By: JSR
- 22nd November 2013 at 03:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russians had to buy souped up Searcher II UAV's from Israel to "learn" from them, and same time Chinese are flying their own drones. Of course systems what make a fighter jet are different, but things are not that black and white when it comes to aircraft technology.
If Russian were decades ahead in every area they would not be buying drones from Israel.
you cannot learn from $400m deal when your going to spend $13b on development alone.
UAV buy is more favor to Israel just like Mistral deal with France. Turkey is not buying that much from Israel. India has slowed down Barak missile and there is no follow up of Phalcon. Nato countries and US are in sequestration that will decrease Israel exports.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 22nd November 2013 at 05:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are right but missed one thing IMOHO: the 29 had two engines and did fulfill the job of export until cold war put the Rouble at such a level that it didn't make so much diff to go for the big one.
So lets be clear, Su does not hve to review its copy from scratch. In my view, it's well the opposite. A scaled down version, will do the job.
yes but in the end the mig-29 ended up being heavy. its lighter than the flanker of course, but much heavier than its supposed counterparts in the west. also more complicated.
thats why its exports skyrocketed down after SU fell apart and a number of air forces preferring to either outright replace them or preferring the lighter simpler Mig-21.
probably in 15 years there would still be more mig-21 operators than mig-29.
russia had a chance to go for a single engined delta wing sukhoi fighter using the same engine as the su-27 but they didn't.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 22nd November 2013 at 05:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see any actual need for another fighter type in VVS.
Russia can probably get by w/o one, but it can't exactly export the pakfa as freely nor the supposed mig-31 replacement.
fulcrums are an old design that's losing competitiveness with more similar options out there. too many people here focused on security aspects of fighter design rather than the economic and financial aspects.. suggesting that russia give up its traditional markets to the west and china which would be glad to take it.
Many Countries are purchasing now 20+ years old F-16s or operating 30+ years old F-5s, Su-22s and the likes, no way they will ask for 5th gen fighters any time soon, rhe heavy as the light ones.
some say that's exactly the reason why there's a market out there.
By: MSphere
- 22nd November 2013 at 14:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only real direction a new development should perhaps go is to use a single 117 powered stealth fighter for export. Perhaps if India does opt for AMCA they can steer 117 engines towards them rather than letting the US sell them more F404IN engines. I'm all fine with the US engines, but they would be fools not to procure plenty of 117's to hedge against unforeseen political roadblocks with the FGFA.
Have you ever seen the F404 and 117 together? They could not be more different in size.
M.
By: MadRat
- 22nd November 2013 at 17:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AMCA is to have two engines from the LCA program, originally the Kaveri. Now that Kaveri is a perpetual research program it makes more sense to bolster the FGFA program engine. If they buy more F404IN it's good for U.S. jobs.
New
Posts: 184
By: palembang
- 22nd November 2013 at 23:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-31.
With DSI.
Now available in black. "You can have any colour as long as it's black" - Henry Ford
see, even indian know j31 is logical choice for russia.
By: verbatim
- 23rd November 2013 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia can probably get by w/o one, but it can't exactly export the pakfa as freely nor the supposed mig-31 replacement.
fulcrums are an old design that's losing competitiveness with more similar options out there. too many people here focused on security aspects of fighter design rather than the economic and financial aspects.. suggesting that russia give up its traditional markets to the west and china which would be glad to take it.
some say that's exactly the reason why there's a market out there.
They exported in the past Mig-25, to name just one, back in USSR times. Even actually paying the exports by itself, having been military aids to allied countries.
If there will be a Country able to pay for it and trusted enough, there will be export versions of PAK-FA.
On the other hand, R&D costs and limited numbers do not allow anything like a cheap LO fighter.
And di it could not be LO, it could ne easily Su-35.
Even 2nd hand ones, if Chile is happy procuring old european F-16s, many others poorer than Chile would have a high time operating souped-up Flankers.
By: Aurel
- 23rd November 2013 at 01:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russians don't have an exportable single engined fighter since 1980 something. They do rather well with selling heavy, twin engined fighters. I see no reason why this should change in the future.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 23rd November 2013 at 03:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russians don't have an exportable single engined fighter since 1980 something. They do rather well with selling heavy, twin engined fighters. I see no reason why this should change in the future.
By: nkvd
- 28th November 2013 at 19:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Palembang- What systems,avionics,radar,engines,etc would Russia get if it buys the J-31?What do you know about the J-31 that the rest of us don`t?What does the J-31 offer that SU-35 or mig-35 does not?
By: Deino
- 28th November 2013 at 20:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Palembang- What systems,avionics,radar,engines,etc would Russia get if it buys the J-31?What do you know about the J-31 that the rest of us don`t?What does the J-31 offer that PAKFA does not?
Sorry, but that's a stupid statement !
It is not the point what it offers more (in comparison to what the T50 could or will offer) but simply can the RuAF afford so many T50 that all older types can be replaced ... or could it be an option to purchase also a smaller design similar to the F-35, which maybe offers not everything but is probably a bit more affordable to be purchased in larger numbers. As such with already an Russian engine ... it could be an option even more if Russian avionics would be used !
By: JSR
- 28th November 2013 at 21:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but that's a stupid statement !
It is not the point what it offers more (in comparison to what the T50 could or will offer) but simply can the RuAF afford so many T50 that all older types can be replaced ... or could it be an option to purchase also a smaller design similar to the F-35, which maybe offers not everything but is probably a bit more affordable to be purchased in larger numbers. As such with already an Russian engine ... it could be an option even more if Russian avionics would be used !
Deino
yeah more stupid is wasting time on some thing irrelveant like J-31.
The following are disadvantages of J-31
1. Short range. so less flexibility in deployment. since internal fuel is smaller in J-31 the range multiplication advantage from Airrefueling is further eroded. One Airrefuelling gives Su-34 7000km range. J-31 will be half than that. so cannot effectively escort a strike package.
2. Less acceleration and less high altiude performance. It is obvious the range of missiles launched from such mediocre platform will be much less than T-50. and with less top end speed its ability to dictate fight and disengage at will be lot less.
3. introduction of costly training and maintaince by introducing another type along with limited upgrade flexibility of small airframe.
they are not even thinking of going smaller. small is for disposable UCAV. UCAV has very high crash rate relative to bomber/fighters and that are subsonic UCAVs. supersonic UCAV could be even more unreliable.
By: Tu 160
- 29th November 2013 at 01:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Im sure Russian designers can do much better then the J31 if given the green light but they can't just make something to their liking until the Russian Mod sets a requirement for a particular type of airframe. Even though Pakfa can be used as a Mig31 replacement as Pakfa is capable of Mach 2.6+ unlike the F22 which is limited to less than Mach 2 due to its one piece canopy starting to melt at high speed hence exactly why Pakfa uses a stronger 2 piece canopy made of more heat resistant material for high speed flight,still Mig31 is faster and its replacement should be even better and have longer ranger.
What Russian VVS needs is a multirole very heavy interceptor, long range escort fighter for Pakda,Tu160,Tu22M and strike aircraft missile carrier, have antisat capability and perhaps fast recon that would be a Mig31,Mig25R and Tu22M replacement as Pakda design might have its merits I hope,but it cannot be a Tu22M replacement as Pakda is not mach2+ capable. This new aircraft could be something like a highly modernized Sukhoi T4 but smaller have proper stealth shaping and have more modern aerodynamics but use high temperature resistant radar absorbing composite materials instead of titanium, be capable of Mach3.75 and sustained cruising speed of Mach3 and be able to cruise at 85,000ft This aircraft should use either 2,3 or even 4 type 30 second phase engines as planned on the Pakfa, have a very large internal fuel load and have a very large internal weapons bay that is significantly larger than the Pakfa or any other contemporary fighter so it can carry large amounts of long range air to air and air to ground missiles and be able to carry internally the Onix 2 hypersonic air to surface missile that is currently under development. It would be an unstoppable carrier killer, awacs and tanker killer and strike platform. Yes it would be very expensive probably $250 million-$300 million a piece but Russian Military budget is already $150 billion + if adjusted for CPP and is growing and will quite possibly be around $250 billion annually next decade so Russia can still afford about 50-75 or so of such platforms. Mig should be given the task of this project as they have the experience with the Mig31 design but with Sukhoi assistance as Mig is languishing with currently nothing else to do than making modernized Mig29 and some little UCAVs. Much better use of money than all that billion of $ that was wasted on those useless stupid olimpics.
By: nkvd
- 3rd December 2013 at 13:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but that's a stupid statement !
It is not the point what it offers more (in comparison to what the T50 could or will offer) but simply can the RuAF afford so many T50 that all older types can be replaced ... or could it be an option to purchase also a smaller design similar to the F-35, which maybe offers not everything but is probably a bit more affordable to be purchased in larger numbers. As such with already an Russian engine ... it could be an option even more if Russian avionics would be used
Deino
Sorry i meant compared to SU-35S or a potentially improved MIG -35.I edited my original post to reflect this
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 22nd November 2013 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you cannot learn from $400m deal when your going to spend $13b on development alone.
UAV buy is more favor to Israel just like Mistral deal with France. Turkey is not buying that much from Israel. India has slowed down Barak missile and there is no follow up of Phalcon. Nato countries and US are in sequestration that will decrease Israel exports.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 22nd November 2013 at 05:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes but in the end the mig-29 ended up being heavy. its lighter than the flanker of course, but much heavier than its supposed counterparts in the west. also more complicated.
thats why its exports skyrocketed down after SU fell apart and a number of air forces preferring to either outright replace them or preferring the lighter simpler Mig-21.
probably in 15 years there would still be more mig-21 operators than mig-29.
russia had a chance to go for a single engined delta wing sukhoi fighter using the same engine as the su-27 but they didn't.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 22nd November 2013 at 05:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia can probably get by w/o one, but it can't exactly export the pakfa as freely nor the supposed mig-31 replacement.
fulcrums are an old design that's losing competitiveness with more similar options out there. too many people here focused on security aspects of fighter design rather than the economic and financial aspects.. suggesting that russia give up its traditional markets to the west and china which would be glad to take it.
some say that's exactly the reason why there's a market out there.
Posts: 1,642
By: Twinblade - 22nd November 2013 at 05:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-31.
With DSI.
Now available in black.
"You can have any colour as long as it's black" - Henry Ford
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 22nd November 2013 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
a variation of this perhaps?
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 22nd November 2013 at 14:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you ever seen the F404 and 117 together? They could not be more different in size.M.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 22nd November 2013 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AMCA is to have two engines from the LCA program, originally the Kaveri. Now that Kaveri is a perpetual research program it makes more sense to bolster the FGFA program engine. If they buy more F404IN it's good for U.S. jobs.
Posts: 184
By: palembang - 22nd November 2013 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
see, even indian know j31 is logical choice for russia.
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 23rd November 2013 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russians are not going to buy any J-31's or any other Chinese fighter for that matter.
Posts: 261
By: verbatim - 23rd November 2013 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They exported in the past Mig-25, to name just one, back in USSR times. Even actually paying the exports by itself, having been military aids to allied countries.
If there will be a Country able to pay for it and trusted enough, there will be export versions of PAK-FA.
On the other hand, R&D costs and limited numbers do not allow anything like a cheap LO fighter.
And di it could not be LO, it could ne easily Su-35.
Even 2nd hand ones, if Chile is happy procuring old european F-16s, many others poorer than Chile would have a high time operating souped-up Flankers.
Posts: 261
By: verbatim - 23rd November 2013 at 00:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err, this could be relevant, perhaps... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humour
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 23rd November 2013 at 01:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russians don't have an exportable single engined fighter since 1980 something. They do rather well with selling heavy, twin engined fighters. I see no reason why this should change in the future.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 23rd November 2013 at 03:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But there is a reason: while price index goes up 6% typically, aviation goes up 14%,
heavy fighters are rapidly becoming too expensive to operate.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?95008-list-of-combat-aircraft-flight-cost-per-hour/page4
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 23rd November 2013 at 08:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha ha. A palembang thread...how about the J-10B for Russia? ;)
Posts: 207
By: nkvd - 28th November 2013 at 19:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Palembang- What systems,avionics,radar,engines,etc would Russia get if it buys the J-31?What do you know about the J-31 that the rest of us don`t?What does the J-31 offer that SU-35 or mig-35 does not?
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 28th November 2013 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, but that's a stupid statement !
It is not the point what it offers more (in comparison to what the T50 could or will offer) but simply can the RuAF afford so many T50 that all older types can be replaced ... or could it be an option to purchase also a smaller design similar to the F-35, which maybe offers not everything but is probably a bit more affordable to be purchased in larger numbers. As such with already an Russian engine ... it could be an option even more if Russian avionics would be used !
Deino
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 28th November 2013 at 21:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah more stupid is wasting time on some thing irrelveant like J-31.
The following are disadvantages of J-31
1. Short range. so less flexibility in deployment. since internal fuel is smaller in J-31 the range multiplication advantage from Airrefueling is further eroded. One Airrefuelling gives Su-34 7000km range. J-31 will be half than that. so cannot effectively escort a strike package.
2. Less acceleration and less high altiude performance. It is obvious the range of missiles launched from such mediocre platform will be much less than T-50. and with less top end speed its ability to dictate fight and disengage at will be lot less.
3. introduction of costly training and maintaince by introducing another type along with limited upgrade flexibility of small airframe.
they are not even thinking of going smaller. small is for disposable UCAV. UCAV has very high crash rate relative to bomber/fighters and that are subsonic UCAVs. supersonic UCAV could be even more unreliable.
Posts: 157
By: Tu 160 - 29th November 2013 at 01:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Im sure Russian designers can do much better then the J31 if given the green light but they can't just make something to their liking until the Russian Mod sets a requirement for a particular type of airframe. Even though Pakfa can be used as a Mig31 replacement as Pakfa is capable of Mach 2.6+ unlike the F22 which is limited to less than Mach 2 due to its one piece canopy starting to melt at high speed hence exactly why Pakfa uses a stronger 2 piece canopy made of more heat resistant material for high speed flight,still Mig31 is faster and its replacement should be even better and have longer ranger.
What Russian VVS needs is a multirole very heavy interceptor, long range escort fighter for Pakda,Tu160,Tu22M and strike aircraft missile carrier, have antisat capability and perhaps fast recon that would be a Mig31,Mig25R and Tu22M replacement as Pakda design might have its merits I hope,but it cannot be a Tu22M replacement as Pakda is not mach2+ capable. This new aircraft could be something like a highly modernized Sukhoi T4 but smaller have proper stealth shaping and have more modern aerodynamics but use high temperature resistant radar absorbing composite materials instead of titanium, be capable of Mach3.75 and sustained cruising speed of Mach3 and be able to cruise at 85,000ft This aircraft should use either 2,3 or even 4 type 30 second phase engines as planned on the Pakfa, have a very large internal fuel load and have a very large internal weapons bay that is significantly larger than the Pakfa or any other contemporary fighter so it can carry large amounts of long range air to air and air to ground missiles and be able to carry internally the Onix 2 hypersonic air to surface missile that is currently under development. It would be an unstoppable carrier killer, awacs and tanker killer and strike platform. Yes it would be very expensive probably $250 million-$300 million a piece but Russian Military budget is already $150 billion + if adjusted for CPP and is growing and will quite possibly be around $250 billion annually next decade so Russia can still afford about 50-75 or so of such platforms. Mig should be given the task of this project as they have the experience with the Mig31 design but with Sukhoi assistance as Mig is languishing with currently nothing else to do than making modernized Mig29 and some little UCAVs. Much better use of money than all that billion of $ that was wasted on those useless stupid olimpics.
Posts: 207
By: nkvd - 3rd December 2013 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry i meant compared to SU-35S or a potentially improved MIG -35.I edited my original post to reflect this
Posts: 24
By: b1a2j3m4b5 - 6th December 2013 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-22 = Not for export + belongs to a rather obsolete doctrine)[/QUOTE]
What obsolete doctrine are you referring to.... winning?