Thursday, October 22, 2009

Outlines of PAK FA


Since the article of Alexander Pachkov ('Paralay') in Nov, 2009 issue of Russan-language 'Popular Mechanic' journal has produced a great interest, I translated the short essential of this text. Paralay is the editor of the popular site 'Stealth Machines'. The article is about PAK FA/FGFA program. Since I cannot check the Paralay's sources out, the question of information reliability is up to a reader. The outlines of his article:

1)      Can hope for 10-15% PAKFA advantage over F-22 due to two decades of tech. development.
2)      F-22 detects Su35 from the distance of 150-180 km but can open fire from 110 km, while becomes visible for Su-35's radar by itself and on R-77 range of attack.


3)      OLS-35 probably detects Raptor on 100 km distance.
4)      PAKFA's AESA radar has probably 1526 modules with overall power 18 KWt. Range for a big air target – 400. TWS/A = 60/16.
5)      Active antennas in the wings and tail are probable.  
6)      OLS with 360 deg.
7)      Backward attacking missiles.
8)      Has up to 12 Air-to-air missiles (if compact) in internal placement.
9)      Two internal bays for WLRAAMs and LRAAMs up to 700 kg each. + 2 bays for short range missiles.
10)  While Raptor can have up to 8 missiles in the internal bays.
11)  WLRAAM 'Izdelie 810'  is MiG-31 R-33 derivative. 400 km.
12)  LRAAM 'Izdelie-180PD' is air-breath R-77 derivative. 250 km.
13)  'Izdelie-180' – solid-fuel R-77 derivative 110-140 km. With active and passive radar, homing on jammer.
14)  Short range AAM – 'Izdelie-300' or K-MD IR matrix, double range of homing.
15)  Kh-58UShKE
16)  Kh-35
17)  500 kg guided and unguided bombs and cassette munition.
18)  Intrafuselage cathapults UVKU-50L – up to 300 kg, UVKU-50U – up to 700 kg.
19)  Internal bays total weight 2.000 kg
20)  With + external hardpoints – 6.000 kg.
21)  GSh-30 30 mm autocannon.
22)  According to the plans – 430 planes must be built for RuAF.
23)  Probably price $80 mil.
24)  Will replace 339 Su-27 and 300 MiG-31


72 comments:

  1. Hi Igor

    Thanks for taking the trouble to translate for benefit of all ; however I am interested to know the dimensions of the proposed PAk-FA design according to 'Parlay' in 'Popular Mechanic'.
    I am wondering as to what size fighter can accommodate 'Izdelie 810' class missile in the internal weapons bay .

    --Negi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Igor:
    Interesting! Since you have translated this from a Russian Magazine, can you tell us if this Mr. Parlay has mentioned the source for his information? Does he claim to have inside info or is he speculating like many others. Personally, I would just hope that many of these claims turn out be true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi
    IGOR i wont to know your opinion can Pak-fa ( su-50 ) provided air superiority or no.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Igor
    1.Can you point out the differences of the Indian FAFA and the Russian Airforce version. Will it only be restricted to the two seat and single seat or will there be any other signifiant differences.
    2.What is Indian contribution to the project.
    3.How many fighters will India buy and how many will russia buy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Igor,

    Thank you for providing the translation. I have a question please.

    the article mentions 430 planes must be built for the RuAF. Other sources on the net mention total production of 600 planes.

    Does the article mention planned total production numbers at all?

    Thanks-
    Raghava

    ReplyDelete
  6. to igorr

    if OLS35 has range of 90km now in 2015 its going to be 150km in front hemispere

    also we can't read all that magzine papers cuz they r in russian

    and also explain the meaning of "izdelie". is this the mane of company if yes plz give URL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow!! thanks Igor !! can u provide some information about the stealth features of the plane if on that issue...

    ReplyDelete
  8. izdelie is russian for "item" , so izdelie 810 is just item nr 810. not very spectacular i know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. to naveen:

    Have put a new pic with PAKFA dimentions. Look for them on the pic. Other sources however are few different about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have a hunch that last drowing you added is about it. So if specs are as told by Paralay PAK-FA will be best 5th gen fighter for a period of at least 50 years or so with hudge export success. I mean air-superiority with more power in engines than Raptor and similar air performance but 360 deg covered radar/OLS and netcentric with largest internal weapons bay .. wow .. thats about good as its gets.

    ReplyDelete
  11. to anon October 22, 2009 11:19 PM:

    Even would Paralay has an insider source for some of his info, he hardly can say about it without the risk to be accused in secret leakage. It's obvious. Indeed even an info from a manufacturer can be misleading, there are lot of such examples of incorrectnesses. So conformity and coherence of the information from different independent sources are always needed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. to Zoki.
    Hi!
    The air-superiority role is the central for PAKFA per intention. I think it's gonna be so in reality. Have no big doubts about this at the least.

    ReplyDelete
  13. to anon October 22, 2009 11:19 PM:

    The Indian input will be just great relative to other Ind0-Russian joint ventures till now.

    1) Almost all composites on both version, since India has for now more advanced manufacturing line for composites.
    2) Two-seater avionics.
    3) Most of electronics on FGFA version. Including Radar's DSP. Hardware and especially software/
    4) FGFA final engine will be per Indian choice, so probably being MKIsed western or Russian engine, difference in nozzles could be too.
    5) The well expected in 10 years Naval versions will be probably even more different.
    4)

    ReplyDelete
  14. to Raghava:

    The plans is something changeable as we all can see with F-22 reducing number. Any plans will be in coordination with parallel development in potentially rival countries, i.e. US, China, NATO.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Igor I am posting an intresting link about PAKFA:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149828

    ReplyDelete
  16. To Igor,
    "2)Two-seater avionics
    3)Most of electronics on FGFA version...)"

    Does that mean that Pak Fa won't have any Indian input than composites?
    Does the article say anything about the unit costs?

    ReplyDelete
  17. To Sancho:
    Progressive composites - is a half of project success since payload, stealth and airframe life are heavy depended of it. I think, everyone must do what can do the best. It's a key for competitiveness. If some avionic kit can be developed and produced in India - it's welcome. Otherwise, in India will be produced those parts, which is economically worth produce in India, and which is worth in Russia will be done there. It's depended of manufacturing effectiveness, what I want to say. THey will look for private sector submanufacturers in both countries.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Igor thanks for translating it, but it remains to be seen how close is Paralay work with actual aircraft. PAK-FA is still a classified project

    ReplyDelete
  19. I love it!!! This Pak-Fa, the Russians are making extensive use of their AESA technology. Continue to keep us up-to-date.

    Igor, do you have any intomation, 'leader links' on Russian made CPUs, computer chips, etc. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Igor:
    Do you think India will buy the PAK-FA in small numbers atleast? Or are they looking at FGFA only? I am pretty sure that the PAK-FA will be ready for induction atleast 5 years before the FGFA. So do you think India will go for a squadron or two of the PAK-FA?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Igor,
    Since, India is a partner in the PAK-FA project, will India share the profits with Russia or is the deal simply to develop FGFA for India? PAK-FA will definitely generate lot of interest in many nations around the world and the export prospects look bright. Will India have any say in matters relating to exports? Also, will production line be set up in India for the PAK-FA(not FGFA) to supply to the global demand? Please clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  22. imndia should be much grateful to Russia that the Russians are even considering giving a say to Indians in the designs of 5th generation plane while the indian establishment has sold itself out fully to the british and american interests the very enemies of russia!. Indians have already forgotten that russians supplied them with the msot advanced tank of the time t90; advanced war plane mig 29 with payment in wiorthless rupees-! how long can Russia go on favouring the american stooge like present indian prime minster and whole cabinet?
    as an indian i feel ashamed of t=indian treachery and ungratefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  23. When are we going to see a real PAK-FA prototype.....????i cannot wait to see raptor killer....go PAK-FA go..:)

    ReplyDelete
  24. hello igor
    1.can you give more details on the WLRAAM 'Izdelie 810',LRAAM 'Izdelie-180PD','Izdelie-180','Izdelie-300' or K-MD IR matrix.

    2.AIM-120D AMRAAM has a range of 120 mile which of the above weapons can compete it as advanced r-77 will have a range of 110-140 km.

    3.can you tell about the features of R-77RVV-AE-PD and the R-77M1.

    4.the R-73 and R-77 has 60° off-boresight but the AIM9X SIDEWINGER and the AIM 120D AMRAAM has 90° off-boresight how is this deficiency countered.

    5.what is the very great range missile of 350km range in the last picture can you tell more about that.

    6.will the PAK-FA AESA radar have SWASH-PLATES like the vicker rader offered by SAAB GRIPEN in the mrca as it is a serious technology.

    THANK YOU....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi
    [FGFA final engine will be per Indian choice, so probably being MKIsed western or Russian engine, difference in nozzles could be too.]

    Why does India want an aircraft engine that would be different from what Russia has to offer for PAK-FA? Recently ACM of IAF in an interview to force said that the joint Indian-French engine will be the engine of choice for all future compbat aircrafts.
    Why so?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanx Igor,

    You're doing a great job in bringing out interim reports about this very exciting a/c. I believe that both the PAK-FA and the FGFA will be more efficient than their western counterparts. I anxiously await the PAK-FA's first flight and your reports on the unveiled product. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I also hope that the Indians chose the MiG-35 instead of the other over-rated and over-priced western jets in the MMRCA competition. Many if not most of the Indian media and defense forums have sold out (many for free in anticipation of a fee or a pat on the head in future), giving attributes to the F-18SH and the F-16SV that are either non-existant or ireelevant in actual combat.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I posted the following comment for another article by you.

    I am Ram. Thanks to All for the comments.
    I want a strong friendship between India and Russia & between India-US. I also wish to see a close relationship between Russia-US-Israel. But in US and Russia there are some sections of politicians and bureaucrats want the hostility to go on between these two nations. Only reason I see is the "ego". Russians are the best people to help US in Afghanistan. The earlier US gets the help of Russia it is better for US. Similarly, the earlier Russia helps the US in Afghanistan, it is better for Russia's sovereignty and security.

    One Chinese prof told me once that hostility between Soviet Union and China helped US to make better understanding and close relation with China. Former Soviet Union's collapse catalyzed China's growth. I guess, now also a strong Russia would be a pain the ass for China.

    India, Russia, Israel and Europe and US are becoming victims of International terrorism and Chinese hegemony (it was really humorous to read when Chinese newspaper reported 'India's hegemony'). I have a Russian friend, who told me that some of the Eastern regions of Russia are mostly inhabited by Chinese immigrants. The local language spoken in those regions is Hans Chinese. Unfortunately, in Russia the population growth is downwards and the gap in population is getting filled by jihadi Muslims and Chinese immigrants.

    October 23, 2009 8:45 PM

    ReplyDelete
  29. to Tony:
    Hi! About Russian processors I will make a next post about this. THanx for the question!

    PS. Sorry all visitors, I am in the middle of travels, then cannot answer with usual regularity. Please, be patient!

    ReplyDelete
  30. to anon October 24, 2009 12:28 PM:

    Whatever was called it FGFA is a deap indegenisation of PAKFA. Even if Indian AF/IN decide to buy a number of one-seater 5th gen fighters they will be most close to the 2-seater FGFA, than the PAKFA variant of RuAF.

    ReplyDelete
  31. to anon October 24, 2009 12:35 PM:

    PAKFA/FGFA joint program is different from Brahmos prog since isnt used to be a joint venture with a fixed shareholding. So, the premium of the partners in export sells (when and if it would be) is not described from the beginning. When export of 5th gen fighters will be more actual, the partners must solve all these questions during additional negotiations. I dont see another way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. to anon October 25, 2009 8:54 AM:

    The Indian mil-tech politics includes the principal of diversification between reliable partners. Since France is one so, it's obvious a candidate for a share in FGFA project (via engine-building cooperation). Will see if the plans could be implemented in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  33. How many PAK FAs would the Russian VVS be able to field?

    In my opinion, about three squadrons, maybe four, given the high price tag of a 5th Gen fighter.

    The Indian Air Force may, at best, be able to field two squadrons of FGFAs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. to haker:

    Hi!
    From what sources did you take the AIM-120D tech. characteristics described in your post? Pleas give me a reference to a reliable source about those and I will try answer to all your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  35. hello igor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
    says that it has 90° off-boresight
    and
    http://www.63rdvfs.com/files/56thAirCombatCoursePart1.2.ppt
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1443826
    and
    some forum says that AMRAAM has 90° off-boresight

    though what are in forums cannot be taken into account and there is a great chance of being wrong some says that AMRAAM ha 90° off-boresight.

    so can you now please answer all my previous question i really want to now about the new russian Air to Air missiles.
    THANK YOU..

    ReplyDelete
  36. to haker

    Wiki hardly can be used as a reliable source in tech issues since each people can add anything he wants, especially while national ego pushes him for this. About forums you understand by yourself they are very unreliable since have different contradicted positions. So they are only opinions. BTW, the developer never claimed 120 miles range for AIM-120D as a reality.

    In your second link we read:

    'The AIM-120 is an all aspect weapon capable of tracking and engaging targets at any angle from the launching aircraft. Typical head on engagement maximum launch range is around 18-20 miles, although under perfect conditions 28 - 34 mile shots are possible….just very unlikely. For typical tail chase shots, maximum launch range is usually around 4 – 6 miles.''

    - Nothing was said about even close to 120 miles range.

    - The same I doubt about 90 deg off-boresight work of active radar, it is not even on Raptor's radar. So I cannot believe for your AIM-120D figures. They seam to me highly over estimated, and reflect rather wishes or plans than today's reality. Comparing today's RVV-AE characteristics with may-be-in-future AIM-120D is not a proper way of thinking. Thus I prefer to suspend my judgment about this.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks igor you are wright
    it was my misunderstanding thanks for correcting me
    1.can you give more details on the WLRAAM 'Izdelie 810',LRAAM 'Izdelie-180PD','Izdelie-180','Izdelie-300' or K-MD IR matrix.

    2.can you tell about the features of R-77RVV-AE-PD and the R-77M1.

    3.what is the very great range missile of 350km range in the last picture can you tell more about that.

    4.will the PAK-FA AESA radar have SWASH-PLATES like the vicker rader offered by SAAB GRIPEN in the mrca ,I think they have tried and has not found it suitable for PAK-FA.

    THANK YOU....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks igor you are wright
    it was my misunderstanding thanks for correcting me
    1.can you give more details on the WLRAAM 'Izdelie 810',LRAAM 'Izdelie-180PD','Izdelie-180','Izdelie-300' or K-MD IR matrix.

    2.can you tell about the features of R-77RVV-AE-PD and the R-77M1.

    3.what is the very great range missile of 350km range in the last picture can you tell more about that.

    4.will the PAK-FA AESA radar have SWASH-PLATES like the vicker rader offered by SAAB GRIPEN in the mrca ,I think they have tried and has not found it suitable for PAK-FA.

    THANK YOU....

    ReplyDelete
  39. Igor,

    Do you know whether the Institute of Computer Aided Design (ICAD, RAS) led by Aademician Oleg Belotserkovskiy has any overt role in the design of the PAK-FA, or is it via TsAGI?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  41. to igorr

    can you post link how MK80 seeker for R73 and 36T seeker for R27T looks like behind magnesium flouride glass,if you have info or link please post it on bharat rakshak in indian missile technolgy section

    thx

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Igor

    Can you confirm whether the engines on PAK FA and FGFA are same or not. If they are different whats the rationale behind it

    Thanks, Hari

    ReplyDelete
  43. to haker
    1) can only say with sureness that IR matrix for all new Russian IR guided AAMs will have two-diapazon (two-color).
    2)RVV-MD - range 40 km, two-color IR seeker, up to 12G maneuvering targets (not the missile of course), 60 deg lock-on.
    RVV-SD - range 110 km. it's oficially . The remained you can as well look in the Internet.

    Swash-plate - is a 4th gen design, Bars - is a swash-plate ESA indeed. The 5th gen radars will have conformal skin antennas.

    ReplyDelete
  44. to Hari:

    From the start the Russian sources indicated that the Indian side wants an open option for a different engine for FGFA. So, the question is whether the Indian position is consistence on this issue or even finally formulated till now? I think, it is not.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi Igor

    You promise air to air rocket part two we steel expect him.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Igor last month in first week of september there were reports in our media about kaveri engine. According to them kaveri engine was being sent to Russia for high altitude tests. Do you have any information about latest developments in this matter ? We are becoming restless to hear good news.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Igor buddy!!

    Is here any news of Mikoyan/klimov helping India with the MCA program?
    I read somewhere that Mig/klimov effecively help us design a twin engine stalth fighter in the F/A 18 class to complement the PAK FA.

    Any info would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  48. to anon November 5, 2009 12:25 PM:

    There were a strong evidence that India was interested in MiG's light 5th gen project, which lost competition to Sukhoi PAK FA. However, now when India exhibited so much support to heavier FGFA, the MCA destiny is not clear for me. Long time we dont hear any new about further MCA development, so I cannot decide what is vitality level of this program.

    As a rule the Russians are very supportive and fair in joint developments, even when it could be a competitor grows. If they helped to Italy for the trainer development, to China (L-15 etc), they would help India's MCA with triple willingness. Methinks India yet decided if it needs MCA in addition to FGFA or not.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I think there is no real MCA project running by MoD, it could be mainly a tech demonstrator of HAL, based on the techs of LCA. But there is the problem, LCAs techs are not even developed yet, what means MCA is nowhere near to be developed. Also the role for MCA is planed as as 5. gen strike fighter, will most likely taken over by stealth UCAVs like Mig Skat in future. Smaller, less chance to be detected, can be build cheaper and no risk of human life. For any other missions FGFA an not to forget many MKIs, MMRCAs and LCAs will be in the fleet for several decades.

    ReplyDelete
  50. to Samcho:

    Now India has two 5th gen fighter programs (FGFA and MCA) and a new 4th gen (LCA). It's more than US have, and I think is too big for even so big and financially strong country like India. Almost for sure they will transform MCA to a UCAV 6th gen program or close it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Site has some great articles about Pak-Fa, Su-35, etc written from a western viewpoint.

    http://www.ausairpower.net

    ReplyDelete
  52. Igor:
    Hi why are 2 FG fighters financially unvialble.

    PAK FA the R & D is split with Russia with Russia making 90%+ of the critical components and is intended to be F-22 class.

    MCA the work is mostly in India and is supposed to be a numbers fighter which can be mass produced like a fifth generation mig-29.
    i.e it will be Cheaper for IAF in 2025-2030 to be
    1000+ MCA and 300+ PAK FA than around 1000+ PAK
    FA.

    BTW what can u tell me about
    Mikoyan-Gurevich LMFS project 1.27 ?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  53. to anon November 9, 2009 11:06 AM:

    Not so 'financially unavailable', as probabilistically unlike. There are many other programs which need close attention, research resources allocation and financing in India. Two 5th gen tactical fighter programs is an overkill, while a lot of other not less important programs are in retardation (like LCA). So, expect MCA transformation to something more actual, like a prospective 6th gen UCAV.

    ReplyDelete
  54. to anon

    Why should MCA be cheaper? The big advantage in Pak Fa development is, that most of the techs are just further developments, of techs that are now available for the Flankers (radar, engine, TVC, weapons...). MCA on the other side has nearly no base at the moment, because all techs it could share with LCA are not ready! Kaveri engine, AESA radar, only under development and needs more time and money till they get ready. And after they are ready they must be further developed for a 5. gen MCA.
    Besides that, the only fighters MCA could replace before 2030/40 are the Jaguars. All other upg fighter like 40 x Mig 27, 60 x Mig 29 and 50 x Mirage 2k will be replaced by FGFA anyway.
    As Igor said, two fifth gen developments side by side makes no sense and especially if there are no fighters to replace. Jaguars are just ground attack fighters and would be better and cheaper replaced by UCAVs. A manned MCA in mass production makes only sense as MKI replacements by 2035/40, possibly as a 6. gen fighter then.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Actually the thing is in the Russian PAK FA we are not really learning how to design anything basically it is a fifth generation mki i.e Russia makes the plane and we customize it.

    The MCA on the other hand will teach us to build our own 5th gen plane with some foreign hand holding and make sure that the hard lessons learnt while developing the LCA won't be forgotten when the current generation of senior designers retires in 10-15 years.

    The thing is its embarrasing to the point of being a national shame how little of the big ticket items our air force and army can design and produce in India.Navy though is a different happy story.Don't get me wrong Russia is a great friend but I think its about time we make most of the important stuff ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  56. to Anon

    Actually this attitude to make anything on our own, is the reason why LCA suffers this delays. It is totally unrealistic that we can produce high tech arms on our own, with such a lack of experience. If we had done LCA in a similar way like PAK did JF 17, with a co-development for engine and radar, numbers of LCA would be flying now. Now that everything is delayed we try to find partners for reducing weight, fixing Kaveri, or radar problem, making changes for N-LCA.
    Again to MCA, yes we might learn some more and improve our design and tech capabilities, but you don't have to produce a fighter in numbers for that. A simple tech demonstrator would be enough!

    ReplyDelete
  57. to sancho:

    umm Pak is basically building the metal shell of jf-17 with avionics from china and engine from russia,we did much much more in su 30mki atleast we build over 80% of it from raw materials on Indian territory.

    What co development of JF-17 r u talking about? the engine is RD-93 from russia and the radar is fiat grifo from Italy(not even licence assembled in Pakistan)

    there are no two ways about it if u can't design your own fighter plane u will NEVER be considered a major power.

    Its not easy but in the next 10 years with russia backing us,our economy booming and the west not actively out to screw us and the sobering experience of the LCA behind us is the time we capitalize on everything we have and build the MCA.It will be a stretch no doubt but well worth the effort.

    What have we got to loose? the worst case is we will waste 2-3 bn usd over 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I naturally don't expect MCA program will keep its previous consolidated 5th gen face. More expect to using of some ideas took from MCA (fin-free design etc) on LCA mk2 and the program transformation to 6th gen project. It will not be cheaper or less ambitious than the initial MCA program for sure. So, you can be calm :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. to Anon

    That's what I meant, they got ready and proven engine and could concentrate on other things in the development. If we did the same, or at least made a co-development with France, or Russia on the engine/radar part right from the start, it wouldn't be so delayed. Now we trying to find to get a foreign engine, have to integrate it into LCA, which means more money wasted, more delays and still not a single LCA inducted.
    The LCA project was the right move, but the way it was done was unrealistic, just like thinking about an indigenously made next gen fighter.

    ReplyDelete
  60. To Igor:

    What do u think are the chances of Russia developing MCA with India Mig/Klimov basically.I can see 3 advantages for Russia:

    1.Export potential of PAK FA is not very bright given it is F-22 class a mig-29 replacement JSFski is required.

    2.This will keep alive the mig/klimov cluster to prevent a Sukhoi/NPO saturn monopoly to form going forward.More competition=lower costs+more choices

    3.It will permanently give Russia access to Indian fighterplane solutions market(the world's second largest).

    Your views?

    ReplyDelete
  61. to anon November 12, 2009 10:03 AM:

    - MiG has merged with Sukhoi in UAC, and the former Sukhoi 's chief Pogosyan became the new chief of MiG. So the competition logic doesn't work here already. For India is more actual now to complete the LCA mk2 design on decent (4th+ gen) level and starting to sell it abroad. It's a target ambitious enough and involving much of Indian R&D resources.

    ReplyDelete
  62. One of extrimly important details (correct me if I'm wrong) is how many planes Sukhoi will be able to produce if production starts in 2015
    Will they oppen new production lines comparing to
    those they have today?
    They will have to do lots of catching up on number of F-22's and if they go to slow in production, wouldn't that put USA in position to compansate with new F-35 and reaffirme USA total dominance in stealth planes comparing with Russia?
    Also apart from Pak Da will there be another 5th generation Russian project like MIG's one engined - LFS (LCA)?
    Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Igor:

    What's happening on the russian slbm bulava front,I thought it was a straightforward development of Topol M ICBM which works like clockwork why so much problems with the missile ?
    Also u think the yassen class submarine will hit the water next year?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Igor:

    2 quwstions:

    1.What is general russian public opinion on India?

    2.Is there any english medium russian defence discussion forums like Bharat rakshak,Sinodefence etc?

    ReplyDelete
  65. to anon November 16, 2009 9:09 AM:

    1) in two words: between positive to indifferent. India is calculated on Russian allies side, but the estimated importance of this fact is very different between different persons.
    2) Few exist, with little importance and mostly non-russian participators. Not to be mentioned IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  66. to anon November 16, 2009 8:40 AM:

    the crash comission decided it was a manufacturing problem in 1st rocket stage guiding system. to be solved before Bulava will be ready. Although they are manufacturing as 90% of first Bulava batch and only waiting for the fixed problem components. May be in 2010 it will be ready all over the first Bulava batch for pr. 955.

    ReplyDelete
  67. to anon November 15, 2009 10:34 PM:

    I doubt Russia will try compete with USA in planes number if not the economic reality will change radically not in favor of American economy. But who know...

    There are no plans in Russia for other 5th gen tactical fighter apart with PAKFA/FGFA. To develop it for AF and Navy needs is a goal
    ambitious enough.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Igor,

    How far is the development of Mig Skat and when will it have it's first flight?

    Regards, Sancho

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi, Sancho!

    In fact after an occasional demonstration the MiG's stealth UCAV program was classified again. We dont know indeed the current status of the program.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Igor could u kindly compare and contrast bulava with trident D5 my understanding is that it has much faster time to target but also has much lower throw weight than the D5.

    Also your opinion of the French M51 SLBM.

    ReplyDelete
  71. wow, such a rich information on a plan that is essentially, well, not existent yet.

    "Igor could u kindly compare and contrast bulava with trident D5"

    Easy. There's only one relevant difference you know, the latter works, the former doesn't.

    ReplyDelete