MiG-29OVT not agile uhmm…. 😮 Su-27 not agile uhmm….i did not know that, F-22 not agile new for me

F-22 TVC are different. they are 2D square. Su-27 is lighter than MKI by 4 tons so Su-27SK upgrade is not getting them even with newer uprated engines.

you are utterly wrong if you think the Su-30MKI is less agile or even as agile as the FC-1, and come on the FC-1 is not match, is just a design exercise that has tried to give the best compromise but it is as good as a MiG-21-93 Bison operated by India in weaponry

Provide figures for basis of this argument that FC-1 is less agile than Su-30. Just simple TWR ratio will reveal that both are the same. Su-30 has higher frontal cross section and heavier weight larger RCS and carries inferior russian weopons. the same the case with low MTBO russian radar.

What is the wing-load and thrust-weight load of FC-1
clean take-off weight, max take-off weight and for dry/wet thrust????
Has the FC-1 FBW?
Has the FC-1 controlled inlets? When it comes to the advertised max Mach, the answer is no. = optimised for medium height level.

these figures are 3 to 4 years old and specification has changed. Design freeze will only come after next prototype.
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/index.html

DIMENSIONS, EXTERNAL:

Wing span
9.50 m (31 ft 2 in)

Length overall
13.95 m (45 ft 9 in)

Height overall
5.015 m (16 ft 9{1/4} in)

Wheel track
2.30 m (7 ft 6{1/2} in)

Wheelbase
5.14 m (16 ft 10{1/4} in)

WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS:

Take-off Gross Weight 9,100 kg (with two wingtip missiles)

Max external stores load
3,800 kg

Max T-O weight
12,700 kg

Max power loading
154 kg/kN (1.51 lb/lb st)

PERFORMANCE (estimated):

Max level speed
M1.6

Service ceiling
16,500m

T-O run
500 m (1,640 ft)

Landing run
700 m (2,300 ft)

Combat radius (fighter)
648 n miles (1,200 km; 745 miles)

Combat radius (attack)
378 n miles (700 km; 435 miles)

Max range on internal fuel
864 n miles (1,600 km; 994 miles)

Max ferry range
1,200 n miles (2,220 km; 1380 miles)

T/W Ratio 0.95
Wing Load 75
Aspect Ratio 2.92
G limit
+8/-3

😀

using the figures in crobato’s post, it seems the FC-1 can carry ~21 SD-10s 😮

who needs Sukhois ???? 😀 😀

There is such thing as wingspan, area, stress, drag and fire control radar which limits the one type weopon carrying capability but as usual it is Indian logic to carry every thing maximum.

Another View

Please give page of AFM april issue. 🙂
Agentur Novesty notes nothing about improvements. The data are from naked RD-33. RD-33 full equip. is 1200 kg and RD-93 is 1300 kg. :confused:

i currently donot have the magazine but it is on that PAF coverage issue in april but my above quote is not from AFM but local news source. here is another report and from where you get 100KG weight increase for RD-93 over RD-33. there is also chines specification which mentions 8800KG thrust and 2100 MTBO for the engine.

Russian Engine Makers Jockey for New Orders

ALEXEY KOMAROV
2,868 words
21 August 2000
Aviation Week & Space Technology
52
Vol. 153, No. 8
English
© 2000 McGraw-Hill, Inc.

With revenues on the rise and more active government support for Russia’s beleaguered high-tech and defense industries, aircraft engine makers hope to reverse the downward trend of recent years, though overcapacity remains a major problem.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has positioned himself as a proponent of the country’s military forces and defense industries, has made clear that high-technology and military issues are top priorities for his government.

A shift in this direction had already begun in 1999, during the parliamentary election campaign. Russian defense industry organizations started to receive promised government funds in a timely fashion, providing much-needed cash to support both new development and everyday activities of companies suffering from a critical lack of orders. Industry experts consider this a major change in government defense policy since the early 1990s.

THE FIRST HALF of this year was not so favorable for the defense sector, however, but industry executives are still optimistic. Government officials have promised to finance in full all government-funded defense programs in the annual budget until the end of the year. Nonetheless, senior defense industry executives claim that the aggregate state debt to contractors accumulated during the last decade has amounted to an equivalent of some 33 billion rubles (roughly $1.2 billion).

“We still consider the situation [in the industry] as very complicated,” said Victor Tchuiko, president of the Aircraft Engine Manufacturers Union Assn., during the Moscow aeroengine show last April. “But the industry is slowly recovering from the pit it was thrown into by the financial crisis of Aug. 18, 1998. A majority of aircraft engine companies has shown 40% growth in terms of revenues obtained last year, and some 80% initiated major investment programs to improve their R&D and manufacturing capabilities.”

Tchuiko pointed to the situation at military engine specialist UMPO as an example of positive trends in the industry. For the first time in 10 years, UMPO, which is based in Ufa in the southern Urals, has increased its output, achieving 22% growth last year. A new management team led by General Director Valery Lesunov has implemented new marketing tactics and launched “independent” production of the Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan for the Sukhoi Su-27 family of tactical fighters. Average wages have increased 1.7 times since early 1999.

Lesunov said, however, that “recent improvements were gained mostly by export orders, as the domestic demand for aircraft engines is still very low.” UMPO also is manufacturing the R-95Sh turbofan that powers Su-25 close air support aircraft.

But overcapacity is still a major problem, both in terms of R&D and production capabilities. Today, Russia has nine aircraft engine manufacturing plants and four major facilities specializing in engine components and auxiliary equipment. Eight design bureaus, in the framework of extensive joint efforts with Russian federal research institutions, are engaged in aircraft engine developments for a variety of applications.

Neighboring Ukraine also possesses significant aircraft engine design and manufacturing capabilities. Russian and Ukrainian engine manufacturers and design offices fiercely compete against each other for often small orders. At the same time, there are few concrete new projects or prospects for further orders for existing engines.

ONLY TWO RUSSIAN aircraft engine companies–Rybinsk Motors and Perm Motors–have managed to harness the government-driven industrial restructuring process to create viable “full-cycle” organizations that integrate design bureaus and production plants into a single entity. Perm is involved in one of the few new civil engine projects.

“In three years, new Perm-built PS-90A2 engines will power Russian aircraft,” said Alexander Inozemtsev, general designer at Perm Motors. The turbofan engine derivative is being developed as a follow-on to the Perm PS-90A in a joint program with Pratt & Whitney. A strategic partner of Perm Motors, Pratt & Whitney owns 25% of the Russian manufacturer.

At the same time, the production rate of the basic PS-90A turbofan is well below expectations. Last year, Perm Motors built no engines of this type at all. The Tupolev Tu-204 and Ilyushin Il-96-300 transports–the only aircraft powered by PS-90 engines to date–experienced serious problems, mostly attributed to poor financial results at airlines as well as organizational deficiencies involving in-service support and coordination between engine manufacturers and aircraft operators.

According to company officials, Perm Motors has received orders this year for only three new PS-90As from GTK “Russia,” the government-controlled aircraft operator that flies a presidential Il-96-300 and a Tupolev Tu-204.

“WHILE OUR COMPANY had no orders for new engines last year, we had quite a number of MRO [maintenance, repair and overhaul] jobs, resulting in 30% growth of production [revenue], and we moved away from the red figures in our balance sheet,” said Yuri Reshetnikov, general director of Perm Motors. “This year we anticipate a 1.5 times increase in total sales.”

A major part of Perm Motors’ revenues came from MRO of in-service PS-90A turbofans. According to the company, only 13 overhauls were needed to provide 93,000 flight hr. logged by the PS-90A fleet in 1999. Of 180 engines built, about 60 are in continuous use by airlines. The income was used to repair 11 PS-90As owned by the plant, two of which were later sold and nine leased out to Russian airlines.

Perm Motors has big expectations tied to the further development of the Ilyushin Il-76 cargo jet family. The Il-76MF, featuring a 20-metric-ton (44,000-lb.) increase in takeoff gross weight and a 6.6-meter (21.6-ft.) fuselage stretch, will be powered by standard PS-90As. Perm also is developing a program to reengine the existing Il-76T/TD aircraft fleet with a specially tailored derated version of the basic engine–dubbed the PS-90A-76–capable of delivering 35,200 lb. of thrust. Besides providing better fuel consumption rates compared with existing D-30KP turbofans, the PS-90A-76 will comply with current environmental requirements.

ACCORDING TO PERM Motors’ Reshetnikov, the engine maker and Ilyushin Aviation Complex are negotiating with an unidentified “third party regarding investments in the project and obtaining [an Il-76] aircraft for reengining and development tests.” He said “all organizational issues should be resolved during the next two months, and the first PS-90A-76-powered Il-76 will probably be flight tested before year-end.”

Another candidate for taking the lead in any Il-76 reengining program is French manufacturer Snecma, which has undertaken several joint studies with the Ilyushin design bureau since the mid-1990s.

Perm Motors and other manufacturers are also interested in jumping on the short-haul aircraft bandwagon, driven by Russian airlines’ interest in the 100-seat Tu-334. It is to be produced at MiG Russian Aircraft Corp. and is designed to be powered by Ukrainian Progress-developed D-436T1 turbofans. Interest has been heightened by the possibility of licensed production of the aircraft and engines in Iran.

Manufacturers involved in work on the D-436T1 program are actively developing cooperation and work-sharing among Ukraine’s MotorSich, Moscow-based Salyut and the Ufa-based UMPO plants. Each plant is developing production capacities for about one-third of the D-436T1’s parts. However, UMPO’s Lesunov claims his company “has a 57% work share” and that only UMPO has been granted the rights to assemble, test and produce engines of this type in Russia.

Salyut, meanwhile, is preparing for production of complete fan assemblies, going beyond original plans to manufacture just the fan’s first stage. “Salyut is also very interested in participating in potential export/licensed production of the Tu-334 and its engines in Iran,” said Deputy Director Vladimir Suralev. “I am sure that current difficulties will be overcome and the project will take off the ground with our company participating in implementing the licensed production deal.”

Perm, meanwhile, is working on a new engine design, designated the PS-9, for the Tu-334. Reshetnikov said the aircraft will need a new-generation engine to be able to compete successfully on the international market, as the original aircraft’s D-436 turbofan was based on a gas generator developed some 20 years ago. “We are planning to address this program seriously in the near future,” he said. “Cost of the development program is estimated to be $180 million and first deliveries are planned for 2004.”

“Availability of engine options for the Tu-334 may seriously improve the attractiveness of the new aircraft in the eyes of our potential customers–both Russian and foreign airlines,” said Nikolay Nikitin, general director of MiG Corp. The company has been assigned by the Russian government to lead the Tu-334 certification and production program.

“In the framework of a recently established airline working group, we are defining the specific requirements of each potential customer, including powerplant configuration and available engine options. This is something quite new for all of us–manufacturers and airlines in Russia–and we hope it will contribute a lot to the quality of the final product,” Nikitin said.

MILITARY ENGINE sales, however, represent the major source of hard currency income for all Russian engine makers. Companies continue to compete fiercely to gain as much work as they can in military-related programs, either through historical ties with aircraft design offices and aircraft manufacturers or through political lobbying.

Suralev said Salyut’s prosperity “is mostly based on export deliveries of the Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan for different versions of the Sukhoi Su-27 tactical fighter.” Salyut AL-31F export orders, related to deliveries of Su-27 and Su-30MKK fighters to China, amounted to some $30 million in 1997, $120 million in 1998 and grew even further in 1999. All export orders for the AL-31 turbofans are distributed between Salyut and UMPO on a 50:50 basis. Salyut officials said 50-60% of plant production capacity is dedicated to AL-31 orders.

Another potentially lucrative program for Salyut is manufacturing the AL-31FN, a new AL-31 variant that has a low-mounted accessory gear drive as opposed to the traditional top-mounted accessory gear drive. The AL-31FN is now under development at the Lyulka-Saturn design bureau, and this work should be completed by year-end. Industry sources report that an AL-31FN built at Lyulka’s prototype plant was installed on China’s F-10 prototype fighter. One existing AL-31FN development engine is currently installed at Salyut and will undergo fatigue tests.

After China, Salyut’s second biggest export priority is India. Both Salyut and UMPO have signed an agreement covering shares of production of AL-31F and the AL-31FP engines for India. The AL-31FP is a thrust-vectoring version of the basic AL-31 turbofan delivering maximum afterburning thrust of 12,500 kg. (27,500 lb.). According to Salyut officials, Lyulka-Saturn, designer of the vectoring nozzle, has not transferred manufacturer documentation to Salyut. The nozzles are produced at the Lyulka prototype plant and sold to Salyut.

Russian engine makers are not excluding the possibility of licensed production of AL-31 turbofans in India for the Su-30MKI aircraft. That would mark a major difference compared with Russian-Chinese licensed production agreements for this fighter, which are based on deliveries of Russian-built engines.

Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg-based Klimov plant is working on the RD-93, an in-depth modification of the MiG-29’s RD-33 turbofan, developed for an order from China. According to Klimov General Director Alexander Sarkisov, the RD-93 was developed to power China’s new light multirole fighter, the FC-1 (Super-7), designed by the Chinese Aircraft Industrial Group in a joint program with the Mikoyan design bureau. The engine’s dry weight is 1,055 kg., dry thrust is 5,040 kgf. (11,090-lb. thrust) and full afterburning thrust is 8,300 kgf. (18,260-lb. thrust).

Sarkisov does not exclude the possibility that the RD-93 and an upgraded RD-33 with thrust-vectoring nozzle, dubbed the RD-133, could be offered to power combat aircraft, including MiG-29 tactical fighters, in several other countries.

ANOTHER ROUND of competition for the rights to manufacture a next-generation military engine–the Lyulka/Saturn-designed AL-41F–might be triggered by the potential interest of the new Russian government in reactivating major defense programs. The Al-41F is considered a primary option for a majority of Russia’s proposed next-generation tactical combat aircraft that could be based on designs of the MiG Corp. “1.44” fighter technology demonstrator and Sukhoi’s S-37 Berkut forward-swept-wing aircraft.

In September 1998, the Russian Defense Ministry had assigned production of the AL-41F to Rybinsk Motors. But Salyut officials have been openly critical of the plan. “Rybinsk Motors may not be able to cope with such a complex program, as this company has historically been involved in producing only commercial engines of the third generation,” Salyut’s Suralev said. “[Rybinsk] has no experience in manufacturing thrust-vectoring nozzles, which are very sophisticated and crucially important components of the AL-41F.”

While claiming that production of the AL-41 should be transferred to Salyut, Suralev said joint manufacturing programs of different work-sharing types also should be considered.

According to Viktor Chepkin, general designer of Lyulka-Saturn, the AL-41F has a number of advantages compared with the previous-generation AL-31F. It offers about 25% lower specific weight and 30% fewer parts. Compression rate is significantly higher than the AL-31F, while the number of compressor stages is lower. The turbine inlet temperature is 155-200C higher, and the engine features full automatic digital controls with hydraulic backup.

Russian engine manufacturers are still trying to resolve a major problem that originated with the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. At that time, virtually all design and manufacturing facilities specializing in helicopter and turboprop engines were located in Ukraine. Ukrainian engine manufacturers, in turn, found themselves isolated from their major natural market since the majority of the helicopter and turboprop fleets of Soviet-built aircraft are concentrated in Russia.

Ukraine’s Zaporozhye-based Progress engine design bureau and St. Petersburg-based Klimov design bureau have created a joint venture, dubbed VK-MS, with a primary goal to organize production of engines based on the TV3-117 gas generator for a number of turboprop and turboshaft applications.

“The first engine versions to be developed by the new joint venture should be VK-2500 turboshaft and VK-1500 turboprop engines,” Sarkisov said.

The VK-2500, delivering takeoff power of 2,500 hp. and equipped with new digital automatic control and monitoring systems, is designed for derivatives of Mil Mi-14, Mi-17, Mi-24 and Mi-28, as well as Kamov Ka-32 and Ka-50-2 helicopters. The VK-1500, rated at 1500 hp. takeoff power, is planned to be installed on Antonov An-38, An-3 and Beriev Be-32 commuter aircraft.

“RECENTLY, THE KLIMOV plant was granted official rights to provide MRO for all versions of Ukrainian-built MotorSich TV3-117 turboshaft engines powering numerous Mil and Kamov helicopters,” said Pyotr Izotov, Klimov’s chief designer of helicopter engines. “More than 22,000 engines of this type were built. Many of them are still in operation and require proper MRO services and service life extension.”

Another Ukrainian/Russian joint program is production at the Moscow-based Salyut plant of the AI-222 turbofan developed by the Progress design bureau to power the Russian-Italian Yak-130 advanced trainer (AW&ST Sept. 6, 1999, p. 73). According to General Director Yuri Yeliseev, the agreement to manufacture the AI-222 at Salyut has been supported by the Russian Defense Ministry, a potential launch customer for the Yak-130 trainer.

Despite a variety of new engine projects and modernization programs, MRO activities are still the major source of revenue for many Russian engine manufacturers.

Rybinsk Motors, for example, is steadily increasing its market share while competing with both small commercial and military overhaul facilities typically offering services for very low prices. The company provides MRO services for D-30KP/KU turbofans powering the huge fleet of Il-76 cargo jets–the workhorse of Russian commercial aviation–and Tupolev Tu-154 mid-range airliners. According to company officials, Rybinsk is utilizing nearly all of its current MRO capacity, performing overhauls of 320-350 D-30 type engines a year.

In 1999, Rybinsk Motors invested about $17 million in production facilities, including the installation of a modern, Western-built test rig believed to be the best in Russian industry today. Another $20 million is planned for improvement of R&D and production capabilities in 2000.

Photograph: An upgraded Klimov RD-33 engine with thrust-vectoring nozzle, dubbed the RD-133, is to be installed on a MiG-29 for flight testing. Photograph: The D-436T1 turbofan, developed by Progress of Ukraine for the 100-seat Tu-334, is to be produced by three factories in Russia and Ukraine

[/U]
The results from former wars do not support that claim. 😉

provide source for your results.