PDA

View Full Version : In-depth pictorial expose with analysis on the New Russian Fighter


TheShadow
3rd Jul 2010, 15:41
LINK (http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/Ruskie_Jet-New-.pdf)
.
.
5mb PDF file so right-click and save as ........
.

BlindWingy
3rd Jul 2010, 17:27
Coming soon to a conflict near you!

Seems our unwillingness to take our air defence seriously could relegate us to the sidelines in the future...

Nice link - thanks!

vecvechookattack
3rd Jul 2010, 17:50
relegate us to the sidelines

Gawd, I hope so

glad rag
3rd Jul 2010, 19:43
F35=cannon fodder for this thing.......

Skittles
3rd Jul 2010, 19:44
Much sexier than the F-22.

That makes it a winner in my book.

Although, almost everything in existence is sexier than an F-22 so we're hardly settings records.

Pontius Navigator
3rd Jul 2010, 21:42
Makes the Eurofighter 2000 (sic) look so yesterday's aircraft.

PLovett
3rd Jul 2010, 22:32
Ahh "Firefox" is the name. Where's Clint when you need him?

glad rag
3rd Jul 2010, 23:03
Time for an Stealthy US IRST sharpish....:cool:

r supwoods
3rd Jul 2010, 23:38
Emmm... developed in co-operation with Indian Aircraft Industry ... now remind me what the £850m worth of Foreign Aid, per annum, given by the UK Tax Payer goes towards ?

TheWestCoast
4th Jul 2010, 02:55
Page 69 of that document is very interesting.

Buster Hyman
4th Jul 2010, 03:57
Are you referring to what looks like an F117 model suspended from a crane WestCoast?

What's the deal with the Plasma? Is that supposed to cover the engines' radar signature or something?:confused:

xuejiesandi
4th Jul 2010, 04:22
Emmm... developed in co-operation with Indian Aircraft Industry ... now remind me what the £850m worth of Foreign Aid, per annum, given by the UK Tax Payer goes towards ?I thought that's the queen's diamond (Koh-i-Noor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor)'s) rent :}

Very nice link...Thank you. :ok:

t43562
4th Jul 2010, 06:25
Apparently the plasma thingy is for trying to break missile lock. Apparently it's very bulky.

Bismark
4th Jul 2010, 10:23
Strikes me we should cease any investment in typhoon NOW and buy F35 in greater numbers - at least we would then be in 5th gen completely instead of the RAF myopia of staying in 3rd - mainly, IMHO, to keep the RN out of FW.

Biggus
4th Jul 2010, 10:30
Bismark,

F-35 won't be available for at least 10 years, probaly more like 15, so what do we do in the meantime.......???

Finnpog
4th Jul 2010, 11:53
Bang out of F-35 and become a Level 1 / Tier 1 partner of Sukhoi?:eek::E

Biggus
4th Jul 2010, 12:01
Just buy them from the Russians or Indians!!

The B Word
4th Jul 2010, 13:44
Well, we (the UK) could have had this (REPLICA not NIGHTJAR which was UAV): BAe Systems Nightjar (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/nightjar.htm)

The upside down aircraft is full-size and not a small model as some might think. Having seen it in the flesh, it looks spookily similar to the Russian's new aircraft.

In years to come I suspect we will see Project REPLICA as another "TSR2 Moment". It could have been the first decent bit of kit to come out of the Preston area since the English Electric Lightning and Canberra... :ugh:

Here's a report on REPLICA a while ago:


Aviation Week & Space Technology 03/31/2003

Replica Stealth

U.K. designed, built low-observable platform
to maintain its defense/aerospace player status

DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON

Under a highly classified program Britain has built and tested a full-scale low-observable aircraft design as part of a broad-based effort into next-generation air combat platforms.
The program, which had cover names including Replica and Testbed, was jointly funded by the Defense Ministry and BAE Systems. The latter built a full-scale model of the low-observable (LO) design, and tested it on its radar cross-section range at its Warton site, in the northeast of England.

Although the full-scale Replica design never flew, the model was built with features representative of an actual LO aircraft. The then-Defense and Evaluation Research Agency (now Defense Science Technology Laboratory) was also involved in the conceptual study phase.

ONE SOURCE CLOSE to the program told Aviation Week & Space Technology that airframe components were constructed to "pretty tight specifications." The design also included conformal shared-apertures, along with having an internal weapons bay.

Build and test of the Replica airframe was carried out under extremely tight security by BAE's Advanced Technology Demonstration Center. Testing on the radar cross-section range is understood to have been carried out only at night. The superstructure housing the test stand can be moved to allow for radar cross-section trials.

The program, launched in 1994, culminated in what is described by the company as "the most extensive and ambitious radar cross-section measurement program undertaken in the U.K. to date." The RCS trials were completed in 1999: "Testing proved successful, demonstrating that the designed model achieved the signature targets."

Much of the Replica airframe consisted of carbon fiber composite skin panels. The airframe was a wing-body blended design with a V-tail. The canopy was treated to avoid radar scattering from within the cockpit environment. The design also exhibits an unusual curved edge to the radome.

The program was the major element of U.K. work into LO platforms during the 1990s intended to address future requirements, and to ensure the Defense Ministry and industry remained a credible--and informed--partner in potential collaborations. Replica was intended to address both air force and navy needs.

The latter half of the 1990s saw the Defense Ministry and the government attempt to ensure access to national, international and multinational routes with regard to the development of next-generation low-observable combat aircraft.

In parallel to continuing long-standing bilateral agreements with Washington on LO, the government also weighed the option of possible European collaboration. However, the nature of the U.K.-U.S. bilateral restricted London's room to maneuver as far as European collaboration was concerned, so long as it wanted to maintain U.S. access.

While the U.K. eventually joined the European Technology Acquisition Program--intended to address next-generation air platform needs--it has finessed its involvement status to allow it to pick the areas of technology in which it participates. Such an approach was crafted to ensure the protection of the LO relationship with Washington.

More importantly, it also became a launch partner for the Joint Strike Fighter program--with the aircraft viewed as becoming "the U.K.'s primary manned offensive air platform," by senior air force officials. Both the government and industry remain keen to maximize access to the LO aspects of the JSF, with the Replica program as leverage--if needed.

BAE and the Defense Ministry invested jointly more than 20 million pounds ($31 million) in Replica, with the former also pitching in additional research and technology funding on the program.

Alongside Replica and Testbed, a further codeword associated with British stealth research during the early 1990s was HALO. This has been variously ascribed as meaning Hawk Low Observable--a Hawk jet trainer modified by BAE to examine the impact of modest stealth changes to an aircraft--and High Agility Low Observable.

REPLICA--AT LEAST IN PLAN form--shows notable resemblance to the McDonnell Douglas/British Aerospace (BAE) design offered to meet the Pentagon's Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program. The design may reflect aspects of the highly sensitive U.K.-U.S. LO relationship.

Like Replica, JAST also had its inception in the early 1990s. JAST evolved into the Joint Strike Fighter program, with BAE eventually involved in the winning Lockheed Martin bid.

The early 1990s also saw the air force begin to look to a successor for its Tornado strike aircraft under the aegis of Air Staff Target 425. AST 425, later known as the Future Offensive Aircraft, and now as the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS), examined development of a platform to be fielded beyond 2010. Some design illustrations released publicly by BAE in discussing the FOAS program can now be seen to reflect some elements of its Replica efforts.

At the outset, AST 425 was predicated on the development of a crewed aircraft successor to the air force's Tornado GR4. However, as the requirement has developed over the past decade--to present FOAS efforts--focus has shifted toward being fulfilled by a number of different systems including crewed aircraft, cruise missiles and UCAVs.

While the Replica program was concluded in 1999, the results of the LO research and aspects of the design and manufacture process are being applied to other programs.

BAE is looking at the development of LO UCAVs to meet future U.K. needs, and Replica has likely also fed into this work. As with the JSF, British participation in U.S. UCAV developments remains a distinct possibility.


Here's hoping that TARANIS will deliver then. I believe she's rolling out to pomp and ceremony this month (2-star upward invites only).

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tanaris/images/1-tanaris.jpg

The B Word

Bismark
4th Jul 2010, 13:46
F-35 won't be available for at least 10 years, probaly more like 15, so what do we do in the meantime.......???

Biggus,

F35 is in production at Ft Worth and stands up with the USMC in 2012. The first UK pilots start training next year.

Biggus
4th Jul 2010, 14:42
Bismark,

I'm not talking about the current planned dates, but when it is actually likely to happen, given delays, cost stretching, etc....

I'll remind you again in ten years time if I can be bothered. Compare planned in service dates vs actual for Typhoon, T45, MRA4, A400M, FSTA, etc, etc....

First in service in any reasonable numbers date for UK forces is currently 2018 I believe, a two year slip on that (my quote of "at least 10 years") is pretty conservative). Carrying out F-35 production while development is still taking place is a very risky approach which I believe has been critiicised in the US, but I am no expert on the F-35....

The link discusses the F-35 test schedule being extended by 13 months, let alone "areas of concern"......

US Department of Defense raises F-35 cost estimate to $382 billion (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/03/342712/us-department-of-defense-raises-f-35-cost-estimate-to-382-billion.html)

Take off your rose tinted glasses, I'm not being negative, merely realistic!

Ned Parsnip
4th Jul 2010, 15:24
F35 is in production at Ft Worth and stands up with the USMC in 2012. The first UK pilots start training next year.

I don't know where you pulled that from Bismark but the F-35 is a looong way yet from real production of proven and tested design aircraft. Development testing still has some five years to run. Churning out unproven airframes is not "production" in my book.

According to the US GAO -

Manufacturing JSF test aircraft continues to take more time, money, and effort than budgeted. By December 2009, only 4 of 13 test aircraft had been delivered and total labor hours to build the aircraft had increased more than 50 percent above earlier estimates. Late deliveries hamper the development flight test program and affect work on production aircraft, even as plans proceed to significantly ramp-up annual procurement rates. Some improvement is noted, but continuing manufacturing inefficiencies, parts problems, and engineering technical changes indicate that design and production processes may lack the maturity needed to efficiently produce aircraft at planned rates. Although DOD's restructuring actions should help, there is still substantial overlap of development, test, and production activities while DOD continues to push ahead and invest in large quantities of production aircraft before variant designs are proven and system performance verified. Given the extended development time and reduced near term procurement, DOD still intends to procure up to 307 aircraft at an estimated cost of $58.2 billion before completing development flight testing by the beginning of fiscal year 2015.

barnstormer1968
4th Jul 2010, 17:12
IMHO if this aircraft delivers even half of what is promised, it will be a world
beater, but could the RAF operate a stealth aircraft like this?

If we were to buy it, it would surely have to be re engined with a modern Spey,
and in true RAF fashion would need to constantly leak oil which could ruin its
stealth:}.

To be serious though, I feel that this new arrival fits into the 'if it looks right'
category. The PAK could be our new air superiority fighter, and the Typhoons
could be used in A to G instead of buying F35's........Well I am allowed to dream.

xuejiesandi
4th Jul 2010, 18:24
I had been reading about PAK-FA & HAL/FGFA in different forums from a while now.
TheShadow (http://www.pprune.org/members/20825-theshadow)'s post really made a very-very interesting read.
Little Google & found the estimated unit cost PAK-FA/FGFA about $100 mil Vs F22 $150 mil (also not available) & F-35 $190mil . PAK-FA is to be produced about 1000 aircrafts; 200 for Russia & India (FGFA) each & 600 for export :}...
so next time Talibs in Afghanistan would not only be sporting immortal AKs, but would come out blazing in a stealth fighter :E:E. Never invest in technology, it gets cheaper by the day...:=:=
I know I'm exaggerating it :) look here
PAK FA vs F22 Raptor : A Detailed Analasis - Pakistan Defence Forum (http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/60944-pak-fa-vs-f22-raptor-detailed-analasis.html)

Bismark
4th Jul 2010, 19:19
Ned,

You have answered your own question in your quotes. Like Merlin and Typhoon, F35 is in production at the same time as flight testing continues. USMC (and some UK) aircrew will start training on the early production aircraft and the USMC will form squadrons in 2012/2013 - like Typhoon and Merlin they will not field front line capability and like the former aircraft it will take time to reach maturity. However, with a programme this size they need to get on with the build now to ensure there are enough airframes around to replace other aircraft as they go out of service. I am not saying it is the right way of doing things but it is the current pattern.

Who knows, we may pay off GR4s and some Typhoon early and increase the intro rate of F35 - anything is possible in this SDR (except increasing the size of our Forces!).

VinRouge
4th Jul 2010, 20:29
It was a russian that came up with the stealth "equation"... Looks as if the ruskies have really learned how to exploit it.

Was pretty pessemistic until I saw the AESA radar and LE radar, plusplasma countermeasures - all pretty cutting edge.

Of course, until it goes up against AMRAAM, no-one will know. Fortunately at the mo, only the Indians and russians are getting them... for now.

Ned Parsnip
5th Jul 2010, 08:21
Like Merlin and Typhoon, F35 is in production at the same time as flight testing continues. Thanks Bismark :ok:

Still, progress to date hardly inspires much confidence in Lockheed's latest projections.

SSSETOWTF
6th Jul 2010, 22:30
Sometimes I despair.

Time for an Stealthy US IRST sharpish... If you even had a tiny bit of knowledge about the F-35 you'd know about this - F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) (http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/).

F35=cannon fodder for this thing... Erm, no it's not. It takes a lot more than a fancy paint job. You might be surprised to learn that the company that built the F-117, the F-16 and the F-22 still knows a thing or 2 about building combat airplanes.

The US, with a long track record of building stealth aircraft have had the F-35 in flight test for years, has hundreds of hours of flight test with the sensors in flying testbeds, and has over 200 hours of flight test in 8 prototypes. The Russians fly their first LO aircraft for the first time, and everyone throws their hands up in the air saying that the end of the world is nigh. Somehow everyone unquestioningly believes every single word of Russian propaganda, and by looking at a couple of photographs infers that they've somehow made quantum leaps in technology - all without spending any money. At the same time Lockheed Martin are not to be trusted. Does anyone else think this is a slightly bonkers approach, or is it just me??

Regards,

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

glad rag
6th Jul 2010, 23:43
Sorry mate, didn't mean to flick your switch. :hmm:

Yes I had read all that guff but I don't trust to "company" spiel, we've learned the hard way before.

But if it works, that will be a superb SA advantage, pity the platform it is nailed on to will be have been leapfrogged in performance terms.

Bear in mind that the opposition have has "stealth" in their sights for for how long now?? 1 decade or 2??? I think that designing an aircraft that performs below the Raptor is taking a big chance with other peoples lives.

Oh and 1 donkey over the ocean @ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ a pop, DUMB.

qsat2ows----see I can type meaningless stuff too :) what was that about flying bricks?

John Farley
7th Jul 2010, 10:54
Oh and 1 donkey over the ocean @ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ a pop, DUMB.

May have been true a long time ago but not these days.

You may be interested to know that when the USN put out the requirement for a new trainer to replace the Buckeye they specified it must have two engines. BAe felt this was wrong so put in a non-compliant bid with a modified Hawk. As part of this process we set about educating folk about the modern realities of multi engined military aircraft. As you know the T-45 eventually won in a fly-off against the Alphajet (a twin)

Incidentally the first Tornado lost was due to a double engine failure as was the first Eurofighter and the first Alphajet.

The B Word
7th Jul 2010, 20:11
As you know the T-45 eventually won in a fly-off against the Alphajet (a twin)

...nothing to do with the BAE partnering with McDonnell-Douglas then? Especially, when Dassault-Dornier had no US partnering agreement?

Come on John, there are many more reasons why the Hawk was chosen over the Alpha Jet than the "1 engine vs 2 engine" debate.

The fact that both donks failed on the aircraft that you mentioned does not negate the fact that many a twin-engine aircraft has returned on 1 donk safely - Hawk, Harrier and A4 drivers would have definately had to step over the side, if this had happened to them (excluding dead-stick)!

Nope, single engined jets have no "insurance" compared to multi-engined jets. What's even dumber about the JSF STOVL version is that it carries a perfectly serviceable 2nd engine pointing in the wrong direction (ie. the lift fan) - now that is dumb!

The B Word :ok:

PS I always thought that the first Tornado loss was P.08 in June 1979 and it was a CFIT oversea in the Irish Sea?

Bismark
7th Jul 2010, 21:12
JSF STOVL version is that it carries a perfectly serviceable 2nd engine pointing in the wrong direction (ie. the lift fan) - now that is dumb!

Not sure it is an engine....it is a lift fan driven by the main (single) engine.

I am not aware that we have lost any more single engine aircraft than twins...indeed we may have lost more of the latter.

The B Word
7th Jul 2010, 21:32
Not sure it is an engine....it is a lift fan driven by the main (single) engine.

Yup, you're right, I had clocked it as an engine until now - still a large amount of dead weight IMHO

http://air-attack.com/MIL/jsf/jsf_vstolengine.jpg

John Farley
7th Jul 2010, 21:56
The B word

Come on John, there are many more reasons why the Hawk was chosen over the Alpha Jet than the "1 engine vs 2 engine" debate.

I do not see how my post could be interpreted as suggesting that was the reason why the Hawk won. I certainly did not intend that - I merely made the point that a single engined aircraft was chosen over a twin despite the original spec requiring a twin.

I implied there were good reasons why BAe won the 'single is safer than a twin' debate in the context of that competition. Please note those words 'in the context of that competition'. I stand by that. It involved the thrust that was required for the mission, the effect of splitting that between two engines, issues with soak times before takeoff that are engine core diameter related, the complexity and power absorption of a gearbox that can run the aircraft services from either engine and many other things.

It may seem an obvious to thing to say that two will always be better than one but the engineering suggests otherwise in some cases.

If you still cannot see what I am getting at ask yourself whether you would enjoy throttling back to half thrust as you went down the cat in a T-45 at max AUW? Of course not. The only way that would be acceptable would be at a lighter weight.

You are quite entitled to hold your views but I happen not to share them.

The B Word
7th Jul 2010, 22:41
I hear your technical points and agree with most of them. However, the success of the T45 bid was also to do with US jobs as well - had the French/Germans offered a single engined bid, I'm pretty sure they would not have been successful either.

On the subject of whether I would sooner have half thrust halfway down the cat-launch? Yes, you bet, as my jet would decelerate slower than with no thrust and I might just avoid being run over by a blooming great carrier as I 'plop' off the end of it!

Still, that's just an opinion, that's all...

The B Word

SSSETOWTF
8th Jul 2010, 01:43
glad rag,

You haven't flicked my switch at all old chap. But as I said, I despair that there are people (you're clearly not the only one) who don't trust LockMart's company spiel, but lap up Sukhoi's as if it were gospel. Seems like a very unbalanced position to take to me. Yes the Russians have been trying to figure out how to crack the stealth nut for decades, but that doesn't mean that they have. Even if they've got their design absolutely sorted at the first attempt, and their sensors have somehow incorporated alien technology, Russian aircraft maintenance and manufacturing is not world-reknowned for its quality, and LO aircraft are highly dependent on both to keep their signatures down.

I suppose your single-minded obsession for F-22 dog-fighting manoeuvrability is your reason for thinking that the F-35 isn't worth buying? I'm afraid that, as I'm only a simple pilot who's dumb enough to fly single-engined airplanes over the sea, I don't understand your banter. Ever since 1914 or so there have been highly manoeuvrable fighters (such as the Camel, Spitfire IX or F-22 and Typhoon), and slightly less manoeuvrable aircraft that are optimized for schwacking ground targets. The situation today is no different. Except there is a difference - if you're a really quite stealthy striker and have the best radar, IRST and datalinks on the battlefield, you've got no excuse for ever stumbling into a turning fight with anyone. How many turning fights did the F-117 get into during its service life, even including exercises? How many B-2s have been caught unawares in exercises?

Finally, if the US won't sell you an F-22 even if you wanted one anyway, surely it's a moot point? Unless you think BAE can just whip one up for us in a couple of years...?

We can do the whole 1 vs 2 engine debate somewhere else and some other time. Regards,

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

LOAgent
8th Jul 2010, 11:33
I strongly suspect that if we asked, with the caveat that JSF was proving too difficult for us, the US would indeed sell us F-22s. I think the biggest problem would be the RN and BAe workshare issues. I completely agree with the LM proven products versus Sukhoi flannel argument. How quick we are to rubbish the proven in service products vice the projected capabilities of a product form a company that has yet to produce a combat proven LO platform.

glad rag
17th Jul 2010, 17:14
I suppose your single-minded obsession for F-22 dog-fighting manoeuvrability is your reason for thinking that the F-35 isn't worth buying? I

You couldn't be further from the truth there.

GR