PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

I don't know. But you can calculate anything.
The factors are many and do not know them.
Also depends on the target: incoming target, or an escaping target, chase path, head-on collision path, intercepting angle ...

If a missile requires an acceleration phase, the faster is the launching aircraft, the better is. Because the time (and fuel) required to reach the maximum speed of the weapon is less. Otherwise, you could add to the missile a first stage releasable that accelerates the missile up to optimum speed without consuming missile fuel and then drop down. But it increases weight and drag of the weapon.

Werewolf wrote:

The point is, is there a way to calculate in general the increased range with the launching plattform's speed without having the exact data of missile performance during boost time based on what distance it manages to fly untill it reaches it average flight speed (+speed of launching plattform - deceleration).

Example: What would be the range increase of a R-33E be launched from speed of Mach 1 compared to it's range stated by missile developer?

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/510/

I'm afraid no. Some aerodynamics data are still required.. Even for simple calculations.


For speed vs range matter however. I'm working on an excel spreadsheet for this based on method in "Tactical Missile Design 2nd Edition by Eugene Fleeman" What i found out so far is that somehow the launching speed didn't really much affecting flight range. There is increase but this is only around 3 Km for a missile that i'm designing.


In other hand Altitude does matter. Missile launched from high altitude have lots of range.

Loft glide trajectory add quite huge portion of range, and the increase in range is directly proportional to the altitude of glide multiplied by the missile's L/D ratio.

Let's say that the R-33 can boost to altitude of 50000m then glide down.. How far it can go during gliding if L/D ratio is 3 (Typical for axissymmetric missile)

so 50000*3=150000 m or 150 Km glide range. Add range achieved during boost then you'll have the total flight range of the missile.

Any idea when T-50 could get IOC and FOC for RuAF?

Stealthflanker wrote:
I'm afraid no. Some aerodynamics data are still required.. Even for simple calculations.


For speed vs range matter however. I'm working on an excel spreadsheet for this based on method in "Tactical Missile Design 2nd Edition by Eugene Fleeman" What i found out so far is that somehow the launching speed didn't really much affecting flight range. There is increase but this is only around 3 Km for a missile that i'm designing.


In other hand Altitude does matter. Missile launched from high altitude have lots of range.

Loft glide trajectory add quite huge portion of range, and the increase in range is directly proportional to the altitude of glide multiplied by the missile's L/D ratio.

Let's say that the R-33 can boost to altitude of 50000m then glide down.. How far it can go during gliding if L/D ratio is 3 (Typical for axissymmetric missile)

so 50000*3=150000 m or 150 Km glide range. Add range achieved during boost then you'll have the total flight range of the missile.

Thanks for the recommendation, the book has quite interesting data. I'll have to look deeper into it but very good information to find.

BlackArrow wrote:In other words, you are saying: if Serbian air defences had better weapons and better trained operators and crews, they would have shot down more NATO aircraft? There is only one expression for such a statement: 'stating the bleeding obvious' - Kapitan Ochevidno

BlackArrow wrote:Maybe, but their air defences were still crap - how many NATO aircraft did they shoot down, 1, 2?

 

Oh my.....


BlackArrow ,believe me, it is not so difficult to understand.

Well take a deep breath and focalize your attention, ok ? .
Those downing was not........ok ? ;memorize : N O T.......the achievements of "Serbian Air Defense" ,but the achievements of a single SAM battery (4 launchers with reduced number of missiles from 3 to 2) ...ok ? memorize :  S I N G L E     S A M    B A T T E R Y.

Well now any time you want to attempt to argue on the reasons, the merits and implications of those events ,you must simply REPLACE any instance of "aircraft , missiles and UAVs downed by part of Serbian Air Defense IAD in Kosovo War " with " "aircraft , missiles and UAVs downed by a single Serbian SAM battery in the Kosovo War ".

Done ?  Well !!      
Like you can see it was not so difficult  


Now, all the remaining concepts will result surely much more simple : this single battery composed and based upon downgraded 1950 Soviet SAM technology was so "deadly" simply because it was purposely MODIFIED with a personal initiative of the commander Z. Dani to get a VERY VERY LITTLE FRACTION of the deploying/redeploying times performances, phase and frequency modulation capabilities, fuse sensitivity, off road mobility, jamming signal's rejection threshold and range , and mean dispersion times after shot  offered by up-to-date SAM specimen of those times.

Good ?

Well     , then we can go on : This modified 3th/250 battery in spite of that was, anyhow ,still only capable to engage  a single target at time , had reduced PK against maneuverable aircraft, was completely incapable to engage air delivered munitions, retained a relatively high jamming susceptibility  and ,above all, had very high times of reaction , all elements which not only prevented ,very often, this single modified battery from engaging even this single target ,in an enemy air group, that it was capable to acquire (because in the meantime that aircraft had moved outside of the battery's SAM effective kill radius or because one or more of the aircraft of the enemy group had get the time to deliver some HARM shots in response) but also at reload very often the two single missiles for the modified TEL which it wasted in those failed engagements.
In spite of all that this battery resulted totally impervious to the coordinated and concentrated SEAD/DEAD efforts by part of NATO Air Forces, purposely committed to the suppression/destruction of this deadly battery, with zero material and live losses at the end of the conflict.  


Now try to image what this same single battery would have achieved if it was composed of BUK-M1   (6 TELAR for battery) with 4 ready missiles for unit - with way higher PK against maneuverable Aircraft ,ECCM, decoy discerning capabilities- , immensely lower reaction times,much bigger engagement footprint , capability to engage a target for each TELAR, way lower deploy/redeploying times, crushing superior jamming signal rejection performances , much lower reload times, and capability to engage any kind of flying object at any altitude.

Done ?

Well, now multiply that for each single battery of Serbian IAD and add mobile integrated command posts , some ground based ECM systems and some offensive mean to attach the close NATO air base where theirs aircraft stationed and you have an IAD anyhow several orders of magnitude weaker than the  weakest single node of the IAD operative in URSS even only at the beginning of '80 years      



BlackArrow now reread post 675 here

https://www.russiadefence.net/t183p660-pak-fa-t-50-news

and you will realize what kind of enemy IAD , with what charateristics and capabilities, NATO Air Forces was really capable to confront ,with conventional means ,in 1999 employing its most up-to-date Air Force assets and why this SINGLE home-modified serbiBATTERY , anyhow ridiculously inefficient and outdated for Russian standard of those years ,  was so "deadly" against them.

Werewolf wrote:The point is, is there a way to calculate in general the increased range with the launching plattform's speed without having the exact data of missile performance during boost time based on what distance it manages to fly untill it reaches it average flight speed (+speed of launching plattform - deceleration).

You can use this formula for estimating the performance of a missile

Change in Velocity (Delta V) = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN (initial weight / final weight) m/s

This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In other words, it assumes an all-boost motor not a boost sustain motor.

This formula is derived from the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Re how much thrust is needed to sustain say Mach 2.0 in an Air to Air Missile

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level; ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m
V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level; ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage,
nose and tail profile
A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.025 m^2 for a 7" diameter missile.

Also ,remember that a missile looses it’s agility before it looses it’s speed

Sujoy wrote:
You can use this formula for estimating the performance of a missile

Change in Velocity (Delta V) = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN (initial weight / final weight) m/s

This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In other words, it assumes an all-boost motor not a boost sustain motor.

This formula is derived from the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Re how much thrust is needed to sustain say Mach 2.0 in an Air to Air Missile

Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A

P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level; ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m
V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level; ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage,
nose and tail profile
A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.025 m^2 for a 7" diameter missile.

This is good but nonetheless inadequate.

Better use method presented in this :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12515933/Tactical-Missile-Design-Presentation-Fleeman.

Using above.. you're not only able to calculate range but also shape and plot the missile's trajectory aside from actually design new missile concept from the ground.

Anyway.. talking about PAKFA, has Sukhoi OKB Released the "official" dimensions of PAKFA like Length, wingspan, height etc. ? So far my sources are old paralay images and news.. Which may not be accurate.

What you need are the launch parameters of the missile in question.

The R-33E is only carried by the export model Mig-31 which means its launch range is often optimum launch range, which means likely Mig-31 flying high and fast at target flying high and fast directly towards the Mig-31.

For missiles like the AS-11 (Kh-58) then we can have some variance because some of the aircraft that can carry the AS-11 can't fly very high or very fast (ie Su25TM), or by necessity operate at low level so a flight range of up to 150km will be shorter for the Su-25TM at 600km/h at 20m above the ground than it will from an Su-24 at 8,000m flying at 1,600km/h approaching enemy airspace.

It is know that the 150km range is the best range for most aircraft and that a launch from an Su-25TM at low altitude would greatly reduce that range to probably 30-40km or so. We do know that when launched from a high flying Mig-31BM moving at mach 2.4 that its range was described as over 200km.

the thing about missiles is that there is rarely efficient use of fuel... high energy fuel burns for a very specific amount of time and then lower energy fuel is burned to maintain speed for a much longer period. At low altitude where drag is much higher the missile will stop accelerating at a much lower speed due to drag equalling thrust and the cruising speed will also be much lower so even without gliding range will be seriously effected.

For instance the Kh-31 is a mach 1.5 missile at low altitudes while at high altitudes its ramjet engine allows speeds double that to be achieved and maintained.

Two more PAK-FA by the end of this year   

LINK

Viktor wrote:Two more PAK-FA by the end of this year   

Great news. Hope it's inducted sooner into VVS than what everyone expects.

I think the Russians will speed up now. The situation simply demands more military spending.

We can also expect some other new generation aircraft projects soon.

I also think that it is very important for Russia to order more Su-35S aircraft.

It would be rather interesting to see how America reacts towards this move of Russia. So far F-22 Raptor was the undisputed king of sky. But now that with every passing day PAK-FA is coming into reality, and the production of F-22 has been stopped, will US re-start the production of F-22 to counter Russia, or they feel confident in their ability with the new F-35?

Restarting production of the F-22 would be enormously expensive.

I am sure they could probably interest countries like Japan and Israel and Australia and the UK to join in, but I really don't think just starting production again would be enough... they need a redesign and upgrade too.

A serious rethink on what they want to do and where would also be beneficial...

GarryB wrote:I am sure they could probably interest countries like Japan and Israel and Australia and the UK to join in, but I really don't think just starting production again would be enough... they need a redesign and upgrade too.

Only one person's name popped in my head after seeing OZ mention in your post: Dr. Carlo Kopp

That would be his wet dream... to have F-22s replace his beloved F-111s.

Of course Australia simply could not afford them... even if the US could.

GarryB wrote:That would be his wet dream... to have F-22s replace his beloved F-111s.

Of course Australia simply could not afford them... even if the US could.

This is where we are all hoping that T-50 turns out to be a lot more affordable and maintenance friendly than the uber-expensive to buy/maintain F-22 raptor.

BTW, I thought Aussie economy is strong enough to support F-22! Why do you think otherwise?

Any dimensional data (Length, wingspan, height etc) Released for PAKFA ?

Well i really need to adjust my scaling. It's based on quite old Paralay drawings which may, well inaccurate. I do not really believe one i found in hmm i forget in RIA Novosti or Russia Today as their numbers appears to be directly taken from F-22 dimensions.

My own scaling based on that Paralay drawing however suggest that PAKFA have 90 Sqm of reference wing area, with estimated fuel capacity of 12000 Kg. Nonetheless it sounds excessive i think   

Good video..



.

This is where we are all hoping that T-50 turns out to be a lot more affordable and maintenance friendly than the uber-expensive to buy/maintain F-22 raptor.

The PAK FA should be a more balanced aircraft with technologies that are more mature now. They have been able to look at US experience and learn from it... plus they have a partner, a more relaxed production schedule.. initially the F-22 was going to be produced in enormous numbers to literally replace the F-15 in service... anybody who knows anything about planning and management knows that starting a project expecting to make thousands and then scaling it back to make 750 and then finally making 189 is a recipe for disaster.

Small production runs don't need to be more expensive but you have to know from the outset that production numbers will be small.

In many ways initially the PAK FA can be seen as a more expensive specialised version of a Flanker. In time however the non stealthy aircraft will likely be replaced by stealthy designs like the new 5th gen light fighter whose main purpose will be numbers and bomb truck.

This might be the most widely exported model as it will be sophisticated, but its primary purpose will be numbers.

Having 200 PAK FAs will be expensive but not offer good coverage of Russia, so having 200 PAK FAs and say 500 LFS that can operate in stealth configuration with a light air to air armament to take down an enemy air force, or be less stealthy with a heavy air to air weapon load to blunt a cruise missile attack or a mixed load of air to air and air to ground weapons to deal with enemy air and ground forces will make it flexible and capable.

BTW, I thought Aussie economy is strong enough to support F-22! Why do you think otherwise?

An F-22... even if they were available would probably cost half a billion dollars each... about the same as the C-17. Unlike a medium transport aircraft however they would need more than a dozen or so.

The Aussie economy might look rosy but it is mostly based on mining... which actually means foreign companies making lots of money out of things under the Aussie soil of which Australia does not end up with much except a few high paying jobs for a period and some tax revenue. It isn't really sustainable and in the end the biggest winners are the foreign mining companies.

Pak-Fa also has the advantage of not being the wunderwaffen to rely on- the muricans are on totes opposites with the F-35 needing its
onii-chan if its planning to go near any decent ADS unmolested   

Guys, any new info about PAK-FA?

collegeboy16 wrote:Pak-Fa also has the advantage of not being the wunderwaffen to rely on- the muricans are on totes opposites with the F-35 needing its
onii-chan if its planning to go near any decent ADS unmolested   

But F-35 is a striker, while T-50 is going to be air superiority first and then omni role. So not fair to compare both these two. The best and most exact comparision of T-50 should be with F-22 Raptor, IMO.

PS: Mig LMF may be counted as F-35 competitor sans the fact that its development path is still unclear, and Mig may want to make it a dogfighter first and then a striker.

But F-35 is a striker, while T-50 is going to be air superiority first and then omni role. So not fair to compare both these two. The best and most exact comparision of T-50 should be with F-22 Raptor, IMO.

It is not fair to compare early model Mig-29s with no radar vs new model F-16s but conflict is not fair.

The vast majority of fighter aircraft in the west will be F-35s from the US... the F-22 is going to be a very rare bird to see in any sky because it needs a few serious upgrades that is likely to not get any time soon.

PS: Mig LMF may be counted as F-35 competitor sans the fact that its development path is still unclear, and Mig may want to make it a dogfighter first and then a striker.

I suspect the Mig will be a dogfighter first and a light bomb truck second.

GarryB wrote:It is not fair to compare early model Mig-29s with no radar vs new model F-16s but conflict is not fair.

But both of them were designed and conceived as dogfighters. Infact many Fulcrum and Viper drivers still feel that their planes are the best.

Here the scenario is different. Comparing T-50 with F-35 is not like comparing F-16 with Mig-29(as both are dogfighters), but like comparing Su-35S with Su-34(one is a dedicated fighter whilst the other being a dedicated striker).

I know that life is not fair. The American F-15s dominated Iraq's/Serbian Mig-29s because of AWACS, better number etc. And an AAM doesn't distinguish between a striker or a fighter.

But just for the sake of paper comparision, the real rival of T-50 is undoubtedly F-22 raptor.

The vast majority of fighter aircraft in the west will be F-35s from the US... the F-22 is going to be a very rare bird to see in any sky because it needs a few serious upgrades that is likely to not get any time soon.

Using F-35 as an air-superiority platform is a perfect recipe for disaster. Here I completely echo Dr. Kopp's thought process. No way in the world it can fight T-50. Even upgraded Su-30MKI, Su-35S should take it to the cleaners, IMO.

I suspect the Mig will be a dogfighter first and a light bomb truck second.

Bingo. But the Russians should also develop a stealthy 5th gen MRCA striker ala F-35 Lightning. Or they think that T-50 should suffice in that role as well. In that case:

T-50 = F-22 + F-35 in one package

Interesting news from interfax military:

UAC to build up to 600 fifth-generation fighter jets

UAC plans to sell 200 Su-35 fighters on domestic, foreign markets - Pogosyan

http://www.militarynews.ru/EMAIN.ASP

But F-35 is a striker, while T-50 is going to be air superiority first and then omni role. So not fair to compare both these two. The best and most exact comparision of T-50 should be with F-22 Raptor, IMO.

The F-35 is the replacement in the USAF for the F-16, and a wide variety of other aircraft... within NATO it will be the standard stealth fighter and will first and foremost be a fighter.

Here the scenario is different. Comparing T-50 with F-35 is not like comparing F-16 with Mig-29(as both are dogfighters), but like comparing Su-35S with Su-34(one is a dedicated fighter whilst the other being a dedicated striker).

It depends on the purpose of the comparison... the F-35 will be the standard NATO stealth fighter aircraft and there wont be any more F-22s built which means that the F-22 will likely only be available in very small numbers and the main NATO stealth plane will be the F-35.

But just for the sake of paper comparision, the real rival of T-50 is undoubtedly F-22 raptor.

The paper comparison for the PAK DA is the B-2 but such comparisons are irrelevant because bombers would never meet in combat... just like the chance of an F-22 and PAK FA meeting in combat is very slim. the chance of the F-35 and PAK FA meeting is somewhat higher however.

Using F-35 as an air-superiority platform is a perfect recipe for disaster. Here I completely echo Dr. Kopp's thought process. No way in the world it can fight T-50. Even upgraded Su-30MKI, Su-35S should take it to the cleaners, IMO.

When the only tool you have is a hammer treat every problem like it is a nail...

Bingo. But the Russians should also develop a stealthy 5th gen MRCA striker ala F-35 Lightning. Or they think that T-50 should suffice in that role as well. In that case:

T-50 = F-22 + F-35 in one package

The F-22 is like an F-15C, while the F-35 is like an F-16 plus AV-8, plus A-10, plus a few other aircraft.

The PAK FA was always supposed to be a stealthy Flanker... ie fully multi role.

The LFS is going to replace the Mig-29 and Mig-27.

there is a PAK program to replace the CAS Su-25 too and of course the PAK DA to replace strategic and theatre bombers.

With PAK FA, LFS, PAK Sh, and PAK DA, I really don't see any need for any other type.