Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 583

Thread: The PAK-FA Saga Episode IV

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    151
    As far as I know in MAKS-2007 a Russian radar producer demonstrated a radar complex for PAK-FA. This radar is a X-band AESA radar, and it has also L-band IFF system, there is also Ka band elment but I couldn't figure out why it is exist.
    Does anyone has an idea about it?

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    Nato does not have the money to do anything. It will create more debt and seeing how credit squeezed. I dont expect any stuipidity.
    Nobody expects stupidity. If it is perceived to be in the national interest countries will do the dumbest things.

    have u read about Putin visit where he said new built fighters should be bought instead of ugprading old one.
    No, but if true the waste does not bode well for the future of the Russian Armed forces.

    There is personal shortage already which is getting worse.
    Your solution will work though... with only PAK-FAs, Su-34s and Su-27BMs new built the Russian AF will only have about 800 planes anyway.

    How Singpore/SK/Japan/China got wealthy at much faster rate than West?
    Making good decisions in addition to luck. But keep in mind of those places, Japan became the west (ie Japan was basically the US for a time) and SK and Singapore are small countries. China always had huge potential and things are currently going well, and the same can be said for Russia, but it is a tight rope walk and a fall can be as simple as a new fuel source (for Russia) or increasing wages in China meaning cheap stuff is made in Africa somewhere instead.
    Such things are hard to predict... but you know what I mean. A small thing can change and everything goes t!ts up.

    Russia has to maintain even faster rate than them.
    Russia needs to ignore what others are doing and decide what it wants for itself. Having a superpower armed forces is nice, but it has a social and economic cost. Better living standards, improving the lot of the average Joe and making sure those at the top remember who is below them and why.

    First 4 will be upgrade by Russia the rest is HAL job. and it may take upto 2013 to complete.
    For the Mig-29K? I thought the first 16 were confirmed to be built in Russia and supplied built. Any other orders will be negotiated and might include Indian assembly, but the 700 million was for an airwing built by MIG.
    Local production/assembly doesn't make sense for 16 and if they don't buy any more then it is a bit of a waste. If they order 60 more then local assembly makes a bit of sense, but to assemble 12 themselves to have 16 aircraft is strange.

    Serbian aircraft nowwhere at Su-27SM level with new engines, fbw, IRST, EW , datalinks etc.
    Considering the condition they were probably in I would call it a near full upgrade.

    Sukhoi has much longer life than any MIG plain built. do u think Chinese/Indian/Malaysians/Algerian/Ruaf are stupid?
    No, I think the RuAF are smart... who wants a 6,000 hour brand new Su-27SM that will operate for 50 years when what they want is an interim fighter to operate and get the airforce up to date operating aircraft with LCD displays and active radar homing AAMs... you know things a few Mig-29SM pilots, and a few Su-27SM pilots and a handful of Mig-31 pilots and a couple of Su-34 pilots might have experienced?

    They will continue to use Ukrianian components as long as it is economical. There is no AL-55 on Yak-130 for next 5 years alteast when all Ruaf planes will be deliveredl.
    Of course they will, they use the Utes 12.7mm HMG on their tank turrets too, but are gradually changing to KORD HMGs made in Russia. A lot of Ukrainian trucks are in Russian Army service too and they are gradually being replaced too. Not urgently dropped immediately, but as they are replaced they are replaced with Russian equipment when it is available. Another example is the Ansat helo, that uses Pratt & Whitney engines is going to enter Russian service in a few years time but a new engine is being developed and should be ready when the helos enters service.

    The Al-55 was suggested as an option for the Yak-130 and will likely be the engine of choice in Russian service.

    They are using MIG-AT test bed for AL-55. Yak-130 engine contract is with Salut. These are long term contracts.
    When the AL-55 is perfected it is likely to replace a foreign engine on a local jet trainer... otherwise they might as well have just bought L-59s to replace their L-39s and L-29s.

    You were claiming that it is design bureau that are incharge. But now it is factory that is incharge and design bureau is a subcontractor.
    No I wasn't. I was suggesting that any new companies created would have production and design departments and the companies needed management. The management needn't come from the factory or the design bureau or the radar maker or the engine maker or the missile maker.

    Those design bureaus will close down with time anyway when no one wants to join them.
    If that worked why is there about 5 aisles of shampoo in the local supermarket. Surely one brand works the best and all the others are inferior... yet there they are for all types of hair including bald people...
    The reality is that the quality of a product depends more on the design considerations than the team working on it. I am sure those making the Commanche were top level engineers that did a good job of building what was wanted at the time. If left now without a government order and trying to make money on the export market what with their government limiting who could buy your helo to very few customers and no US government support, meaning whoever takes it on foots the bill I doubt that company could survive if they didn't have other projects they were making money on to keep the business going.

    Claiming MIG is crap just because the Mig-29 has not exported as well as the Flanker is pretty harsh. Have you picked out your best son or daughter and have chosen to ignore the rest because they just aren't good enough?

    Sorry Sergei... you are a brilliant engineer but go and work in a coal mine because MIG is finished and Sukhoi aren't hiring at the moment.

    The government will push Sukhoi to deliver.
    How? Do a good job or we will buy F-22s from the Americans?

    It is beyond the technical and financial ability of MIG to make 5th generation fighter on its own.
    Currently the only real 5th gen fighters are the F-22 and F-35 and I agree that OAK can't make those on its current budget.

    Can it make a Mig-35 with a stealthy airframe shape that is able to supercruise. Yes, I do believe it could. And I think that would be cheap enough for rather more countries to afford it than they could afford the PAK-FA.

    In fact if they can keep costs reasonable... say a single engine no VSTOL stealthy plane or a stealthy twin with perhaps 10 ton thrust RD-33s or something slightly better like 12 ton thrust RD-45s and Mig-35 AESA and avionics customers of the PAK-FA might even want it too... as a cheaper aircraft they can use to maintain numbers.

    nope. It is maintaining and flying aircraft that is huge expense. U only need the best to fly.
    So the increased cost of raw materials doesn't matter now?

    The otherside also got AWACS and AWACS has huge RCS signature. The only point for AWACS is to guide the aircraft to battlefield and use fighter radars in last moment for execution.
    So to direct your interceptors to targets over the battlefield (in the air and on the ground) your AWACS needs to see the ground. Even if it had a zero RCS it will emit radar waves and be vulnerable to passive homing missiles.

    Oceans are pretty big. u cannot cover that with Ships. there is always space for airrefueling at safe distance and long range of Flankers gives that flexibility.
    With few airbases the flight paths from Russian Airbases to a country can be estimated. Radar coverage is quite broad too.

    Considering they will be trying to defend themselves from surgical strikes having ships near coastal targets would be enough.

    do u think US used all its power in right way?
    Countries with shinier toys rarely do. They usually underestimate their enemies and think just turning up will mean they will win. In western Europe that was all that was needed in WWII remember.

    Japanese have the right idea of introducing composites,
    I wasn't criticising the Japanese. They might pay too much for their weapons, but they are certainly supporting their own industries by making things themselves as licensed copies so to speak.

    compare knapo Su-30MK2 price with Algerian SMT for same year?
    The Algerian SMTs were vastly overpriced because they were for debt clearance. If you owed me $1,000 and to clear the debt I offered to sell you something I wanted to sell then I would have to give you generous terms.
    In other words I will ignore the $1,000 dollars you owe me if you buy $10,000 worth of stuff from me now. You save the $1,000 you owed me and get $10,000 dollars worth of credit to spend, but the stuff I sell you I will charge you more for each item than I would have if you had owed me nothing. You still end up saving some money but I get to sell you new products where otherwise I might have only gotten a few interest payments instead.

    It does not mean they are going to waste money in upgrading old aircraft. they will better spent that money in developing UAV which takes less time than upgrading old MIGs.
    They are working on UAVs, but that doesn't mean they should not upgrade old MIGs. They are actually upgrading old MIGs as we speak... Mig-31s.

    There is MIG-29SMT in Ruaf?
    By now most will be Mig-29S and Mig-29SM.

    It is better to spend money in building tankers than wasting money on foreign bases. . how do u think Bear manages 20 hr patrol? or Su-34 10 hrs?
    A Bear is a long range aircraft... it has longer range than most tankers so apart from a top up after takeoff, unless it is flying in circles near the end of its flight it will not be near friendly tankers.

    when the price of labor, energy and raw materials goes through the roof. No one in right frame of mind will built a carier for 30 aircraft? 30 aircraft just dont have any impact on large battfield.
    Just had a look at the quote and it was 24 fixed wing aircraft plus UAVs.

    Airpower can win wars when used in right way and in future holds for airpower alone. Tanks are going obsolete.
    History has proven aircraft can't win wars and there is nothing that can replace a tank... except another tank.

    without airpower things would be alot more difficult.
    Indeed. Most of WWII on the Eastern front was a hard slog because the Soviets lacked air supremacy or just didn't use their air power well.

    Why do u think they want to increase helicopters/UAV/aircraft production but not not ground sysems in same proportions. Future is for airborne troops that u can drop with speed.
    The Russians have about 10,000 tanks... about 6,000 west of the Urals and about 4,000 East of them. Less than this number are operational, but still rather more than fixed and rotary aircraft combined.

    aircrafts both civilian and military are going towards composite.
    As are tanks.

    2500L tanks and MIG? show me on MIG website.
    Why not? They have talked for a while of new material fuel tanks that allowed missile carriage as on the Tornado.

    Why do you think bigger AWACS is preferred over smaller one?
    Hawkeye seems popular with users as does that other one on the small business jet with the fixed bar over the fuselage.

    Cheaper 5th generation is oxymoron.
    Stealth shape, Powerful enough engines, AESA radar... which you claim isn't expensive, and 4++ generation avionics. Engines and external shape should allow supercruise and reasonable level of stealth.

    MIG-27 does not even have range and payload of Su-27 and more than likely they would have lost in greater numbers because of there unsophisticated nature.
    Which model Mig-27? The K model?

    why they are deploying Flankers to Kant airfield but not MIG-29?
    When Mig-29s get an upgrade it might be deployed there...

    I am telling building and operating twin engine 5th generation is beyond financial and technical ability of most of the world. so whats the point of lowering the bar with single engine with less performance.
    Because it is beyond the financial ability of most of the world it makes sense to make a cheaper option that can be made in large numbers. The USAF is getting 189 F-22s and about 1,200 F-35s Do you think 400 PAK-FAs would suffice against that... even ignoring the NATO F-35s added to that number, plus the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, etc etc.

    Yes... I know you will say there is no need to take on everyone at once, but what is the point of large numbers of very very expensive 5th gen fighters if you are not going to go to war with them?

    Buying all top of the line is a nice concept, but unreasonable for anyone to adopt as policy. No one can afford to do that.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by GarryB View Post
    Nobody expects stupidity. If it is perceived to be in the national interest countries will do the dumbest things.
    When there is no money. u canot expect any actions. Europeans/US banks badly burnt while Russian banks are well capitalized. Infact combined profits exceeding all of West banks. It is EADS that is in takeover fear not the otherway around. Remember in capitalist nothing happens without money.


    No, but if true the waste does not bode well for the future of the Russian Armed forces.
    Nope he knows that the if he does not start large scale production now he will lose all the workers along with skills and experiance. thats the huge difference between Sukhoi and MIG factories.


    Your solution will work though... with only PAK-FAs, Su-34s and Su-27BMs new built the Russian AF will only have about 800 planes anyway.
    But those 800 planes are much better than 10,000 obsolete junk that will take all the gas and personal resources to fly them properly. it is the range, payload, sensor power, speed that matters.

    Making good decisions in addition to luck. But keep in mind of those places, Japan became the west (ie Japan was basically the US for a time) and SK and Singapore are small countries. China always had huge potential and things are currently going well, and the same can be said for Russia, but it is a tight rope walk and a fall can be as simple as a new fuel source (for Russia) or increasing wages in China meaning cheap stuff is made in Africa somewhere instead.
    Such things are hard to predict... but you know what I mean. A small thing can change and everything goes t!ts up.
    These all countries prosper under one party system. It is not luck. they took advantage of ColdWar as West busy in military buildup with Soviets so they have to transfer all the Civillian production knowledge to East Asia. Russia is doing exactly the same. Africa cannot have production and efficiency of China. It is the strong central government that can moblise huge resources into infrastructure projects/Education/Supply chain efficiency/Skill development.


    Russia needs to ignore what others are doing and decide what it wants for itself. Having a superpower armed forces is nice, but it has a social and economic cost. Better living standards, improving the lot of the average Joe and making sure those at the top remember who is below them and why.
    Superpower armed forces are actually beneficial than conscript type army. All advance research goes towards Civillian production. what do u think about all those Supercomputing and wireless technologies?

    For the Mig-29K? I thought the first 16 were confirmed to be built in Russia and supplied built. Any other orders will be negotiated and might include Indian assembly, but the 700 million was for an airwing built by MIG.
    Local production/assembly doesn't make sense for 16 and if they don't buy any more then it is a bit of a waste. If they order 60 more then local assembly makes a bit of sense, but to assemble 12 themselves to have 16 aircraft is strange.
    I am talking about MIG-29SMT upgrade for IAF.


    Considering the condition they were probably in I would call it a near full upgrade.
    Depends. when u want to keep aircraft for next 15 to 20 years. u need to change to Glass cockpit, advance communication and EW systems along with engines.


    No, I think the RuAF are smart... who wants a 6,000 hour brand new Su-27SM that will operate for 50 years when what they want is an interim fighter to operate and get the airforce up to date operating aircraft with LCD displays and active radar homing AAMs... you know things a few Mig-29SM pilots, and a few Su-27SM pilots and a handful of Mig-31 pilots and a couple of Su-34 pilots might have experienced?
    those 6000 hrs Su-35 also carrier 11.5 ton internal fuel along 2500L tanks. And it has only Two LCD cockpit not that mix cockpit of MIG-29SM.


    Of course they will, they use the Utes 12.7mm HMG on their tank turrets too, but are gradually changing to KORD HMGs made in Russia. A lot of Ukrainian trucks are in Russian Army service too and they are gradually being replaced too. Not urgently dropped immediately, but as they are replaced they are replaced with Russian equipment when it is available. Another example is the Ansat helo, that uses Pratt & Whitney engines is going to enter Russian service in a few years time but a new engine is being developed and should be ready when the helos enters service.
    When u want to give new business u better give it to your own firms as it will boost the stock price but if alternative is not available at economical price they will buy from Ukraine.
    The Al-55 was suggested as an option for the Yak-130 and will likely be the engine of choice in Russian service.
    When the AL-55 is perfected it is likely to replace a foreign engine on a local jet trainer... otherwise they might as well have just bought L-59s to replace their L-39s and L-29s.
    AL-55 is not tested on Yak-130 and Yak-130 is more advance than L-39.



    Claiming MIG is crap just because the Mig-29 has not exported as well as the Flanker is pretty harsh. Have you picked out your best son or daughter and have chosen to ignore the rest because they just aren't good enough?

    Sorry Sergei... you are a brilliant engineer but go and work in a coal mine because MIG is finished and Sukhoi aren't hiring at the moment.
    MIG-29 is crap as far as Ruaf is concerned. It may or maynot performed well in exports but that is irrelevant.


    Currently the only real 5th gen fighters are the F-22 and F-35 and I agree that OAK can't make those on its current budget.

    Can it make a Mig-35 with a stealthy airframe shape that is able to supercruise. Yes, I do believe it could. And I think that would be cheap enough for rather more countries to afford it than they could afford the PAK-FA.
    Why u want to spend money on MIG-35 when Sukhoi is already doing 5th generation work for past 6 years?
    In fact if they can keep costs reasonable... say a single engine no VSTOL stealthy plane or a stealthy twin with perhaps 10 ton thrust RD-33s or something slightly better like 12 ton thrust RD-45s and Mig-35 AESA and avionics customers of the PAK-FA might even want it too... as a cheaper aircraft they can use to maintain numbers.
    It is not gone a happen no matter how much you wish. 5th generation is much more difficult/expensive than what are u describing

    So the increased cost of raw materials doesn't matter now?
    It matter but dont want to convert raw materials into inferior product.

    So to direct your interceptors to targets over the battlefield (in the air and on the ground) your AWACS needs to see the ground. Even if it had a zero RCS it will emit radar waves and be vulnerable to passive homing missiles.
    why do u think such powerful radar which are almost equal to AWACS are put in fighters now and it will increase with introduction GaNs based AESA.?

    With few airbases the flight paths from Russian Airbases to a country can be estimated. Radar coverage is quite broad too.

    Considering they will be trying to defend themselves from surgical strikes having ships near coastal targets would be enough.
    Against Russia/China bringing a ship near to coast will be sucidal.

    Countries with shinier toys rarely do. They usually underestimate their enemies and think just turning up will mean they will win. In western Europe that was all that was needed in WWII remember.
    Western Eu does not have natural resources and manpower to put into single battle field.

    I wasn't criticising the Japanese. They might pay too much for their weapons, but they are certainly supporting their own industries by making things themselves as licensed copies so to speak.
    They are not license in everything. Them make there own Radars/Composite wings/LCD displays/navigation system.


    The Algerian SMTs were vastly overpriced because they were for debt clearance. If you owed me $1,000 and to clear the debt I offered to sell you something I wanted to sell then I would have to give you generous terms.
    In other words I will ignore the $1,000 dollars you owe me if you buy $10,000 worth of stuff from me now. You save the $1,000 you owed me and get $10,000 dollars worth of credit to spend, but the stuff I sell you I will charge you more for each item than I would have if you had owed me nothing. You still end up saving some money but I get to sell you new products where otherwise I might have only gotten a few interest payments instead.
    So what do u think about IAF MIG-29SMT?

    They are working on UAVs, but that doesn't mean they should not upgrade old MIGs. They are actually upgrading old MIGs as we speak... Mig-31s.
    I told you MIG-31 has role to play and upgrade started from 1999 and it has engine commonality. when did Ruaf MIG-29 upgrade started?

    By now most will be Mig-29S and Mig-29SM.
    so even less range.


    A Bear is a long range aircraft... it has longer range than most tankers so apart from a top up after takeoff, unless it is flying in circles near the end of its flight it will not be near friendly tankers.



    Just had a look at the quote and it was 24 fixed wing aircraft plus UAVs.
    I am sure they will change it when they look at current prices.

    History has proven aircraft can't win wars and there is nothing that can replace a tank... except another tank.
    History is not indicator of future. u cannot lose 27 millions like world war 2 and still claim victory. it is very different times.



    [
    Because it is beyond the financial ability of most of the world it makes sense to make a cheaper option that can be made in large numbers. The USAF is getting 189 F-22s and about 1,200 F-35s Do you think 400 PAK-FAs would suffice against that... even ignoring the NATO F-35s added to that number, plus the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, etc etc.
    who said they will stop at 400? it is based on continous production run for next 30 to 40 years. u cannot start and stop production it will destroy the costly supply chain.
    Yes... I know you will say there is no need to take on everyone at once, but what is the point of large numbers of very very expensive 5th gen fighters if you are not going to go to war with them?

    Buying all top of the line is a nice concept, but unreasonable for anyone to adopt as policy. No one can afford to do that.
    they can certainly afford do to that provided they concentrated resources on yearly bases.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by star49 View Post
    But those 800 planes are much better than 10,000 obsolete junk that will take all the gas and personal resources to fly them properly. it is the range, payload, sensor power, speed that matters.
    what are you talking about there are only 18 F-15's with the APG-63 v2 (AESA) Rada, while the other 210 have the APG-63v1 (1990 era) Radars, and there's about 30 F-15 D's Russia's Su-27 are 350 operational, so there on par with U.S. F-15 in numbers and tech

    History is not indicator of future. u cannot lose 27 millions like world war 2 and still claim victory. it is very different times.
    8.3 Million soilders died while the other 18.7 Million were civilians, and the reason that many soilders died was because most of the German fighting was in the eastern front, and at that time no nation outside of Germany had a huge standing military, so why do you think lossing 27 million won't be a victory in the 21 century??
    Last edited by 1MAN; 11th June 2008 at 16:43.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by GarryB View Post

    Because it is beyond the financial ability of most of the world it makes sense to make a cheaper option that can be made in large numbers. The USAF is getting 189 F-22s and about 1,200 F-35s Do you think 400 PAK-FAs would suffice against that... even ignoring the NATO F-35s added to that number, plus the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, etc etc.

    Yes... I know you will say there is no need to take on everyone at once, but what is the point of large numbers of very very expensive 5th gen fighters if you are not going to go to war with them?

    Buying all top of the line is a nice concept, but unreasonable for anyone to adopt as policy. No one can afford to do that.
    It's questionable whether the US would truly acquire over 1,000 F-35s.

    Seems like all numbers are being cut down, just as with the F-22.

    In either case, if Russia is really worried about the US in conventional terms, the end result numbers are irrelevant. Other than some surrogate skirmishes NATO or the US and Russia can't afford a war with one another.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis View Post
    It's questionable whether the US would truly acquire over 1,000 F-35s. ...
    The planned number is actually 2456, including 1763 for the USAF. There may be some doubt whether the USAF gets over 1000 F-35A, but I think a total of over 1000 for the USA is fairly secure.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    The planned number is actually 2456, including 1763 for the USAF. There may be some doubt whether the USAF gets over 1000 F-35A, but I think a total of over 1000 for the USA is fairly secure.
    This could only work with upgrades at best?

    I mean, over 1,000 of all forms would take decades probably, this can't happen overnight. By 2030, the F-35 could be facing very upgraded counterparts.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Figure 24 jets produced a month...it'd take four years to build 1000, once full-rate production kicks off, of course. At any rate the F-35 is a waste of time and money if you ask me. It has no place in the type of wars the US is realistically going to get into. The B-3 program makes sense because yes, the B-52 is going to have to be replaced someday, and a small force of survivable strike aircraft capable of delivering a heavy load is valuable. It also lets you drop the fun types of bombs that the F-35 and F-22 can't carry internally, like a lot of the larger penetrators. What we realistically need is an A-10 follow-on, or better yet more A-10s!
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,931
    If you are just going to fly an 1,800 mile trip to drop some gps-guided bombs then its a pretty good solution, SOC. An F-35 will do the F-15E's job for much less overall work.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currently in Hampshire UK
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by SOC View Post
    It has no place in the type of wars the US is realistically going to get into.
    I take it you own one of these crystal balls then...
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,170
    I take it you own one of these crystal balls then...
    And neither do the supporters of having the F-35 (like me) ...
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    And neither do the supporters of having the F-35 (like me) ...
    Which way would you rather be wrong though? Would you rather lose control of the air or take a few more days to bomb the necessary targets?

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    83
    PAK-FA image from ILA 2008. Looks like the same image that Saturn had on its web site.

    link

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    TAI
    Posts
    1,093
    pak fa - Kopya.bmp

    I think it's just hand drawing of the Saturn's picture by an artist.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    It's questionable whether the US would truly acquire over 1,000 F-35s.

    Seems like all numbers are being cut down, just as with the F-22.
    Just off the top of my head the last figures I saw the USAF had a few hundred F-15s and about 1,200 f-16s in service plus of course 100 or so F-22s. Considering they are going to try to replace the F-15/-16 and AV-8, I can't see them buying any less than 1,000 JSFs... not without an enormous downsize of units.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    Quote Originally Posted by GarryB View Post
    Just off the top of my head the last figures I saw the USAF had a few hundred F-15s
    When was that, 1975? The US has 900+ F-15s in the inventory.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    336
    U.S. has 228 F-15 C/E and 500 F-15 A/B (Obsolete anyways) and about 60+ F-15D's

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by medal64 View Post
    pak fa - Kopya.bmp

    I think it's just hand drawing of the Saturn's picture by an artist.
    Is there any consensus opinion on how realistic this image might be? I don't mean to ask if this literally IS the PAK FA. Obviously, it isn't. But should we dismiss it as little more than fanboy art? Or might this offer us some real insight into the actual design?
    Last edited by Gavin.O; 14th June 2008 at 17:22.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin.O View Post
    Is there any consesus opinion on how realistic this image might be? I don't mean to ask if this literally IS the PAK FA. Obviously, it isn't. But should we dismiss it as little more than fanboy art? Or might this offer us some real insight into the actual design?
    I dont know if there is a consensus on the Image of the aircraft , but there can be consensus that it will be twin engine aircraft ,as it is from the horses ( engine manf ) mouth.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Land of the voting dead
    Posts
    502
    That picture is an almost an exact artistic recreation of the image released by Saturn.


  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    3,694

    Exclamation

    Fortunately RSM55 stated the NPO Saturn drawing is even less realistic.... Phew....
    Important Hyper Note: I am NOT an Aeronautical Engineer NOR an Aerospace Expert, etc, etc nor do I claim to be one.
    Regards,
    Hyper McStupid

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperwarp View Post
    Fortunately RSM55 stated the NPO Saturn drawing is even less realistic.... Phew....
    It certainly isn't a good drawing, if that's what he was getting at. The wings are too large, the vertical tails too small and the whole thing just looks like it came out of a G.I. Joe kit.

    And yet . . . what grabbed my attention was the remarkable similarity between the Saturn drawing and this RCS model, which apparently was shown on Russian TV. If these two images really came from two entirely separate sources, then you have to wonder . . . ?

    And the proportions are much more realistic here, at least to my eye.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,958
    I think that concept was under evaluation, and maybe it was rejected, so both RCS testing and artist concept are related, but that doesnt mean is the PAKFA

    Im sure if that would be the Pakfa, there shouldb be a scandal, because supossely is secret, but sukhoi maybe released these drawings to say "hey look at me! we are working on it!"

    Anyway, in think the real plane will not be too far from these concepts
    Last edited by over G; 14th June 2008 at 18:09.
    "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. annoys the hell out of me."

    -Best joke ever

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
    When was that, 1975? The US has 900+ F-15s in the inventory.
    739 (522 F-15A/B/C/D, 217 E/F), according to the www.af.mil factsheets.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    3,694

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gavin.O View Post
    It certainly isn't a good drawing, if that's what he was getting at. The wings are too large, the vertical tails too small and the whole thing just looks like it came out of a G.I. Joe kit.

    And yet . . . what grabbed my attention was the remarkable similarity between the Saturn drawing and this RCS model, which apparently was shown on Russian TV. If these two images really came from two entirely separate sources, then you have to wonder . . . ?


    And the proportions are much more realistic here, at least to my eye.
    Yup, I saw that video about Russian stealth. But, it just appeared to be an RCS test/simulation.

    This was what RSM55 had to say a few weeks back:
    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...&postcount=430
    Important Hyper Note: I am NOT an Aeronautical Engineer NOR an Aerospace Expert, etc, etc nor do I claim to be one.
    Regards,
    Hyper McStupid

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    739 (522 F-15A/B/C/D, 217 E/F), according to the www.af.mil factsheets.
    You mean the same fact sheet that says the F-15 can go 1875 mph? :diablo:

    Not sure how those "fact" sheets came up with their number but Global Security has the following numbers:

    Total Production (For US) A/B/C/D/E: 1065
    Current Inventory: 921

    Apparently the disparity between those is the 100 or so sitting in the boneyard and losses. No idea how the fact sheets arrived at their number.

    Air Force Magazine lists 708 in the "active inventory" for 2007. So who knows what the actual number is?

    Just FYI government fact sheets (at least the US ones) generally suck a$$ for accuracy.
    Last edited by sferrin; 15th June 2008 at 03:19.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
    You mean the same fact sheet that says the F-15 can go 1875 mph? :diablo:

    Not sure how those "fact" sheets came up with their number but Global Security has the following numbers:

    Total Production (For US) A/B/C/D/E: 1065
    Current Inventory: 921

    Apparently the disparity between those is the 100 or so sitting in the boneyard and losses. No idea how the fact sheets arrived at their number.

    Air Force Magazine lists 708 in the "active inventory" for 2007. So who knows what the actual number is?

    Just FYI government fact sheets (at least the US ones) generally suck a$$ for accuracy.
    global security aint accurate too....

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692
    This is what I am talking about Star49:

    Currently Ukraine's Motor Sich mass produces the VK-2500 engine, which Russia's Defense Ministry intends to install on the Mi-28N Night Hunter and Ka-52 Hokum attack helicopters, and on military transport helicopters of the Ka and Mi families.

    This 2,400 hp engine is a further development of the popular TV3-117VMA engine used in Hinds and other military helicopters. The VK-2500 differs from it by having a digital fly-by-wire control system and a new design of compressor turbine.

    The engines were only developed in Russia, and were mass produced in Ukraine. The developer - the Klimov Corporation - first produced only small numbers using Ukrainian components. But, starting in 1996, Russia adopted a policy of building helicopters by itself, without foreign partners.


    Ahead of the opening of the Engines-2006 international exhibition last year, documents were signed to give the go-ahead to the production of the VK-2500 at the Chernyshev plant in Moscow. Early deliveries of Moscow-assembled engines are scheduled for 2009. Meanwhile, production of a helicopter engine of a new generation, the VK-800, is being planned for Moscow.

    Single-handed, even the Klimov Corporation could not supply all the engines needed by helicopter-building firms. The Defense Industry Commission has therefore recommended organizing large-scale production of the VK-2500 and VK-800 at the Ufa Motor Plant. Preliminary costs for the production of the VK-2500 are estimated at $150-$200 million.

    Yury Zaitsev is an academic adviser at the Academy of Engineering Sciences.
    This clearly shows they want to make major components locally if they can... and if they designed the components in Russia then they certainly can make them in Russia too.

    Regarding just having Sukhoi making planes in Russia and MiG disappearing... read this from the same article above:

    The creation of the United Aircraft Building Corporation hastened integration in the aero engine sector. But, having become a monopoly, Russian aircraft builders want to keep competition alive among their subcontractors. In their opinion, there must be no fewer than two engine-building companies in Russia. "Second-tier" competition, they argue, will enable them to produce better quality products and avoid a cartel dictating prices.

    This attitude seems to have met with understanding among the nation's leadership. The government decided to set up not two, but four aero engine holdings. Vladimir Putin has already signed the decree to establish one of them on the basis of Salyut. Proposals have been approved to set up another three of them: on the basis of Klimov; from plants of the Samara Aircraft Building Center; and by consolidating government holdings in engine plants in Perm, Rybinsk and Ufa.
    Source link for both quotes: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070821/72922066.html

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    Quote Originally Posted by rsetiawan View Post
    global security aint accurate too....
    While GS might not be Jane's it's certainly not a strategypage.com either. I'd rate it higher than US gove fact sheets though.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,618
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    739 (522 F-15A/B/C/D, 217 E/F), according to the www.af.mil factsheets.
    What's F-15F?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES