Interesting, it seems Marchkov is not at liberty to disclose the industry project name of the PAK-FA Stage 2 engine (Izd.129 as we know it), but instead calls it a “new 117”, this resulted in some confusion early last month. 30% weight saving and bench tests slated for 2014, lookin’ good! (for all series production machines).

Not sure the latest APA ‘analysis’ presents anything new per se, but here’s 3 pics that debunk this cartoon:

http://sukhoi.org/img/gallery/wallpaper/pak-fa-2/2011-03-03_02sm.jpg
http://paralay.com/su50/IMG_4377.JPG
http://paralay.com/su50/DSC04844.JPG

Take Off Mag Nov 2012
http://en.take-off.ru/arhiv/746

Thanks Austin, this can only mean GaN:

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.

This bodes well for PAK-FA’s AESA also.

@Jō Asakura:

At what altitude? SC performance in any fighter is dependent on altitude. The F-35 pilot quote could easily be about lower altitude flight while higher altitude flight is better for SC. This applies to all fighters, not just the F-35.

Anywhere from 25k-45k ft, preferably the lower end.

But what about air volume then? maybe the air pressure is the same, but if one inlet offers more air volume, then the engine behind that inlet has an opportunity to use all that air and cram it more inside its core…

As only an incremental increase in thrust is required to overcome the transonic compressibility drag, then the cheapest and ‘easiest’ solution would probably be to modify the F-135 by increasing the inlet diameter & incorporate a more efficient LP compressor and stator. Increasing the operating temperature of the core would be a major (and expensive) undertaking.

http://www.sukhoi.org/news/smi/arch/index.php?id=1760
http://vpk.name/news/18296_v_interesah_gpv__2015_ispyitaniya_novogo_rossiiskogo_istrebitelya_idut_uspeshno.html

Su-35S’ ability to supercruise is a real enigma, that source is not official (it is a copy of a CAST article). It is important to note that Sukhoi has never officially stated it supercruises and KnAAPO’s website does not mention the capability- you’d think they would be singing it’s praises as a major selling point. The CAST article is also mistaken by stating the “extensive use of composites”, photos of production machines in their primer disprove that notion.

I think what happened was that during initial flight trials the Su-27UB chase planes struggled to keep up and engaged AB, ‘901’ may have ‘accidentally’ supercruised with low fuel and in clean condition (maybe even a shallow dive), but this is a far cry from ‘sustained supersonic flight without afterburner’. That’s not to say that 117C’s mil./dry power of 8.8T is to be sniffed at.

In short, I think that if a clean and half-fuelled Su-35S entered a supercruisin’ competition with a similarly fuelled F-35- the result would be a draw! 😀

Yeah, did you discern the most interesting bit? I’ll even paste the relevant paragraph as you clearly didn’t the 1st & (now) 2nd time round the link was posted, 3rd time lucky?

Сегодня ФГУП “ОНПП Технология” продолжает работы в направлении создания принципиально новых технологий интегральных композитных конструкций на основе трикотажных наполнителей и наномодифицированных связующих. В 2011 году предприятие приступило к выполнению государственного заказа на создание и оснащение современным оборудованием участка производства композитных конструкций на основе технологии “Квикстэп”, не требующей применение автоклава. Это позволит увеличить объем применения ПКМ в самолете до 45%, сократить производственный цикл на 20%, снизить материалоемкость на 15%.

You fell eerily silent on the 2 FGUP TsIAM CNT patents, I take it you didn’t read them (again at the 2nd posting), nor do you appreciate their relevance… but I guess your cynical sneers don’t stack up too well against ’em.

Such a shame your ‘strength’ clouds your reasoning.

NOPP “Teknologiya” actually fabricate their products using CFRP which is supplied by external composites producers who also supply other aerospace companies around the world:..

My bad…your point is…? Russkies can’t indigenously produce CFRP? So ‘Porsher’ can single-handedly influence the number of PAK-FA’s produced? 😮

As for CNTs (of various nano structures, compositions & alignments) for aerospace, aircraft engine, missile applications here’s a couple of examples:

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/237/2379387.html
http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/240/2408531.html

Bear in mind, Spudman, the product is a raw material, like fine soot, in appearance.

That could be right! I just assumed, that for the high temperature application like a supersonic fighter, there would be some post casting heat threatment. I still think this is valid, wether they use simple/cheap epoxy, or expensive BMI resin.

If they use a polymer-matrix composite, they can specifically align the CNTs to provide additional elastic & structural strength to the CFRP, and then later ‘smart’ composites (i.e. load dissipation with controlled anisotropic elastic deformation properties).

If the T-50 tries to switch to CNRP after it’s flight testing is done, then it would have to redo it just like LM. That’s a lot of cost increase for so few airframes. Best to solidify the production process, understand the material, and plan the next plane around it.

It’s too expensive to retrofit into load bearing structures.

I’m not so sure about that. I think you’re making the assumption Sukhoi will take ‘concurrency’ to the risky levels LM have. Structural/ buffeting problems of ’51’ have resulted in a time slippage evident on ’54’, whose first flight will come around a year after ’53’, despite the two being produced at around the same time. This may also have had a bearing on the reported FGFA slippage of 3 years.

OKB Sukhoi’s Annual Company Report published April 2012 states (paraphrasing) “it is envisaged production [PAK-FA] machines will incorporate over 30% CFRP composites (by weight)”, so clearly the T-50 is nowhere near ‘set in stone’ like the F-35, and affords considerable flexibility in the programme.

Notwithstanding parts such as those bare-metal engine cowlings are likely to be replaced by something similar to the CNT CFRP currently used on the SLV stages (it’s the same company that makes the T-50’s wings):

http://portalnano.ru/read/iInfrastructure/russia/nns/technologiya/technologiya