Jō AsakuraI thought it was only civil Ansats that weren’t certified for FBW?
Anatoly Kvotchur details synthetic vision systems in development @ the Pilot Flight Research Centre, Zhukovskii.
Note touch-screen LADs and Zhukovskii owned Su-27 (P?) doing a touch and go on Kuznetsov:
Jō AsakuraActually I don’t consider it that unlikely a possibility…
Neither did some dude back in 1961, called Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Jō AsakuraMind you, I’m sure China would love to see the United States still pouring money into F-35 decades from now at the expense of relevant platforms such as F/A-XX, UCAVs, NGB, etc.
I don’t know about the 2030s, but in the coming four weeks if Obama can’t persuade the Republicans that Corporate America and the ‘super-rich’ must share a greater portion of the tax burden (and signals from Joe Boehner suggests he won’t), then the programmes you mention are certainly in unchartered territory.
Even the best case scenario will have a negative impact on the F-35 procurement procedures and timetables (SYP/MYP) outlined above by LowObservable. It’s not inconceivable F-35 procurement could be cut to divert ca$h to more pressing programmes in a decade’s time.
The US President has already stated that US foreign & defence policy will shift it’s focus to be more ‘China centric’ this coming decade and hence such intentions probably bode well for projects like the latest incarnation of NGB and Boeing’s F/A-XX. The latter may prudently be in co-operation with another country struggling to put it’s long-term financing on a sustainable footing- Japan.
Jō AsakuraNot true, there are significant differences in appearance. The wing shape & planform (both LE & TE); wider and shallower intake and higher upper-fuselage wing -body blending with lower cross-section on the X-47B.
Considering existing and upcoming UCAVs will , by definition, have a similar generic appearance, imho, NG’s would easily win the beauty contest.
Jō AsakuraVishnu Som flies the Dassault Rafale:
http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/bigger-higher-faster/flying-the-dassault-rafale/256732
Jō AsakuraIn all likelihood the ‘back end’ of the T-50 AESA, is currently very similar to ‘Irbis’, if not identical. Obviously, they still have a couple of years before the design specs and components are frozen. I’m optimistic a ‘plug n play’ GaN array will be available by 2020 for series production machines:
http://www.tusur.ru/ru/centers/noc_nt/
…especially as there are indications Phazotron will commence bench testing of a GaN AESA late next year:
Interview with Phazotron-NIIR Corporation Designer General Yuri Guskov (pg.15)
…we have launched the designing of a new AESA featuring more efficient cutting-edge transmit-receive modules that are being developed by the NIIPP Semiconductor Instrument Research Institute in the city of Tomsk. We hope that an experimental example of the advanced AESA will have been manufactured and submitted for bench tests by late next year.
AfaIk, T-10M b/n ‘708’ is also an Izd.117 engine testbed (alongside b/n 710), and has been flying @ Zhukovskii earlier this month:
Jō AsakuraI actually quite like it! New holographic HUD… cockpit pics please!! (I gotta sneaky feeling about those touch- screen LADs ;)).
Dr. S. do your magic!
Jō Asakura1. It’s common knowledge that Chinese have NEVER marketed the J11b internationally. The simple logic is if you never do a thing at first place, how you can find this thing happens is because you haven’t done it correctly as you accused ” that counterfeiting Su-27Ks is more difficult and less economically viable than AVIC envisaged. “?!…
Like any low class China basher, you even don’t get basic fact correct by saying J11b is counterfeiting, the fact is J11b’s airframe is licensed copy as long as it doesn’t export, and Chinese honor the original deal and never seeking to export.
Wow!! You’ve really got upset over a reasonably reliable source (Russia’s FT) claiming a deal is close, like their UK counterpart, they may get their AVICS confused with their Shenyangs, but they do know their business & financial matters. Have you considered that if Sukhoi is settling for so few fighters (24 for $1.5bn)- that may have something to do with loan repayments (perhaps debt rescheduling) for funds secured from ‘Vneshcombank’ for Sukhoi to develop the Su-35S around 2008?
2. Chinese ministry of defense has openly denied China is in procurement of Su35. It think it’s quite clearly said as long as Chinese side is in concern, it doesn’t need to be said again n again in order to win a debate like some forum behaviors
Of course it’s the Russian side that have reported on these negotiations, that’s the very reason the Chinese broke off talks last time! Even Sukhoi & Rosoboronexport is playing ball this time by refusing to comment, you don’t hear press rumours and such official secrecy over talks with Brazil, Vietnam or Malaysia- because there are none.
Maybe you should lobby the mods to delete the last 2 pages and we can all pretend it never happened, as I’m not sure venting your spleen on the messenger is terribly effective.
Maybe the Chinese want to keep their shortcomings in fighter development (and the associated domestic industries) under wraps? To admit to an Su-35S being a stop gap given all the showboating in the recent past (including the supposedly AESA equipped J-11B) would undoubtedly result in many red faces.
Like any low class China basher…
I’m surprised at your resort to such slanderously offensive language, remember it can takes years to build one’s reputation- and mere seconds to destroy it.
I hope (for your sake) nothing comes of these negotiations.
Jō Asakurawhy would anyone want just 4 planes, as the text suggests?
I am guessing s117 engines arent for sale on their own. chinese would surely just buy them, if they are after engines. engine maker doesn’t have as much at stake as sukhoi. it needs an export for its new product. it pretty evident ruaf isnt going to be ordering su35 in huge numbers.
as far as i can tell, j11b production has ended. or is at least on hold. but given the pressing need to produce j15 and j16, i would guesstimate it is the former. also, i am not sure it is so easy to install s117 in existing, already produced flanker variants.
I’m not so sure it’s solely for the engines. The manufacturer of the 117S (AL-41F1-S), YMPO did have a separate presentation stand for the 117S @ the recent Zhuhai show- albeit in co-operation with ‘GK Rostechnologii’ under the general umbrella of ‘OPK Rosoboronexport’.
Besides, fighter engines are somewhat a ‘Black Art’ and very difficult to reverse engineer (as the Chinese very well know). In all likelihood a standalone purchase of 117S’ would be destined for the J-20.
The ‘Vedomosti’ report implies that Russian fears of the international market being flooded by cheap Chinese ‘FLANKER’ counterfeits hasn’t materialised, and appears to be an acknowledgement that counterfeiting Su-27Ks is more difficult and less economically viable than AVIC envisaged.
b) The Chinese members struggle to acknowledge there are still gaps that can be filled with Russian procurement…
I agree, especially in (though not limited to) engines & radar.
Apparently, the Chinese side broke-off negotiations last time because the Russian press leaked details of the talks- so ssshhhh…
I guess the Russians see the $1.5bn deal as at least recouping some of the Su-35S’ programme development costs. Having said that, I’d still demand an up front payment in full (or at least a hefty deposit) in case the Chinese cancel the follow-on batches having taken delivery of the initial 5/6 fighters.
Deino 😉
Jō 😉
Jō AsakuraReliable source intimates PRC to procure 24 Su-35s:
http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/6260671/bolshaya_partiya_originalov
Jō AsakuraThis story simply refuses to go away:
Jō AsakuraWorth braving -20degC for :cool::
Jō AsakuraI think the point both that image and APA are making is that the angle of the facet shown below (I also think APA got the shape of that facet wrong) results in an RCS spike at about 10 degrees below horizontal.
The facet…
The cant angle of that facet…I think the corner reflectors between the elevators and the engines (remember, those big, stealthy cylinder things with an “RCS” of -50 “dBm” in lab tests ;P ) are much more significant though. pofacets didn’t display the full story here because it doesn’t factor double reflections. The RCS problem at around 5 degrees would actually be worse in real life than in a pofacets simulation.
Actually, you both got the facet shapes & area wrong, and this after several links to high-res. Photographic evidence. I guess you’ll only see what you want to see- I can’t change that.
As for the “stealthy cylinder” sarcasm, you’ve totally missed the point (again) on the significance the CNTs etc. will have on composite materials’ radar absorption. I’ve already highlighted if they make SLV and SLBM casings out of CNT treated CFRP composites, those engine cowlings won’t pose a problem. Even the MiG-29 managed composite engine casings 30 years ago.
You are aware of the proportional relationship between the thickness of RAM and it’s absorption, right?
A monolithic polymer composite plate prepared with an 11.2% constituent (by weight) of the commercially available UNM ‘Tainut’ with surface treatments’ thickness of 0.3mm and 0.17mm exhibited radar absorption of -5.2dB &-3.3dB respectively (in the 8.5 to 12 GHz range). Yes you did read those numbers correctly: 0.3mm gives -5.2dB.
So when TsAGI patents its own production method for nanomaterials and states “nanostructured radar absorbent coatings will help create “invisible” (stealth) warplanes”, -you kinda see where they’re coming from, huh?
I know this means maybe your beloved Overholser quote will soon have to be ‘modified’ (pun intended) to “shape, shape, materials & materials” but hey, such is the nature of technological progress. Maybe it’s your Luddite mentality that’s clouding your reasoning, or is it just sour grapes & jingoism?
Here’s something else for those of ‘Tigershark’ disposition, our ‘old friend’ has made a reappearance (in the port intake) and it turns out it’s not what some had so desperately hoped it would be. Sorry Mr. Kapedani, but photoshopped or not, you stance was always going to be rather precarious and you did kinda set yourself up for a big fall- oops! Take heed Mr. ActionJacksonMan!
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100×100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_23_hires.jpg
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100×100.wbp?picpath=/media/rus/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50-3_1st_flight/t-50-3_22_hires.jpg
Me thinks it’s an IGV:
In cooperation with the enterprises of “Obyedinennaya Dvigatelestroitelnaya Korporatsiya” (ODK), NPP “Motor” is engaged in creating a family of future-oriented engines with the thrust of 9-18 tons for civil aircraft and the new generation engine for PAK FA of Phase II.
NPP “Motor” participates in formation of technological advance with application of key technologies in the following areas: development of a composite inlet guide vane…http://technopark-at.ufa-rb.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34&Itemid=27
Jō AsakuraI think the best we can hope for this idz129 engine, is around 16000kgf of thrust, higher life hours, decent fuel consumption and as you guys suggest, less weight(T/W).. though i’m sceptically here. And how about physical size, how big comp fan diameter?
If you aim for very high thrust(maxed out), well then life hours will suffer due to high temperature and pressure..
Same thing if you aim for a very light weighted engine, then it will tolerate less heat and stress, then life hours falls..
The F-22 can supercruise effortlessly @ M1.5 and over a broad altitude range of 25k ft to 50k ft (going as high as M1.7 @ 40k ft). Of course, P&W’s F-119 has way over 16T AB power, but what is crucial is the associated hike in dry/mil. Power range that facilitates such excellent transonic & SC performance.
This is not about the Type 30/129 being a power brute @ maxT, but the ability to SC @ the lowest possible dry/mil. thrust setting, notwithstanding efficiency will vary with altitude, and hence being of comparable (if not superior) performance to the F-22. By all accounts it’s performance will be clos(er) to the F-135.
Given the vast expanses of Russia’s borders and hinterland this would be a most pressing capability (most probably part of the MoD’s PAK-FA RFP back in the early 2000s, as well as replacing the Su-27 in the CAF role). The Type 30/Izd.129 must also enable the T-50 to switch flight regimes as quickly & efficiently as possible – to coin the RuAF’s term ‘superagility’.
KnAAPO releases T-50-2 & 50-3 first/early flight pics in Super-Hi-Res:
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/t-50/t-50-3.wbp
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events/combat/t-50/t-50-2.wbp
Jō AsakuraWell wiki gives AL-31F’s T/Wr as 7.8. The only reason I used Salyut’s AL-31F Series 42 was that official data was available*, T/Wr of 8.8 is accurate for this engine. Wiki puts 117’s T/Wr @ 10.5 (I calculated 10.9).
As specific weight (удельный вес) is a quite complicated logarithmic calculation, with next to no data on the Type 30/129 – I can’t comment further on that 30%.
Having said that, if they can eek out 17T @ the same dry weight of the 117 (~1,400kg), then that would give a T/Wr of around 12.14, even a marginal dry weight saving on the 117 would deliver a T/Wr of 13.
*http://www.salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=4
According to the General Director of Tactical Missile Corp, Boris Obnosov, the T-50 will commence weapons trials “in the near future”:
http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/28056-vooruzhennyjj-pak-fa-vyjjdet-na-ispytanija-v.html
Sign In
