The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0

[wilhelm]

Ask him what it did to the life of the engine.

You have no information on the design solutions used to acheive this extra thrust. There may have been a redesigning of the compressor, the blade shape or manufacturing casting process...... different metalurgical solutions for all we know, over and above the original.

Let us be wise and try and stick to the hard facts, not assumptions.

[UAZ]

The nozzle is a developement of LOAN. (Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle)

"With the LOAN, stealth is achieved through a combination of technologies. These include geometrical shaping, an advanced cooling system, and special coatings on internal and external structures. Due to the effectiveness of the advanced cooling system, the life of the nozzle divergent flaps will be more than doubled, resulting in significant maintenance cost savings."

Critics argue lots of things, whether or not they're true is another matter. For example your assertion that the circular nozzle is definitely a no-go for LO is a good example of that. A positive assertion based on a complete lack of knowledge. Much like many of the "critics".

And S-H-I-T stands for Stealth Harmonized Integrated Technology.

Seriously, many companies love to play with these abreviations. These things do not add credibility to their claims.

[quadbike]

At the end of the day the companies are not selling LCD tvs but defense equipment. Each of their claims will scrutinized by the services and experts and if they do not hold water the orders may stand cancelled or worse the company would find it hard to win future orders.

This alone for me is enough to take LMs or any big manufacturers words over the likes of arm chair experts and 'independent analysts'.

Now if you look at the F 35's case other than a few lone voices here and there most problems have been about cost overruns, rising unit prices and issues with transfer of tech. Nothing whatsoever related to performance.

[DJ.]

And S-H-I-T stands for Stealth Harmonized Integrated Technology.

Seriously, many companies love to play with these abreviations. These things do not add credibility to their claims.

You have let the cat out of the bag... China will now attempt to buy S-H-I-T tech from abroad... Indians will claim LCA has fully integrated S-H-I-T because it has most composites.. and LM fanbois will say that LM invented S-H-I-T and that rest of the world is two decade behind... LM will then ask for 10 more billion dollars from partner nations, to fully develop "S-H-1-T " for f35.

[Otaku]

LM's new mantra (post Nunn-McCurdy breach): "Buy the F-35- it's full of S-H-I-T!!"

117:

[Austin]

The port engine as seen is large is this the 117 engine ?

[Rodolfo]

What are the power differences between 117 and 117s?

[Austin]

What are the power differences between 117 and 117s?

117 is ~ 15 T and 117S is ~ 14.5 T

But 117 is 150 kg lighter as well , AL-31FP and 117S are similar in weight but latter has 2 T higher thrust link

A lot of this came from the AL-41 program and use of hot core from AL-41 experience.

[wrightwing]

But.... being even handed... the F-35 has not demonstrated anything yet (in that regard).


Unless you are going to take the world of LM et al, and dismiss the word of Suhkoi etc... which is not exactly being objective, is it?

The F-35s flying now, are much closer to being production representative than the T-50 though, which is more akin to the X-35, in terms of refinement.

[snafu352]

At the end of the day the companies are not selling LCD tvs but defense equipment. Each of their claims will scrutinized by the services and experts and if they do not hold water the orders may stand cancelled or worse the company would find it hard to win future orders.

This alone for me is enough to take LMs or any big manufacturers words over the likes of arm chair experts and 'independent analysts'.

Now if you look at the F 35's case other than a few lone voices here and there most problems have been about cost overruns, rising unit prices and issues with transfer of tech. Nothing whatsoever related to performance.

Suggest you go read what was published yesterday re many of the Brit MoD projects.
If you have any sense of balance and ability to think critically it should change your view.

To quote:
"What I point the finger at is not a specific project, but at a system within the Ministry of Defence, which consists of perverse incentives to buy the wrong thing, to buy it more expensively than it needs to be bought, to take longer over it and to buy something that does less than was originally intended."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8548682.stm

Before you point out that this is refering to the MoD...pause and have a little think about the implications this has for the pronouncements from the manufacturers of this late, expensive, below requirements and plain missing requirements kit.

[sferrin]

You have no information on the design solutions used to acheive this extra thrust. There may have been a redesigning of the compressor, the blade shape or manufacturing casting process...... different metalurgical solutions for all we know, over and above the original.

Let us be wise and try and stick to the hard facts, not assumptions.

Yes, let's be wise. Odds are they're running the engine harder which shortens life. That's far more likely than that they discovered some breakthrough that increased power without adding a gram of weight or shortening life. A certainty? No, just more likely.

[sferrin]

And S-H-I-T stands for Stealth Harmonized Integrated Technology.

Seriously, many companies love to play with these abreviations. These things do not add credibility to their claims.

Now you know more than Lockheed Martin about stealth? Or do you think they just developed it because it looks cool?

[Griffon39]

Dat stupid punk azz russkie engine aint got S-H-I-T on uzz, cracka boi! Fo shizzy!!

[Sens]

117 is ~ 15 T and 117S is ~ 14.5 T

But 117 is 150 kg lighter as well , AL-31FP and 117S are similar in weight but latter has 2 T higher thrust link

A lot of this came from the AL-41 program and use of hot core from AL-41 experience.

The 14,5 T is with combat plus for a short time only. The regular max is 14 T.

[Sens]

The F-35s flying now, are much closer to being production representative than the T-50 though, which is more akin to the X-35, in terms of refinement.

The F-35 is not in the class of the "T-50". The "T-50" will be in the same class like the F-22A. It will be limited to A2A at first and will cut development time and related cost, when several items were/will be tested by the Su-35BM too. The Russians do differ in their behavior about the development of the "T-50" compared to the YF-22/F-22A.

[Amiga500]

Odds are

... so no materials advances? No blade improvements from increased & improved numerical work? No pre combustion mixing from increased & improved numerical work?




[BTW, you ask your mate dozer about those afterburner flameholders yet?]

[wrightwing]

The F-35 is not in the class of the "T-50". The "T-50" will be in the same class like the F-22A. It will be limited to A2A at first and will cut development time and related cost, when several items were/will be tested by the Su-35BM too. The Russians do differ in their behavior about the development of the "T-50" compared to the YF-22/F-22A.

I wasn't comparing them in terms of the class of fighter. Merely how close the F-35s flying now are to the final production version vs. the T-50 is to it's production version.

[djcross]

You have no information on the design solutions used to acheive this extra thrust. There may have been a redesigning of the compressor, the blade shape or manufacturing casting process...... different metalurgical solutions for all we know, over and above the original.

Let us be wise and try and stick to the hard facts, not assumptions.

In the turbine engine world, nothing is free. Choose any two:

• Light weight
• High thrust
• Long life

Unless you pay the development money and spend the time, you cannot get all three.

[Amiga500]

In the turbine engine world, nothing is free. Choose any two:

• Light weight
• High thrust
• Longevity

Unless you pay the development money and spend the time, you cannot get all three.

Indeed. Its like the bulls!!t you see managers come out with "faster, better and cheaper"... err no, thats the magic triangle of compromise... you can have 2 at the expense of 1 or 1 at the expense of 2... but not all 3.


But why is it assumed they didn't spend the development money & time?

[quadbike]

Suggest you go read what was published yesterday re many of the Brit MoD projects.
If you have any sense of balance and ability to think critically it should change your view.

To quote:
"What I point the finger at is not a specific project, but at a system within the Ministry of Defence, which consists of perverse incentives to buy the wrong thing, to buy it more expensively than it needs to be bought, to take longer over it and to buy something that does less than was originally intended."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8548682.stm

Before you point out that this is refering to the MoD...pause and have a little think about the implications this has for the pronouncements from the manufacturers of this late, expensive, below requirements and plain missing requirements kit.

Oh and it does not mention the F 35. It does however mention Type 45s.

I had it covered already

Now if you look at the F 35's case other than a few lone voices here and there most problems have been about cost overruns, rising unit prices and issues with transfer of tech. Nothing whatsoever related to performance.

No one is doubting the performance but for some amateurs.

[Trident]

Ask him what it did to the life of the engine.

It increased from around 1500h (AL-31F) to 4000h (117S).

[Sens]

I wasn't comparing them in terms of the class of fighter. Merely how close the F-35s flying now are to the final production version vs. the T-50 is to it's production version.

I realized that, but my point is a "T-50" is not in need of similar development time for the A2A mission in general. The "design" of the F-35 is just "frozen" and will see real service from it in the second half of the decade. The Russians had skipped the X-phase already and did start with the YF-phase in earnest.

[snafu352]

Oh and it does not mention the F 35. It does however mention Type 45s.

I had it covered already



No one is doubting the performance but for some amateurs.

So you "professionals" are not doubting the performance of a program that has failed to achieve a fraction of scheduled test flights.

Do you truly believe that they haven't been flying just because they have "manufacturing" issues?

What do you think those "manufacturing" problems are?

[sferrin]

... so no materials advances? No blade improvements from increased & improved numerical work? No pre combustion mixing from increased & improved numerical work?




[BTW, you ask your mate dozer about those afterburner flameholders yet?]

Don't need to. I can open up Jay Miller's book on the F-22 and see them anytime I want. You still haven't explained why AvWeek would talk about them as if they're common knowledge if they don't exist. :diablo:

[sferrin]

It increased from around 1500h (AL-31F) to 4000h (117S).

If they increased durability AND power WITHOUT adding weight then that is something to be proud of. IF.

[wrightwing]

I realized that, but my point is a "T-50" is not in need of similar development time for the A2A mission in general. The "design" of the F-35 is just "frozen" and will see real service from it in the second half of the decade. The Russians had skipped the X-phase already and did start with the YF-phase in earnest.

The final avionic and engine package is still not nearly as close to maturity either though.

[Amiga500]

Don't need to. I can open up Jay Miller's book on the F-22 and see them anytime I want. You still haven't explained why AvWeek would talk about them as if they're common knowledge if they don't exist. :diablo:

Just go ask.


I've seen plenty of bull on Avweek over the years. Journalists are journalists... not infallible gods.



I'm sure you'll also note the Super Hornet has a virtually identical flame holder arrangement in its nozzle... unless you are of the opinion it has radar absorbing features in its engine nozzle too...?

[sferrin]

Just go ask.


I've seen plenty of bull on Avweek over the years. Journalists are journalists... not infallible gods.



I'm sure you'll also note the Super Hornet has a virtually identical flame holder arrangement in its nozzle... unless you are of the opinion it has radar absorbing features in its engine nozzle too...?

You've obviously never seen a GOOD picture of the inside of the exhaust when it's not blowing fire. It's not like I continue to insist just for the hell of it. If you want to agree to disagree because I'm not willing to scan in photos out of Jay Miller's book and upload them so be it. You'd have to do some digging but the reason originally stated for the F-35 not having all aspect stealth was because it doesn't have the blocker not because of it's nozzle as some state (the 5 degree cone at the back that isn't "full stealth" is what a radar would see if it were looking up the engine as the nozzle is certainly visible from a wider angle than that).

[Sens]

The final avionic and engine package is still not nearly as close to maturity either though.

Correct, but they are not critical to get a working thing with that at hand already. The "T-50" has not to hoover and be weight critical by that, operate from carriers nor is it in need of full-purpose avionic-suit in a similar way.
The F-35 can fulfill different missions from that start, when "T-50" is limited to A2A at first with later upgrades in mind. The Russians had learned a lot from the mistakes with the F-22A and do not have the money to repeat all that mistakes. Some they did despite that.

[martinez]

It increased from around 1500h (AL-31F) to 4000h (117S).

That`s SAFE LIFE vs DAMAGE TOLERANCE, how else to jump from 1500h to 4000h?