FBWThanks to the good doctor and TR1 for the explanation.
FBWhttps://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6434341
Aaaand the process for serial contracts has began, as anyone with a functioning brain knew it would.
Putin says they are working on contract that will be signed in the near future, for 76 Su-57 by 2028.Also stated goal is for 100 Mi-28NM by 2028.
TR-1, the Tass English site does s poor job of translating this for clarity. Does this mean contract will be for 76 aircraft after the current GPV 2027? Or total orders until 2028 will be 76? The article mentions 16 aircraft up to the 2028 plan. Confusing.
FBWOf course it is just like the F-35C…:rolleyes:
Research into the F-18 ski Jump suitability predates the IN interest or even the F-18 E/F. Simulations were completed and research was submitted to the AIAA which means it was anything but B.S. The more recent study was computer modeling the E/F suitability at various weights from a ski jump. This was an academic paper I posted the link here awhile back. No longer on Google scholar though. I’ll have to search my posts.
Here is the old one (if you can access AIAA)
AIAA paper 1732 Simulator Evaluation of F/A-18 Ski Jump – B.L. DOUGHERTY and D.R. ROLSTON
FBWProblem,what is the overall reliability of a modern radar.
Let’s say: in case there are 100 PESA equipped planes in operation at the same time how much of them would have to abort mission or have their performance hampered on average?
Very much depends on the radar your talking about, PESA MTBF can be measured in dozens of hours to hundreds of hours. Another measure is MTTR, repairing or replacing a PESA antenna can be costly and time consuming. AESA modules (in theory) aren’t replaced for the life of the radar, just degradation as some fail.
FBWBut again, the main point is that even nations which have not been through a recent socio-economic collapse did not chose to go about the path that you are suggesting. (It is that difficult) The JSF program could draw upon both a pre-existing stealth aircraft design and a stealth rated engine. That is why the JSF program was undertaken in the manner that it was. Nobody else is in that same position, and so they all took (or are taking) different roads.
Actually they all do, let’s look at recent aircraft programs outside of Russia and China.
1. Rafale– ACX general layout and requirements for technology demonstrator completed by 1982 (decision to proceed with development into combat aircraft 1984). Decision to proceed with Rafale prototypes 1987
M88- General design choices and concepts completed late 1970’s for future turbofan required, component tests 1978, HP fan bench tests started in 1983.Full development started in 1986.
Design and development of turbofan started before the aircraft.
2. Eurofighter– ACA (1982) replaced earlier ECA, becomes EFA 1984. EAP techology demostrator (1986), Contract signed for Eurofighter demonstrator 1988.
EJ200- development started in 1986
This one is tougher as requirements kept changing. However both Eurofighter and Eurojet both formed in 1986. Either way, development of the demonstration airframe and engine were concurrent.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fullte…6.pdf#page=398
3. F-22– ATF (RFI 1981, RFP 1985-86) Lockheed/GD/Boeing team declared winner of DemVal 1991, contract for EMD
F119- JAFE contracts for demonstrator engines 1983, Contract for EMD 1991
Demonstrator contracts for engines signed after ATF RFI and before RFP.
4. F-35– JSF (1986) Contract demonstration phase (1987) Lockheed SDD contract 2001.
F135 & F136- F136 pre-system SDD phase 1996, CDR 1997-2003……. F135- JSF 119–PW-611 (1997), F135 CDR 2003
Again, engine development started concurrent with aircraft demonstration contract.
So, yes, the engine development generally starts at (or even before) the time requirements for the the aircraft are defined.
FBWWhatever. Basic ISR is not recce.
What is “basic” ISR?
How do you differentiate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance from the reconnaissance part? This does not makes sense.
FBWSure thing. IAC-2 has been envisioned as 65000 ton vessel, right on target for QE design. BAE was one of the companies Indians have asked design assistance for new carrier.
In December, IN said that IAC-2 has “moved ahead” which I take means they have either finalized the design or at least settled on requirements, allowing them to proceed with foreign design teams. One option has been to build a second copy of the IAC-1 instead of a larger CATOBAR ship. But I think they will go ahead with a larger ship, and BAE is probably strongest forerunner here. Russians haven’t build a new carrier for decades, French and Italian designs are much smaller, US ones much larger and all-nuke.
Feel like I just read the other day that IAC-2 has been pushed back several years due to funding. That no decision will be made on Vishal until 2022.
FBW[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER] – while it’s a well reasoned answer, I disagree with the points:
1. Agreed the engine is an enormous materials science job, which is why the turbofan requirements are usually outlined right after the RFI for a new platform (in US parlance). It is the longest lead item for a development program. And I disagree on one specific part of the thermal demands, That would be written into the RFP stage (basically during design of airframe). If the requirements are written correctly, the engine designers are going to know roughly what the thrust requirements are, IR suppression has to be part of engine/airframe design layout and requirements from the start, not after based on thermal cycling experienced post engine design /airframe mating.
2. By not defining the final (in this case 2nd stage) engine requirements from the start, your committing to 2 testing phases of flight sciences, having to perform asymmetric thrust tests, AoA testing, essentially the whole gamut twice.
3. This is different than replacing/alternate engine programs on a mature design. If we subscribe to the notion that the Su-57 production volume is being principally retarded by the wait for the Izd. 30. Your essentially putting a project on hold for several years while subsystems become obsolete, avionics and software will require updates that may not have been in the original roadmap. The F-35 experienced the somewhat the opposite, software development represented the biggest obstacle, but there was a defined roadmap for tech refresh, that has basically cost money rather than production delays, or hardware obsolescence (recall EOTS kerfluffle, and that is a LRU, and had a drop in replacement already in the works).
4. NPO Saturn was in good shape in the late 90’s (still is), they had already built an advanced engine with similar thrust and supercruise requirements in the original AL-41F and presumably learned from that experience (despite its failure) what would be required.
FBWCanada Blinked…
More at the JUMP
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio…allow-f-35-bid
Wouldn’t say blinked, more likely realized there would be blowback from structuring the competition in a way that precluded F-35 participation. This government still seems to be determined to hamstring the F-35’s chances:
But there is a caveat – those aircraft suppliers who do guarantee industrial benefits would receive maximum scores in the competition. If Lockheed Martin doesn’t provide guaranteed industrial benefits then the firm could find its bid will suffer as a result, sources said.
considering Lockheed can’t guarantee benefits, those have to be won by competitive bidding, the competition is still a violation of the partnership agreement. Leave it to the Liberal Party under Trudeau to stage an “Open competition” that basically ensures there will be controversy to drop in the lap of the next PM.
FBWBut that is a huge stretch from insinuating these are somehow the same program or that PakFa was founded and build upon the Mikoyan MFI program.
Are you potted? I said nothing of the such. I made a clear distinction that the Pak-Fa project was started after and as a result of the MFI failure (and it was a failure, maybe YOU need to re-read the history on that program. Engine issues would have doomed the MiG even if funding hadn’t)
And yes, Sukhoi started R&D of an advanced multirole fighter as a result of the challenge presented by the MiG. The S-37 was a testbed for some of the technologies that made their way into the Pak-Fa program. No more, no less. That was my point.
FBWSimilar programs or not it’s not an issue. Blaming SU-57 for small small orders or for not being ready in 2018 is an issue. Is such kind of a statements are valid?
Sure, but I wasn’t the poster who made those statements. I object to the notion of saying either:
“Look the F-35 first flew in 2006 and there are hundreds today compared to 10 flyable Su-57 prototypes”
Or Conversely “Look the JSF program started 6 or 8 years before the Pak-FA”
The US ATF program was more analogous to the Pak-FA (though ATF had a competition DemVal stage Pak-Fa didn’t), than the JSF program.
I would say there are two valid complaints that are hard to dispute in regard to the Pak-Fa program:
1. Far too rosy pronouncements from gov officials with unrealistic timeline.
2. No reason Izd. 30 shouldn’t have entered development and testing concurrent with the award of the Pak-Fa development to Sukhoi.
FBWFinally a MOU is NOT a contract. Nothing more but a letter of intention. Dubious about validity in cas of trial. And i don’t think LM and DoD would be threatening Canada if they weren’t kind of afraid of something…
How is honoring the letter of an agreement “threatening Canada”? Seriously, first you claim that it’s Lockheed strong arming Canada, when it’s actually more the other way around. Then you claimed there was no stipulation in the JSF partnership against offsets. I showed you both from the MOU and CANADIAN government that your completely wrong.
Now you want to state that the MOU isn’t valid, well I can only imagine your outrage against the U.S. if they broke sections of the Partnership MOU.
PS at least that shows that there cannot be any offsets from F-35 contracts and that when LM promises them (cf Belgium) it is just hot air.
Belgium isn’t a partner nation, genius. They are not subject to the benefits of bidding on contracts, therefore whatever offset agreement is part of the Belgium contract is between Belgium and Lockheed.
Anything other false claims you’d like to try out today?
FBWNice MOU
Some should write an article on how this MOU was followed…
Btw, where is Canadian PPR?
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad….g/ad03962.html
You can read the summary of Canada’s industrial participation right on the government website:
In the PSFD MOU, the F-35 JSF partners, including Canada, agree to an industrial participation approach that has two key features:
order to achieve best value through the competitive approach, the partners agree that “no requirement will be imposed by any Participant for work sharing or other industrial or commercial compensation in connection with this MOU that is not in accordance with this MOU.”Footnote1 This commitment precludes the application of what are known as “offset policies”, such as Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) Policy. Canada’s IRBPolicy requires companies that win defence and security contracts with the Government of Canada to place business activities in Canada at the same value of the contract
On to the next contrived controversy you want to introduce Hallow, this one is finished. The problem is an internal government matter for Canada, not L-M “molesting” Canada as you claimed.
FBWSorry, but what you wrote is in no way saying that canada must ot include offsets. Full and open competition for the project do not mean that (i) their would be no offsets, one can perfectly have an open competition including offsets
You’re in full denial mode. This couldn’t be any clearer:
7.6 No requirement will be imposed by any Participant for work sharing or other industrial or commercial compensation in connection with this MOU that is not in accordance with this
In order for the F-35 to be part of the fighter competition,Canada would have to abandon participation as a partner nation, losing all industrial benefits and procurement benefits in the F-35 as to not violate the agreement.
Furthermore, it’s unlikely that either L-M or the US government would enter the F-35 after that happened. Not to mention it’s idiotic to forgo an existing industrial participation program that is bearing fruit for the promise of industrial offsets in the fighter competition which are rife with uncertainty and have a history of underperforming promised benefits.
FBWThe JAST and what ended up as a flying demonstrator YF-35 is all part of F-35 program,they just changed it to a more clever name with all the partners involved. The JSF.
I’m on this ice?
It wasn’t until 1996 that JAST and ASTOVL were merged. Have you looked at the early JAST concepts? There is no such thing as a YF-35
And fyi FBW, in the good old times, both Mig and Sukhoi was pretty hardcore competitors. Its not like they shared tech on the MFI program
No, but if you read what I wrote, Pak-Fa came about as a result of the failure of MFI. Sukhoi had started research into developing a large multirole fighter as a result of the MFI project (which they didn’t enter).
Again, I’m not interested in splitting hairs on “start dates” The F-35 has roots that go back to JAST and ASTOVL but the JSF project dates to 1996. The point is that trying to compare to start dates for two aircraft with very dissimilar development programs isn’t valid.
Sign In
