contingencies.

so even if the raptor came in for half its current price , spiking the procurement numbers will not be a simple equation.

I'm not really suggesting doing that. I would prefer they got the 183 out and then kept the line "warm" by scaling back the work force and ordering a couple a year rather than shut the thing down, destroy the tooling, and send the skilled workers on their way. Yes, those few would cost more but it keeps the line in existence so if need be 15 years down the road it can be brough back up to speed rather than having to start from scratch.

 

[avatar]

hey,
no enterprise can keep a line "warm" without firm orders or just for a couple of jets a year . the economics will never favour such an endeavour. keeping those workers on this line will also include an opportunity cost moreover you would be maintaining dedicated facilities for a "potential order".



whichever way you look at it , this whole raptor business will involve an implicit subsidy from the government , for "notional capability in the future" . I think very few governments will have a stomach for such "decisions".

 

[sferrin]

hey,
no enterprise can keep a line "warm" without firm orders or just for a couple of jets a year . the economics will never favour such an endeavour. keeping those workers on this line will also include an opportunity cost moreover you would be maintaining dedicated facilities for a "potential order".

Well DUH. I wasn't suggesting the company foot the bill for it.

whichever way you look at it , this whole raptor business will involve an implicit subsidy from the government , for "notional capability in the future" . I think very few governments will have a stomach for such "decisions".

Subsidy? You gotta be $hitting me. It's not about keeping Lockheed Martin in business it's about keeping a strategic asset (the F-22 line) viable. As for governments wanting to squander national assets because they don't have the "stomach" (or foresight) to do anything about it that says to me they need to be replaced for incompetence.

 

[donnage99]

I'm preparing myself to see all the antiamericans post impossible long rants about how the PAK-FA is better than F-22 when it comes out from the dark. : Youtube will probably be a good place to start with.

A lot of people will probably see it as an analogy to the F-15/Su-27, where people recognize the Su-27 as having superior aerodynamics and being a superior dogfighter with the F-15 having better tracking/detection ability and better missiles to make use of that ability. Of course the story has now changed since Russian missiles and radar have pretty much caught up with with their Western counterparts, and the Russians are less likely to downgrade their equipment for export - not to mention that the latest Western aircraft (most of them anyway) were designed to be "super-agile" specifically to counter the Flanker family. Ultimately comparisons between the PAK-FA and F-22 will hinge on the Russians' ability to match or exceed the F-22's stealth signature and/or the ability of the F-22 to defeat Russian detection and tracking systems.

Then those people just happen to forget that the current status of the 2 nations are different from when the f-15 and the flanker came out. Back then, Soviet and US are very comparable in capability and technologies. However, it's really different for the past 20 years, ain't it? I don't see the PAK-FA beating F-22 if they couldn't afford putting as much money into research and development. Especially when I think Russia has to put more money into the program if they wanted PAK-FA to be comparable to the F-22 since the US had put alot of money into other researches in the past that really were handy when the ATF program came around. It's always harder and more expensive if you have to start with less materials. And didn't Russia already said somewhere that their program will be more comparable with the f-35, emphasizing that capability has to be compromised for affordability.

This is not saying their aircraft won't be good. It will be a heck of an airplane, but I seriously don't see them falling into the case of the f-15 vs. su-27.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

To an extent, the avionics of the F-22 have been overtaken by the pace of computer technology development, so in this respect its possible to make something fairly reasonable for PAK-FA using COTS technologies.

What about engine technology, stealth coatings, and other materials, however? New build Russian aircraft like the Yak-130 and the Superjet still seem to be far behind the curve on production assembly and materials technologies. I can't easily see them attaining the precision needed for stealth, even aiming for the F-35 level rather than F-22.

 

[avatar]

Subsidy? You gotta be $hitting me. It's not about keeping Lockheed Martin in business it's about keeping a strategic asset (the F-22 line) viable. As for governments wanting to squander national assets because they don't have the "stomach" (or foresight) to do anything about it that says to me they need to be replaced for incompetence.

Oops, Sorry I forgot for a moment that I was talking to a super aficionado.

Boss, the U.S is no longer in a position to keep doodling stuff on line just so that it makes them "seem" like a hyper aerospace power. there has to be an actual requirement. Your premise stems from a belief that
15 years down the line the Chinese , russkis and us (indians) may field an equivalent number of fifth generation jets and the U.S must then a re-assert "notional superiority" by ramping up a semi-dormant line of F-22s. I am sorry but that's not how it works, just because you want it.

 

[sferrin]

Subsidy? You gotta be $hitting me. It's not about keeping Lockheed Martin in business it's about keeping a strategic asset (the F-22 line) viable. As for governments wanting to squander national assets because they don't have the "stomach" (or foresight) to do anything about it that says to me they need to be replaced for incompetence.

Oops, Sorry I forgot for a moment that I was talking to a super aficionado.

Boss, the U.S is no longer in a position to keep doodling stuff on line just so that it makes them "seem" like a hyper aerospace power. there has to be an actual requirement. Your premise stems from a belief that
15 years down the line the Chinese , russkis and us (indians) may field an equivalent number of fifth generation jets and the U.S must then a re-assert "notional superiority" by ramping up a semi-dormant line of F-22s. I am sorry but that's not how it works, just because you want it.

I suppose next you'll be telling us that all standing armies are welfare programs with the hardware purchased simply to subisidize the relevant companies eh? : I know you're doing you'r damnedest to sound witty and intelligent but you're just coming off looking stupid.

 

[Spring]

How probable is for the PAKFA to get the T-54 shape with out variable geometry wing?

I think the pakfa will look like this

Closer to the T-4ms, but with 3D exhaust vectorial controls, and other shape changes, like a nose with a su-34's style, i have a "feeling" this will be the configuration for the new airframe

 

[avatar]

I suppose next you'll be telling us that all standing armies are welfare programs with the hardware purchased simply to subisidize the relevant companies eh? Roll Eyes I know you're doing you'r damnedest to sound witty and intelligent but you're just coming off looking stupid.

Not at all. On the other hand you are sounding just like a relic from another age trying to peddle stuff just for the heck of it. grow up man , the world is changing. "I want those raptors " , " i want those raptors" LOL.

 

[sferrin]

I suppose next you'll be telling us that all standing armies are welfare programs with the hardware purchased simply to subisidize the relevant companies eh? Roll Eyes I know you're doing you'r damnedest to sound witty and intelligent but you're just coming off looking stupid.

Not at all. On the other you are sounding just like a relic from another age trying to peddle stuff just for the heck of it. grow up man , the world is changing. "I want those raptors " , " i want those raptors" LOL.

"relic from another age"? : I guess you think those 30 year old Eagles will be good for another 40 eh? Got any other words of wisdom for us or you going to do us a favor and crawl back in your hole?

 

[yasotay]

Gents, not my call (I'm not a moderator), but is this exercise in passion relevant to the thread? I was otherwise enjoying the discussion.

 

[avatar]

which hole ? the one you evacuated after it got flooded due to accumulated debt?


Boss, you seem to be forgetting that your deficit ridden country is also planning to purchase 1763 F-35s . So why bring up the canard of F-15s . Yeah yeah its a heavy fighter in a different class etc , but the requirements are also different today . why this magic number of 386? why not a one for one replacement for the eagles? I daresay because the force structure "affordable" and "required" today is not the same as it was in 1987. Now do you understand the "relic" part?


And by the way , I don't think the raptor matches the eagle in range etc ( all this heavy fighter business) . And if it tried to carry the same load, stealth would be compromised ( exterior etc.) . Now you know all this and more , but the point I am making is you like the raptor for the combination of stealth and avionics. this is where that 1763 number comes in as well . if you get what I am saying . However your reply is predictable ...

 

[avatar]

Hey Yasotay,

Why don't you give your views on this ? you are in the aerospace business anyway ( I read your intro) ...

 

[sferrin]

which hole ? the one you evacuated after it got flooded due to accumulated debt?


Boss, you seem to be forgetting that your deficit ridden country is also planning to purchase 1763 F-35s . So why bring up the canard of F-15s . Yeah yeah its a heavy fighter in a different class etc , but the requirements are also different today . why this magic number of 386? why not a one for one replacement for the eagles? I daresay because the force structure "affordable" and "required" today is not the same as it was in 1987. Now do you understand the "relic" part?


And by the way , I don't think the raptor matches the eagle in range etc ( all this heavy fighter business) . And if it tried to carry the same load, stealth would be compromised ( exterior etc.) . Now you know all this and more , but the point I am making is you like the raptor for the combination of stealth and avionics. this is where that 1763 number comes in as well . if you get what I am saying . However your reply is predictable ...

And what is that? I'd started to point out your numerous errors but you're just not worth the effort.

 

[avatar]

which errors?


that LM *will* be receiving a subsidy?

that there is no *clear case* for jacking up raptor numbers?

who is saying I am worth anything? I am just a robotic troll on the internet posting propaganda... ;D


but your raptors do cost a hell of a lot...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please return to topic, avatar and sferrin.

 

[avatar]

The PAK-FA will someday become my favourite plane...

 

[sferrin]

The PAK-FA will someday become my favourite plane...

You may have a loooong wait.

 

[flateric]

Agree, to my sorrow...looking at SuperJet 100 progress...

 

[rousseau]

Only CARET inlet used for sure, nothing more up to now.

 

[sferrin]

Only CARET inlet used for sure, nothing more up to now.

do you know that as fact or is it just best guess/most likely?

 

[avatar]

You may have a loooong wait.

yeah , you will definitely be buried under debt before the PAK -FA comes out...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Thats enough sniping. Confine discussion to PAK-FA please.

 

[flateric]

Sukhoi officially confirmed SuperJet delay for more then an year, and that project will require additional funding (seems that I've heard something like this recently, yeah)...meanwhile, Pogosyan said yesterday once more that PAK FA will be at LRIP stage ca 2015, with a life cycle till 40-50s. So, let's think of 2018-19 as of real LRIP taking into account how it's usually done here.

 

[rousseau]

Only CARET inlet used for sure, nothing more up to now.

do you know that as fact or is it just best guess/most likely?

One of my agent has seen the mock-up before the real one was built completely.
Nothing more he pleased to say but the CARET.

 

[flateric]

One of my agent has seen the mock-up before the real one was built completely.

Oh my...*agent*...soon we will start reposting news from ATS regarding Dulce base....
Rousseau, take what being posted at sukhoi.ru with a bit of realism. Guy who wrote of CARET is not an insider.

 

[flateric]

http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/17233919/India8217s-role-in-Sukhoi-p.html
Posted: Tue, Jun 17 2008. 11:54 PM IST

India’s role in Sukhoi project questioned
Price, investment for fighter jet still being discussed; design specs have been decided, first flight slated for 2009
K. Raghu

Bangalore: India is yet to begin work on a futuristic technology demonstrator plane, a single-seat, fifth-generation fighter it is jointly developing with Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau, that will take to the skies for the first time in 2009.
Some analysts are questioning the contribution of Indian aerospace research and development (R&D) engineers to the programme, given that the aircraft’s design specifications have already been decided and the first flight is set for next year.
Futuristic technology:The Sukhoi 30, part of the Indian Air Force fighter jet fleet, on display at the Aero India 2007 air show in Bangalore. India and Russia are working jointly on its advanced variant. (Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/Bloomberg)
Futuristic technology:The Sukhoi 30, part of the Indian Air Force fighter jet fleet, on display at the Aero India 2007 air show in Bangalore. India and Russia are working jointly on its advanced variant. (Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/Bloomberg)
In October, India and Russia signed an agreement for the joint development and production of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft, or FGFA, making a commitment to sharing resources and work equally. A team of officials from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, or HAL, the country’s military plane maker, was in Moscow in late May for discussions on the estimated $4 billion, or Rs17,160 crore, project.
“We are (still) talking about the price and investment costs,” said one person familiar with the development who did not want to be named because of the sensitive nature of the project. “(Also) the more we delay, the less work we will get. That is a fact.”
The fighter plane will have a so-called swept-forward wing—which increases an aircraft’s agility and gives it the stealth feature to reduce risk of detection by radar. : The (technology demonstrator) aircraft being built by Sukhoi will use the engines, systems and avionics of the previous generation Su-30 plane.
“If something is going to come in one year, where could we have participation?” asked former air chief marshal S. Krishnaswamy. “That actually has a negative impact onour own R&D people and laboratories.”
Another former Indian Air Force (IAF) official, air marshal B.K. Pandey, said, “If the prototype is already decided, there is nothing original that Indian aerospace industry can contribute to the programme.”
A person familiar with the programme’s development said India would bring in its expertise in carbon-composite technology used in HAL’s Dhruv advanced light helicopter and Tejas light combat aircraft, both of which are homegrown programmes.
Russian, Indian firms will make an equal number of planes during the development phase
Once the technology demonstrator flies next year, Russia will work on developing more than six two-seater prototypes of the stealth fighter. Indian engineers will contribute to the design of the front fuselage, build composites for better stealth features and work on avionics.
“Once the front fuselage undergoes a change (to accommodate two pilots instead of one as in the technology demonstrator), the aircraft lift conditions will change, wings will change. This is where our learning will become useful,” said the person familiar with the development.
The new aircraft would be nearly a third lighter than the Su-30 and be able to fly longer than conventional fighters, besides possessing the stealth features. The aircraft is expected to be ready for induction in the Indian and Russian air forces by 2018.
HAL has in the past produced, under licence, Russian aircraft such as the MiG 21, which forms the bulk of the IAF’s strike fighter fleet. IAF also has in its inventory the Su-30 MkI, the India variant of the fourth-generation Russian fighter with avionics built by an India-led team which HAL will make under licence in the country.
The new Indo-Russian fighter is being designed to carry weapons in its fuselage, making it similar to the Joint Strike Fighter of the US.
While the components and systems would be built equally at the Komsomolsk-na-Amure Aircraft Production Association in Russia and HAL facilities in India, the engines would be made at a factory of NPO Saturn, the Russian engine maker. Both plane makers would build an equal number of aircraft during the development phase.
“Why did Russia want India to join (the programme)? Because they want money, they want (the) market,” said Pandey, a former head of IAF’s training command in Bangalore. “If we can get transfer of technology, HAL (will be) assembling the aircraft, then IAF has to buy the planes. So, they have an assured market”.
A majority of the planes in the IAF’s fleet are of Russian origin, with the rest from the UK and France. Although indigenous military plane programmes have been undertaken by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, or DRDO, and HAL, the Armed Forces remain dependent on imports.
India has floated a global tender to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft that could cost a minimum of Rs42,000 crore, evoking the interest of aerospace companies such as Lockeed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. of the US. It also plans to buy nearly 250 light- and medium-weight helicopters.
The Tejas fighter, conceived as a replacement for the ageing Russian-built MiG 21, is at least two years behind certification as it needs to achieve the so-called air staff requirements, or ASR, the standards set by IAF before induction. The military plane unit of Boeing has been asked to assist the Aeronautical Development Agency in certification of the LCA by 2010.
DRDO is now scouting for a foreign partner to build an engine for the Tejas fighter, after its unit Gas Turbine and Research Establishment failed to deliver the Kaveri engine even after nearly two decades of development.

 

[avatar]

please disregard this article.. its obviously has errors and has been written....

 

[flateric]

At Farnborough, Pogosyan informed of planned Su-35 / PAK FA production numbers

Su-35 - 200 to 2020
T-50 - 1000 to 2060

Oh my. Spock, Sulu, shields up...prepare photon torpedoes!

 

[avatar]

hey Flateric, no offense,
but you seem to be a little skeptical about the PAK-FA scene?

As you know, the Indian government has also set a lot of store by this project and government releases say that the PAK-FA will be progressively inducted in the 13 th Plan period ( 2017-22). what is your opinion on that count?

 

[flateric]

My opinion is to wait and see. Living in this country makes me sceptical about numbers told (if they are not going to export 80% of this stuff of course).
There's an interesting research paper, widely discussed over here ... http://www.rambler.ru/news/science/army/12172573.html
In 2000-2007 Air Force has bought 2 (two) new Su-34s, and has modernized 30-40 Su-27 and Su-25.
That's all. And these were years of oil prices bonanza, aren't they? I'm not sure that PAK FA will be significally cheaper then F-22A. And then go such an expressive plans. What the hell they are based on? mainly on the fact that you can promise everything for such a duistant future. Sukhoi is better to keep its promises with SuperJet 100. I'm tired of flying on Tu-134 and Tu-154 at local airlines.

 

[Sundog]

According to today's (July 16, 2008) Aviation Weeks Farnborough 2008 Show News on the PAK-FA,

"Officials at Russian aviation research centers associated with development work on the aircraft have told <i>Show News</i> that, although the PAK-FA straddles the two generations represented by an Su-27 on one side and the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 on the other, the design is closer to the Soviet-era jet than a U.S. stealth plane."

 

[Woody]

Speaking at Zhukovsky, just outside Moscow, the site of the Gromov Flight Institute last week (On the subject of the Sukhoi PAK FA), Col Gen Alexander Zelin told the RIA Novosti press agency: “We will begin test flights in 2009, and hope to receive the aircraft in 2013.”

From Flight Global.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/15/225495/farnborough-2008-russian-air-force-to-receive-sukhoi-pak-fa-to-be-equivalent-of-the-f-22-raptor.html

Cheers, Woody