For interests of historical accuracy, is there a swastika on the boot of the Smart car?:diablo:

no, they are different
it’s clear, though, and confirmed, that Product 129 is related to R&D work codenamed Eniseysk-A, that was second stage engine contest between Saturn and Salyut (Salyut’s proposal was made under name Eniseysk-B)
129 mentioned in Saturn yearly reports 2008/2009

Thanks once again.

So 129 probably morphed into Product 30, that is to be the second stage PAK FA engine?

And 127 is another real, seperate model?

sure

Thanks.

The thrust that Mack8 posted, about 11500kg-18 000kg is similar to what I;ve seen on the net for the second stage engine.

Any idea if this is correct?

If it is, then it places it squarely into the F119 category, or possibly higher in afterburner, depending on who believes who…..

Anyway, getting back to the topic with those of us who are interested….

The engines of the PAK FA are interesting to me.

I’m hoping somebody can shed some light on the matter, which I admit is a little confusing.

From what I can gather, the baseline Al-31 has been developed into the:
AL-41F1 (117) that powers the PAK-FA, rated at 147kN (33 000lb).
AL-41F1A (117S) that powers the Su-35, rated at 142kN (31 900lb).

I assume the “product 117” part of the designation stems from the AL-31 engine core used?

Now, Ilya Fedorov, head of NPO Saturn, has stated that the current engine fitted to the PAK FA, the AL-41F1(117), or “product 117, is the “first stage” engine.

He has also stated that the “second stage” engine, called “product 129”, is intended to be available around 2014-2015.

Is this is the engine that has been talked about as the “completely new” and “5th generation” engine for the PAK FA?

Flateric, at the top of the page, has said the “second stage” engine is called “product 30”.
I assume these are the same engine.

Does the new “product” designation indicate a new engine core, not based on the AL-31 core?

I’ve seen thrust figures touted for this “second stage” engine on the net, and wanted to know if anyone has further info on the matter?

I don’t speak Russian, so use a translator. I’ve no doubt some of the Russian speakers here can help out and confirm some of these matters, or correct some of my mistakes.

once more, ‘second stage’ engines aka ‘PI’ are ‘Product 30’

Is Product 30 going to have a different engine core?

I thought he was talking about entire stealth aircraft?

Anechoic tiles and RAM were pioneered on German submarines in the 1940s, they are are hardly a recent technology. As for applying RAM onto a Tu-160 – it’s a bit like putting lipstick on a pig, is it not? That plane is huge…

I know about the Germans pioneering anechoic tiles.

Your question was:

Originally Posted by Levsha
Did they? What low observable “things” did the Soviets design and manufacture?

So I mentioned some “things” that I recalled off the top of my head.:p

The Soviets were aware of German tech in that area immediately after the war, but fielded it in the 70’s first.
The logical conclusion to that is a research and design process leading to that application 25 years later.

I’m not sure what the RCS of the Blackjack is, and I doubt there is an open source for it.
Still, aerospace proffessionals thought it worthwhile, so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m sure there may be others, but I’m disinclined to look right now.

I suppose the concept of a TV licence is the same as the concept of a radio licence from back in the day.

You said AAM, which has now morphed into BVRAAM like the AMRAAM and the still not operational Meteor.

You seem to have an Anglo-centric or western-centric view on things.

Do the rest of the worlds airforces not count?

The MICA is used by 8 airforces, some of which are western.
The Derby is used by 5 airforces, all of which are in “the west”.

The AMRAAM is used by 36 airforces.
Russia’s R-27 is used by 28 airforces.
It’s R-77 is used by 7 nations.

Other countries such as Israel, South Africa, Brazil, Japan, China, Russia, and Taiwan are all developing/currently manufacturing and fielding indigineous AAM’s, BVRAAM’s as well as short range AAM’s.

So no, the US does not have a monopoly on AAM’s, and neither will the Meteor have the monopoly either, when it does eventually enter service.

A little reading on the AAM developments of the countries I’ve listed above is actually quite interesting, if one is truly interested in the field.

The rest of your post is also posted in the usual contentious style used by the slew of recently joined forumites from the last 3 months, with half-truths slanted to back up a particular world-view, so perhaps it is wise not to bother with a reply.