😀 yeah sure, Mr Ivanov.

yeah, as u know correctly, Terrorits are wandering all around like gentlemen. 😀

don u guys think , this thread can be merged with this one??

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=22212

I hope the Mods do the necessary.

The issue is not whether they can develop a new fighter. It’s a question of just how many will be procured, and what type of export success they can expect.

well it depends on how much the Russian AF needs,how much the partners in the programme needs and how much the market demands.

As for the Russian AF, i don expect them to have large number or in squadron numbers of these before 2015, as their priority wud (& shud) be to have the large number of MiG-29/Su-27/MiG-31s & A-50/IL-78s upgraded. And if am not overoptimistic, I put my faith of 2010-12 by which Russia is most likely to have all these a/c in ‘fighting fit’ condition.

Just a quick note:

One of the reasons the Russians might be able to quickly and cheaply design, build and test (if indeed they are able to do all this quickly and cheaply) a 5th gen fighter is that a programme of some sort has been around for some time. Many of the technologies needed are in late stages of development simply because they have been developing them for a long time for aircraft such as the Berkut and the previous LFI & MFI programmes. All I’m trying to say is that the PAK-FA doesn’t have to be designed completely from scratch.

well if the a/c are to fly in 2007, it shud not be any surprise, as they have gained a lot from the Su-30MKI development and their own S-37 have been the test bed. And if the PAK-FA is to be a modified S-37, as speculated(personally I’d like to see that design) then the time said for its flight and unveiling shoud be any surprise.

But what I’m looking forward to is how wud RAC-MiGs 5th gen a/c look like which I’d like to see as the carrier borne a/c and as a replacement of the MiG-29.

Also don forget to tune into French TV5, German DW or the Spanish TVE, maybe they will show some reports or atlest some mention with some visuals on it, more probably the French TV5. It wud be good to know what the media from there is talking abt the exercise. So do catch the English news on TV5, if u r French is no better than my – Tu & Moi.

I wonder why some people are cheering at this? A Mullah-Run Theocracy tests a Missile and it becomes a Multi-Polar World? Wow!

And Blackcat whatever be your sentiments towards Israelis, surely even you will stop short of popping the champagne cork when it looks like Iran will achieve nuclear blackmail potential w.r.t Israel, the only democracy in West Asia, and our friend.

well, I don care Buddy, when the WORLD never cared abt the N-weapons and long-range weapoins getting into a real fundamentalist state, no one cared. India is alread under the N-missile range and nothing more can be done to endanger the security.

And if u know Iranians, u’ll support my view that Iranians are far more liberal out there in that part and a far more civilised society. A persons attair should not be the ase on judging a persons character or his broad-mindedness in his outlook towards things.

And when did this Isrealis become the inseperable frind of India??? ….. ask them to have some morals and choose the Truth in their path to have a peaceful atmosphere, u’ll find the real face of Isreeli’s with the firstshort being Y don u give away Kashmir. I bet on that my dear friend.

And in todays terms ‘friends’ are those who have got NATURAL RESOURCES, MONEY & huge MARKET. Isreal don have any of these THREE, where as for them to stick with India as a Friend, we HAVE ALL THREE of these (with obvious shortages).

And if u guys think that Isreal gives us so much tech, and think that we wud have been dammned if they did not, then its actually a shame on every Indian that, even after so much of effort, Indian’s cannot or will not be able to produce what it needs in the future in the field of avionics and electronics.

If thats what u guys think, then damn the word and sink the concept after which most Indian’s rally around & take pride – Indigenious.

can the Mods shift this thread to Navy section??

am posting the news ‘broken’ by turboshaft this year,in the Navy section with the link .

Russia developing new aircraft carrier

MOSCOW. May 15 (Interfax) – The Russian Navy is launching a project to develop a new aircraft carrier, the navy’s commander Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov told Interfax.

“We are beginning work to develop a new aircraft carrier in 2005. Construction is to begin after 2010,” Kuroyedov said.

“We are launching this development project and will involve leading experts to find out which materials and weapons we’ll need and how many aircraft carriers should be built,” he said.

Kuroyedov earlier told journalists that the navy is planning to put the new carrier into service in the Northern Fleet by 2016-17. Another carrier will be built for the Pacific Fleet, he said. “Deck aviation has a good future. A new multi-purpose aircraft will be created in a few years,” Kuroyedov said.

The Russian Navy currently has only one aircraft-carrying cruiser, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

and some good pic of the Kuzentzov & her a/c in this link

Here some part of the interview with Academician Victor Mikhailovich Chepkin, Director General/Designer General of the Lyulka-Saturn joint-stock company (JSC) to Andrey Fomin. (From Dec 98 Air Fleet)

What problems did you face while developing a swiveling nozzle?

– A lot of spears had been broken in choosing the very system of thrust vector deflection. The Americans went one way, we chose another, quite different to boot. While developing the swiveling nozzle, we encountered a most formidable problem – that of the seal between the moving and static parts of the nozzle. The exhaust gas pressure here reaches seven atmospheres with temperature running as high as 2000 degrees centigrade. The sealing of the point where two parts of the engine – the static and moving ones – meet, must be ideal, since the gas leakage here means a fire on board the aircraft. The second important problem is how to provide reliable control of the nozzle itself. Fancy that: during the take-off, the nozzle at an altitude of 15 m deflects on its own into the pitch position. In 1-1.5 seconds, the crash will be bound to happen. At a low speed, the pilot is absolutely unable to counter the sudden negative pitching moment, since the alteration of the thrust vector at full reheat is enormously powerful exceeding the effectiveness of the aircraft control surfaces.

Thus, developing the TVC version of the AL-31F engine, we had to solve most complicated technical problems and look for ways to ensure the highest degree of reliability of the system as a whole. Many a year of theoretic and experimental research resulted in successful resolution of those problems, and, for two years now, the AL-31FP-powered Su-37 fighter performs brilliantly at international airshows displaying magnificent maneuverability. Which is not the case with its foreign counterparts. There have not been any American or European combat aircraft featuring TVC engines at public airshows, though their development has been going on abroad for quite a while. Maybe, there is nothing to show yet…

The AL-31FP boasts an axial exit nozzle. That is to say the nozzle is circular. It is known that your overseas counterparts used to try to solve the thrust vector control problem via the use of a flat nozzle that should be easier to swivel. What do you think of that?

– In the late 1980s, we were engaged in the development of the flat nozzle too and conducted a thorough research. The Ufa-based Motor Scientific Production Enterprise under the guidance of Chief Designer Alexei A. Ryzhov manufactured an experimental flat nozzle that underwent a series of tests. The conclusions were as follows. Presently, the flat nozzle has two inherent snags which, in principle, have not been dealt with yet. Firstly, the turbine is round but the nozzle is flat with a distance between them being small. The distance cannot be increased because this would lead to an increase in the overall length of the aircraft, a loss of thrust, etc. While transforming the circular gas stream into the flat one, the nozzle, developed by Mr. Ryzhov, was losing 14-17% of thrust. Unfortunately, the gas stream cannot be “bent” as we would like it to. It has its own laws too. So far, no one has managed to transform the circular gas stream into the flat one without losing thrust. The very same snag was hit by the Americans in developing their F-117 featuring a non-afterburning engine. Such engines lose approximately 15% of thrust too. However, the F-117 is a specialised Stealth aircraft with the main requirement of ensuring “invisibility”. It does not need a real good thrust/weight ratio. That is why the Americans put up deliberately with an unavoidable loss of thrust but benefited from reduced signatures.

Secondly, the other primary problem is weight. The circular TVC nozzle produces only tensile stress while the flat one exerts bending stress as well. Those stresses require special measures to be taken to ensure the nozzle strength in order to avoid deformation of the nozzle. Those measures mean additional weight. The flat nozzle made of metal is heavier than the circular one by approximately half a tonne. Mind you, the whole AL-31FP fitted with its circular swivel nozzle weighs a little bit more than 1500 kg only. So, the use of a flat nozzle implies an extra tonne at the rear of a plane (two-engine are meant here, which make up the most of modern fighters). The problem can be circumvented through the use of the “carbon-carbon” materials which have low specific weight and can stand high temperature. But they burn in the end anyway, since they are based on the very same coal. Nobody has solved the problem of preventing carbon-carbon units from burning during their operation as part of an aircraft engine. Currently, such materials covered by a thick layer of fire-resistant ceramics are used only in manufacturing the control surfaces of rocket engines. The latter are actually disposable since their operation never exceeds 40-50 seconds while an aircraft engine service life amounts to 1,000 hours or more.

So, the problem of ensuring an effective long-term protection of the non-metal nozzle is still to be solved. Thus, development of the flat nozzle encounters two problems – the loss of thrust (and it is not resolved even in theory) and the extra weight. With those two problems in mind, we stick to the circular nozzle.

I want to know, whats been the experience of the Americans with their TVC engines. be it that on the experimental F-16 or the now operational F-22.

Have they solved the problems thats being said by DG of NPO Saturn ??? anyone got info?

please reply to this in the F-22 thread.