insomnia.delhiThis whole post is full of wishes. The PAK-FA is late to the game. It won’t be available for export contracts till at a mininum of what 2018?, by that time most of the market that wants or needs a 5th gen will have the F-35 whether its better or worse.
You guys are making all these claims of the PAK-FA without knowing any facts what so ever. None of us know anything about anything.
see its a nice game of bluff/bull****. 😀
Try telling that to the USN, USMC, USAF, RAF, ItAF, RAAF, TuAF, SgAF………….
hello gentlemen thank you for investing all that money and waiting for the 35, now please accommodate these nations into your production slots, we have to sell some planes before this Russian plane.
F-35 wont be selling anytime soon, all the nations (armed forces outside america who wish to operate them on land might buy other options but why would they with the investment they’ve put into the program) that need it already have too much betting on it, its 35 or bust.
moments like these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A
insomnia.delhi.25 sq.m is not stealth
That is relative to the planes original return without the treatments, and the development since that time, which wont be told that bluntly.
Applying these techniques will only result in so much, perhaps amongst the several differences between what are called the 4.5 and 5th generation.
insomnia.delhiDifferent i think. Note angle in 1 and no angle in 2 Otaku.
:confused:
[ATTACH]181355[/ATTACH]
http://www.optillusions.com/dp/1-39.htm.
http://www.optillusions.com/dp/files/1-39.gif
insomnia.delhiWhere is the source? I think in the process of maximizing the weapons load out, they decide to compromise on stealth by not fully covering the turbine blades.
as stated Sukhoi.
Or that they did by a combination of curved inlet, installing radar blocking screens, and treating the engine with signature management materials.
I they were not thinking of doing this they would have had a better contender for the project, Su-35.
insomnia.delhiLo and behold… rivets!
Not all of them, they must have to take some parts of the skin off sometimes to access the parts inside(countersunk screws).
First of all if you’r paying 80-100 mil for this thing…you’re getting screwed pretty hard.
Why?
On the other hand, if you think Russia will produce 350-400 of these guys even in the next 30 years…you’re playing with yourself too much.
Why?
insomnia.delhiJ-XX can be commented upon, being a PRC project and all, who knows, not planned at all, in project study stage, already on the drawing board, under construction, about to fly…..
When MCA will receive funding through the ministry everyone will know, and then it will take time to design, build and fly the first prototype.
Meanwhile apparently from the strange you tube vids, it seems Japanese have already started work on their prototype, so they have the best chance.
Which one will be operational in a squadron first?
insomnia.delhiI just read on this French defence blog…
… that the IRST radome on the prototype is just provisional for testing the final one and that “it will disappear” on the production variant (which will be produced by the same company making the ventral Mig-35 sensors).
So do you think that the final IRST of the PAK-FA will be retractable, to keep smooth “stealth” lines ?
Please, say me yes, an aircraft is always prettier with no asymetric elements on it 😀
may be use a faceted window that reflects electromagnetic waves and lets the IR and laser work at the same time?
All of that might add to the costs though, a retractable system would be cheaper, however the system is something they would want to use quite often (to cash into the low radar signature), and when in use the problem will reappear.
insomnia.delhiIf there is political pressure can they integrate the engine and avionics development program with the Su-35, finish the tests make the required modifications and make the 2013 time line?
insomnia.delhiAlso, I doubt the exhausts will change as they’re probably 3D TV nozzles.
Isn’t the whole engine supposed to change?
insomnia.delhiAFAIK, SM featured digital cockpit suite, as well. IAF Fulcrums don’t have anything like that. Could be simple rewiring for R-77 + software update to N019MP standard – hardly something to call it a new version rather than a new *Block*.
I must admit that i am embarassed to say that my knowledge of Fulcrum-C version comes from wiki which sites no source for these parts.
MiG-29S-13 (Product 9.13)
MiG-29 variant similar to the 9.12, but with an enlarged fuselage spine containing additional fuel and a Gardeniya active jammer. NATO reporting code is ‘Fulcrum-C’.
MiG-29S-13 (Product 9.13S)
Version with the same airframe as the 9.13, but with an increased external weapons load of 4,000 kg, and provision for two underwing fuel tanks. Radar upgraded to N019ME, providing an ability to track 10 targets and engage 2 simultaneously. Compatible with the Vympel R-77 (AA-12 “Adder”) air-to-air missile (similar to the AIM-120 AMRAAM). NATO reporting code is ‘Fulcrum-C’.
MiG-29SM (Product 9.13M)
Similar to the 9.13, but with the ability to carry guided air-to-surface missiles and TV- and laser-guided bombs. NATO reporting code is ‘Fulcrum-C’.
Wiki: Mig-29
I just assumed that it was one of them.
insomnia.delhidon hav pics of IAF mig-29 with R-77 but one with drop tanks
Are these the SM (Fulcrum-C)versions?
insomnia.delhiFwiw, the official Sukhoi Company website has repeated the Interfax-AVN report on the first-flight under ‘Media coverage of the company’ (though not under official ‘Company News’).
Dated 18/01/10 it states:
Translation:
“The precise date of the [first] flight of the fifth-generation fighter will be finalised during this week. The very first flight is planned to be undertaken by the end of January” -a (KnAAPO) company representative stated.
Elsewhere on Russian fora, there are rumours of some sort of official media presentation planned for this coming Sunday.
Who do you guess will be photographed at the event, putin, medvedev or both?
insomnia.delhiJ10B is hardly low end. Don’t know how compared with Block60 but I wouldn’t me much suprised that it is really good. J10A is pretty much medium tech. Looking at the price you cannot use it to fil up lower ranks. Even the LCA should be more if you look at the price but then looking a the plane it is indeed the low rank. Small, light and we still need to know how it performs.
I think he meant it in the F-15/F-16 or F-22/F-35 analogy, one being the higher end and other lower (not tech. wise).
insomnia.delhiI think that one can say that there is a difficult and complex road to become a member of the club that produces high performance fighterjets.
Sometimes it is stealing, sometimes copying, sometimes buying and sometimes a mix of everything and adding something.
It happens in the west and it is no different outside the developed world. We should focus on what these nations achieve.
Pakistan got JF17, India got LCA and China got J10. Comparing them is difficult, even for people in the field.
But asking eachother questions about what to expect is just a matter of trying to figure it out. Not to degrade.
After decades of hearing pilots telling me that their plane is the best I had the feeling that they hardly look outside their box.
We should not try to become a copy of those pilots. So posting in eachothers topics is good as long as it is not degrading.
I disagree that ZOOM has anything to do with what I wrote.
He starts warning that it might become nasty (just within a few posts). He starts telling that Pakistani are happy with cheap Chinese products and gifts form the USA.
I think the guy has no intention to contribute in a normal way. He writes that with LCA the idea is to get knowledge.
How come he fails to understand that it is basicly for all planes. Is Lavi different? Is J10 different? Is JF17 different? No.
Could not agree more with you.
But somehow he thinks that it is more important to write perfect English on an aviation forum then understanding the reason why it is called an aviation forum. I rest my case.
Its not a competition, no one is getting the first price.
insomnia.delhiLimited Series Production (LSP) aircraft
Currently, 28 LSP series aircraft are on order.
LSP-1 (KH2011) – 25 April 2007
LSP-2 (KH2012) – 16 June 2008 This is the first LCA fitted with GE-404 IN20 engine.
LSP-3 – Will be the first aircraft to have the MMR and will be close to the IOC standard.
LSP-4 to LSP-28 – Planned to fly by late 2009.
These aircraft are expected to enter service in 2010.
Yes i can google things, i have seen all of that information.
The response is in comment you made about a production version Gripen
December 1995
The 2000th Gripen test flight takes place. More than 90% of the scheduled test flights are now completeMarch 1995
FMV begins its flight test program with production aircraft at Malmen Air Base, outside Linköping.June 1993
The first production aircraft (39.102) is delivered to FMV on 8 June.
By that estimation yes you have cleary quoted the correct example in saying
The first series example (LSP-2) with the GE-404 IN20 since 2008 compared to the Gripen J39A in 1992.
The twenty aircraft order by the Indian Air Force (16 single-seat and four two-seat trainers) are not now expected to gain operational clearance until after 2012.
And indeed a Tejas clearing FOC for air to air combat (using BVR & WVR missiles and guns), and air to ground role, will take 13 years according to the latest estimates (2014 operational squadron, first flight 2001).
As compared to the 9 years for gripen (1988 first flight, 1997 operational).
October 1997
Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish Air Force, Lieutenant General Kent Harrskog, declares the first Gripen squadron operational at a ceremony at F 7 Wing, Såtenäs.December 1988
Gripen makes it maiden flight on 9 December with test pilot Stig Holmström at the controls.
Mark 2 version
Due to the inability of the Tejas to meet the Indian Air Staff requirements the India Air Force will not order any more Mark 1 aircraft other than the original 40 aircraft it had ordered in 2005.Without the final selection of the engine for the future Mark 2 version, the development work of that can not be started really.
Just from that time-scale you will get the related data and experiences in need for the development of the Mark 2 version.
.
Was it a order of 40 in 2005, as the senior people from HAL have been directly quoted in person as saying that a further order for 20 more HAL Tejas, over the initial 20 is under going under due process in the ministry of defence.
Air Staff requirements, could you elaborate on exactly what the ASR’s were and by what margin did the Tejas fall short for the InAF to consider two squadrons of the type, or perhaps what the current empty thrust to weight ration of the tejas is supposed to be.
Are you proposing that 13 years of testing have taught the ADA nothing, and that perhaps we can just extrapolate the time required. And that the tender for 99 + 45 engines will take longer than the reported deadline of march 2010?
Sign In
