JSRI read somewhere earlier that the modernised MiG-31’s will have a service life exceeding the F-22’s recently entered into service! 😮
You have to be realistic in assumptions. MIG-31 is low G fighter like B-52. It could have 100 year life with upgrades.. 2035-2040 is earliest time frame where they will be due for withdrawl.
Even the Indian MIG-29SMT will stay untill 2030. So any one is going to challenge that MIG-31 upgrade cannot outlast MIG-29/Su-27 upgrade?
On other hand F-22/Su-35 are more about pulling more G and employing TVC.
Stealth and internal subsytems makes F-22 upgrades very expensive. I would not be surperized F-22 is withdrawn once F-35 force is built up. and F-35 gets longer range next generation AAM. See F-117 life span example.
JSRI agree, but unlike the Blackbird, the MIG-31 and MIG-25 with their crappy Russian engines could burst over MACH 3 only for few minutes..
During a damage assessment flight over Libya in 1986,which took place few days after the Operation El Dorado Canyon, Russian SAM’s have been fired towards an SR-71 but to no avail, the captain had his engines at full throttle and outrun the missiles easily.
There is quite a difference between D-30 made in 1970s and 2011.
With lighter avionics, radar antenna and more powerfull engines. I would think they they will perform better. RVV-BD has nearly identical weight as R-33 but more than twice the range figures. some of it could be attributed to increase performance of MIG-31BM.
http://german.ruvr.ru/2011/12/30/63167504.html
JSRyes and even with those stronger engines it still has a smaller thrust to weight ratio than the Rafale! oh thanks for an article from 10 years ago when many of those Mig variants have yet to exist lol
I posted the article because it has proven right to a great extent. The point i am making that 20,000 lbs is not the upper limit as this was achieved a decade ago and will not require some fortune to invest. should large order for MIG-35/MIG-29K arrives. Fundamental of design is sound.
Current Rafale is 7.5X2=15 tons thrust. Naval variant is 10.2tons. Add 4.7ton fuel. you come to around 1:1 TWR with full fuel.
MIG-29K 9X2=18 tons thrust. MIG-29K 12.5 tons empty. add 5.2 ton fuel. you come to 17.7 ton loaded fuel weight. so they are about equal.
JSRhow is it worst?
it is politically driven project more to give Korean industry expertize in creating downgraded F-16 design with origins from 1990s.
Chinese could easily modified FC-1 airframe for twin seat trainer based on single engine. As i said this T-50 does not belong to 21st century.
the FC-1 is not a trainer, no twin-seat version exists. L-15 is not a fighter, no single seat version exists. China settled for an updated Mig-21 clone for its training needs anyways.
Mig-21 clone is current. They ordered 250 engine for future L-15. It took 5 to 6 years for Chinese to certify the design. Chinese really had the hard curency and savings which Korea lacks. so Chinese can pick and chose.
JSRThank you Paul the octopus!
however the question here is operating costs. surely a T-50 will likely cost more than an M-346 or even a Yak-130, but the question is by how much?
It is not just cost but T-50 design is not suitable for training. Aerodynamically it is worse than Chinse FC-1.
Chinese would not have created separate project for twin engine L-15.
JSRwhile others like the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are fast approaching retirement
If the upgrade program of MIG-31 is success full. they have much more service life remaining than F-22. so they will remain relevant for next 20 to 30 years. by that time missile technology will have advance enough that fast and high altitude interceptor may not be required.
I dont think any one can afford developing new Mach 3 platforms. Not even UCAV.
JSROne aspect that comes to mind is the inlet design, the Yak-130 had FOD covers and doors on the top of the LEX (a la MiG-29). The mechanism and ducting associated with this system produced terrible inlet distortion. Observing flght tests of the Yak-130D in Venegono back in 2000, during maneuvers the pilot had to keep one engine at idle to avoid surge. And the engines still surged frequently. Not a good feature for a trainer – well perhaps it is if you fighters do the same thing
Yak-130 has alot more investment done in past 10 years. both from Irkut and Salut. i doubt M-346/T-50 can keep up with it. They need large customer with continous production for decades.
http://www.yak.ru/FIRM/arch_news.php?item=250
Algeria – difficult client for the defense companies. Technical competence and captiousness of local examiners is well known. “The yaks”, released in Irkutsk for Algeria, underwent careful study both from the side of management VVS in April – May 2011 and from the side of pilots, who passed to Irkutsk the course of preparation. On the joint decisions of customer and executor in the construction Yak-130 was introduced a number of improvements. As a whole they by positive affected the quality of machine, especially its export version with the foreign language cab.Moreover “They [irkut]” not only it invested means in OKR, but also it set up contemporary technological base for the large-scale release Yak-130 on the basis of the through use of digital technologies. Through indicate in all stages of life cycle development, the preparation for production, release, [posleprodazhnoe] maintenance, modernization. This approach ensured essential gain in comparison with the traditional technologies, which was used a Nizhniy-Novgorod plant “falcon” with the release of first party Yak-130. Thus, the periods of starting into the production were reduced 1,5-2, labor expenses – by 40%. The quality of machines substantially grew.
JSRT-50 can have G tolerance from -3 to +8. It’s designed by Lockheed that like major US manufactures has design philosophy for long airframe life. It can’ be said it has inferior airframe/design than Yak 130/M-346.
I dont see -3g for T-50 from korean manufacturer website. and airframe life 8000hr.
I’m not going to venture which Inferior and Superior as Trainer since T-50 and Yak 130/M-346 designed from beginning on different set of Philosophy. However due remembered that more and more for Advanced training current AF demand LIFT capabilities.
T-50 is a boxy form of F-16 design. It is neither a good fighter nor a good trainer. It is muddled approach to aircraft development. and it will become costly for Koreans as they will have to import US made parts.
Euro currency has fallen considerably so i dont think M-346 will be expensive.
agree that running cost (Fuel Cost) is perhaps the biggest factor for Basic Trainer considerations. But not for LIFT/Advance Trainers considerations, and certainly not if that AF is USAF. Better comparative performance with operational Fighters (F-16, F-22, and F-35 in case of USAF) can deemed more bigger factor then Fuel costs. Especially if fuel cost differences (on operational situation) is not really that big.
Fuel costs will be single most important factor going forward. when so much cost cutting will be going on. Trainers put the most flying hrs in peace time.
Alenia has said to be in talks with Boeing for a possible partnership on the T-X program. However, the latter has been pushing for a “clean-sheet” design, which is unlikely as the Air Force has been saying an off-the-shelf option will likely be cheaper.
Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries is also planning to pitch the T-50
JSRFuel costs will be most significant part to play. T-50 is not very aerodynamic design as its roots are traced to 1970s F-16 and will barely maintain afterburner for few minutes on internal fuel. It has the same weight as F-16A with 50% less fuel. so i dont think there is that much training in afterburner involved.
Trainer need to be light weight and very long airframe life.
Yak-130 internal fuel range is 2000km with 10,000hr airframe life.
It can do negative 3g and upto 40 degree angle of attack.
JSRNow for T-50, Only ROKAF and now Indonesian AF that will use T-50 (or TA-50 for Ind AF) at the present. T-50 losing out to M-346 in Singapore and UAE (although seems it’s not a done deal yet for UAE), but winning against Yak 130 in Indonesia. Still a contest with M-346 with Israel, and since Turkey also use T-38 and (like Indonesia) Turkey show increasing trend in defense cooperation with ROK, I believe the chances for T-50 to replace Turkey T-38 is good.
T-50 is single engine trainer that weighs 6500kg. Now it is good for small airforce that will buy at most 50 airplanes over period of 50 years.
But when you consider large airforce like USAF & Ruaf whose requirement may run into 400 to 500 planes over 50 year period. They have to look at reliability of twin engine, light weight efficiency as they have to spend money on so many other things.
T-38 was designed in different era. when labor, material and oil was cheap. Now every thing for next 50 years is going to be very different.
JSRAbout the same, in both PPP & nominal terms – but since Turkey is a lot richer per head, Turkey can tolerate higher spending.
Turkey cannot tolerate higher spending either. It has $80b of trade deficit. for that it needs external financing otherwise its currency will be in toilet. its recent pro arab policies are its need for that financing.
S. Korea is 30-40% richer than either overall.
If some body is really rich they will not need debt to maintain standard of living.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120111-716212.html
JANUARY 11, 2012, 10:00 P.M. ET
South Korea has some of the highest levels of household debt among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development members. While the authorities say the debt remains broadly manageable, they are concerned about a steady pick-up in loan growth
these 3 countries put together has neither the financial means nor technical ability to put together a 4.5 generation fighter. 4.5G I define it as fighter having speed, payload, altitude and range greater than 4G fighter.
It is not just function of avionics.
Rafale with CFT/larger ET or Su-35. EF comes with its limited supercruise ability.
JSRWhat part of the Korean stealth fighter problem do you guys not believe in and why?
1. Budget (Design/Per Plane ect)
2. AESA Radar (Hardware/Software ect)
3. Engine (Hardware/Software ect)
4. Stealth (RAM/Shaping ect)
5. Airframe (Design/Materials ect)
6. Avionics (Controls/Sensors/Displays ect)
7. Weapons (Missiles and Bombs)
8. Data Link
9. OtherAnd where do you think the KF-X will be compared to 4.5 Gen fighters and more importantly the F-35,T-50 and J-20?
1.Not a chance budget wise. You have to chose between buying foreign fighters like F-15K and domestic. ur already at 300% total debt to GDP as society
2. AESA radar is possible but not of very high calibre. probable equal to F-2.
3. Not a chance.
4. some level.
5. airframe that can fly but hard to certify for supecrusie with large internal volume and external loading with super agility. F-50 does not give me confidence.
6. weopons WVR possible. not BVR.
The rest of avionics/data link medium tech level. and Turkey/Indonesia cant solve the technical and budget challenge.
JSRcan’t wait until JSR reads this and lectures you on Big nose and Big spine! :diablo:
besides.. MiG-29K’s flaws are rooted beyond its carrier design and into its original design.
i bet you miss the days of the F-4 and F-14
I dont see any flaws in MIG-29K. It has 20% stronger engines than Rafale. Bigger nose and larger fuel capacity. It can fly higher and faster. and it has the same 5 wet stations. There is TVC option for it.
These are all export standard. MIG-29 airframe is very flexible for engine upgrades. Not big investment required to upgrade engines to 25K lbs.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mig-29-fulcrum-variant-may-get-bigger-engine-148674/
JSRAs opposed to? Doesn’t change that fact that CAC and UAC have less than five prototypes flying, and are nowhere close to bringing an air force variant into production let alone a naval variant.
Sukhoi is very conservative with prototypes. they used only 4 prototypes for Superjet certification. Boeing used about 15 for 787.
Sukhoi has much more experiance with fighters. I dont think they will need more than 4 or 5 flying prototypes for certification. and than 8 to 10 pre-production models for IOC.
JSRTalking about ‘IP’, have you any idea of the origin of the motors on the Sukhoi Superjet?
Yup. that origin is 10 years ago. when money was in short supply for risking entirely on new engine. as you can see from the report that Russians were generous with money on Mistral deal.
Next SSJ-130NG is not going to use French engine. French has to offer something next generation development.
It will not be like France-UK cooperation where 50-50 finances are possible as in this case only one side will have the money and upto 50% technology
Sign In
