5th gen light mulltirole fighter/Mikoyan LMFS

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

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

I would suggest the only sensible reason for being able to fly them unmanned is when the enemy has given up the F-35s and F-15s and F-22s and Rafales and Typhoons as just being too expensive and they start using unmanned drones that can pull enormous g that a manned fighter simply can't match in a dogfight...

but even then the manned fighters of today would be of no use because the aircraft are designed for humans so are not intended for more than 9 g... just taking the man out does not make them able to match a drone designed for high g manouvering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who cares about the transition...

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

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

What a stupid thing to say or suggest.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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...

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 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...

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

Are you saying it is impossible?

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

LMFS wrote:I am sure you are too...

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:

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.

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...

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.

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

So you keep saying but I am not agreeing.

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.

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

Claiming there is only one design possible is shortsighted

LMFS wrote:

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

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...

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.

GarryB wrote:
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.

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
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.

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.

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...

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).

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...

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.