Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Although there is no reliable information about the PAK-FA's specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA radar. It will be powered by the AL-41F engine or an advanced derivative of it. Reports indicate that it will be slightly larger than the MiG-29 but not as large as the Su-27. Analysts are predicting a maximum speed close to Mach 2.83 (3,255 km/h); they will see how this will come up.
Link

It is expected to enter service in between 2012 and 2015




posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
please please please please search for a thread topic before you post there is well over 10 threads now with this type of information. If you feel it is something new that will further a already existing thread it would eb a good idea to put it there so your contribution doesn't get lost. Sorry being a lil bit of a jerk but repeated posts is a problem here just like any where else. looks forward to seing you around the forums.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I'm a complete geek about Russian aircraft, so I got quite a few PAK-FA threads going around right now. I'm constantly trolling the net for new stuff about it, hints, etc. Happy to see another interested in PAK-FA though
. Hope you find something good, I'm always happy to see more sexy Russian aircraft entering the show.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Yet more speculation. Can't wait until a new "artists impression" is produced! I just love the artists impressions, arn't they good.

Russia can hardly afford the armed services it has. I doubt it has the cash to invest in such a long-lead-time and sophisticated project as this. Oh, yes Russia may be cash rich at the moment, but the domestic is to modernise their (frankly) backward economy etc...

Am I the only person who feels this way?

Regards



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
paraphi.

And perhaps not only Russia!

When it comes to military aviation accelerated usage of US assets due to the number of conflicts the US is involved in, has lead to a gap in future capability. The US economy does not allow for 1-for-1 replacement in the forseeable future. Eg :- 'It is officially estimated that more than 800 of the USAF's aircraft (14% of the total fleet) are already grounded due to their advanced age or have mission-limiting restrictions' and 'the average age of USAF aircraft has continued to rise and is predicted to increase from 22 years in 2003 to more than 29 in 2013, even if planned new aircraft are delivered on schedule' (source - Air International - May 2007)

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 9/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Yet more speculation. Can't wait until a new "artists impression" is produced! I just love the artists impressions, arn't they good.

Russia can hardly afford the armed services it has. I doubt it has the cash to invest in such a long-lead-time and sophisticated project as this. Oh, yes Russia may be cash rich at the moment, but the domestic is to modernise their (frankly) backward economy etc...

Am I the only person who feels this way?

Regards
Your still living in 1995-98, wake up Russia's economy has changed for the better, plus it was U.S. Banks and Companies that got Russia's economy messed up.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Your still living in 1995-98, wake up Russia's economy has changed for the better, plus it was U.S. Banks and Companies that got Russia's economy messed up.

I read the Economist which gives useful insights into various national economies, so I like to think I am informed. Don't quite see how you can blame the US for the state of Russia, considering Russia was born out of the Soviet Union - that vast communist experiment which failed.

Back to topic. All we hear is speculation that Russia is / will / may develop a fifth generation fighter. Nothing concrete. My problem is that an artists impression plus an (un-named expert) speculating that the aircraft will probably have wings, or go this fast, or fly backwards is just rubbish. There's no substance.

Regards



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

All we hear is speculation that Russia is / will / may develop a fifth generation fighter. Nothing concrete.


Russia is developing PAK-FA. Russia does intend to use it to replace their Su-27 and MiG-29 fleet. Russia has been planning this project for quite some time. Russia has undertaken several precursors to PAK-FA in order to make sure that they are capable of producing a fifth-generation aircraft with stealth features. Examples include Su-47 and Mikoyan 1.44. I find it difficult to doubt that they are developing PAK-FA considering that they say they are doing so, as well as the quality of the testbeds they have been putting out in the last period of time.


My problem is that an artists impression plus an (un-named expert) speculating that the aircraft will probably have wings, or go this fast, or fly backwards is just rubbish. There's no substance.


I also find it difficult to doubt that the aircraft will have wings.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
hahaha sometimes I get a good laugh out of these threads. I will agree to a point with Darkpro because he does know what he is talking about. I think the question is the direction that the russians will take with the plane and controls and focus on stealth. I think we may see a hybrid of the 22 and eurofighter, taking the good points of both which would leave you with a good (understatement) plane. It has the possiblilty but at this point the plane is still paper for the most part. It has been talked about for a long time and its still being talked about hence the amount of people that think that the plane will never happen. I wouldn't go as far as to say that but more then a CG rendering is needed in order for anyone to start even talking about the plane as a threat to the F-22.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
It has been talked about for a long time and its still being talked about hence the amount of people that think that the plane will never happen. I wouldn't go as far as to say that but more then a CG rendering is needed in order for anyone to start even talking about the plane as a threat to the F-22.


Actually at this point the PAK-FA prototype is already under construction. NAPO has already announced that the construction has begun, and they've also put out plans of where the final assembly will take place (Komsomolsk-on-Amur I believe). This, joined with the announcement that the aircraft will be flying by late 2008 prompts me to think that at least a fair chunk of the metal has gone through the grinder to get the airframe up and running. To the best of my knowledge, the latest delays in the program are due to Saturn's difficulties in producing an engine, some sort of contract trouble.



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
problem is do you have the links to back it up and then after that it would be nice to see some photos though since its a russian project theyt probably will try to keep it under tighter wraps



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

From WikipediaThe Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) has begun construction of the fifth generation multirole fighter. This work is being performed at Komsomol’sk-on-Amur together with the aircraft plant at Komsomol’sk-on-Amur, the enterprise’s general director, Fedor Zhdanov, reported today during a visit to NAPO by Novosibirsk Oblast’ governor Viktor Tolokonskiy.

“Final assembly will take place at Komsomol’sk-on-Amur, and we will be carrying out assembly of the fore body of this airplane,” Zhdanov specified. The fifth generation fighter which will replace the MiG-29 and Su-27 airplanes of the previous generation, was developed by the Sukhoi design bureau


I'm still trying to tack down where the quotes from Zhdanov came from, but if it's not yet refuted then chances are it is correct. You can see that it specifies that construction has begun, and the assembly will be peformed at Komsomol'sk on Amur.

Link


In mid May "Saturn", the head developer of the PAK FA’s engine, declared in the media that it suspends the work on the fifth generation engine allegedly due to the absence of the corresponding contract with the MoD, but in fact due to the lack of financing.


From the linked article (link follows). Even though Saturn has suspended work, Salut's product looks not only to be on a better schedule, but to be a better performer (also from article).

Link 2

Since work has been suspended, it logically follows that work was being done. And since it is a frankly dumb idea to begin developing engines for an airframe that was supposed to be cancelled in short time, it is also logical, then, that the airframe is being built alongside the engines.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Russia is developing PAK-FA. Russia does intend to use it to replace their Su-27 and MiG-29 fleet. Russia has been planning this project for quite some time. Russia has undertaken several precursors to PAK-FA in order to make sure that they are capable of producing a fifth-generation aircraft with stealth features. Examples include Su-47 and Mikoyan 1.44. I find it difficult to doubt that they are developing PAK-FA considering that they say they are doing so, as well as the quality of the testbeds they have been putting out in the last period of time.


Russia has a requirement for 1,000 new aircraft in the period 2007 to 2016 (according to Flight International No 5063 Vol 170). The actual aircraft types have not been concluded, although clearly there are a vast number of aged MIG and early Sukhoi types to be replaced. It is conceivable that this requirement will be fulfilled through existing models (or the evolution of existing models) and not a new aircraft as proposed through PAK-FA, with all the associated costs and risks.

The PAK-FA project has been around since the late 1980’s and has stopped and started several times with some interesting one-off types and concepts developed, (which you state), like the interesting (but not unique) Sukhoi Su-47 (Berkut), the MiG 1.44/1.42, both of which will feed the latest activity by Sukhoi if all the hype is to believed. However, there is NO GUARANTEE that this latest spurt of work will produce a model which will see production, or whether it is just activity to keep development skills up-to-date.

My cynicism is based on the fact that:

(a) The PAK-FA project has come and gone in the past.
(b) New aircraft are expensive and I doubt Russia could afford to develop a fifth generation competitor or equal to the F22/35. Even the US has trouble justifying the cost of these development projects. We are talking billions of USD at a time when the Russian air force can hardly afford to train its aircrew, (record low flight hours logged) and a third of the existing stock of aircraft in an apparent un-operational state.
(c) The output of PAK-FA (so far) is a selection of interesting one-offs and latterly a host of artist impressions which may (or may not) have legitimate connection with current work. There is a vast array of conflicting “facts” in the public domain, a lot of speculation and no real evidence or substance. Some of the conflicting “bits” I have seen revolve around the weight of aircraft (crucial); the degree of stealth; the participation of India; whether PAK-FA is or was part of the recently shelved lightweight fighter project (LFI); the engines; first flight 2007, 2008 etc., etc…

All recent mainstream aircraft programmes have not been so secret and even the Chinese secrecy did not stop well informed leaks.

Regards



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
(a) The PAK-FA project has come and gone in the past.


The programme was originally conceived in times which blustered Russia around. Their economy was not stable in those times, but it has since improved. The funding problems they were lamenting before are not nearly so constant now, so the program is significantly more secure in its position. Merely because a program has been stopped for evaluation and to locate proper funding does not mean it will fail on its outset. Rather, if it has been restarted it is likely because the aircraft developers feel that they will be able to produce an aircraft of a quality sufficient to justify all the PITA that getting it up and running has been.



(b) New aircraft are expensive and I doubt Russia could afford to develop a fifth generation competitor or equal to the F22/35. Even the US has trouble justifying the cost of these development projects. We are talking billions of USD at a time when the Russian air force can hardly afford to train its aircrew, (record low flight hours logged) and a third of the existing stock of aircraft in an apparent un-operational state.


Don't count Russia out. They are fully capable of harnessing their economy to propel the project forward. The Cold-War philosophy that Russia is a broken-down machine that fails to put anything out has never really held water, and doesn't now.
As for the aircrews, why should they be constantly put into aircraft that are expensive to maintain? They aren't in a state of war, and aren't attempting to blow anyone up like the American forces currently are. In the event that war broke out between them and another nation it is quite likely that the entire air force would not be required for operations, and if the enemy was so powerful that it did necessitate complete mobilization then funds would be allocated and training would become daily. The funds that are required to keep aircraft continuously running for training are better placed elsewhere since the need for the training isn't really present.
And since many of the aircraft are not in flyable condition, it seems a rather good idea to replace them, possibly with a new aircraft that may or may not be underway. Said aircraft might just feature such advancements as stealth, thrust vectoring, BVR engagement abilities, advanced radar, and extra cupholders since a single can of Diet Coke just doesn't cover the whole sortie. Seriously though, Russia doesn't need that particular third of aircraft. They're not in a state of war. If war were to break out chances are pretty good that the aircraft could be put into action in short order, but until a time comes that they are needed the funds to prepare the aircraft can be allocated to better uses.



(c) The output of PAK-FA (so far) is a selection of interesting one-offs and latterly a host of artist impressions which may (or may not) have legitimate connection with current work. There is a vast array of conflicting “facts” in the public domain, a lot of speculation and no real evidence or substance. Some of the conflicting “bits” I have seen revolve around the weight of aircraft (crucial); the degree of stealth; the participation of India; whether PAK-FA is or was part of the recently shelved lightweight fighter project (LFI); the engines; first flight 2007, 2008 etc., etc…


The one-offs are actually an excellent way to prepare oneself to produce something. Rather than taking a stab at creating a 5th generation aircraft with heavy-duty manufacturing requirements, it's indeed a far better idea to get into the practice. To see what works, and what doesn't. Hence, the MiG 1.42/1.44 Flatpack and Su-47 Berkut/Firkin. This is similar to the YF-22/YF-23 competition, but (IMHO) an improved version. While America decided to take the F-22 and start working on it for a production version, it sparked a lot of arguments over "should have". People are still saying the Black Widow would have been better. I personally don't care. But what if you were to unite the two companies to produce a Raptor/Widow hybrid that combines aspects of both to create an aircraft that surpasses both of them? This is what Russia has done. Sukhoi and Mikoyan were both plopped into the program (Sukhoi was formed as head, but Mikoyan is also providing design support) as the Consortium to produce PAK-FA. So now we have both companies who took very different directions to produce 5th Generation (I don't care if people classify them as 4.5 generation, they are recent enough to be 5th generation. Trying to make the Raptor and Lightening II better by making them the only 5th generation aircraft is Cold War dogma and I won't participate) aircraft, succeeded quite admirably, and they are now united to form an even newer aircraft, combining effective traits of both prototype aircraft.

I find it difficult to say that this aircraft will not be formidable or worth the effort of manufacturing having looked at these facts.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
As for the aircrews, why should they be constantly put into aircraft that are expensive to maintain? They aren't in a state of war, and aren't attempting to blow anyone up like the American forces currently are. In the event that war broke out between them and another nation it is quite likely that the entire air force would not be required for operations, and if the enemy was so powerful that it did necessitate complete mobilization then funds would be allocated and training would become daily. The funds that are required to keep aircraft continuously running for training are better placed elsewhere since the need for the training isn't really present.


This attitude just astounds me. How can you POSSIBLY fight ANY kind of war if you don't train? The reason the US and just about every other country puts so many hours into training isn't "because they're trying to blow someone up", it's so that when they DO have to fight, they don't get pilots up there trying to learn how to fly their planes while trying to survive a fight.

I suggest you read up on the Japanese in WWII. Up until the Battle of Midway they had wonderfully trained pilots, with a lot of experience behind them, as well as outstanding aircraft. They were winning every battle they went into. After Midway, when they lost four carriers, and a HUGE number of pilots, they were training pilots to take off, barely enough to land, and sending them on missions. They were getting SLAUGHTERED in the process. The more pilots they lost, the worse it got.

If you don't train pilots, and then LET THEM FLY, when the time comes to fight a war, you're going to get slaughtered. You can't just "throw enough money at it" and win. Your crews need to know the planes they fly well enough to be able to do things without even looking.

It doesn't matter if you're not facing a major threat or not. Or if you think your next war "won't require the entire air force" or not. If you don't fly your crews, you're going to lose them in massive numbers when you DO have to fight. Or even just when training them during that fight. And if you suddenly have a war, and have to train them, you've lost your air force for however long that takes.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This attitude just astounds me. How can you POSSIBLY fight ANY kind of war if you don't train? The reason the US and just about every other country puts so many hours into training isn't "because they're trying to blow someone up", it's so that when they DO have to fight, they don't get pilots up there trying to learn how to fly their planes while trying to survive a fight.


Just out of curiosity, how many countries have been at war with the US lately while also possessing a significantly powerful air force that requires hundreds of aircraft and ace pilots to mobilize on an instant's notice? The answer is "none". Afghanistan and Iraq had no air forces that could even put a respectable dent in the USAF. They haven't needed those hundreds of aircraft and pilots. The money they are putting into training those pilots is going to waste. Russia knows this, and because their economy, although significantly healed, is not matching that of the US they have to sacrifice things. The training of their corps of pilots is one of those things that just can't be fully managed right now. Their fleet of aircraft is aging, so a new aircraft is needed. No matter how good your pilots are, if they're going up in decades-old aircraft versus bleeding-edge technology they're going to be nailed anyway. Russia simply does not have the funds to be putting their aircraft up at the same rate as the US while also funding a new aircraft in development since other areas of the economy require cash as well. Once PAK-FA is completed and manufacturing has begun, they'll be able to allocate funds for the training of the pilots. One of the main requirements of PAK-FA is that it be affordable and not mindlessly expensive, which means that they will be able to use the remainder of the defense budget for training.

Just because the United States has wads of cash to throw around and train people with does not mean that other countries should be able to do the same. They have to make sacrifices. For the time being, this one makes sense.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
And how are you going to HAVE great pilots if you don't TRAIN? Great pilots aren't born. You have to train to be able to fight a war. Otherwise you might as well just slap airline pilots into your fighters and send them out to get shot down. Look at the training budgets of France, Italy, Japan, even China. They pay HUGE amounts of money every year to train their pilots, and NONE of them have fought a war recently or are preparing to. They realize that if they're going to be ABLE to fight, they have to TRAIN their pilots. They're willing to sacrifice in other areas to come up with the money they need for that training.

As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them? Because they used them properly to do it. You can have an old plane, or a crappy plane, and still win a dogfight if you use the plane properly.

[edit on 6/10/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
This is similar to the YF-22/YF-23 competition, but (IMHO) an improved version. While America decided to take the F-22 and start working on it for a production version, it sparked a lot of arguments over "should have". People are still saying the Black Widow would have been better. I personally don't care. But what if you were to unite the two companies to produce a Raptor/Widow hybrid that combines aspects of both to create an aircraft that surpasses both of them?


Hey Darkpro don't think I'm trying to nit pick to much on what you saying because I think there is some truth in what your saying about making sacifices in training but Zaph has just as good of points about needing training to have good pilots.

Anyways The reason I pulled this quote was because you will actually find alot of F-23 designs in the current F-22. After the the ATF competition the raptor won but they did realize it did need help and they too key features from both planes and sorta added them to the F-22 design and re worked it. If you compare the testing F-22 to the current fighter you will find a numbe rof visable and I assume not so visable changes to design. Your right that its the best way to approach it but the design teams for the raptor didn't make the mistake that you think they did.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them? Because they used them properly to do it. You can have an old plane, or a crappy plane, and still win a dogfight if you use the plane properly.


It funny zaph but your basically saying at the same time that a plane like the F-15 when used correctly could be a threat to the F-22. Or dare I say a mig-29 could be a threat too?
Now I hope you'd agree with me because really its just proving the point that the best pilot should eb able to make his opponet fight his type of battle. Really leads me to ask why aren't the other USAF squaderns with F-16 winning againest the F-22? why can't they make the F-22 fight their a2a battle?



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for the old vs new debate, please tell me how, in WWII the Finnish Air Force (I BELIEVE it was them) was able to take their Brewster Buffalo aircraft (one of the worst "fighters" EVER) and bring down so many top of the line German aircraft in them? Because they used them properly to do it. You can have an old plane, or a crappy plane, and still win a dogfight if you use the plane properly.


By some feat of chance, things have changed just a tad in the 60+ years since WWII. With things like the Raptor, the Rafale, and Eurofighter going on at the moment you no longer get to see where your opponent is, and how much metal is flying through the air at you. With the Raptor's latest tests as evidence, you get a missile warning. Just a missile warning. No convenient dots on the horizon representing aircraft coming to kill you. This is the idea of BVR combat. We've seen how well F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag were capable of blasting F-22s out of the air when they knew something was coming, let alone when they didn't. Do you think a Su-27 that has no idea what is coming is likely to be able to properly locate, track, and fire upon a Raptor? The obvious answer is: possibly, but not likely. Even with pilots that are aces in the Su-27, the airframe itself limits its usefulness against the F-22.

It's like drag racing a GT-40 against a Model T. Even if the driver of the GT has never touched a 40, and even if the driver of the Model T has been driving it ably since it was first put out of the factory, the technology contained by the 40 gives it such a disproportionate advantage that the older piece's chances of winning are diminished significantly. Now while this is a bit of exaggeration, we have to recognize that if the advantages the Raptor currently has (as well as other aircraft used by countries that do have the capability to wage war on Russia) put the Russians at a nasty disadvantage until they can come up with their own counters. So were the US to declare war on Russia with the Raptor on its side, the advantages given would put an incredibly dent in Russian forces, trained or not.

Ace pilots are very ideal to have, I'm not trying to convince you that they're not, I'm simply saying that getting rid of the current avionics disadvantages and producing an aircraft superior to a great deal of others is a good idea, and just takes place over training pilots in current rigs which are quickly becoming out of date.






top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join