Snow MonkeyBelated thanks to Jo for your thoughts on the implications for composites in PD-14 and other civil engines (and great pics!).
That pretty much corresponded to what I was aware of for e.g. PD-14M: composite fan, nacelle/shroud, and various other bits e.g. stator vanes.
That’s pretty much the state of the art with CFM’s LEAP after all… albeit they still need Ti leading edges on the PMC fan.
I had been wondering if Item 30’s PMC 1st LPC stage might also end up in PD-14M as well as the status of MMC components further downstream from the fan,
but it may be that the economics for those just aren’t there yet (vs. more conventional alternatives) in a civil turbofan, even if they are justifiable in Item 30.
The aggressive introduction of Item 30 may very well also prevent earlier applications in nearer term projects (PD-14, -M) given design resources,
although it seems a good indicator of where future projects may develop (PD-10, -18).
Snow Monkey@Jo: I thought you might have some insight to this from your research into the 129’s composite developments, etc…
Have you seen anything that might shine light on the viability of these composite materials independent of stealth/RCS?
In other words, is this something that is plausible to show up for 1st stage compressors in other engines such as PD-10, PD-18, PD-30?
Things like shroud, fan seem a shoe-in for new programs (PD-14 may be a bit to early, at least in it’s initial manifestation)
but I wonder about the possibility of a composite 1st compressor stage, like 129’s but likely with different CNT mixture without stealth as a goal…
Or it could end up that the performance/economics aren’t there for general application, apart from the stealth aspect…?
Snow MonkeyThe precise RCS of the PAK-FA or detailed stats of it’s production RAM/RAS is not likely to be known any time soon,
and certainly not for the F-22 to make a comparison…
The performance of the production compressor will not precisely match the figures given in preceding generic research, which is now outdated.
But what is clear and obvious now is what general solution has been chosen and is being developed by the participants in PAKFA.
They seemingly had another design option (blocker) that may well have been pursued to a certain point as a back-up option,
but by all signs the ‘radical’ nanotech plastic compressor seems to be meeting the chosen goals for performance and stealth… ahead of schedule.
I have never seen Jo write “PAKFA will have the same or better RCS of F-22 in frontal sector”, so why respond as if that is the topic?
Certainly, something like that might even seem plausible based on his writings, but that conclusion is not the central point of his writing,
which is just reporting the open-source evidence on what PAKFA/Izd.129’s actual development consists of… whatever the final performance figures are.
Many things besides engine/duct issues affect RCS, and a comparison of specific RCS figures is implausible when the F-22’s figures are also secret.
In the meantime, adults may be interested in the actual solution chosen for and going forward with PAKFA/Izd.129, which seems to be meeting stealth goals.
Actually, for comparison it would be interesting to see what US/EU/Japanese research is going into similar solutions for future programs.
But wouldn’t that be ‘copying the Russians’? 😯
Snow MonkeyThat quote speaking to the 117’s inability to fulfill stealth requirements would seem further damning for those doubting Izd. 129’s advances in that dept.
The comment about the in-economy of continuing with 117 during the T-50 test program also makes me consider the future for 117 in Su-35…
Perhaps they will want to wait until 129 is in full-rate production and that can be ramped up, but it seems reasonable to adapt it to Su-35 at the least,
and possibly to Su-34, Su-30, newer Su-27s, perhaps with downrated thrust/FADEC adjustment as appropriate for each platform.
The possibility of such a move seem to explain why they haven’t been as aggressive with putting the latest iterations of Al-31 into service with those platforms,
but being able to have engine commonality between those platforms and T-50 seems like a great selling point for Su-30 users considering T-50 in the future.
Snow MonkeyNever read anywhere that Type 10 or K2 was based on Leclerc. K2 is using a Rheinmetal gun and German components such as engines.
K2 Black Panther is a flop. It’s meant to complement heavier K1 but so far is nearly as expensive as the Leclerc.
Are you seriously unaware that K2 uses a licensed Leclerc-derived autoloader from Nexter? And yet you deign to discuss it?
“The K2 is a flop”… compared to what other post-Cold War new build tanks? Turkey’s Altay is just a tweaked K2, and they are in talks to export it to Saudi Arabia.
The only comparable new tank to be designed would be India’s Arjun, which has no potential exports at this stage, compared to K2’s Turkey and potentially Saudi Arabia.
Frankly I don’t think Leclerc would’ve been much of a seller just like Mirage 2000 wasn’t much of a seller to the NATO/Asian crowd.
Because… NATO is buying so many tanks these days, the NATO market still really matters?
So your stance is everything is wholly predictable on what happened in the past, ignoring the most recent history when that isn’t convenient for our prejudices?
Why don’t you just post “X sucks, Y rocks!!!!”? When you’re unaware of basic facts of subjects you’re discussing, what are you adding to the conversation?
Otherwise a little humility and open-ness to listen and learn on subjects you’re not an expert on would normally be called for.
Snow MonkeyI realize I goofed on references to Rolls/Pratt, reversing them, but I still can’t make sense of it,
they had a JV via IAE, decided to end it, then decided to restart a new JV but now that is barred by regulators?
Is the current market without any Rolls participation in this sector considered insufficiently competitive?
In widebodies, Engine Alliance seems accepted, and now GE swallowed Avio with expertise in gears, so what’s the problem here?
Would other existing or historical JVs not be approved under the current regulatory climate?
Snow MonkeyMKI has been modified for carriage of Brahmos, and whether or not all future Su-30 receive that modification, that is /at least/ 40 less of any potential Su-35S fleet, so makes just that much less sense for IAF now when they can be upgrading Su-30 to a standard applicable across the fleet. If India wants more Sukhois now, more Super-30s is the reasonable route, they do not have the budget of China and are funding localization of PAKFA, Rafale, and in the future AMCA as well as upgrades of Jaguar/MiG/Mirage. A further MKI upgrade, possibly to a Izd. 129 derivative, seems plausible in the future, and I assume MMRCA is also motivated by ToT/political interest in European cooperation which cannot solely be understood in present terms but includes future upgrades/MLU of Rafale which holds the potential for cooperative development. Also considering Su-35S as Rafale replacement ignores that MMRCA has a twin seat requirement not met by Su-35S, which was also crucial in the original acquisition of Su-30 (not just by India but China and all Su-30 customers). I believe the difference there between MKI and MKK, with MKK somewhat closer to the /original/ Su-35, was largely that having N011 on a twin seater necessitated canards for CG issues.
Snow MonkeyThe Su-30 MKI is developed in the opposite direction of Su-35, IAF has strengthened the airframe to allow Brahmos carriage, Su-35 doesn’t satisfy it’s needs.
The current Su-35 was not available when they inducted Su-30, and any marginal difference in performance, clearly in areas not originally prioritized by IAF,
is just nowhere near justifying losing the fleet commonality. Worrying about future Chinese Su-35, when a contract may only be signed in 2014, so deliveries… 2017?
Just seems hyperventilating by those with little insight to the process except what is reported by mass media, IAF should be inducting PAKFA soon after, so no worries.
China has other fronts to station Su-35 on anyways besides the Himalaya, it’s not all about India 🙂
Snow MonkeyAs well as the status of the AMCA program…
Snow MonkeyJo, I’m repeating it for probably tenth time – blocker design for T-50 is not a myth, it was even shown shortly afterwards maiden flight (and removed from the certain forum very fast), and someone I know has big troubles because of that. Moreover, it fits earlier 2nd MoD Research Institute research works I saw back in early 90s and current patent application description. So why to search complicated alternative to simple device if we have obvious proof that it’s planned on PAK FA?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see Jo claiming any blocker design was a ‘myth’.
With such a revolutionary design as CNT-infused RAS composite fan, it only makes sense to have a less risky, redundant back-up plan.
Having had a blocker design does not imply that they do not have another design.
It seems like you are the one searching for complicated, least likely interpretations of the designer’s own direct statements, which on face value are wholly in line with the composite fan concept, and which are in line with other evidence. CNT-infusion isn’t really needed itself for composite fans in civil applications AFAIK, likewise for alternatives to Ti leading edges of such.
Snow MonkeyI’m not sure composite blades would really be cost effective for a fighter engine with a relatively small-diameter fan at this point.
Concerns of cost effectiveness or even weight as such are not the only issues here, a radar absorbent CNT-infused composite fan enables a wholly distinct function from radar-reflective metallic blades, and if you need/want that functionality, there’s no comparison. On a cost basis alone it would also need to be compared to the costs of a design including blocker or other solutions, which also have broader implications for the over-all design.
@Jo: Excuse my ignorance, I don’t read Russian at all, but I take it there is a 100% composite solution that doesn’t require titanium leading edges on the fan blades? If you can explain that in any further detail I’d appreciate it, that alone sounds impressive.
As I understand, the composite blades have been planned for the PD-14M powering Il-214/MS-21-400, if they’ve made good progress enough to include them in the PAK-FA engine they plausibly could include them in the initial PD-14, but maximal reliability and cost is important there so there’s no reason to push the boundary if they don’t need to. If this is going into PD-14M it would certainly make sense to also go into PD-10 and PD-30.
Snow MonkeyThe titanium leading edge would still reflect though…?
Snow MonkeyHow well did Scooter’s predictions for MMRCA hold water?
Snow MonkeyRegardless of China, if Pakistan is any factor at all in India’s defense picture, it requires airbases and aircraft functionally dedicated to it’s theatre.
If that theatre threat doesn’t call for it, no reason to use more capability than needed. Same goes for Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar.
Tejas is totally fine for the niche it is aimed at, Mk. 2 will be just as or more capable than Gripen C/D, and so much more of the supply chain
being wholly indigenous makes supporting that fleet easier, as well as providing the basis for a supply chain for more ambitious projects.
That India’s efforts so far have not been impressive is not a reason to give up entirely, and of course the world doesn’t work like that,
if it did, you could predict everything from past achievements and power would never shift.
India already has a requirement that lines up with F-35’s capabilities, that is AMCA, and it will not be a purchase or assembly deal of F-35.
Snow MonkeyThose scenarios aren’t realistic given the actual dynamics now present.
Comparing Egypt to Libya and Syria ignores that Syria has hardly turned out that well for Qatar and Turkey,
they are hardly in position to create a similar civil war scenario in Egypt, the Saudis are backing the Egyptian military to the hilt.
Israel is still ****** longer term, but for now it’s tight with the Egyptian military, and Saudi, UAE, and Jordanian monarchies, same as ever.
Characterizing the 1956 war as a “US led coalition” seems a rather embarassing claim to make.
Sign In
