Scorpion82Are there any plans to retro-fit earlier RAF tranches to this new standard?
Regards
T2 and T3A will receive similar upgrades, but certain features can’t be retrofitted such as the fuel dump, CFT attachment points etc. T3A will first be delivered with P1Ea/SRP10, while T2s will be upgraded to P1Eb standard at the same time. P2Ea/SRP14 step 1 is likely to be qualified on T2 first as well.
Scorpion82Reuben F Johnson
Dubai, UAE
Russia’s Kaluga Scientific Research Institute for Radio Technology (KNIRTI) debuted a model of its newest electronic warfare (EW) system, destined for the Sukhoi Su-35, at the Dubai Airshow 2013.
The system, designated L-265M10-02, is a modernised version of the L-175VE Khibiny jammer installed on the Su-32/34 intermediate-range bomber. KNIRTI representatives explained to International Defence Review that the new jammer is more modular than the previous model. “In this newer variant, the centreline pod is optional and the aircraft can provide for its own self-protection with just the two wingtip pods.”
However, the addition of a centreline pod can enable the host aircraft to serve as an escort jammer, working in accord with other systems built into the aircraft’s tail ‘stinger’.
The two systems were designed several years apart, the KNIRTI spokesperson continued, “which [enabled us to use a] more modern set of components used in this design. The general [microelectronic component base] changes about every three years”.
Has something else been reported about the L265?
Scorpion82Not really. Wherever that came from? By the time the current test program was written (that would be 2008-2009), the agreement about joint R&D was yet to be signed (going by Pogosyan’s own words in 2010). I am not even sure if anything has been signed yet.
FGFA is gonna be based on a fully complete T-50, after all the internal state/factory/joint testing stages are finished – a derivative kit, in one word. That will be after or during first series batch production (stage 1 airframes).
T-50-10 is slated to be the last airframe before internal series production.P.S. Btw, following up on the sensors, those are not 101KS-U, but 101KS-Ps.
That the -8 to -10 would go to India has been stated here in this forum. But as I’m thinking about it, it makes no sense as the Indian variant will certainly not be called T-50, but T-50I if not something entirely different (Type 79L is the provisional product code).
Wrt the sensors, KS-P doesn’t fit here. There has never been any reference to KS-P in relation to the T-50 itself. The only hint of the KS-P’s existence is a forum post and the description of the system reads “FLIR”. The T-50 hardly needs a dedicated FLIR in any case, but could use the KS-V for that purpose which with 99% certainity features an imaging channel. Those KS-U-1/2 sensors shown at this years MAKS are exactly those found on the prototypes.
Scorpion82From an economical point of view it doesn’t make sense to establish two assembly lines. It’s better to have a single one and optimise it for a certain production output range. With hindsight of the upcoming order for serial production aircraft it is necessary to start setting up the line early enough. According the latest schedules full rate series production should begin on 31st December 2016, so we can expect first full rate production aircraft from 2018 onwards. What puzzles me at the moment is how many pre-production aircraft there will be. First sources suggested 10, but only 4 prototypes. We now know there will be six flying prototypes in addtion to non-flyable one T-50KNS and the static airframes T-50-0 & -7. T-50-8 to -10 are slated for India. Right now it’s said there will be 4 pre-production examples. If we count the T-50-7 to -10 it would make up for 8. But can this be confirmed? Someone mentioned a T-50-6-1 & -2 which is confusing. Going by the Su-27 Sukhoi has numbered prototypes and pre-production aircraft in sequence.
@Oldibas
The exactlocation apart there would be an obscuration in any case for the lower KS-U-1 and KS-O. It will thus be interesting to see the final arrangement. Maybe they will relocate the lower KS-O to the rear, though the space in the tailboom is certainly limited considering that it already incorporates the three UV50 CFDs, brake chute, KS-U-1 and the RF system whatever it is (jammer only or radar). As the N-036 radar complex will also serve the purpose of a directional RF jammer.
That’s at this point another riddle to me. Going by Jo’s findings (thanks for the good research btw) the L402 Himalaya EWS provides RF jamming in the X- and Ka-bands. The X-Band is clear, but where are the Ka-band aerials? Front sector X-band and rear sector Ka-band sounds a bit odd to me. I would expect front and rear sectors to be covered in both bands. Hence I consider it not unlikely that the boom contains another X-band AESA for autonmous rear hemisphere coverage for targeting and jamming.
Scorpion82Are you seriously suggesting to compare ‘reference lines’ in pictures that aren’t even taken from the same angle?
Look at the other pictures I posted, for christ’s sake.And?
The two facts are, those two (either dummy caps or antennas) are ‘mysteriously’ in the same places on t-50-4 as KS-Os on T-50-5 and the KS-U suite is missing entirely from T-50-5. Why the conspiracy theory?
You should stop getting paranoid, because people ask sensible questions. This has nothing to do with conspiracy or any nonesense like this, but a detail study to learn more about the aircraft. You are right that the antennas are located where the KS-O sensor(s) can be found on other aircraft. You’ll also notice a small antenna on T-50-1 in a similar location beneath the front fuselage.
And yes I serious suggest to use these reference lines as they are there and visible on both aircraft, the slight angle deviation between the shots doesn’t change this.
Scorpion82The 10,220kg figure is probably operating empty, with fluids, gun, ammo, pilot etc.
We know that the Rafale M’s MTOW is 22.2t with 4 tanks, 2 AAMs and a buddy refueling pod. By my math that’s 10,800kg OEW clean, pilot included (+/- 200kg). We also know that the Rafale C is 630kg lighter, which gives you ~10,200kg OEW… right on the mark I would say!
The weight difference makes sense when we talk about BEW & OEW, it’s nonetheless courious why there is no differentiation between BEW & OEW within the materials that all come from Dassault itself.
Scorpion82Nope.
this pic is ultra high-res, open it up in a separate window and zoom in.
Compare that to:KS-U suite is missing entirely on T-50-5 atm. Rear-up, front-down, left and right.
What you call “dummy caps” looks more like blade antennas typically used for RF communication systems. They may have been embedded and moved elsewhere.
Maybe you get a better understanding on what I mean from this image:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223208[/ATTACH]
As visible the KS-O of the T-50-5 is basically located in between where the KS-U-1 and blade antenna are on the T-50-4. Just assuming that the comms antenna is fitted elsewhere, the KS-O would still obscure the LOS of the KS-U-1. Hence it will be interesting to see where both will be located on subsequent aircraft that are fitted with the full 101KS Atoll OEIS.
Scorpion82You will find that T-50-4 had a dummy cap in the place of KS-O:
What you call a “dummy cap” is in fact the KS-U-1 in that picture of T-50-4. I would also like to ask you to separate your citations, as this response was written in reply to me, but the rest of your quots are from another user which is not clear from your response. Thanks.
Scorpion82I wonder how current and relevant the “9t empty weight” figure for the Rafale C is. According the more recent publications from Dassault including that for Switzerland and Brazil Rafale’s empty weight is 10220 kg. It’s not being declared to be basic or operational though, but in most cases the basic mass empty is being used in publications.
Scorpion82Umm, isn’t Paralay’s picture showing that if anything, this engine progressed rather further away than a paper project? It probably wasn’t flight tested, but surely they must have built at least several test specimens. Btw, some sources (not sure how reliable) allege that this engine ended up in China, possibly being the base for their WS-15 said to produce 16,500kgf.
Back to T-50, indeed it is rather useless to “discuss” anything with some of these folks who feel the need to bring the “America strong!!!!!111!!!” and “F-35!!!111!” crap in this topic every once in a while (and this assuming that mister F.D. is not a troll). Much more interesting are the actual developments in this program, either the next flying specimen or the one after that reportedly will introduce “significant” changes- whatever that entitles (though no, they surely won’t have flat nozzles and one piece canopy and all that stuff). It will be very interesting to watch when they hopefully appear sometime in the mid /second half of 2014.
And where does Paralays pic shows whoch version of the engine it is and how does the image proof any performance level in the first place? Anyway you are right and we should move on with the T-50.
It will be interesting to see how the sensors beneath the front fuselage will be arranged on the final production aircraft. T-50-5 is the first one to sport the lower KS-O but it’s almost in the same position where the KS-U was fitted on the T-50-3/4. I always thought that a single DIRCM on top of the spine doesn’t make too much sense and it’s good to see a second one beneath the front fuselage.
Scorpion82Can and did it … 🙂
R-179-300 for S-37 “Berkut”, power 21000 kg
The original R179-300 was developed for the Yak-41 and was considerably weaker than this. The improved variant proposed for the S-32 had a specified reheat thrust of 20000 kg or so, but there is no proof that this engine ever made it beyond the concept stage. For the eventuel S-37 Sukhoi opted for the same AL-41F engine as used by/proposed for the MiG MFI. This was the only new engine that progressed to the prototype stage. At the end only the 1.44 and flying testbeds were fitted with this engine. To cut it short a paper project isn’t of relevance here.
Scorpion82Should be of help for full (not austere) integration of heavy missiles (storm shadow)
Indeed, the partial evidence produced by flight testing of the XP1 strakes on DA5 back in 2007, the analysis of these data and the results from follow on wind tunnel testing etc. looks promising. However it remains to be seen how it really works out when it is ready and put through its paces.
As far as Captor-E is concerned and how it will be introduced, it’s being proposed as aretrofit for T2 and T3 aircraft. How many aircraft will really be upgraded with an AESA remains to be seen and will certainly be dictated by the funds available and the priority of other upgrades. So yes aircraft will first be delivered with Captor-M and latter be retrofitted. Is it a waste of money? Yes and no, the components that can not be retained will enter the spares pool and can be used on aircraft that retain the Captor-M, such as the T1 aircraft for those customers who will continue to operate them. Of course it would be cheaper to opt for a direct integration, but time scales doesn’t permit this. The partner nations are not interested in the initial version that is targeted at export customers who require “quick” delivery of aircraft with an AESA capability. It is in fact possible that the Captor-E (radar 2 variant) that will be introduced on core nation aircraft will have all new hardware, while the initial radar 1 will retain the processor and receiver from the current Captor-M (T2 variant aka Captor-D) in a modified form, but backwards compatible with the Captor-M.
Scorpion82Adding LERX (Leading Edge Root Extensions) to the aircraft’s wings, they improve AoA and Roll rates. Cassidian (Spain?) started to re-look into these over a year ago, and seems as though to have been ongoing and looked into further.
It’s not just LERX, but new strakes and slightly enlarged flaperons to counter the pitch up moment cause by the additional lift of the strakes and LERX. A positive by product is an enlarged wing area and that the same control authority can be achieved with lesser deflection, reducing trim drag.
Scorpion82And what about the Reconnaissance pods for Typhoon? Will they get a stand alone pod? or will they use RAPTOR?
In the short term the Litening 3 poses a limited reconnaissance capability, a mass memory is installed on the pod and the MMI is adapted to support such functions. A common ICD for Gen 3 & 4 LDPs and RecceLite was supposed to be part of P2Ea, dunno whether it’s still current or whether it has been further postponed. Raptor probably doesn’t fit.
Scorpion82The L-band T/R module operates in the 0.1-1.4 GHz range and…
I suppose it should read 1-1.4 GHz as L-band covers the frequency band from 1-2 GHz. Likewise your optimism wrt power output ignores the challenges of power and cooling. Theory is one thing, praxis another one.
Sign In
