VIRAGEWhat aircraft would?
Su-34.
VIRAGEMikoyan MiG-8 “Utka” (Duck)
VIRAGEFocke-Wulf FW Triebflügel :
VIRAGEOK, many of you have asked me for some credible links that would support my stand on the pitiful condition of the PAK FA programme.
There finally is one (albeit in Russian), an article in the Red Star, an official newspaper of the Russian Defense Ministry: http://redstar.ru/2006/02/08_02/1_04.html
Characteristically titled “A paper fighter?” (also check out the picture!) the article is a report on the interview with the Deputy Head of the Russian federal agency for Industrial Development, Mr Stanislav Puginsky.
He talks about the creation of the unified industrial holdings (one of which would be the OAK (supposedly imminent, but we’ve heard that before).
He says that the federal funding for the PAK FA is insufficient, and that creation of a unified holding would help that. He now indicates 2010 as the year when the first protos of a PAK FA fighter might appear.
He specifically states that “the military-technical collaboration bias in the financing of the PAK FA has not, unfortunately, been a success”. He claims that the designers are not the problem, financing is.
Compare this with Mihailov’s recent claims that the RusAF financing for the PAK FA was being on track, and that it was Sukhoi who had dropped the ball (http://flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/31/Navigation/181/204378/Russia%e2%80%99s+air+force+chief+hits+out+at+Sukhoi+over+spending.html).
Sukhoi is now saying (through their people in the government such as, possibly, Mr Puginsky) “oh, we need the OAK and we need more money to complete the programme”.
This is pretty much what I’ve pointed out in this thread, see my posting above talking about the 2 problems that plague the PAK FA.
Many people in the government and Sukhoi have fed off the PAK FA funds, and are now looking for a way to sunset the programme, predicating its success on the necessity of having it run by the OAK and with new funds.
VIRAGEIf AL-41 cant provide the thrust , which engine can provide the thrust then , The good old AL-41 has a thrust rating of 175 kn and the newer and possibly lighter AL-41F1 has a thrust rating of 145 ~ 150 kn ( depending which source you believe in )
Precisely, the original, not F1, -41 could not deliver 175. So they had to settle for a lower number. The F1 was never intended for the PAK FA..
The original specification had stated for certain speed ( above M 2.2 ) which would have required strengethening certain areas of the craft and hence consequently adding weight , The Airforce & Sukhoi came to a compromise where the original speed spec was reduced by 0.2 mach , hence the revised speed is reduced to M 2.0 ~ 2.1 and hence no need to strengthen certain areas of the craft.
True again. But the point is that those mods do require extra time and some rethink, hence Sukhoi’s pushback to 2009 as the first flight date. Mikhailov is unhappy and wants just SOMETHING to take off and then trumpet the fanfare about it..
We would be glad if you can provide any credible link for what you have said above.
Let’s just wait and see how it unfolds, shall we? 😀 😀
Come 2007 we’ll see what takes to the skies, a)the real plane, b)a useless demonstrator, or c)big fat donut.. 🙂
VIRAGEink, I haven’t had the time to answer until now.
Essentially, there are, alas not one, but 2 kinds of problems with the programme:
1. Specification-related
The RusAF’s original concept called for a fighter in the F-22 class to replace the Su-27. Sukhoi was selected. However, early on in the T-50 design studies it became clear that the fighter would simply be greatly overweight, while the AL-41 could not provide the neccessary trust for such a machine.
This caused a rethink. RusAF said, OK, we’ll lower this and that req, but give us a lighter and simpler frame. OK, said Sukhoi, but expect a 2-year delay to do that. The hope on Sukhoi’s part is that the OAK (unified aviation company) would finally get formed, and the T-50 would quetly decay, which can be blamed on the reorg.
Mikhailov was supposed to retire, but has managed to stick around, the old fool, and pushed for a first flight of ANYTHING to take place in 2007, to save face and buy himself some time as the AF chief. He knows that the whatever might take to the skies will not be viable and will remain as an experimental one-off…
2. Resource-related
Despite Pogosyan’s assurances, Sukhoi has shifted a critical mass of its designers to the RRJ. The ones that remained are busy with the T-10BM project, which, by the way, is a very good modernization. The feel is that this is what the RusAF end up getting as a next gen 4+++ Su-27 replacement, not any kind of the PAK FA implementation.
DISCLAIMER: the information in this post is not classified and has already appeared in public sources in one or another form.
VIRAGEOh no, Jozef Gatial strikes again!
How many times do we have to go over this again?!
This guy’s good drawing techniques fail to overshadow his limited imagination, while skin-deep knowledge of some “experts” fail to notice that the PAK FA project is in deep trouble…
VIRAGEWhat with the tech xfer not happening PLUS the RR (along with GE) being excluded from the engine providers, the UK should look hard into the feasibility of JSF purchase.
With France investing into the UK carrier programme, purchasing the Rafale-M might be a better choice. Perhaps this possibility plays into France’s decision to channel some funds from Rafale purchasing into the AESA adoption for the Rafale.
VIRAGERaptor Flies First Operational Missions!
VIRAGEYou can claim that, but your limited knowledge disprove that. Just to stay polite.
You, who has never been to Russia, are telling me, a Russian speaker, who travels to Russia frequently with contacts in Russia, who personally knows people who fought in Chechnya, that I have limited knowledge?!
Welcome to my ignore list, Sens.
VIRAGEVirage,
First, I am not French.
Thank you, this make more sense now.
Second, I am not informed about your background. If you say anything please reason it with anything more than “I know and you don’t.”
If you know about Chechnya please tell me. If you don’t want to tell me, just erase any claim about it. If you don’t want to reason anything don’t claim anything. Otherwise I am always up for learning something new.
You know perfectly well that this would involve lots of time and facts. I have the latter but I don’t have the former. So don’t set this trap for me.
I can only give a quick answer.
Essentially, Chechnya separatist campaign is a part of larger panislamist effort in the Middle East and is financed by the same sources as Al Quada. This is a short and simple answer.
VIRAGEfrom Flight International, Jan 24 2006:
“Maintenance disrupts Raptor
Maintenance shortfalls are continuing to plague the Lockheed Martin F-22A’s performance scores in operational evaluations. The Raptor’s follow-on test and evaluation period, which ended last November, resulted in a score of “mission capable”, a notch below the highest score of “fully mission capable”. The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center says the F-22A’s lower rating was attributed to “maintenance suitability issues”. Similar problems arose during an initial operational evaluation last year, but were intended to be corrected before the follow-on phase.
“
Source: http://flightinternational.com/Articles/List.aspx?NavigationID=180&CategoryID=10259
VIRAGESorry, Mister, that is kind of naiv, and if you want to avoid politics, don’t write about stuff you may have heard in a 30 second spot on CNN (that is in my experience all time Europe-Russian relations get on American news).
I know the subject first-hand, as I frequently visit Russia. As for CNN, maybe it’s You who should stop watching it. Your “West can do no evil” attitude certainly speaks to that. Do you have Fox News in France?
I am particularly surpised by your attitude of all people, as French political views are a little more sympathetic to Russia than the rest of Western Europe.
As for Chechnya, you are just grossly misinformed. I don’t apologize, because it’s a fact. I know leaps and bounds more about the subject than you (or anyone else on this forum), and am qualified to make such an assesment.
VIRAGEI did, but not on purpose. The problem applies for Western Europe, too, while that does not result in the same conclusions. Western Europe has mostly excellent infra structure, health care and pensions (which are or soon will become unaffordable). Western Europe is on a much higher level, and can share the burden of defence with other countries (so NATO has still a meaning).
But my “advice” to Russia: Spent the oil-billions on schools, highways, universities and similar stuff and let the MiG-31s and T-80 rust in the Tundra. There is just more return on investment for civil projects.
Russia already has one of the best education system in the world. And it’s an affordable one, as is healthcare.
Western Europe is a bad example. European countries don’t consider each other and US hostile. But despite assurances, they do consider Russia hostile. Some (of the many!) examples of the West’s silent undermining of Russia:
– Installment of the puppet government in the Ukraine
– Support for Chechnya terrorists
– Recent UK spy scandal in Russia
– (unusually candid) Merkel’s public refusal to name Russia a friendly nation
No, between the ordes of Chinese in the East and the backstabbing in the West, Russia defense should be top priority.
But let’s not get into politics…
VIRAGEThe Soviet GCI system is a defensive system. It is designed to defend the Soviet Union from outside attack.
The US and NATO system is a system of aggression and is mobile and they take it with them wherever they go.
The sad fact is that aggression is often rewarded. It was easier to defeat the Maginot line than it was to build it. Of course the French were betrayed by Belgium… the French has assumed the Germans would go around the line and attack them through Belgium, so the French and British were expecting to fight ther Germans in Belgium. Perhaps the French should have told the belgians and they wouldn’t have declared neutrality in 36.
All of a sudden the Soviet buffer zone of the Warsaw Pact forces are gone and for Russia there are areas of the former soviet union that now no only don’t form part of the defence, but are part of the enemy attack.
Of course all the defections to NATO have made a real joke of the CFE Treaty. Balance my A$$.
Agree 100% on all counts. Specifically, the Soviet Union’s lack of aggression is what ultimately lead to its demise. They should have been firmer in Europe, they should have been firmer in Latin America (Cuba, Chile).
The Soviet Army was unstoppable in 1944 and 1945, and they should have proceeded with conquering all of Europe. Stalin made a mistake in insisting in the Allies participation and D-Day. Allies involvement would have been valuable in 1943, but it didn’t happen until after the Allies were certain that Germany was losing the war. In fact, the whole point was to stop the Soviets from overruning Europe.
Stalin should have stopped any negotiations with the West in early 1944. This way he could have taken over Europe. But Stalin lacked confidence and was always looking up to the UK and – later – the US.
Sign In
