PAK FA, T-50: News #1

Russians are quiet able to produce an invisibility cloak!! The problem only is money & I can't resist but say that Russians entirely are to be blamed for this. I mean they [under international pressure/arbitration] skip their lucrative deals in latin America & more profoundly in MiddleEast. What they are doing they simply are letting go of the chances to show of their weapons in real battle field. I mean this Libyan war is just a air show to exhibit the never-selling Rafael & the likes....Russians could have easily boosted their S-300s if they had given it to Libya [even 2/3 units]...& they surely would have knocked Rafaels out of sky

In 10 years time if the West tries this sht again the Russians might have the option of sending a carrier or two to support an ally and scare NATO away.

Right now however they don't.

It is also not totally cut and dried either... Gaddafis forces were largely Soviet Armed and he has spent most of the last few years sucking up to the west regarding the Lockarbie bombing et al.

It is not like he was a huge client and good buddy.

He was certainly a free thinker that didn't always tow the western line, and this is what made him a bad dictator (as opposed to the good dictators like in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia).

News about the engines for the PAK-FA

More On the "Second Phase" Engine

Lenta.ru had an
informative piece on the PAK FA’s “second phase” engine yesterday.
It calls the “second phase” engine “Item 129” [Изделие 129]. Lenta
also says the provision of the first “Item 129” engines will coincide with the
first PAK FA or T-50 fighters entering the force in 2015.
It notes the “first phase” engine is “Item 117” or AL-41F1 [АЛ-41Ф1].
The AL-41F1 will be used in the prototypes and the first series models which
will enter the Air Forces’ inventory in 2015. It has 19,334 lb. dry thrust, and
33,047 lb. with afterburners. It is equipped with a plasma ignition system,
all-aspect thrust-vectoring control, and digital controls.
The Lenta piece says a less powerful variant of the AL-41F1 – the
AL-41F1S or “Item 117S” – will be put on the Su-35S fighter. The AL-41F1S has
an older digital control system and a little less thrust.
According to Lenta, not much is known yet about “Item 129.” It was
announced earlier it will have increased thrust and greater fuel efficiency than
the AL-41F1. “Item 129” will reportedly have 24,054 lb. dry thrust, and 39,566
lb. with afterburners. The newer engine’s also likely to have a longer service
life.
Lenta adds a report from Sukhoy that it expects to finish its
prototype airframe testing either this year or next. In 2013, the Defense
Ministry’s supposed to get 10 experimental aircraft for combat employment
testing.

Fighter 5 th generation PAKFA will be unveiled at MAKS-2011

Fifth-generation fighter - Long-Term Complex Frontal Aviation (PAKFA) will be presented to the public at the Moscow Air Show (MAKS-2011), told reporters on Tuesday in Yerevan, the president of KLA Mikhail Pogosyan. "We expect to submit PAKFA the public at the MAKS-2011", - he said.

In addition, Pogosyan said that in anticipation of MAX, at Le Bourget in France, "SCAC" will represent the public aircraft Sukhoi SuperJet 100, and he did not rule out signing new contracts for the aircraft.

Hope they show it with mock weapons in the weapon bay and in full military markings... it will look cool.

Is the second prototype colored now? It would be nice to see them both flying together.

Excerpts from UAC Chief Interview Mikhail Pogosyan

RT: What impact will the arrival of the fifth generation of fighter jets have on the concept of military action in the air?

MP: I'm sure it will have a serious impact, since the fifth generation of jets will have a new level of stealth, and higher military capacities and range for air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. These jets will be able to fight the enemy while staying out of the killing zone. I'm sure that the introduction of fifth-generation jets will also improve the performance of fourth-generation jets which will perform within the same group of jets. I think that the demand for new advanced jets will not only open the market for the fifth-generation jets, but will also extend the lifetime of the fourth-generation jets via new modifications, because mixed jet groups of these two kinds will have a very high performance level.

RT: So, fifth-generation jets – are they produced entirely in Russia, or are there still some parts or some technology that you import?

MP: Those jets that are now being tested are 100 per cent produced in Russia. But in view of the international nature of our program, we signed a contract with India in December, we'll co-operate on conceptual design with them, and this obviously will result in the fact that at some stages some non-domestic equipment will be involved. I think that this is quite in line with the spirit of the times, and I'm sure that we'll find ways of co-operation with our overseas suppliers which will allow us to guarantee that the tasks set by the customer are completed. There's nothing wrong with this. We're making our aircraft, both civil and military, not only for the domestic market, but for the international market, too. And this makes us look for the best solutions which would meet all the tough requirements set by customers.

RT: You mentioned a contract signed with India on a fifth-generation fighter jet project, while there are reports saying that China is planning to produce an exact copy of the Russian fighter jet – is that true, and if so, were you taking into account such a competitor?

MP: There have been some reports recently in the media saying that China has started testing its own fighter jet of the fifth generation. This probably means that the investment made and the goals set by the Chinese aircraft industry cover not only civil aircraft manufacturing, but fifth-generation jets as well. So I think it'll make our life more interesting. Competition always makes you develop further, be more active.

RT: Could you perhaps expand a bit more – how would the market react, should a Chinese fighter jet emerge?

MP: Making such complex products as fifth-generation fighter jets is a very complicated and time-consuming business. I think that the market will react to the products it's offered. I think that we are quite ready to compete with our overseas partners, and this applies to competing both with the most advanced American aircraft, and with the new projects by our Chinese colleagues. I do not think that we will lose our position on the market. Our goal is to convince the market of the advantages of the aircraft we're developing together with our Indian partners.

Russian stealth experience with foreign avionics

experts generally give negative ratings outlook re army and navy. According to experts, over 20 years did not create any new tank or plane, and the Russian Army adopted only one helicopter. According to experts, the flight-test T-50 at the plant were using French technology. On the prototype T-50 was installed avionics import, domestic tested on another machine. Russian electronic filling to replace the French. On the observations of experts, it will not make the T-50 cheaper than Western counterparts.

Putin, on the eve of watching the flight of the T-50, noted that the fifth-generation fighter will be priced cheaper in 2,5-3 times as compared with foreign counterparts. As the prime minister said, it will be a machine that will outperform the U.S. F-22 in maneuverability, armament and range.

As Putin said at the first stage of creating an aircraft spent 30 billion rubles, to complete the project needed another 30 billion will then begin upgrading the engine and aircraft armament.

Marginal rate of PAK FA - 2600 km / h, maximum besforsazhnaya speed - 2100 km / h. Practical flight range of 4300 km. Armed with machine consists of a 30-mm gun, 8 internal points of suspension and 8 external. For comparison: the marginal rate of U.S. F-22 Raptor is 2,410 km / h, maximum speed of the aircraft besforsazhnaya - 1963 km / h. His practical flight range - 3,219 km. At the armed F-22 20-mm gun, 8 internal points of suspension and 4 outside.

http://www.newsru.com/russia/18jun2010/tu_50.html

According to experts, over 20 years did not
create any new tank or plane, and the Russian Army adopted only one
helicopter. According to experts, the flight-test T-50 at the plant were
using French technology.

Over that same period how many new tanks were created internationally exactly?
Over the last 20 years the US still uses the M1 Abrams it had had in service for ten years, the Brits are still continuing with a tank payed for by the Shah of Iran in 1979 called Challanger, and the Leopard 2 continues in German service.
Regarding aircraft the Typhoon and Rafale and F-22 took a ridiculous amount of time and money to get into service and F-35 is still 4 years away at least.
The Russians went through 3-4 economic collapses and two internal civil wars and twenty years of minimal military funding.

Regarding tanks no one is introducing new tanks now.

Regarding aircraft apart from stealth fighters there is little need for any new aircraft their either...

i think , in the latest 15 years russians made aprojects more than USA..

VIDEO: PAK-FA needs advanced composites. Can Russia make them?

PAK-FA: IDA's unclassified analysis now online

Interview with GD of Saturn V Chepkin

http://www.russia-today.ru/tema-nomera/2394-nash-otvet-brazilcam.html

On Military Aircraft Engine

For military aircraft, we have created two engines - one for the aircraft, the Su-35 ", the second - for the Russian aircraft 5 th generation of T-50". The first - "117C" - is mainly intended for export. it is easier in terms of aerodynamics, and most importantly - targeted for aircraft with conventional arms, suspended on pylons outside the fuselage, with no strong constraints on dimensions. Such schemes are used on aircraft 4-th generation, exported to India and Malaysia.

The second engine - "117" - though only differ by one letter in the title, is much more advanced engine - this is a real engine of the 5-th generation. we sometimes hear from competitors the engine of 5-th generation should have such a blade, such and such materials, high-speed rotors, and you do not have this ... None of this is all just ways of achieving the goal. A single goal - increasing specific thrust, ie the ratio of thrust to its weight. For example, the first jet engine Arkhip Mikhailovich Cradles weighed 1350 kg and had the same cravings, that is, its specific thrust is equal to 1. The engine is the 4 th generation, "AL-31F, has already managed to achieve specific thrust of 8.7, and car 5 th generation, the figure is 10.

- What are the new challenges encountered when creating the plane 5 th generation?

Problems have to solve a thousand. Say, for reducing the radar visibility "T-50 has a scheme with an internal arrangement of weapons, so is becoming increasingly important problem of reducing its size. And that means we have to be develop and put into service a new weapon, but since it is low volume, it must be highly accurate. It therefore necessarily needs a fully functional GLONASS.

The American GPS, for obvious reasons is not suitable, since in times of crisis they will disable it, and both during the Ossetian-Georgian war, they impose an artificial shift in the coordinates of 300 km. Also need to know exactly, not just to shoot, but how do you shoot, so should be a modern mapping system. The missile itself should be unobtrusive. Such weapons are now manufactured, and all this affects the design of the engine. Work is proceeding according to plan ... In general, in my opinion, the plane turns out good, no worse than the American "F-22".

By the way, if we compare the T-50 "with the" F-22 ", Western sources say that the T-50" loses much of the last parameters such as infrared engine visibility in the rear hemisphere ?

We're working very intensely, and to reduce the infrared and radar visibility, and were twice as better performance in comparison with the "F-22" (at least for those data that are published and which I have).

Today, the Chinese have copied our Su-27 "and are ready to sell it on world markets at dumping prices. ?

We do not lose, because such an aircraft as we do, the Chinese have no time soon will be! They say that the plane made is 5-th generation, but you can say anything ... They are the best engine copied from our "AL-31F. We also do engine 5-th generation, and it is in all of its parameters on traction, in specific fuel consumption corresponds to the 5-th generation.

I open a secret and say that we actually already have two motors 5-th generation. The second, which is now conventionally called the "Type 30", has already been tested in flight on the fighter T-50 "According to its parameters it a 15-25 percent greater than "117 ".

There has being some speculation about Russia/India joining forces once again this time around single engine

5th generation fighter.

Now this would be something that would sell well and would be beneficial to Russian and Indian forces.

I dont know how much is this info true and if true I fear info could be misinterpreted with AMCA India is

developing on its own from the start.

There is not reason why India cannot co develop a light 5th gen fighter with Russia and keep its other programs going.

Any new technology or techniques they develop with the Russians can be transferred to their other program and they can decide which they want to choose at the end of it.

This wish to do everything on their own is getting a little thin... it is a nice ideal, but even the US can't do it all on their own and look at how much they spend a year on "defence".
three quarters of a trillion dollars and their standard pistol is Italian, their new GPMG is Belgian, their MBT has a German gun and modified British armour.

You'd think they would be happy they had Russia to share development costs and know how with them. The US wont even share F-35 secrets with the UK... with their special relationship.

OEIS ( optical-electronic integrated system ) [ via flateric )

http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avionika/126-optiko-elektronnaya-razvedka-.html

Looks similar to DAS in functionality

Not really a surprise when you look at their investment in optics and IRST technology...

Austin wrote:PAK-FA: IDA's unclassified analysis now online

Interesting analysis

but none the less i'm still in doubt related to the "Plasma Stealth" subject .

anyway it seems i really need to get back and start spamming my design to Secretprojects.uk.. and make name for myself

Some images in that analysis are clearly made by Secret project members ..and i know them ..quite close .

PARIS: Russia's PAK-FA fighter shows promise
By Alan Dron

Russia's Sukhoi PAK-FA stealthy fifth-generation fighter is showing promise in its test-flight programme and will probably fly at Moscow's MAKS air show in August, says United Aircraft chief Mikhail Pogosyan.

"There is no aircraft in the world that doesn't undergo certain modifications based on the test [programme] results. The most successful only require minor modifications to support systems. Our experience so far gives us confidence that we will avoid significant problems. The past year gives us sound grounds to say we are moving in the right direction.

"We're quite happy and pleased with the course of testing."

Two prototypes are now flying at the Gromov flight test centre at Zhukovsky, a suburb southeast of Moscow.

Russia has a requirement for 150 or more of the aircraft, which carries the internal Sukhoi designation of T-50, to enter service from 2015-16. India plans to buy between 200 and 250 of a modified design under the designation Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft.

Pogosyan denies that New Delhi is simply providing funding for Russian designers to produce a modified aircraft for the Indian air force's requirements.

He says India is bringing its own engineering input to the joint variant, although he declines to detail New Delhi's contribution beyond saying it covers aspects of airframe design, software development and other systems.

Pogosyan points to previous co-operation between the two countries in which Indian engineers helped to develop the capabilities of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI in Indian service as evidence of India's engineering expertise.

Asked for his professional opinion on China's J-20 stealth fighter unveiled in January, Pogosyan says: "You'd better ask the Chinese."

Pressed on whether he feels the aircraft is a genuine prototype or merely a technology demonstrator, he says: "China's aviation industry has achieved really significant progress. But on the other hand, to create a really competitive product is time-consuming, demands significant experience in the engineering field and experienced human resources."

Just noticed in a video showing the PAK FA prototype landing that it has an interesting configuration for its braking parachute.

The design clearly allows for a rear facing antenna of some sort, whether it be an active radar or a passive listening sensor is not clear as it is unlikely to be fitted at the moment..

A thoughtful reply to stealth countering

First of all clutter rejection is not a feature of the radar antenna or hardware, it is a software feature. The filters are software based and are written for each radar type. Obviously a Russian radar fitted to a Su-35 will want to include small RCS targets, whereas the radar fitted to a Ka-32 will be optimised for lower speed things like periscopes or small boats in the water. Different radars, different purposes, different filters.

This means that all objects detected flying at less than 100km/h can be rejected, but any object flying at more than 150km per hour or above 6,000m will not be rejected as clutter no matter what size they are.

The issue with Doppler shift is amusing... an F-117 will have a specific flight path it will need to fly. Its design reduces the range at which it can be detected, but it is not invisible so it can't just fly anywhere it likes. If it were to fly directly over a radar site it will be detected so it will have a specific flight plan it will need to keep to to avoid being detected.

With this in mind on the threat of a stealth attack the enemy will not simply launch one fighter to search with radar to find the F-117, multiple aircraft will be sent to find the threat. Beaming one radar is simple... add another 4 radars located in different places and you will find it is not possible to beam all the radars. (Beaming means fly perpendicular so the closing speed is zero).

Finally using a B-52 to hide B-2s in its wake is stupidity. The enormous RCS of the B-52 will attract interceptors from all over... interceptors that will also be scanning for very small RCS objects called stealthy cruise missiles to see if any have been launched yet. They will use both radar and IRST to try to find those cruise missiles so if B-2s are there there is a very good chance they will find them too.

GarryB wrote:First of all clutter rejection is not a feature of the radar antenna or hardware, it is a software feature.

I never said that it was. But for brevity's sake, when we use the word 'radar' we generally mean both hard- and software.

GarryB wrote:The issue with Doppler shift is amusing... an F-117 will have a specific flight path it will need to fly.

True enough

GarryB wrote:Its design reduces the range at which it can be detected,...

Wrong. In radar detection, everything is detected. The problem is discrimination. It may sound counter-intuitive but upon radar impact, the F-117 is already 'detected'. What happens is that the return echoes for the F-117 are filtered out, hence giving the false impression that the aircraft is not 'detected'.

GarryB wrote:...but it is not invisible so it can't just fly anywhere it likes. If it were to fly directly over a radar site it will be detected so it will have a specific flight plan it will need to keep to to avoid being detected.

You missed the point of my post completely, which is using the Doppler component ALONE to detect an F-117 class body, in other words, to distinguish one particular Doppler shift from among many other Doppler shifts that may be present in the same field-of-view. The Doppler shift occurs only when the body is either approaching or receding away from the observer. The greater the angular difference between the observer and the body, the less pronounced the Doppler effect. For another observer in a different position, the Doppler effect may be available for data processing. If the angular difference is to the point where the body is moving radially from the observer, meaning neither approaches nor receding, then as far as the Doppler component goes, the body does not exist, even if the observer is human and is looking directly at the aircraft.

GarryB wrote:With this in mind on the threat of a stealth attack the enemy will not simply launch one fighter to search with radar to find the F-117, multiple aircraft will be sent to find the threat. Beaming one radar is simple... add another 4 radars located in different places and you will find it is not possible to beam all the radars. (Beaming means fly perpendicular so the closing speed is zero).

Provided all those stations do not filter out the F-117 in the first place. That is the advantage (or problem) with 'stealth', it is to force the seeker to process so much radar data that it will increase the latency time between moving from one target to another.

GarryB wrote:Finally using a B-52 to hide B-2s in its wake is stupidity.

Why? Because you said so? Like it or not, we the world's leader in using 'stealth' and 'non-stealth' platforms in combination. We do not need to use a real B-52. The refueling tanker that just gassed up the F-22 pair will do just fine in an exercise to test out the tactic.

GarryB wrote:The enormous RCS of the B-52 will attract interceptors from all over

That is the point.

GarryB wrote:... interceptors that will also be scanning for very small RCS objects called stealthy cruise missiles to see if any have been launched yet. They will use both radar and IRST to try to find those cruise missiles so if B-2s are there there is a very good chance they will find them too.

You wish. For starter, now the defense must assume that every threat contain a 'stealth' element. That will require additional processing time, human and computer.

Wrong. In radar detection, everything is detected. The problem is discrimination. It may sound counter-intuitive but upon radar impact, the F-117 is already 'detected'. What happens is that the return echoes for the F-117 are filtered out, hence giving the false impression that the aircraft is not 'detected'.

Trade the radar and the radar wave for a human with a torch. Light from the torch hitting an object is not detection. Light from the torch hitting the target and reflecting back to the observers eye and the observers brain distinguishing the light from the object from things between the observer and the object, things around the object and things behind the object that might make the object hard to see is 'detected'.

The torch alone detects nothing, the detection system is the human or radar system.

You missed the point of my post completely, which is using the Doppler component ALONE to detect an F-117 class body

Your point that one radar searching for an F-117 using doppler shift is not an important point because there will rarely be a case where just one radar is searching. With many radars searching your point becomes moot because multiple radars can't be 'beamed'.

The Doppler shift occurs only when the body is either approaching or receding away from the observer.

You like to be picky, so allow me to play the same game... Doppler shift occurs with a moving radar too, the problem of beaming is that the doppler shift of the target is the same as the doppler shift of the background because compared to the background and the target are getting closer to the moving radar at the same rate and therefore have the same doppler shift.

Provided all those stations do not filter out the F-117 in the first place.

50 years ago they would likely all filter out such information however the knowledge of the existence of bird and smaller sized targets suggests that current radars and even old radars will have software that specifically looks for those special birds and insects as a priority because the result will either be a successful intercept of a real threat or a trophy of significance to go on the mantlepiece... the worlds first supersonic Sparrow.

That is the advantage (or problem) with 'stealth', it is to force the seeker to process so much radar data that it will increase the latency time between moving from one target to another.

Don't be silly. Now that the Commanche is cancelled and the minor production of a few stealthy blackhawks to contend with anything with the RCS of a bird or smaller travelling faster than 120km/h can be only one thing... a stealth aircraft and while there are trillions or more of birds and insects, the number of birds or insects that can move faster than 120km per hour is zero so simply ignoring RCS and just looking for objects flying faster than 120km/h will show stealth aircraft but not birds and insects. The increase in data will only be a problem if there are thousands of stealth aircraft flying around the antenna.

And of course the real problem which is what do you engage these targets with.

Why? Because you said so? Like it or not, we the world's leader in using 'stealth' and 'non-stealth' platforms in combination. We do not need to use a real B-52. The refueling tanker that just gassed up the F-22 pair will do just fine in an exercise to test out the tactic.

I explained why it was stupid. Attracting the defences attention with something that isn't stealthy and hiding your stealthy aircraft near it will greatly increase the defences chances of spotting your stealthy aircraft.
It is stupid for the same reason that having a guy in a bright red coat walking around with your snipers to hold their extra ammo and equipment would be stupid.

I realise it is a standard tactic for submarines to shadow large ships to get into places they shouldn't be, but even then the risk is enormous.

With a B-52, as I said the defences will be looking for stealthy cruise missiles the B-52 might have launched or is about to launch so it will be looking all around the B-52 for small RCS and IR emitting targets while moving interceptors to shoot it down. The standard use interceptor would be a Mig-31 with a large powerful radar and IRST. You want those flying near your B-2s then fine.

You wish. For starter, now the defense must assume that every threat contain a 'stealth' element. That will require additional processing time, human and computer.

In a first strike it is most likely the B-2s would operate alone so as not to give away the attack.

In a non first strike situation in the 6-8 hours plus it just took to get the B-52s and B-2s to Russian Airspace ICBMs and SLBMs will have already severely degraded the air defence network and your average cessna could probably make it through.