PAK FA

[11bee]

Sure; the more I read about the PAK-FA's pending first flight, the more it reminds me of the first flights of the X-32/X-35 (Which makes the 2015 fielding deadline somewhat... ambitious).

As per my previous posting... I'd wager that the first squadron will be fully operational somewhere around 2020 (assuming the program doesn't get axed due to budget cuts). If this is true 5th gen fighter, the real work will be getting the internal system's fully integrated and functional.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the time span was from first flight of the YF-22 to IOC of the F-22?

Regards,

John

[Murph]

As per my previous posting... I'd wager that the first squadron will be fully operational somewhere around 2020 (assuming the program doesn't get axed due to budget cuts). If this is true 5th gen fighter, the real work will be getting the internal system's fully integrated and functional.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the time span was from first flight of the YF-22 to IOC of the F-22?

Regards,

John

29 Sep, 1990 first flight of the YF-22 prototype, 15 Dec, 2005 the 27th FS reaches IOC.

Regards,

Murph

[Jeff]

Well, it's possible the China may beat Russia in the first flight of J-XX being very soon stated by some chinese officials... China has tons of money to develop the J-XX. Rumour has it that the AESA of the J-XX is ready (sindefence.com).

Edited December 27, 2009 by Jeff

[Flankerman]

29 Sep, 1990 first flight of the YF-22 prototype, 15 Dec, 2005 the 27th FS reaches IOC.

Regards,

Murph

But isn't it true that it still doesn't have all of its specified systems ???

Link 16 (or whatever it is these days) - etc etc

Mind you, this is true of any aircraft these days - it enters service with half the kit 'missing' - to be funded/added later.

That's why the Typhoon has 'Tranche 1', 'Tranche 2' etc - new capabilities are added during its service career.

But sometimes these 'developments' are left out initially for budgetary reasons, not because they are not mature.

Ken

[hemspilot]

Well, it's possible the China may beat Russia in the first flight of J-XX being very soon stated by some chinese officials... China has tons of money to develop the J-XX. Rumour has it that the AESA of the J-XX is ready (sindefence.com).

Yes, China has a ton of OUR money and OUR technology.

[foxmulder_ms]

Well, we have their TV/pc/chair/desk.... hence their hard work in our living room.

also, I really think we owe some money (just around 800 billion dollar) to china not other way around:)

waiting for first pictures of PAK-FA for around 2 years now so I got bored to wait...

[AnthonyWan]

Here's something interesting...probably doesn't mean anything but still a cool article.

Chinese site had this rendering of T-50.. http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200912...312-981985.html

[Jonathan_Lotton]

That rendering looks strangely familiar...

[Zmey Smirnoff]

That rendering looks strangely familiar...

There are more differences than similarities between the rendition and the YF-23. Btw, according to another "KNAAPO insider" that rendition is the most accurate.

[janman]

Well, to me the above mentioned "most accurate rendition" looks like an evo version of Su-27 - just like F-22 looks like it's inherited much from F-15. I'm now talking about the fuselage/wing basic configuration, nothing more.

Trying desperately find similarities between these two strangely reminds me of the old Real Aviation forum. Actually, that old habit seems to be well alive and kickin' on this forum as well.

Edited December 28, 2009 by janman

[Zmey Smirnoff]

Actually, that old habit seems to be well alive and kickin' on this forum as well.

People dont change.

[Trigger]

But isn't it true that it still doesn't have all of its specified systems ???

Sure, but no one's talking about the final-final configuration of PAK-FA, we're (well, I am at least) just discussing about the baseline production variant (the point at which they decide "okay, we're going to production now with what we've got."(for whatever reason)) and how long will it take to get from here to there. Whatever is or isn't included in that version is another discussion. But five years is an extremely aggressive schedule to get from a flying prototype to a combat-ready production variant, especially for a fifth generation-type aircraft. The F-22 gets called out more often than not as an example of something that - at 15 years - takes a long time (too long?) to field. But compared to other fighter aircraft in production or development today, it's not so unusual.

Typhoon

The EFA program began in 1983, the EAP demonstrator first flew in 1986, the prototype Eurofighter didn't fly until 1994 and formal delivery to the partner nations began in 2003.

Program Duration - 20 years + / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - 17 years.

Rafalé

The demonstrator also first flew in 1986, pre-production models first flew between 1991 (C, M) and 1993 (Rafalé-B ); production Rafalé-M didn't fly until 1999 and the Rafalé didn't enter service until 2000/2001.

Program Duration - 16 years + / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - 15 years

Gripen

Development began in 1982 with the first prototype flying in 1988. The Gripen entered service in 1996.

Program Duration - 16 years / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - 8 years

J-10

Program began in 1986, first flight was 1998, entering service in 2004

Program Duration - 18 years / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - 6 years

F-35

JSF program began in 1996, X-35 first flew in 2000, F-35AA-1 first flew in 2006

Program Duration - 13 + years / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - (Current Est) 6 years

PAK-FA

Program began in 2002, first flight 2010, est in service date 2015

Program Duration - 8 years / Duration between "first flight" to service entry - (Current Est) 5 years

In the case of the J-10 and Gripen, we see that a single nation can produce a small to medium-size single-engine Gen 4/4.5 fighter with a specific purpose in a relatively short amount of time. Sweden has a long history of indigenous fighter aircraft development to draw upon while China has experience from producing indigenous copies of Soviet/Russian designs along with the internal resources as well as the spending $ to acquire the know-how to develop a new design.

Typhoon and Rafalé are interesting comparisons because of the major difference between the two programs. Both are medium-sized Gen 4.5 multi-role fighters, but one was a multinational program while the other was 'in-house' and yet both programs had similar durations.

F-35, despite utilizing lessons learned during and since the F-22 program, still has three distinct versions, each with their own specific requirements and one of which has to solve a very difficult flight regime problem. Add to that it being a large multi-service & multinational program (everyone chiming in as to what they want) and it's not surprising it's taking a duration similar to that of the F-22. Though I still think the 2012 entry date is bogus (2015 if they're lucky).

PAK-FA will use lessons learned from the S-47 and MiG 1.44 to give it a boost in the same way the F-22/F-35 used lessons learned from the Have Blue, Tacit Blue, F-117, B-2, Bird of Prey and who knows what other test programs. While I expect the T-50's design to have some LO features to it, I would not be surprised at all if it's shape wasn't completely that of a LO nature (ie - F-22, F-117, B-2) and instead relied on a mix of some shape (not as all-enveloping as the F-22, but nowhere near as conservative as the F/A-18E/F; probably more akin to the F-35. Why am I comparing PAF-FA to these three? Unlike PAK-FA, those are shapes we've all seen before), strategically placed RAM and heavy on the ECM (ie - Eurofighter). Will that work? No idea. But for a manufacturer who has zero experience mass-producing low observable aircraft (think Honda deciding they wanted to build a Veyron-killer), it's a safe way to turn around a design quickly, minimize costs and lower the risks. The laws of electromagnetism haven't changed recently and it doesn't look like they will anytime soon, so there are going to be design elements of the T-50 that are similar to previous and existing LO aircraft.

Can Sukhoi build such an airframe? I see no reason why they couldn't. Can they go from test flying an airframe to fielding a production variant "T-50A" in five years? I'm skeptical*. They could use current components in production now to meet that deadline, but then what's the point? However I know that they are developing a new radar and I'm sure new engines and avionics too, so all those will have to be tested and integrated as well. I think people underestimate just how much these machines are really flying computers. Bear in mind that in the 1991 Gulf War, the reason the F-14 didn't go over the beach was because it didn't have RWR for SAMs. A-7Es used store-bought fuzz-busters to warn them whenever a radar site lit them up. So the design problem that has to be solved is producing a network of systems that communicate with each other and to the pilot (that's a hell of a lot of code to write and debug) and can survive and function while undergoing the physical stresses that come with a fighter's flight regime - (ie - Gs, vibration). Hardly impossible, but it takes a lot of work. PAK-FA's first flight has been delayed at least a year already, so pushing back the 2015 deadline (which sounds to me like something an over-enthusiastic executive set) shouldn't come as a surprise.

*Before the Russian Mafia & Flanker fanboy set gets their panties in a twist over this, remember: "2018 Bomber" BWAH-HAHAHAHAHA

But sometimes these 'developments' are left out initially for budgetary reasons, not because they are not mature.

Yeah, like the AIM-9X and helmet mounted displays.

[Trigger]

Here's something interesting...probably doesn't mean anything but still a cool article.

Chinese site had this rendering of T-50.. http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200912...312-981985.html

I had started drafting that last post last night, got distracted and forgot about it until this morning. But yeah, that mix of LO and "conventional" airframe design, if accurate, doesn't surprise me at all.

[Jeff]

Most of the 4.5 to 5-th generation fighters takes long time (+12 yrs) from prototype to production because with the end of Cold War, noone really wants an expensive plane flying around when a F-18F or F-16 is sufficient to provide national security (also consider most threats now come in the form of terrorist attacks and gurellia wars). That's why you see the U.S. upgrade their A-10 to better support their ground troops for the war in Agfanistan. If there is a major war, it will be nuclear and SSBN serves their purpose.

If Cold War still exists and ballistic missiles are flying over our heads, I doubt a 5-th generation fighter will take that long to squadron service.

Right now, I still think Russia cannot afford the budget to make the PAK FA into production, due to the high cost, and no imminent threat (Russia still have their nuclear arsensal to deter a major threat from a "super-power"). I think building light fighter with sufficient stealth features better serves the requirement to the current and future threats.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Jeff

[MarkW]

Using the first flight of the technology demonstrator to IOC of the operational jet is a bit of a red herring. The X-35 tech demo was an empty airframe that was configured to prove certain points (like STO and VL), but bears little but external resemblance to the actual jet. First flight of a production variant F-35 hasn't even happened yet, but IOC is ~ 2 years away. Yet the comm systems and its uber radar have been successfully tested and used in exercises. But cramming it all into the OML is a challenge. Tech demonstrators and tech integration are too terribly different things. I would guess a 2015 IOC would have about as much meaning as the B-1B "IOC" in March of 1984, maybe less.

What I find interesting about the conceptual diagrams so far is the planform alignment and vertical tail size.

[Trigger]

Right now, I still think Russia cannot afford the budget to make the PAK FA into production, due to the high cost, and no imminent threat (Russia still have their nuclear arsensal to deter a major threat from a "super-power"). I think building light fighter with sufficient stealth features better serves the requirement to the current and future threats.

They're getting some decent oil revenue coming in and India's got a stake in tis project as well (that'll help offset costs). And I doubt they'll be as reluctant to export PAK-FA as we've been to export the F-22. A light fighter would be a MiG-29 replacement, not a Flanker series replacement.

[Jeff]

They're getting some decent oil revenue coming in and India's got a stake in tis project as well (that'll help offset costs). And I doubt they'll be as reluctant to export PAK-FA as we've been to export the F-22. A light fighter would be a MiG-29 replacement, not a Flanker series replacement.

I can only think of three primary reasons for Russia to develop a "heavy" fifth generation fighter such as the PAK FA:

1. Provide morale boost for its nation particularly in the area of science, research and technology, fostering young people to become scientists.

2. Remind the world that Russia can still develop new weaponry that can influence global affairs.

3. A product that can be sold to other countries making money at the same time influence global affairs.

Except the above reasons, I think a LFI is more suitable for everyone's need. For example, make a Yak-41 and reduce it's RCS, it doesn't have to be a F-35 which in my opinion is way over-priced.

Regards,

Jeffrey

[Murph]

But isn't it true that it still doesn't have all of its specified systems ???

The upgrades it's going through are biased towards increasing the air to ground role, because that capability was added late in the development program and because the F-22 was underfunded during the 1990s. It's been fully capable since IOC of meeting its originally assigned air to air and air to ground missions.

...But sometimes these 'developments' are left out initially for budgetary reasons, not because they are not mature.

One often leads to the other: a system isn't mature, because the necessary money wasn't spent on developing it. Of course, tthere are cases where it falls purely into the money category or the system readiness category.

I think building light fighter with sufficient stealth features better serves the requirement to the current and future threats.

Actually you can argue it's the worst of both worlds. It's still too sophisticated for a low intensity enviroment, but not sophisticated enough to function in a high tech enviroment or with the growth potential to adapt to changes for the next thirty to forty years it will be in service.

Regards,

Murph

[Waco]

Actually you can argue it's the worst of both worlds. It's still too sophisticated for a low intensity enviroment, but not sophisticated enough to function in a high tech enviroment or with the growth potential to adapt to changes for the next thirty to forty years it will be in service.

What an apt summation of the F-35...

[MarkW]

It also depends on how the platform is intended to be employed. If it is intended to be truly alone and unafraid, that's one thing. If it is intended to operate in a gestalt or swarm, then that's another.

Keep in mind the F-35 was designed to survive more threats than any other platform in terms of operating within the threat ring, and is meeting or exceeding all of its survivability objectives. As the only new game in town for the future, all three services are/will be pouring their investment funds into it for some time. I have seen nothing to indicate it isn't capable of dealing with the projected high intensity conflicts, or that it lacks growth potential to adapt to new threats.

If PAK-FA is more an F-22 than a JSF, though, it should be a relatively simpler aircraft.

[ross blackford]

:D, Here, here Waco,

Exactly what I've been saying all along, and a darned expensive worst of both worlds at that. From what's being reported here, Australia is paying $AB3 for the first 14 airframes and engines, no support, no training, no spares plus the $AB8 odd we have already put into the project for which we have seen nothing really concrete yet and it would seem we will be buying 14 incomplete weapons systems for our RAAF IOC, on which we will have to spend even more money to upgrade them to the 'complete package' over who knows how many years.

Sounds to me like a fantastic deal for someone, just not for us. In the past we have always bought a complete package, whether it be British, American or French or from wherever. Ok, I grant that these aircraft have been upgraded over the years but to nowhere near the amount the F-35s will need upgrading and in the past the packages have always included support, training and spares and offsets, assembly or complete licence production here. No such deals with the F-35s I'm afraid. You've summarized my feelings on the subject very well Waco.

Ross.

[richter111]

I see the PAK as a very attractive deal for other countries.

You want a F-22 but the USA will not export, here comes Russia with their version for sale, looks as good, heck it might be as good.

Yes there is a huge market out there.

Think photo etch and resin...

[Raymond]

What an apt summation of the F-35...

FTW :)

i wouldn't be surprised if the pak-fa takes a decade to reach its final incarnation; in fact id like it to :D

coolness factor aside, IMO there are more pressing needs for the RuAF aircraft wise- and its likely mid-range challenges, than a super-stealth fighter.

the fielding of yak-130s would seem to be of foremost importance, followed by more su-25SMs, su-34s and su-24m2s would seem to be a higher priority, especally in light of the conflict with georgia

[Jonathan_Lotton]

FTW ;)

i wouldn't be surprised if the pak-fa takes a decade to reach its final incarnation; in fact id like it to :D

coolness factor aside, IMO there are more pressing needs for the RuAF aircraft wise- and its likely mid-range challenges, than a super-stealth fighter.

the fielding of yak-130s would seem to be of foremost importance, followed by more su-25SMs, su-34s and su-24m2s would seem to be a higher priority, especally in light of the conflict with georgia

Exactly. They need to fix the fact that their MiG-29's are having...technical difficulties.

[MarkW]

:D, Here, here Waco,

Exactly what I've been saying all along, and a darned expensive worst of both worlds at that. From what's being reported here, Australia is paying $AB3 for the first 14 airframes and engines, no support, no training, no spares plus the $AB8 odd we have already put into the project for which we have seen nothing really concrete yet and it would seem we will be buying 14 incomplete weapons systems for our RAAF IOC, on which we will have to spend even more money to upgrade them to the 'complete package' over who knows how many years.

Sounds to me like a fantastic deal for someone, just not for us. In the past we have always bought a complete package, whether it be British, American or French or from wherever. Ok, I grant that these aircraft have been upgraded over the years but to nowhere near the amount the F-35s will need upgrading and in the past the packages have always included support, training and spares and offsets, assembly or complete licence production here. No such deals with the F-35s I'm afraid. You've summarized my feelings on the subject very well Waco.

Ross.

I thought we were discussing PAK-FA....but, just to clarify, Aus IOC is in what, 2016 or 2017? Well after the block 3 jets are done, and hardly an "incomplete weapon systems", with block 4 coming on line a year or so after. USMC is declaring IOC in a couple years using a block 2 jet, so not sure what you are reading, or what "they" think you guys are getting, but "sadly misinformed" comes to mind.

I'm also not sure how the rest of the stuff is relevant, as why would you have spare, engines, and support contracts worked out for na jet Australia hasn't committed to buying fully? And 8 years before IOC to boot? When it makes sense to do so, I'd expect the F-35 package deal to look very similar to the C-130J deal, given they have the same prime and same support concept.

Brining it back to the PAK-FA, this raises the point about support. If this is going to be a viable export, it has to be supportable. AND, the Russians have to feel comfortable exporting it. Not sure where that stands, especially after the trouble with China.