TwinbladeI am not a fan of Mr Sengupta. He has even stolen from our very own Scorpion82, still far more credible than ‘Boom’.
At-least because he is copying from such sources as Janes.
Each to his own.
His choice of sources, however, is not restricted to Janes. He has often used the info from sales brochure of other manufacturers to describe the features of indigenous products.
TwinbladeAnyone can shed some light on this bird?
IAPO Su-30, Bort No. #05. Features canards, SAAB AVITRONICS suite and IFF bird slicers..Is that the Su-30MKI #05 prototype reworked to Su-30MKM?
Or first Su-30SM for RuAF?
I think its the MKM which uses SAAB AVITRONICS suite.
TwinbladeWell, what a surprise! Does this mean that the official prices given in French Senat reports, & the announcements of Eurofighter production contracts, are actually accurate, & the internet fanboy estimates are wrong? Astonishing! I’d never have believed it!
Shiv Aroor reports that the difference in price is “marginal”. Didn’t someone claim on this forum just a few days back that Dassault’s bid might be as low as 60% of EF bid ?
TwinbladeSu33 vs Mig29k: Operating the heavier fighter by the flying wing is only limited by the deck operation & to a less extent, the C & C of the CVG can provide. A smaller deck naturally requires a moderate sized fighter to better utilize its limited area. Even an A/C carrier as big as VARYAG, which features 3 take-off positions, it only allows the heavy weight Su33 to take off @ MTOW from the longest runway. When the full load Su33 taking off from this position, it will dramatically slow down other deck operations.
However, for the mission wise, the CVG, born to be the attacking force, will be likely operating in hostile surroundings. A shipborne fighter will operate with less CGI, more hostile ECM, facing multi-level air defense: SAM/AAM etc. A greater payload with suitable combination of A2G ARM/AAM is more desirable. A longer haul fighter can keep the mothership farther from danger zone and a great payload/longer haul fighter can reduce number of sorts to accomplish a given mission and thus provide better flexibility of fly wing operations.
For CAP, with a 250km air defense zone, a Su33 at 26.6 tons TOW can have 10 AAMs & stay over combat zone for 2 hrs, while a Mig29K taking off @15.8 tons with 8 AAMs can stay over the combat zone for 1 hrs.
For inland strike, the mission is even more favoring the heavier Su33. Assuming the CVG keeps a 200kms distance from coast, and striking 100kms inland. A Su33 with 5.7 tons internal fuel and 4 AAMs + 6 X500kg + 2X1000kg A2G munitions to achieve the mission, while a Mig29K can only do it 4 AAMs + 5X 500kg A2G munitions with 4.1 tons internal fuel.
Mig29k only carries 500kg level bomb while Su33 can carry up to 1500kg level bomb. At least brahmos can only be carried by Su33 level fighter, do you agree?
I think your numbers are way off Pinko.
Currently MiG-29K with three drop tanks offers the same range as fully loaded Su-33, ei 3000Km (from the official info given on RAC MiG-29K and KNAAPO Su-33 page), however that much fuel will have to come off the external payload capacity of MiG-29K which will leave it with near about 2500kg of further payload capacity. A Su-33 fully will be able to carry almost 3100 Kg of ammo when fully loaded with fuel.
MiG-29 when flying on internal fuel has a range of 2000 Km, something the Su-33 can do on nearly 2/3’rd fuel ( full fuel is 12100 liters or nearly 9600 Kg, so 2/3rd fuel = 6400 Kg).
Now a MiG-29K flying on internal fuel can carry 6000 Kg of ammo on its hard points and a Su-33 flying on 2/3rd fuel can carry nearly 6300Kg of ammo (pretty close to the limits of its hard points). That puts them pretty close in terms of range on useful loads (if we consider the ratio of drag forces and their engine thrusts should be pretty close, taking into account their respective sizes and drag on ammo hanging from the wings).
The advantages of Su-33 are pretty obvious, in terms of a greater scope for upgrades and more powerful radar. The real advantage of MiG- 29k comes with its size. If both the aircraft have similar availability rates and same levels of carrier crew training, then the higher number of MiG-29’s per carrier should be able to provide higher number of sorties. If we consider same number of sorties undertaken by both types then MiG-29k comes up with lower operating costs.
MiG-29K has 5 pylons that can carry 1150 liter fuel tanks. That is closer to 1000 Kg on 5 pylons. The closest cousin of MiG-29K is MiG-35 which has an empty weight of 11 tons. The loaded weight of 29K is 18 tons. That should roughly put the internal fuel of the 29k no less than 5 tons. 5.7 tons of fuel on the 33 is way less than the 2/3rd fuel capacity of the 33 (at that capacity the 29k equals 33 in terms of range). The sea wasp engines have to be really thirsty to put 29K at a serious range/payload disadvantage that you are talking about.
TwinbladeThe Benchmark of the deal has been set for $20 Billion, the deal can be substantially lower. Besides the deal include 126+63 fighters, upto 50% of the deal value as offsets in the Indian defence industry, a local assembly line, training of air crew and production staff and transfer of technology in several critical areas as well. It isn’t as bad as it sounds.
TwinbladeThe worst thing in that picture above is the position of the F 15E. Below the vanilla flanker ? Really ?
it doesn’t show the rankings, it shows the most effective role.
Twinbladealso on a tangent note, it’s not like china didn’t try to buy the design.
russians prob won’t sell the technical data along with it. that’s what blew the deal off.
Them sneeky russkies. Always trying to rip off poor hard working chinese.so chinese by getting an Su-33/T10K example what do you actually get?
1. an outer mold line, one that is suspect to tolerance at that.
Test prototypes are mostly over engineered. Wouldn’t hurt to copy it.2. some structure design details.
3. some performance details they can backout from limited flight test.
that is it.
u can’t make a good copy just by having those.
because, you don’t have and these things are critical:
1) aerodynamic database.
2) structure dynamics/loads database.
3) stress analysis that shows your tolerance and structure design is valid.
4) flight control software.
Agreed. Needs a reasonable amount of computer modelling and verification via flying prototypes. A lot of these modifications can be made to safer J-11B prototypes from the learnings of T-10K purchased from Ukraine (barring the fbw code)…
all of what i mentioned above is what you need for a real production aircraft and just having a physical example don’t get you that. may be you can get away with with a sopwith camel but no, not a supersonic stobar fighter.
the amount of work sounds like new airplane?…
Which frankly it isn’t. Despite the efforts needed for RE they are considerably less than designing, say a navalised J-10.
so somehow you think you can have replicator and clone an airplane from an example…:rolleyes:
again, I would have to say, most of you guys have no idea, technically, the effort it takes to pull a RE off… so lead you guys to think it is “easier” route.Other than components with very exotic materials technology and/or embedded software codes, most of the other components have to go through lesser amount of computer simulation during the design phase. Besides it is easier to plan the production assembly in advance when you RE a design.
So instead of going through 10-15 design iterations and verification, all the RE guys have to do is go through at max 2-3 designs in the ball park of the original (sometimes even a direct copy) and they can manage to achieve the same ball park performance. The original designer puts in hundreds of thousands of man hours while the RE guys manage to pull it off in a fraction of man hours while building their work on the efforts of the original designer. You know why it is called IP theft ? Because it is what it is, plain 2 bit thievery.
to me effort means one thing which is labor and hard work that goes into an engineering product.
See the earlier paragraph.fixing prob and coming up solutions that the sukhoi bureau themselves prob never knew….
Wait…. what ? *sarcasm on* I think Chinese should offer an upgrade to Su-33 fleet *sarcasm off*
These things you will never learn if you have gone with Co-production and consultants, doesn’t matter how much $$$ you pay. these things would be considered the core-capability, their inhouse experties the real IP, of the airplane makers. sounds familiar?
Agreed. Consultants are used to help you with your design to enable it achieve its true potential or point out the flaws in your design. There are certain firms that sell you their design and help you implement it. Unfortunately Sukhoi isn’t one of them. They sell you a product and help you produce it. The lessons from the license production are for you to absorb, for it is what you have paid for. Taking a design from someone who isn’t willing to sell at whatever price being offered is like kidnapping someone’s child when they don’t want to sell it to you. Even if you take great pains to teach him to scrub, do the dishes, clean the chimney, it won’t change the fact that its not yours.the schpill I gave above is really how chinese built up some of their core capability and why India seems to lag behind, somewhat.. .if it keeps on going doing ToT and co-production with russians/brits/Americans thinking that would be the key. (indian nationalist, please hold your fire :cool:)
It isn’t the key but its a vital component in reducing the “generation gap”. The Mki deal enabled us to grow over the production facilities barely sufficient to manufacture Jaguars and MiG-21’s, the stagnation due to near economic collapse not withstanding. The MMRCA circus is in effect a guarantee the infusion of latest manufacturing technology, which coupled with increased investments in HAL and various DRDO labs will enable us to become self sufficient to design as well as manufacturing.
Luckily, the difference is that (not that chinese has more money, smarter, or don’t care about IPs),
Chinese didn’t have a choice, it went under embargo most of the past 60 years and still is. and Russians wouldn’t sell anything because they would put russians out of business.back ’59 they had to finish setup production line for Mig-21F-13 by themselve with incomplete soviet data and no help and also produce variants. that whole difficult experience trained their aerodynamicists and engineers. the chief designer of J10A wasn’t even a that good of aerodynamicist until he was put in charge of RE mig-21MF at a secondary factory in Chengdu.
Agreed.
why am I being so nice…damn, I am giving away the secrets of the chinese aerospace industries.
—–
p.s.so what have we learned today:
1) It;s harder to RE but you get more out of it than you typically would think.
But its way easier than starting from scratch
2) money is not the key to success.
Especially while RE, because it takes lesser man hours
3) lay off on the moral superiority stuff.
Agree. If it shoots, it can kill too, copy or original
4) nationalism blind you.
Especially when it concerns IP infringement and reverse engineering
5) lots of chinese aviation history.
My reply in bold.
TwinbladeMy limited understanding about IP right is as follow but it’s US law.
If you patent something the design will be yours or about 20 years or so depends on what you patent and everyone would need to license your patent to be able to use that technology. In that 20 years period if someone steal your tech through reverse engineer you can go to court and likely win.If you don’t patent it and decide to keep it as a business secret then you can hold on to the technology as long as you can if you can keep it secret. There is no time limit like in case of pattern. However the downside is if someone successfully reverse engineered it then they are rightfully allowed to use the technology.
However military tech is a different beast but judging by the PAK-FA testing process numerous patterns are filled for its technology so it should be a pattern case under russian law if the copy occurred before the pattern expired. However I am not sure if China is a law abiding citizen of Russia and International law 😮
I thought that the 20 year law was only applicable to pharmaceuticals. Anyhow thanks for the post 🙂 You learn new stuff everyday.
PS: Isn’t the YF-22 almost 20 years old now ? I think its time to steal some blue prints 😎
Twinbladeactually if we want to talk about “those designs are based on their own effort”…
I actually know quite a few guys who worked on LCA as consultants.
needless to say the whole schpew about “own efforts” only live in ardent nationalist like you.
Something wrong in using consultants when you own the IP rights to the existing design and it follow up ?
you mean uphold the face of idealism but in the back doing just the pragmatic thing?
if India were to be so idealistic then its whole acquisation strategy wouldn’t invole ToTs.
I really don’t get what you are trying to convey. ToT’s fit perfectly within the scope of idealism and pragmatism.
Twinblade:)anyway, i feel its important to wish all sides best of luck for tomorrow. Its actually a moment of great import and whatever happens I have enjoyed arguing the toss with everyone over the years…..
🙂
I’d suggest that you hold your breath till the end of the month 🙂 There is a lot of number crunching that has to be done.
TwinbladeNot sure how much visibility would be gained from that one bar dissapearing.. Plus it makes the whole canopy slide back construction more complicated.
It doesn’t have to be slide back anymore
TwinbladeThanks Ken.
TwinbladeWill the above statement also include the Engine?
Yes.
TwinbladeSorry dear, but i just couldn’t help myself from asking you this… What according to you is the difference between a STOBAR & CATOBAR carrier & ops? :rolleyes:
I asked this because both Su-33 and MiG-29K were originally meant to be CATOBAR capable, but reset of carrier design goals changed them to STOBAR types. I was interested to know whether the CATOBAR capable nose gear was ever designed or tested.
Twinblade“Omnirole” Rafale Steals Lead Over Eurofighter Typhoon in Libyan Operations
A Dassault executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at best a supporting role in the Libyan operations.
The last thing a sales executive wants to do while trash talking the opponents is being identified.
Sign In
