I beg the different.
The Engine part is the major problem here.
If you don’t want to resort to the Aviadvigatel D30-F6 turbofans, rated at 34,000 lbf thrust monstrosity engine, the AL-41L are still a long way from the desired weight/size/thrust specs.
Otherwise the NPO Saturn 117S(AL-41F1A) should very soon be replaced by the AL-41F2A or Salut MMBPP AL-31F(42 series) M2/M3 series with more thrust..Also i believe the Pak-Fa will not reach up to the F-22A in the overall RCS empage.
The Pak-Fa Aft(Engine nozzle) section most likely will not cope with
the F-22A.
The Frontal RCS will be pretty close though..
Anyway its not that big deal, the Pak-Fa will be much cheaper to produce VS the F-22A.
And like other poster have already said, the Pak-Fa will have other goals and requirements specs formed by the VVS.. NOT the USAF;)Thanks
Obviously Sukhoi would request a high-performance turbofan in the PW F119
class, most likely the Saturn AL-41F.
No i can’t give you a real explanation why. And no other here can’t either..
But resorting to history, the best logical explanation is that Russia is not funding the Sukhoi’s Pak-Fa in the same insane way US with LM did.
In this lays the foundations of how great the Pak-Fa RCS will do, its will very likely be a compromise on cost vs engine/RCS performance.Well all the same, the F-22A is still a champ who meet the USAF requirements in the end.
Thanks
Along with more tight budgetary and schedule constraints, as well as customer demands from the Russian VVS, plus numerous other factors that will determine the IOC date for the PAK FA.
It is neither the engine nor the related inlet-system. Weight by the stealth demands is a real issue the F-22A in mind. Something similar in size to the YF-23 is less prone to that. What will the Russian choose? A formidable task for a nation without much experience in stealth designs. I assume something in stealth capabilities closer to the F-35.
The PAK FA would most likely be a front-aspect stealth design like the F-35 instead of the all-aspect stealth design of the F-22.
The Engines..?
Well back to the Pak-Fa, the 117S Engines for the early Pak-Fa Prototypes are a good steep on the way. They did increase the Thrust without increasing the engine weight.
However the air-intakes in the front could be a problem on the Pak-Fa.. it was enlarged somewhat on the Su-35S to add more air-flow volume.
As if they where not big enough in the first place..Thanks
But the Sukhoi designers would have to make sure the inlets are serpentine shaped to prevent frontal exposure of the turbine blades, which could easily compromise the stealth, at least from the front quarter.
Wishful thinking to stay polite. They will be lucky to get ten small regiments from a total of 300 built over a decade.
The interim or “low-cost” Su-35″BM” (from 2005): 3. Unit cost, Estimated at US$45 million to $65 million in mind.
The VVS is planning to induct four squadrons of Su-35BM by 2015. How many squadrons of PAK FA do you think would the VVS would induct by the 2020s?
Best guess, 4, maybe 5 or even 6 (includes a training and OT&E squadron)
Sukhoi will no doubt work out the Aerodynamic & stabillity on the Pak-Fa in a familiar clever fashion, but the RCS is the big question:confused:
The Engines development will have to mature for some years to come, but i’ll think they will get it right.
Perhaps not as much Thrust/weight as the F-22 F119 engines, but somewhere over the current 117S engine today.Thanks
You know the level of sophistication and skill required to develop a high-performance high-tech turbofan engine. The engine design, metallurgy and FADEC systems come into mind, along with it reliability, how much abuse it could withstand and still operate.
Why do you think that using the P-38 would produce “more bomber casualties and losses from German AAA and Luftwaffe Bf 109s, Fw 190s and Me 262s”?
The P-38 was a very capable aircraft. They saw limited use in Europe, as their twin engines were deemed more necessary over the pacific. The P-47 was also well able to hold its own. Had it been necessary, they would have produced a long range P-47, that could match the Mustang.
Anyway, they would always have found another way to bring daylight bomber losses down to an acceptable level and the plants would have been bombed no matter what.
The USAAF would have fielded the P-47N Thunderbolt instead.
The Mustang was a fine aircraft but like the whole Spitfire/Hurricane, Lancaster/Halifax, B-17/B-24, Corsair/Hellcat discussions, the “winner” tends to be as inaccurately depicted as the looser is.
The P-47 was equal to the Luftwaffe equipment on the whole and the later versions matched the P-51 for range and did a lot of the leg work that was needed before the “D” version (generally credited with beating the Luftwaffe) came into service in mid 1944 (June IIRC?)
In the Far East, the P-38 was favored by the USAAF and was credited with the kills to back that judgment. The RAF use of the Allison engined Mustang was of value, but not a “war winner” and the Merlin engined versions later used were also of use, but again they would have gotten by without them.
Obviously the P-38 killed over 1800 Japanese aircraft in the PTO, but I wonder why it was not used as a B-29 bomber escort over the Japanese home islands? Insufficient range, even with two engines and two drop tanks?
Snippet from Reuters South Africa
Indian PM arrives in Russia for arms, nuclear deals
Russia and India, which in October agreed the outlines of a 10-year weapons deal that could be worth at least $10 billion, are building a modern supersonic fighter aircraft invisible to radars like the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.
This must mean the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA.
Sign In
