star49Paper project? There is already a picture of an engine being tested that people attribute to the WS-13. Also the engine has already acquired a name “Taishan”, and Chinese engines don’t get names until they were certified.
pictures with tests? Your long way from
Excuse me, but RD-33 series of engines don’t have a good reputation. I personally prefer they dumped the Klimov engines and go indigineous instead.
RD-33 dont have good reputation?
u may be thinking of Soviet era times. RD-33 has higher TWR than AL-31 but with shorter life and it was designed for rapid interception jet to gain quick climb rates and speed.
It was big achievement at that time considering Soviets were not using computers as extensively as the West in design processes at that time.
and now requirements are changed with longer life.
I think Pakistan knows much more about Chinese stuff than reveal. there was interview to Russian Journalists of Pakistan PM just a day ago and specific mentions of defence cooperation. First try to compete with Ukranians in engine market than think about Russians.
If I look at India, I see the biggest importer of Russian high-tech hardware in the first place, a beloved customer, one of the few that is actually willing to spend huge sums of money on top of the notch Russian stuff, not just surplus MiG-29Ss. And if a customr like that shall demand *no support for Pakistani RD-93*, I fail to see a force from the Pakistani or Chinese side that would actually prevent that from happening
I dont think this is going to happen. If there was war Russians will try to prolong it to squeeze both sides to the maximum profit. similar will be the case Arab-Iranian case. Russia will side with Arabs. there is plenty of hints from there official sources of this policy change.
star49overcoming anti-billistic missiles is new requirement in addition to usual others. Funding is included in defence order. 10 years time line.
New bomber being developed for Russia’s strategic aviation
MOSCOW. April 23 (Interfax-AVN) – The development of a strategic bomber of a new generation for Russia’s air force has begun in Russia, deputy commander of the 37th air fleet Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev said.
“Currently specification requirements to develop a new strategic air system, which will have no counterparts in the world, have been assigned,” the general told journalists on Saturday in Moscow.
Research and development, as well as engineering, works have been included in the state defense order. “Relevant funds were given to hold research and development works into a new aircraft,” the general said.
Speaking about capabilities of the aircraft, the general stressed that this “will be an air system that totally differs from current types of aircraft in our air fleet.”
“The bomber will be capable to take off from any airfield, including ground airfields, to carry nuclear and highly accurate conventional weapons (missiles and bombs) and to overcome any anti-ballistic missiles defense systems. The aircraft will be used in all theaters of military actions, as well as in all weather and climate conditions,” the general said, adding that the aircraft will be built with the use of the Stealth technology.
Asked about possible terms of putting the aircraft on alert, the general said that “usually some ten years elapse from the moment tasks to develop a new aircraft are assigned and to the moment it is put on alert.” “We hope that we will be able to comply with the term given that financing is continuous,” he said.
When commenting on the company to be tasked with developing the new-generation strategic bomber, Zhikharev noted that the research and development would be conducted on a competitive basis. “We expect the major bulk of the work to be carried out by the Tupolev Design Bureau, whose aircraft (Tu-160s, Tu-95MSs, and Tu-22M3s) have lived up to their reputation in the course of their operation, and which has highly proficient staff and the required scientific basis,” he emphasized.
As far as the service life of aircraft currently in service with the Lon-Range Aviation was concerned, he stressed that Tu-160s, Tu-95MSs, and Tu-22M3s had a very high potential. “We are now trying to extend their service life, based on their state. Most of our aircraft were fielded in the 1980s, which means that they will remain operational for 10-15 years plus,” he stated.
star49I doubt so! FC-1 is a plane in direct with conflict with Russia Mig-29. Selling RD-93 to China to support FC-1 is like shooting its own Russia leg. Why would Russian do that? Basically is just like what Klimov president say,if we don supply China with RD-93,other will do it. China just need to get another supplier. Why not we just supply the engines and earn the market share?
Latest MIG-29 are in different price/capability. Russia is willing to leave to the lower end of the market anyway. there wage growth cannot sustain cheap stuff. I have very recent statement from there def minister. export is not the priority.
a few states of South-East Asia and Africa. “The standing of China is traditionally very strong” there, the source said.
In other words,he knows that China is going on with some engines thing and is near complete. China will have a substitute even without RD-93. in these case,might as well Russia become the supply and have root in this project and be a reliable supply to earn that big bucks rather than leeting the Chinese have the whole pie. The Chinese on the other hand have the J-10 almost fully indigenous. Getting FC-1 to be fully self reliant is not that critical since it is a plane on export! Since the russian are willing to supply,why not get a more reliable and proven engines plus using RD-93 will attract Mig-29 user since they are almost sharing the same engines and will thus solving more logistic problem..
It is very long way to go before a successful engine with FADEC, Self diagnostic remote control sytems is developed in China.
FC-1 to clash with Mig-29 sales is an inevitable thing!
I dont think so. FC-1 is medium tech fighter i dont think its export price can even touch new Yak-130 with AL-55 engines.
star49It may be an option to save the INF. To build BM and CM with a high accuracy and conventional a silo-buster warhead. Some Russians says Iskander range can be extended from 400 km to 500+ km (I wonder if this doesn’t degrade accuracy). This with a “long range” supersonic land-deployed BrahMos (that’s the thing that Indians are testing now). Both systems deployed in Kaliningrad in low numbers will permit to save the face of some Russian hardliners without threatening the real (aka.”old”) Europe.
Let’s wait and see.
Iskander can already do 500KM not the export version. and as far as Europe is concerned. they will side with US on this issue be it Old or New. Russia policies are simply not in long term interest of Europe. and is very late in disclosing the facts. It does not matter whether u deal with nuclear or non nuclear power. US will always be there to protect EU from Middleast/North Africa and China.
Russia ready to export sixth generation centrifuges for uranium enrichment
KOVROV, Vladimir region. April 20 (Interfax-AVN) – Russia is ready to sell sixth generation gas centrifuges for enriching uranium on the world market, Alexander Samorodsky, chief designer at the Kovrov Mechanical Works, one of the two Russian centrifuge manufacturers, told the press on Friday.
In the past Russia sold similar commodities to Beijing. China has built several centrifuge plants and recently commissioned a third production line. Russia is currently using eighth generation centrifuges, he said.
Sixth generation centrifuges “are virtually a passed stage and we are not disclosing any secrets here,” Samorodsky said.
The technologies that Russia is now using for making such equipment are a state secret and are of great interest to its competitors, he added.The Kovrov Mechanical Works belongs to the Russian state nuclear company Techsnabexport. The other manufacturer of centrifuges is Tochmash in Vladimir.
The three other major manufactures of such equipment in the world in addition to Russia are USEC in the United States and Eurodif and Urenco in Europe
The delivery of a centrifuge to China is not a violation of international commitments, because China is a nuclear power, and Iran is not, the minister said
The agreement was signed in 1991 and some of its provisions require revision. For instance, there is a provision permitting the transfer of Russian centrifuge production technology to China. However, Russia believes that these technologies should not be transferred
star49It is 8600kg maximum thrust, 300kg higher than the current RD-93. The RD-93 however has a more visible upgrade program.
WS-13 is paper project untill this point. just like no engine for K-8/L-15.
MIG-29K/MIG-35/MIG-29OVT are all flying with 9300KG version of RD engine. and above there are decades of operational user input especially from hot countries of Africa/Middleast/Asia into improving RD engines for those climates. IAF experiance was the key. and further more there 10,500Kg test versions also flying and soon to be certified.
Unless China provide free engines with a fighter. there is no chance of WS-13 ever catching up in FC-1 life time.
star49LOL where is your nonsense that the Gripen has the TWR of the EF? You already got the official information right in front of you, from the Gripen official site. If -39C is 6800kg, then 6620kg for -39A should be correct.
so if i go to Boeing website and show F-15E/F-18E has 20/16 tons empty weight and from Knappo website Su-24 has the same MTOW, Weoponload, Internal fuel, speed, combat radius, size of external tanks as Su-34. so what does it proves?
Even with your optimistic, and formally disproven figures, 8500 normal takeoff weight against 8100kg thrust engine means a TWR ratio below 1.0, whereas the Typhoon starts from 1.13 then goes higher.
it hasnt been disproven. when JED experiance writers cannot find internal fuel of Gripen so there is some thing more to it.
I am not slighting the Gripen at all here. The fact that it can sustain 20 deg/sec with a TWR lower than an F-16 (22 deg/sec, over 1.0 TWR) is pretty good.
A fighter which is using lighter engine, lighter Radar, avionics than F-16A can have similar weight? I am not even going into fuel capcities and advance material construction. It takes 100 seconds for Gripen to reach 10km height and it takes 5 minutes for M2K(with stronger engine). Gripen flight performance is not worse than EF.
star49Totally wrong. Maximum weight does not tell you what is the internal fuel capacity and empty weight.
so what maximum weight tells?
Your data of the empty weight of 5700kg is wrong.
why its wrong. why u put JAS-39C as same as JAS-39A.
this from JED online.
The Gripen’s range remained a secret for a long time, and various unofficial figures of its maximum range (with an additional under-fuselage fuel tank) were between 3,000 to 3,500 km
i havent seen air to air weopon on centerline in place of fuel tank. Fuel is meausred in percentages. It shows 100% with full internal fuel and 140% with centre line tank.
http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TechnicalSummary.htm
Lightweight structure employing advanced materials and construction techniques
and think about the above. Gripen uses engine which is lighter by 500 to 700 relative to F-16A/M2K. But i doubt ur logic can extend that far. Gripen cannot be build in China.
star49It is good time to start on bomber project because they are working PAK-FA. once u master 5th generation fighter Stealth, Supercruise, Internal weopon, Super maneourability, new materials and method of construction. it is much easier to transform those strenghts into larger layout with emphasis on straight line performance. and u can use 4 engines instead of two in non-afterburning. and cost should not be that much as they are developing it in public sector.
here they are proposing twin AL-41 for civilian SST. or they can use upcoming PS-12 series.
star49You are a confirmed idiot once more if you are trying to gauge minimum and normal takeoff weight by maximum takeoff weight alone, which is almost never used in fighter aircraft except being in a complete bombing mission with iron bombs, which is something fighters are not meant to be used in the first place.
Prove to the people around here that the JAS-39C has the same TWR as the Typhoon.
maxiumum takeoff weight gives indication of internal fuel capacity and empty weights.
how much is range of JAS-39 on internal fuel?
I have only mentioned JAS-39A which should be lighter than JAS-39C just as JAS-39C is lighter than JAS-39E. Fighter configuration includes AAMs weight.
Data for JAS 39C Gripen
Length: 14.1 m
Span: 8.4 m
Height: 4.5 m
Empty weight: 5700 kg
Normal take off weight: 8500 kg in fighter configuration
Payload: 5300 kg
Fuel, internal: 3000 litres approx (my estimate based on other,
External: 3800 litres official, numbers)
Max take off weight: 14000 kg
Range: 3000 km ferry range
Max speed: M 1.15 (1400 km/h) at sea level, close to Mach 2 at altitude
Acceleration: M 0.5 to M 1.1 at low altitude in 30 s
Turn performance: 9 G sustained, G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), min -3 G,
20+ deg/s sustained, 30 deg/s instantaneous
Climb rate: <100 s from brake release to 10 km altitude
180 s approx to 14 km
Ground turn around: <10 min with a crew of six
star49Yes, those are the empty weights.
Gripen : 6620kg (heavier by now on later versions)
EF: 11,000kg (prototype is 9750kg)
MiG-29: 11,000kg (MiG-29A).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-29
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29.htm
these are all wrong figures.
14 ton Maximum take off is of JAS-39C. Not JAS-39A which has only 3.6ton weopon capacity as oposed to 5.5tons of JAS-39C.
21 tons Maximum takeoff is not of MIG-29A rather MIG-29SMT without out different wing of M.
EF is too dubious to comment on. try to find its maximum take off.
star49Dumb. Yes, I know the empty weights of the JAS-39A and the EF and the MiG-29. That will be 6600kg (heavier on later versions), 11,000kg; 11,000kg vs. 1 x 8100kg of thrust; 2 x 90kn (approx 10,000kg); 2 x 8300kg. I only accept operational versions.
Now do the freaking math where the JAS-39 has the same TWR as the Eurofighter. Don’t tell me they’re the same.
surely EF weight is 11,000KG?(check maximum takeoff weight) JAS-39A is 6600KG(check maximum takeoff weight) and MIG-29A is 11,000KG. (check maximum takeoff weight).:p :p :p
I am not going into MIG-29OVT. which is now the most developed version MIG-29K and 15 years on MIG-29M (which is much more than EF).
star49But where is the proof that the MiG-29 has better sustained rates than the Typhoon? The JAS-39 isn’t a plane with exactly a very good TWR you know
so u know the weights of EF and JAS-39A (not the ground attack C version)
for making this conclusion that JAS-39A is worse than EF?
i will let u figure out MIG-29M2 empty weight.( 23ton maximum takeoff, 6.5ton weopons, 5.2tons fuel).
star49NG called APG-77/80 4th generation modules and APG-81 as 5th generation.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/brochures/AESA_DFOISR_Edited_06_May_2003.pdf
star49I kind of doubt that MiG-29 has better sustained turn rates over Typhoon. The Typhoon has higher TWR ratio while carrying more fuel to boot, which means it can use its afterburner longer. LERX adds to drag, but canards can be trimmed to avoid that. Typhoon’s under surfaces add to the lift. It is news to everyone here that the MiG-29 has better sustained turn rates than the Typhoon when the MiG-29 does not even demonstrate that against the F-16.
Typhoon does not carry more fuel than latest MIG-29s nor it has better TWR.
MIG-29A has demonstrated performance against JAS-39A. FBW equiped MIG-29 with larger wing is in different league.
there is another term that Russian invented called Supreme Flight Performance. for now it is related to Su-35 and MIG-31
star49You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
thats what is written. and new Su-35 without canards will be much better than old one with canards. so whats the point. sea based MIG-29K does not use canards nor TVC. and still suitable for 5500KG.
http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/15-2006/def/def4/
A practically all-new avionics package is used on the Su-35. Based on the MIL-1553B standard, it features an open architecture and it is more compact — reportedly saving about 1,000 kg of dry weight compared with the predecessor systems. As a result, designers of Su-35 were able to add volume of the internal fuel tanks and avoid the use of canard flight control surfaces due to the improved center of gravity position. A four-channel digital SDU-427 fly-by-wire system also improves the aircraft’s flight characteristics
Sign In
