VnomadJo it appears you are aware of where Vnomad is coming from.For those who dont know Vnomad and the guys at IDF and BR use this ludicrous statement by a HAL exec to rubbish the PAKFA (and also note in these forums supporters supporters of the FGFA also use that same statement to praise the FGFA).
Ahh.. so I’ve been rubbishing the PAK FA and praising the FGFA as an uber-fighter?
Honestly… :rolleyes:
Vnomadthe same equation applies. σ=π R² is the RCS of a sphere or a solid circle presented on a vertical plane to the impinging radiation.
there are adjustments to be made in terms of λ and the relation to the size of the sphere for creeping wave inclusion exclusion, but that is basically it.
That would imply that the RCS of a plate (that reflects all the incident radiation back to source) is the same as that for a sphere (which causes only a minimal portion to be reflected back).
VnomadActually you’re plain wrong. Ff1987 used the basis of the cross-sectioned tennis ball as a semi-official approximate. If the tennis ball gives us the approximate all-aspect RCS average of the T-50, then using σ max = π ·R^2 is perfectly valid, in fact it is the ONLY equation for measuring the RCS of a sphere -is the tennis ball not a sphere where you come from?
What would be the RCS of a circular plate of metal of the same area?
VnomadPAK-fA second stage engine should produce enough thrust but AMCA project is joke anyway. so it wont matter. unless you seriously think India with its tiny aerospace budget can develop fighter around 180kn engine.
Joke? You mean like the majority of your posts? Though perhaps I’m being unfair, you have taken trolling to the level of an art-form. That’s an achievement. Sort of.
VnomadYou sir, are incorrect. VVS had a exercise With the Frenchie last year, remember! They have the usuall “open skies” exercise as well. They have the Pomor exercise. Its not exactly a “Red Flag” size exercise, but nevertheless Russia AF do have exercise on International Level.
‘Open Skies’ doesn’t involve fighters AFAIK. And I was under the impression that POMOR involving only navies. I wasn’t aware of Franco-Russian exercise. Good to know how far we’ve come from the Cold War days. It does make one wonder what European collective defence is really about though. Anyway that’s for another thread.
Vnomadyes. and this is why the majors will cut costs to remain the big players in the business. There is no other way out IMOHO. We are far from one men airframe, of course, but there is some solution that will be needed to be taken on the way by both the manufacturers and the legit customers.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Podded solutions were opted for save money that would be needed to redesign the airframe (to accommodate an IRST for example). In 35 years of production, the only significant change in the F-16, that went into production was the dorsal spine. And the one variant that incorporated an IRST costs twice as much. Producing multiple airframes is bound to be more costly than persisting with one and adapting everything else to it.
VnomadWell you might know something about FGFA but i dont but what i do know is that your IAF will be stringent. And need i remind you of the 41 demands whatever that means
There’s some IAF specific customization no doubt – data-links, EW systems but by and large the difference would be no more than between the Su-30SM and Su-30MKI. As things stand orders have been cut, and most of the major stuff – twin cockpits, composites is all out of the window.
VnomadI don’t think so. The Russians will use their PAK-FA as much as the French does with their Raf, just to maximize their momentum on the scene of international affairs.
How many foreign forces does the RuAF regularly exercise with? Only Belarus comes to mind. And there was one anti-terrorism exercise with the Canadians IIRC.
Point being made here is that there aren’t any significant security issues with regard to delivering a full spec PAK FA/FGFA to India. Given that there’s isn’t a lot of point to developing a second degraded variant (like the proposed F-22EX).
(this is why the cost of system will outpace the cost of airframe, with the latter decreasing drastically in a near future).
That’s because the sub-systems are regularly upgraded while the airframe stays almost constant.
VnomadPAK-FA is not for export.What is for export is FGFA derived from the PAK FA which Indians and Russians are working on .What that actually means we have yet to see
Come now. We all know the FGFA’s just a renamed PAK FA; they’ll be some add-on kit, not unlike the F-35I but no substantial changes.
Now I can’t definitively state that its not a downgraded version like you’re implying, but it is true that manufacturing two variants simultaneously will push up costs for both. And they’ll be relatively little achieved given that the IAF is more likely employ it in combat than the RuAF, and therefore has an even greater incentive to keep the tech under wraps.
Vnomadwell the F135 is a variant of the F119 which itself is super cruising.
perhaps the F119 then?
Still not enough thrust (155-160kN). A customized F119 would be an option though, particularly since its only engine aside from the AL-31 series that’ll continue to be upgraded post-2025.
VnomadWe don`t have the RCS of F22/35 and you think Sukhoi just give out the RCS of the T-50 like confetti.Also as Jo said it depends on what standards are used in measuring RCS
Call it misinformation if you will, that’s the figure out there. Both the F-35 and PAK FA are up for export so the figures can be obscured only to a point.
VnomadAmazing that you actually think you have the RCS of the T-50 nailed down from reading that article
Actually I remember something similar in 2010 report –
Late last year, a defence ministry delegation to Sukhoi’s flagship aircraft facility in Siberia became the first Indians to set eyes upon the next-generation fighter that is slated to form the backbone of the future Indian Air Force (IAF).
Sukhoi’s FGFA prototype, which is expected to make its first flight within weeks, is a true stealth aircraft, almost invisible to enemy radar. According to an MoD official, “It is an amazing looking aircraft. It has a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of just 0.5 square metres as compared to the Su-30MKI’s RCS of about 20 square metres.”
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/01/india-russia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html
That corresponds quite accurately to ‘average figure of 0.1-1 m 2’.
Vnomadthey should aim for a single engined variant using the same engine as pak-fa
Not enough thrust at approx 150kN wet. ADA is probably looking for 180kN or more. The only type that can pull that off is the P&W F135, though its not designed for sustained supercruise.
VnomadAren’t you bored, now that you’re out?
What? I heard it was the best time in history to be… oh right.
VnomadSigning an agreement nominated in foreign currency means, actually, agreeing upon terms of payments, not trading upon costs, profits and safety’s means.
It’s especially so in multiyears contracts, where no real assessments on prospective currencies’ values is possibile. It’s quite a common practice both amongst private firms and governments’ agencies.
You can offset the currency movement by either packaging the risk and offloading it onto the private sector or by both parties agreeing to jointly bear the theoretically losses incurred by either side. The first isn’t likely because both parties are too large to need insurance and second isn’t feasible because it effectively rewards one side for running unsustainable deficits.
This is very different from the operation of private firms which have practically no control over the currency markets.
By the way, it was in a post of yours it was hypothized countries could performance payments in their own currencies but still estimates costs in a foreign and 3rd party currency (USD).
I objected it’s a far more customary way of behaviour to compute every detail of international deals with regard to respective parties’ currencies and then formalize the deal in a globally accepted 3rd party’s currency.
You’ve missed context of that post. That point was about govts that have a luxury of operating a global reserve currency (eg. UK and GBP), using it for international transfers and how the negotiations for such deals would still be in USD (or EUR).
While internal discussion may be in terms of their domestic currency, when negotiators from country A sit down with those from country B, its usually the USD that they use while hashing out an agreement.
Of course, I stated that too, limited fluctuation in currencies’ nominale values are usually allowed to freely happen, but no party would risk to break the bank because of them becoming too ample.
Whether the fluctuations are limited or otherwise each side is responsible for its own losses. Or its own gains, in the event of a deflating currency.
Sign In
