PAK FA, T-50: News #1

NickM wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Unfortunately this will not happen as the population of local Russians are declining very rapidly and most young Russians are traveling to the West . In their place you are getting wretched people from China , India and such third world countries who will only take Russia through the highway to hell .

Making things up does not make them true.

TR1 wrote:Nobody ever planned to re-start An-225 production.
An-124 as far as military is concerned is just as good modernized as new build.

Are less than 20 An-124s and Tu-160s numericly sufficient in case a war breaks out?

Yes.

Strategic missile forces exist for that exact reason, if any way breaks out that the An-124s are not enough for.

AN-124s are expensive to maintain and to run for most transport uses, how many do you expect the military to operate in peacetime?

If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s. even if russia's budget is smaller how can it only operate less than 1/3 of the current US heavy transport and strategic bomber forces?

Russian AF is planning to have 25 combat ready An-124 by 2020, which is plenty. Do you see how much more nations have (or rather, LACK) in terms of air-lift capability, with the kind of budget that Russia has?
16 Tu-160s arr flying just fine, I am not sure where you get this "barely" business. It is hard to take your posts seriously with all the panic mongering.

Russia has a budget that is anywhere from 10% to 15% of the American military budget.
So it seems like they are doing very well if we compare the budget ratios.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s. even if russia's budget is smaller how can it only operate less than 1/3 of the current US heavy transport and strategic bomber forces?

Its not just about winning the war (ie the one that America could never win), its about winning the peace, as well.

Who "won" the Cold War? USSR - nope. America - NOPE. I'd say China - while everyone else was burning zillions, they leapt forward 40 years in about 10. Because everyone else's tech budgets were being burnt on new ways to kill each other.

Unfortunately Russia went to the other extreme under Yeltsin, but now with Putin, everything is in balance, and starting to rebuild.

Russia doesnt need dozens of White Swans or An-124s. There are many cargo and missile delivery methods.
And Russia doesnt need to meddle in affairs all over the World like some of these damned Americans literally think they ahve a God given right to do.

Russia is the biggest country in the World by a massive margin. Laden with all the resources her rivals could dream of. All RUssia needs is the ultimate deterrent, and the latest means to dissuade anyone else in other disputes.
By 2020, Russia will be leader in much, equal in many and will certainly have no reason to worry about the Neo Con maniacs across the Atlantic.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Man your unitopic blathering about

Good advice for yourself I think...because you haven't posted anything but rubbish since you joined.


...

ON the An-124...

The decision not to produce the An-124 is a mistake. IMO they'll regret it later on.

Just MOD decided to not buy it, that does not mean production will not restart for civilians!

Ofc a MOD order would seal the deal....if it does not happen I hope the new engines are at least still developed.

TR1 wrote:
Russian AF is planning to have 25 combat ready An-124 by 2020, which is plenty. Do you see how much more nations have (or rather, LACK) in terms of air-lift capability, with the kind of budget that Russia has?
16 Tu-160s arr flying just fine, I am not sure where you get this "barely" business. It is hard to take your posts seriously with all the panic mongering.

Russia has a budget that is anywhere from 10% to 15% of the American military budget.
So it seems like they are doing very well if we compare the budget ratios.

Werent there plans to finish those Tu-160 airframes left in the factories during the cold war? If its doen how many millions will it cost?

If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s.

Interesting line of thought: (wronged) number of An-124s and Tu-160s against combined number C-5 ,C-17 and B2......totally arbitrary for not say completely out of line.


For first, accurate numbers : (From Military Balance 2012)

Russian Airlift aircraft show :

Heavy transport aircraft

-12 An-124 Condor
-21 An-22 Cock
-118 Il-76MD/MF Candid

At those you must add, obviously, the contract with Aviastar for the repairing and upgrading of 22 AN-124 to AN-124-150M and the large scale acquisition of Il-476 and AN-70 foreseen in SAP 2020.


B-2 ,clearly, is NOT the counterpart of TU-160 ; in facts the unique real role that strategic bombers would have, in the very unlucky event of a full scale conflict between very powerful opponents not involving ICBM (in this instance relevance of any branch of Air Forces of both side would be next to ZERO and the only elements at count would be efficiency of ICBM and strategic IADs elements) , would be to take-off ,reach in the lesser time possible useful point of delivery for strategic range cruise missiles -with conventional or nuclear warheads ,at second of the typology of conflict- aimed at the most critical enemy assets (C-4 nodes, main airfields, main radar stations, satellite's data relay) land ,reload and repeat the sequence with the shortest cycle possible.

Even a monkey would be capable to realize that Speed of the delivering bomber and capability to deliver the cruise missiles with the greater range (and obviously the quality of enemy IADs) are the factors by far most important in producing the shortest cruise missile delivering cycle generating ,at its own time, the most quick possible progressive degradation of enemy military capabilities.


B-2 is a low subsonic bomber totally incapable to employ any kind of long range cruise missiles (the Unique American bomber with that critical strategic capability is only B-52 with AGM-86 !!! ), moreover NORAD lack even the shadow of a mediocre IAD and also any kind of very high speed interceptor optimized to track ,destroy and greatly dilute the density of incoming cruise missiles waves.

Russian Federation ,also today operate the greater fleet at world of high supersonic bombers capable to deliver long range stategic cruise missiles : 16 Tu-160 and 172 Tu-22M/M3/MR, all capable to employ Kh-55SM and the new Kh-101.
Anyone is capable to realize how the difference in capability between those aircraft (plus the Tu-95 fleet...) and cruise missiles against the USAF B-52H and AGM-86 in generating very short cycles of cruise missiles delivery to destroy opponent's Airfields, Command and Control bases ,main Radar stations etc...is simply CRUSHING !!.

An element even more important is the presence, on the Russian Federation's side, of a fleet of interceptors highly specialized for the task (detection and destruction of very high number of high performance cruise missiles) like Mig-31s, and the ,by far, most extensive and efficient IAD at world.

On western media that picture is avoided like death , but it is exactly how things stand behind PR-mist.

http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-22

Mindstorm, at this point less than 10 An-22s are flying in the RuAF, though some of them were recently restored, so the fleet is in actual better shape than 10 years ago.

That being said as a whole Russia's air-lift ability is huge by any nations standard, and the VTA plans through 2025 are pretty comprehensive.

All informative post Mindstorm.

I think the only Tu-22M3 capable of delivering Kh-555/101 series missile would be perhaps the 30 upgraded Tu-22M3M

Mindstorm wrote:B-2 ,clearly, is NOT the counterpart of TU-160 ; in facts the unique real role that strategic bombers would have, in the very unlucky event of a full scale conflict between very powerful opponents not involving ICBM (in this instance relevance of any branch of Air Forces of both side would be next to ZERO and the only elements at count would be efficiency of ICBM and strategic IADs elements) , would be to take-off ,reach in the lesser time possible useful point of delivery for strategic range cruise missiles -with conventional or nuclear warheads ,at second of the typology of conflict- aimed at the most critical enemy assets (C-4 nodes, main airfields, main radar stations, satellite's data relay) land ,reload and repeat the sequence with the shortest cycle possible.

Good Point and one of the reasons I belive the PAK-FA bomber will be Supersonic Bomber and not subsonic as rumours says is being looked at a-la B-2 but with better stealth.

For Russia that has huge land mass and very few if any Air Bases Overseas , Time to reach a point quickly fire its cruise missile and return back is a critical parameter , something a Mach 2 supersonic Bomber can do it well compared to subsonic one.

I wonder if not hypersonic will they try to push the Mach number of PAK-DA to higher supersonic like Mach 3 - 3.5

KomissarBojanchev wrote:integrated ground-space system ( Project "Aquarel")

Mindstorm whats that , any more details ?

I wonder if not hypersonic will they try to push the Mach number of PAK-DA to higher supersonic like Mach 3 - 3.5

There is a reason the richest country in the world withdrew their only Mach 3 aircraft... it was just too expensive to operate.

The simple fact is that moving from mach 2 to mach 3 means you need far more expensive materials and engine technology... and the difference for a missile carrier is not even relevant.

Like I have been saying... the cheapest but still effective option would be to make a flying wing with a horizontal tail to allow supersonic flight... With modern 5th gen bomber engines supercruising would become an easy option and a bypass chamber that allows fuel to be added and burned like a ramjet that is designed for supersonic combustion you could have a very fast bomber that supercruises to the target area at mach 1.5 and then accelerates to mach 3 or more using air bypassing the jet engines and acting like a scramjet for a short period... the aircraft surface would have to endure heating for a period but not the whole flight so it can be made from cheaper materials.

Werent there plans to finish those Tu-160 airframes left in the factories during the cold war? If its doen how many millions will it cost?

They already have. If they could have gotten the 18 odd that the Ukraine tried to black mail them with then they could have had a decent force of about 30 odd, but most of the factories that made the aircraft components are now in the Ukraine and without work all this time no longer exist.

One of the critical components is an aluminium box beam that is at the centre of the aircrafts design structurally... and that can no longer be made.

What ever they do from PAK-DA i hope its as stealthy if not better as US NGB under development and its supersonic atleast as good as Tu-160.

Austin wrote:What ever they do from PAK-DA i hope its as stealthy if not better as US NGB under development and its supersonic atleast as good as Tu-160.

Hmm, to nitpick I think the proper analogue would be the NNGB?(2037? bomber)

Russia's air lift capability is huge but I really don't think Russia needs that because maintaining a huge air lift capability is an extremely expensive exercise. More importantly the rail network around Russia is so very extensive that supplies can reach every nook of the country at short notices .

Huge air lift capabilities are generally maintained by countries that plan on invading foreign countries thousands of miles away or as in the case of India and China due to the inhospitable terrain that limits rail transport making it imperative for the armies to depend on air transport.

Sujoy wrote:Russia's air lift capability is huge but I really don't think Russia needs that because maintaining a huge air lift capability is an extremely expensive exercise. More importantly the rail network around Russia is so very extensive that supplies can reach every nook of the country at short notices .

Huge air lift capabilities are generally maintained by countries that plan on invading foreign countries thousands of miles away or as in the case of India and China due to the inhospitable terrain that limits rail transport making it imperative for the armies to depend on air transport.

Well Russia is also a very huge country like 7 times the size of India and with small population base , Weather can be extreme and that can cause disturbances with Rail and Road network and to cover long distances quickly you need Air Transport.

Not to forget Russia has to take care of CSTO members and also areas of interest that it has strategic interest in so you need large fleet of Air Transport to cover these and their new doctrine that base on Quick Mobility.

Russia probably needs more Transport wing then it has now but there is also financial limitations in having that

So just to clarify on the engine front the new engine is it the Type 30 or something else ?

"I opened the secret and say that we actually already have two engines of the 5th generation. Second, which is conventionally called the" Type 30 ", has been tested in flight on a fighter" T-50 ". Later he probably will the name of "Al-...". By its parameters it a 15-25 percent superior to the "117th

". "

Well we knew they were making a 5th gen fighter engine... I am more interested in the other 5th gen engine... do they mean that PD-14 engine they were working on for big aircraft?

GarryB wrote:Well we knew they were making a 5th gen fighter engine... I am more interested in the other 5th gen engine... do they mean that PD-14 engine they were working on for big aircraft?

No not PD-14 but Type 30 for PAK-FA it seems it is 15-25 % better than 117 the curent engine for PAK-FA

So my question was they said Type 30 was ready but we know they are working on new engine , so are they working on two 5th Gen Engine for PAK-FA ? Or its the same one

Indo-Russian FGFA/PMF model reveled at AeroIndia 2013



More pictures here FIRST PHOTOS: The 5th Gen Sukhoi-HAL Prospective Multirole Fighter

I was hoping for a more detailed model of a serial FGFA at AeroIndia.

Some interesting stuff posted on Paralay's forum...

Air Intakes Masking Device
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2362110

IR & Radar Signature reduction device
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2413161

These aren't necessarily the final solutions but it gives an idea on what they're working on.

So my question was they said Type 30 was ready but we know they are working on new engine , so are they working on two 5th Gen Engine for PAK-FA ? Or its the same one

Working on two engines designed to fit into the same aircraft that would therefore be the same size and weight and presumably thrust and performance would be a big waste of resources.

The Type-30 is the final series production engine for the PAK FA... there were fears it wouldn't be ready till 2018 and that early serial aircraft would take to the skies with prototype engines and that the final 5th gen engines would be fitted later when they were ready.

It now seems like the engines are ready before the serial aircraft, which is good because it means more experience time for the new engines so any bugs can be worked out.

No not PD-14 but Type 30 for PAK-FA it seems it is 15-25 % better than 117 the curent engine for PAK-FA

So if they are not working on the PD-14 as a 5th gen engine then perhaps they are working on a new bomber engine for the PAK DA. The only other alternative would be a new engine for a heavy subsonic transport, or the new subsonic CAS aircraft or last a high speed UCAV.

Those are the only likely candidates for a new engine and I suspect a variable cycle engine for a supersonic bomber would make the most sense... they could design it to operate as a ramjet for high speed flight to increase performance... especially in supercruise.

A normal turbojet chokes on supersonic air so when flying at mach 2 a turbojet reduces the size of its intake to reduce the airflow so when it gets to the engine it is subsonic and can burn fuel and produce thrust. If they can design a scramjet bypass flow chamber the supersonic air can be sucked in, fuel added and burned and a much larger volume of much faster air can leave the exhaust generating considerably more thrust than from a standard engine.

Using its hot core you could make very large engines for heavy aircraft with a large propfan added to improve performance at subsonic speed, so it could be the basis of a range of aircraft engines just like the D-30 from the Mig-31 is also used as the basis of the engine in the Il-76 and A-42 Albatross etc.

[quoteI was hoping for a more detailed model of a serial FGFA at AeroIndia. [/quote]

That is a bit unrealistic considering they haven't even got a serial PAK FA ready yet and it has a lot of testing to do yet.

These aren't necessarily the final solutions but it gives an idea on what they're working on.

Any single component doesn't need to be perfect and offer complete protection... it is like tank armour... ERA on their own are not good enough to protect any vehicle, but together with other technologies like modern composite armour structures, APS, ECM/ESM suites, DIRCM, Nakidka, etc etc and suddenly that vehicle is very well protected from a much wider range of threats. Different protection strategies offer best protection against a few specific things but when combined with other protections the coverage becomes more effective over a wider spectrum.