Forum: Technology

I stand corrected, Primorsky. Cheers.

F-16.net Sponsor

You're taking it wrong, just because it looks pretty doesn't make it a killer.

The Raptor had the systems beneath it's skin to back up it's form/function. So far the T-50 does not, nothing but an airframe demonstrator; this isn't done, that isn't ready, this is still being developed, Gen 4+ motors that are 'modified' etc...

On the other hand some things that aren't exactly 'pretty' can be very deadly...

Who would want to tangle with a Hog, especially in his world where he had the advantage? Considered ugly by many, known as deadly by all!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

primorsky wrote:

shep1978 wrote:

I hear that the true 5th gen engines for the PAK-FA are 10 to 12 years away from entering service. Seems like a bodge job more and more as each day passes, a mangled Flanker design that will only come near to meeting its peer rivals abilities in another 15 years or so.
To little to late to expensive for Russia.

Existing Saturn's new "117" engines are good enough for PAK-FA - ~15 000kg thrust and supercruise capability. According to designers, 117 meets all requirements of 5th generation engines except thrust to weight ratio.

Sure; engines that are 'good enough'? LMAO

Who settles for 'good enough' when creating a truly 'advanced' fighter? Doh

The AL-31's basic design still dates back to the late 1960s just as the PW F100 series.

Putting 'modernized' or 'redesigned' -117 motors into the T-50 would be similar to using F100-PW-232s into the F-22.

I'm sure they would have been 'good enough' too.. Rolling Eyes

I'll also quickly point out the F119 (and F100/F110) has a higher time between overhauls than the expected LIFE of the AL-31/41 engine.

Stick with those 'good enough' motors; we'll use the frickin' awesome motors! Cool

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

Understand basic Russian approach is endless modernization of post-Soviet gear. It is understandable strategy taking into account Russkies lack money and R&D base to create something completely new. It looks like they have already reached wall with Su-35 Flanker-E upgraded 4th generation fighter being the last Su-27 incarnation. That means PAK-FA will become some Su-35 clone with new airframe in my view. Russkies were able to design new airframe possessing simple RCS reduction features which gives it 0.5 sqm of stealth level. However they are now only capable to fit into PAK-FA some PESA radar, not-supercruise engines, old armament and ECM suite. This situation will last very very long time in my opinion. In sum PAK-FA won't be any 5th generation fighter but only its parody. Smile

what a poor troll. Laughing

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Sure; engines that are 'good enough'? LMAO

Who settles for 'good enough' when creating a truly 'advanced' fighter? Doh

I would love to see your country going trough same crisis Russia had in 1990'.
In fact we already see how this small crisis reflect on US jet fighter development.

Quote:

I'll also quickly point out the F119 (and F100/F110) has a higher time between overhauls than the expected LIFE of the AL-31/41 engine.

So 3000hours between overhaul? Because that is life 117s.

@ultor

Why would Russia build Su-35BM in large numbers when they will have PAK-FA soon?

Even if its RCS is just 0.5m2 it is still much better solution then Su-35BM.

The newest F100-PW-229EEP is good for 6000 cycles TBO. (Cycles not hours) Some F100s have been 'overhauled' 3 or 4 times now and have been in service since the early 1970s.

Quote:

The inspection interval increase extends the amount of time between scheduled depot maintenance from an average of seven to nine years to more than 10 to 14 years, depending on utilization rates.

So yes the F100 has a much, MUCH, MUCH higher TBO/Life expectancy, and is much more durable.

Gas-turbine engine technology as been high on the US industrial espionage watch list for many years. China has been fishing more than anyone else, but our advanced materials and manufacturing processes have proven almost impossible to duplicate by reverse engineering.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

EDIT: Read on China's efforts http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/hous ... hor6603901

I don’t know, I’ve always thought that the A-10’s ARE beautiful in their own way, perfect examples of form following function.

It’s way to early to dismiss the T-50 though and I just put the pics up because there are some nice views especially of one parked next to a T-10. In fact, I don't actually think it's really all that "pretty", it sorta has a 'cobbled' together look if you ask me, does look good from nose on though; but we shouldn’t expect too much, it is an early development model after all. I hadn't realized how much smaller than the T-10 models it was though. Time will tell I guess whether it's a shark or not, we'll just have to wait and see.

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

Come-on guys! It is stupid to judge fighter capabilities on its shape. Smile

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

milosh: Because PAK-FA will be in production much later than stupid 2015 time-frame and will be much more costly than Su-35BM - it is estimated to be 1/3 more expensive. Such RCS for 5th generation fighter means PAK-FA is not in that class. I would call PAK-FA a "5th generation imitator".

If PAK-FA use old technology (as you are implicated) then I really dont see why production of PAK-FA would be problematic.

33% higher price isnt nothing if we compare capabilities.

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

Maybe Russkies will try to design more advanced systems for PAK-FA in coming years but they ultimately fail. Moreover you must take into consideration basic fact Russkies lost their production potential and now they are capable to build about dozen fighters annually and PAK-FA production process will be much more demanding than old Flankers had. PAK-FA price is 100 million bucks which is a huge cost for Russkies - no way they can buy a lot of these fighters.

The PAK FA unit cost is estimated with 85 - 100 mln $, definitely expensive especially for the Russians. But I wouldn't bet my a$$ on them failing with their development efforts and the production of the Su-30MKK/2 progressed quite well and at a fast pace. Venezuela for example ordered its 24 Su-30MKV in summer 2006, the first aircraft were delivered on 30th November 2006 and deliveries completed in 2008, nearby KnAAPO has also produced the Su-27SM upgrades, built the Su-35 prototypes and produced additional Su-30MK for Indonesia. IAPO built Delivered 18 Su-30MKM and 28 Su-30MKA, next to some Su-30MKI between 2007 & 2009. Sorry to blast your bubble Ultor, but Sukhoi isn't doing as bad as some other Russian companies and certainly not as bad as you try to paint it.

Production potential of Sukhoi factories is much better then in old USSR. Today they can go and buy Japan's NC machines without any problems. Money is still problem. If there is will in Russia to create effective military then money wouldnt be problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1rrb2ccQZY

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

You apparently ignored several important facts that ruin your theory:

- it is well known fact Sukhoi's production potential is higher than all remaining Russian aircraft producers but it is by no means comparable with old USSR's military industrial complex. I only point out Soviets were able to build about 1000 combat planes annually in 1970s!

- of course a vast share of Sukhoi's production is for export but this fact also largely limit possibility of large purchases of combat planes for VVS because export orders will always have higher priority for Russkies as source of easy money for various cliques in an unforeseen future. The best example is failure of Su-34 acquisition program. Note this plane is made solely for Russian Aviation.

- now Flankers are produced basing on old and proven Soviet technology. However PAK-FA will press for complete retooling of Sukhoi factories, introducing of new technologies, improving manpower skills etc. That alone should be so expensive and hard to accomplish challenge Russkies may easily fall on it. Additionally high PAK-FA price is a hard hindrance for VVS in current situation.

As you can see PAK-FA production if ever begin will be very limited. Look at Su-35 purchases - Russkies ordered 48 Flankers-E in five years time-frame which means annual production will be about ten planes. If we take into account PAK-FA is at least 1/3 more expensive than Su-35 we can assume with high degree of certainty VVS will get about 6-7 PAK-FA a year which is ridiculously small number not adequate to fulfill any Russian's military needs. Therefore it is not surprising Bob Gates made fun of Russkies testifying in Congress that in 2020 US will have about 15 times more 5th generation fighters than Russia! Smile

Forum: Technology

Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA