• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Current RuAF light fighter projects

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
481
Reaction score
621
^ you mentioned that the S-70 will be the 'light fighter' of the next generation.
are there any useful info on its weapon bay size? all ive read that its supposed to be able to carry 2000kg
looks a bit small from these eye balls.

also will Russia be okay having Sukhoi and its factories build everything? Su-57, Su-35, S-70
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
226
Reaction score
188
The payload of the Su-70 is confusing, some sources give it 2000kg some give it this.

Serial "Armata", Su-57 and exoskeletons: Rostec told about the prospects of the military-industrial complex in 2021 (3na5n22lvmj63her4dozpirpk4--naukatehnika-com.translate.goog)

"In parallel, tests of the S-70 Okhotnik heavy unmanned bomber are underway. Sergey Chemezov stressed that the Ministry of Defense "asks to speed up as much as possible" to complete work on the UAV. Recall that the "Okhotnik" is a fifth-generation slave UAV, which can work in conjunction with the Su-57. On the external sling and in bomb compartments, the S-70 can carry up to 8 tons of combat load, which can be delivered to a maximum range of 6,000 km."

The only thing that troubles me is that the 2024 production date sounds too good to be true, like this project just came out of nowhere and has a early date planned. Without a doubt I think Sukhoi might set a record here in terms of a aviation project that is quickly introduced than thrown into service.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
51
Reaction score
161
^ you mentioned that the S-70 will be the 'light fighter' of the next generation.
are there any useful info on its weapon bay size? all ive read that its supposed to be able to carry 2000kg
looks a bit small from these eye balls.

also will Russia be okay having Sukhoi and its factories build everything? Su-57, Su-35, S-70

Well given that both Sukhoi and MiG are under the UAC umbrella....

The factory/design bureau relationship is flexible these days. Il-114 for example is assembled and made in traditiionally MiG plants (Lukhovitsy and Sokol), with large part input from others as well (VASO, Aviastar IIRC)
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
737
Reaction score
431
^ you mentioned that the S-70 will be the 'light fighter' of the next generation.
are there any useful info on its weapon bay size? all ive read that its supposed to be able to carry 2000kg
looks a bit small from these eye balls.

also will Russia be okay having Sukhoi and its factories build everything? Su-57, Su-35, S-70

Well given that both Sukhoi and MiG are under the UAC umbrella....

The factory/design bureau relationship is flexible these days. Il-114 for example is assembled and made in traditiionally MiG plants (Lukhovitsy and Sokol), with large part input from others as well (VASO, Aviastar IIRC)
Is Klimov still around making engines for aircraft ?
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,084
Reaction score
389
The factory/design bureau relationship is flexible these days. Il-114 for example is assembled and made in traditiionally MiG plants (Lukhovitsy and Sokol), with large part input from others as well (VASO, Aviastar IIRC)

Mainly because the Soviet-era organisation historically responsible for the Il-114 (TAPO in Uzbekistan) is no longer politically opportune, or even in business anymore, though :)
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379
Is Klimov still around making engines for aircraft ?
Yes, as part of UEC, as far as I can tell.
Not sure if they build, or design, or both.
The reorganisation of the Russian aviation industry is confusing to me sometimes.
They are in the process of testing their new VK650 turboshaft helicopter engine, as per news reports in the last few weeks.
 
Last edited:

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
395
Reaction score
128
70 years ago, a 10 ton fighter would basically have been a heavy fighter. But tech changes, doctrines change and definitions change.
Today, if one wants stealth, internal weapons/fuel and all that - it's very hard making any fighter effective under 9 or even 10 ton OEW.
Sure, JF17 and Tejas are 6.5 tons, they truly are light fighters, but they're not of modern generation.

So it's not surprising that the F-35 weighs more than F-15. Of course, it doesn't mean F-35 is a light fighter. The fact it's single engined has nothing to do with the weight definition. It might best be described as a medium fighter, one that is singe engine. (We also had F-5 and F-CK-1 which were light fighters even for their era, yet they were still twin engined)

For any hypothetical Russian single engine fighter - both 117 and izd 30 could be used, of course. But if the 117 is used, then that plane will most likely have to be a light one. Perhaps a 9-ish ton stealthy plane, capable of carrying only limited weapons and probably not carrying enough fuel to be useful for a wide array of possible missions.

If izd. 30 is used, then the fighter could possibly be in the medium weight class, close to F-35.

I personally wouldn't mix weight class and number of engines. Nor mix weight classes of planes from previous generations with weight classes of planes of the new generations.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379
Completely agree, Totoro.
From as far back as the P-47 (heavier than the twin Me-110) through to the big F-105 Thud (13 tons empty) and F-106 ( approaching 22 meters long), I have never considered engine number to be an absolute indicator.
Which is why I mentioned above in a reply that I would never consider the F-35 a light fighter, as another poster did.
The best historical example, from my memory and in my opinion, are the F-100 and Mig-19, both contemporaries.
The F-100 was almost twice as heavy, much larger across almost all metrics, yet had a single engine Vs the Migs twin.

I too think a modern single engined lightweight fighter, with internal bays, could be done around 9 tons, give or take, with careful design. But as you say, internal load/space and fuel would likely suffer.
So I'm not sure how many companies would bite for what would probably be a small market?
As you noted, comparing previous generations with today is not helpful, due to changing design requirements.
Not only are the amount of electronics and avionics much higher, but the fact that internal weapons carriage means a larger structure/external dimensions, even with clever design.
 
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
379
Anyway, I guess the above discussion was really about engine choices for a potential RuAF light fighter, which led us into the discussion.

I guess the real question is:
Is Klimov working on a developed RD-33?
Would actually it be worthwhile, or productive? Even in a clean sheet design?
I'm not so sure.
Engines are very expensive things to develop.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
737
Reaction score
431
Anyway, I guess the above discussion was really about engine choices for a potential RuAF light fighter, which led us into the discussion.

I guess the real question is:
Is Klimov working on a developed RD-33?
Would actually it be worthwhile, or productive? Even in a clean sheet design?
I'm not so sure.
Engines are very expensive things to develop.

That remains to be seen. as clearly they would want piece of pie too. as Lyulka already have so many. giving new lightfighter 117S or 117 might not sit well with Klimov especially if they want to stay in the game of fighter engine market. Unfortunately there seems to be no plan yet for "large RD-33" in same thrust class as AL-31F family.

Going twin engine path will just repeat the unfortunate case of MiG-29's today where there arent many potential customer who want twin engined light fighter.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
Is Klimov still around making engines for aircraft ?
Yes they are, RD-33, 33MK, -93. They have proposed the VK-10M, a 5G equivalent of the RD-33 with something like 10 tf

70 years ago, a 10 ton fighter would basically have been a heavy fighter. But tech changes, doctrines change and definitions change.
Today, if one wants stealth, internal weapons/fuel and all that - it's very hard making any fighter effective under 9 or even 10 ton OEW.
Sure, JF17 and Tejas are 6.5 tons, they truly are light fighters, but they're not of modern generation.
Agree. I talk about light or heavy not in absolute but relative terms, which I think is what makes most sense. If a heavy fighter today is ca. 20 tf empty, another one with one engine and 10 t empty can be called IMHO "light", precisely because a 5G plane with 5-6 t empty weight is practically impossible or would have no internal weapons.

For any hypothetical Russian single engine fighter - both 117 and izd 30 could be used, of course. But if the 117 is used, then that plane will most likely have to be a light one. Perhaps a 9-ish ton stealthy plane, capable of carrying only limited weapons and probably not carrying enough fuel to be useful for a wide array of possible missions.

If izd. 30 is used, then the fighter could possibly be in the medium weight class, close to F-35.
Izd. 30 is designed mainly for supercruise, we don't know the thrust increase re. izd. 117.

If you compare the F-16 when released originally and the engine it had with a modern fighter equipped with the izd. 117 and weighting 10 t empty, TWR would remain the same. Later F-16 were worse in that regard BTW.

That remains to be seen. as clearly they would want piece of pie too. as Lyulka already have so many. giving new lightfighter 117S or 117 might not sit well with Klimov especially if they want to stay in the game of fighter engine market. Unfortunately there seems to be no plan yet for "large RD-33" in same thrust class as AL-31F family.
I agree Klimov does not want to lose the competences it got, but in the end the best is to specialise the different companies in UEC in the different areas of expertise, and Klimov is already the main player in turboshaft engines for transport planes and helicopters. I would rather think they will focus on that in the future.

Going twin engine path will just repeat the unfortunate case of MiG-29's today where there arent many potential customer who want twin engined light fighter.
Agree, the best bet to attend the market would be a lighter single engine jet.
 

paralay

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
160
Reaction score
84
On the external sling and in bomb compartments, the S-70 can carry up to 8 tons of combat load
The maximum combat load of the S-70 is 3700 kg, in the weapons bay, for air-to-ground weapons.
"Air - to-air", 4 izd. 810 - 2800 kg
External suspension is not provided
 

Attachments

  • 70.JPG
    70.JPG
    255.3 KB · Views: 70
  • 71.JPG
    71.JPG
    364.7 KB · Views: 69

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
51
Reaction score
161
Anyway, I guess the above discussion was really about engine choices for a potential RuAF light fighter, which led us into the discussion.

I guess the real question is:
Is Klimov working on a developed RD-33?
Would actually it be worthwhile, or productive? Even in a clean sheet design?
I'm not so sure.
Engines are very expensive things to develop.

Slowly, yes.


RD-93MA was sent for testing earlier this year.
Earlier in the decade plans were for 2019 roll out of RD-33MKM, but I have not seen news re. that in a while.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
To be clear, the -93MA is just an advanced export version for planes like JF-17 and is equivalent in thrust and technology to the existing -33MK, not a step beyond it.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
51
Reaction score
161
To be clear, the -93MA is just an advanced export version for planes like JF-17 and is equivalent in thrust and technology to the existing -33MK, not a step beyond it.

It does push thrust modestly past what the RD-33MK achieves, and I imagine engine life is increased as well (apparently it has had a good record on the JF-17).

Still holding out slim hopes MiG-35 might be bought with RD-33MKM and TVC.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
It does push thrust modestly past what the RD-33MK achieves, and I imagine engine life is increased as well (apparently it has had a good record on the JF-17).
I interpreted it as an increase (just 300 kgf) due to different operational life, the original RD-93 has 2200 h vs. 4000 on the 33MK, so anyhting improving on that would be already good. I didn't find the life of the MA though, so I cannot be 100% sure, but I doubt they offer for export a better engine than what they have for the Russian military. Klimov now has to compete against new Chinese engine designs for the JF-17, so it is important for them to keep improving and offering competitive products. The technical reserve of the -33MK had still not been brought to the -93
 

haavarla

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
72
Reaction score
70
To be clear, the -93MA is just an advanced export version for planes like JF-17 and is equivalent in thrust and technology to the existing -33MK, not a step beyond it.

It does push thrust modestly past what the RD-33MK achieves, and I imagine engine life is increased as well (apparently it has had a good record on the JF-17).

Still holding out slim hopes MiG-35 might be bought with RD-33MKM and TVC.

Well the Mig-35 would bennefit from more thrust no doubt, since the Mig-35 is heavier than any predecessor.
Have my doubts about any TVC though, Mig-35 is already quite nimble.

To have a new engines is all good, but to replace older engines takes time, but it can be done. The Su-30SM is finaly getting 117S engine it seems.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
24
70 years ago, a 10 ton fighter would basically have been a heavy fighter. But tech changes, doctrines change and definitions change.
Today, if one wants stealth, internal weapons/fuel and all that - it's very hard making any fighter effective under 9 or even 10 ton OEW.
Sure, JF17 and Tejas are 6.5 tons, they truly are light fighters, but they're not of modern generation.

So it's not surprising that the F-35 weighs more than F-15. Of course, it doesn't mean F-35 is a light fighter. The fact it's single engined has nothing to do with the weight definition. It might best be described as a medium fighter, one that is singe engine. (We also had F-5 and F-CK-1 which were light fighters even for their era, yet they were still twin engined)

For any hypothetical Russian single engine fighter - both 117 and izd 30 could be used, of course. But if the 117 is used, then that plane will most likely have to be a light one. Perhaps a 9-ish ton stealthy plane, capable of carrying only limited weapons and probably not carrying enough fuel to be useful for a wide array of possible missions.

If izd. 30 is used, then the fighter could possibly be in the medium weight class, close to F-35.

I personally wouldn't mix weight class and number of engines. Nor mix weight classes of planes from previous generations with weight classes of planes of the new generations.
RD-33/93 will need more thrust for a 5th generation aircraft, heavy fighters are always twin engined or the highest take off weight of a generation.

F-35 in the 1970s would have been considered a heavy weight, in the 1960s definitively it would have been in the Su-15 or F-4 class.

A modern aircraft using two F-404, RD-33, M88 or EJ-200 is a middle weight fighter.

The MiG-29A was in the class of F-18A, Rafale or Eurofighter, but their weight was between 10-12 tonnes empty weight.

A modern 5th generation middle weight fighter would weight maybe 13-14 tonnes empty weight.

RD-33 then are not suitable.


117 are still low power for a manned 5th generation fightet.

F-35 is an attack aircraft so they fitting of racks for attack weapons is a must and ASM are bigger than AAMs.

So a light weight fighter very light I mean maybe would only carry AAMs in wing pods like the Su-57s and no internal weapons bay something quiet unlikely Russia will make that unless they add enclosed weapons pods like those carried by F-18E.
1609825698028.png


1609825712688.png

To be honest If russia makes a new light weight fighter i think it will be a F-35 or X-32 equivalent. Why? because the Russians consider speed a very important element but a dedicated fighter needs speed and maneuvrability like Su-57, in reality the only true light weigth fighter we will see in great numbers i think will be F-35, well that is just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
99
RD-33 then are not suitable.

So the promising engine is now only one - "30".
Although J-31 ...

117 are still low power for a manned 5th generation fightet.

Again, "30".

a F-35 or X-32 equivalent.

Specifically, JSF is unlikely. But the X-32, which has lost a lot of weight and without the possibility of vertical takeoff, looks quite adequate in my opinion.
The compartments can be small, those that are in the fuselage, for one missile such as K-180 \ 180PD and Kkha-38, for example, well, there is a Grom bomb. And short-range air-to-air missiles, yes, as on the Su-57, under the wing, or even on the wingtips in the outboard compartments. Not very subtle, but better this way.
Naturally, this is my opinion based on part of the exposed model.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
24
RD-33 then are not suitable.

So the promising engine is now only one - "30".
Although J-31 ...

117 are still low power for a manned 5th generation fightet.

Again, "30".

a F-35 or X-32 equivalent.

Specifically, JSF is unlikely. But the X-32, which has lost a lot of weight and without the possibility of vertical takeoff, looks quite adequate in my opinion.
The compartments can be small, those that are in the fuselage, for one missile such as K-180 \ 180PD and Kkha-38, for example, well, there is a Grom bomb. And short-range air-to-air missiles, yes, as on the Su-57, under the wing, or even on the wingtips in the outboard compartments. Not very subtle, but better this way.
Naturally, this is my opinion based on part of the exposed model.
It was just my opinion, Su-57 aerodynamically speaking is a marvelous machine, the under the wing compartment have an aerodynamic function plus carry missiles, so in my opinion a light weight fighter should only use those under wing weapons pods and keep it very light, of course that would limit the aircraft weapons payload, but would keep it very light, and all the wing fuselage blending could carry fuel.

I do not know perhaps Russia will build better engines and make a scale down Su-57 ala MiG-29, but i see the Russian budget is small, i doubt they need a light weight fighter, I think a MiG-31 replacement is more needed.


But the Russian budget is now small so i think the best and most logic is S-70 will be the light fighter and Su-35 the artillery firing lots of missiles to support S-70 from afar.

A light weight fighter in my opinion should be already a 6th generation fighter, but who knows perhaps Russia will built that X-32 type fighter.

If Sputnik is right, S-70 will the the light fighter in my opinion

The first missile launches from the Okhotnik UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] are planned for the second half of 2021," the source said, adding that air-to-air missiles will be used during the flight tests.

 
Last edited:

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
99
But the Russian budget is now small so i think

The budget is also not so bad.
In fact, only the engine is missing.
I hope that the Juk-AUE radar station will be completed by 2023. It is just small in size. And the glider is unlikely to be too expensive.
I would venture to suggest that several squadrons of MiG-35s will be purchased in this weapons program. But in the next one, the implementation of a light fighter is just possible.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
24
If Sputnik is right, S-70 will the the light fighter in my opinbion

Definitely not. S-70 and with the ability to use air-to-air missiles will not become a full-fledged fighter. This is not a fighter.
mine is only an opinion, just what i think, but my opinion is based in the real fact Russia now has a small military budget, so aircraft are not the main deterrance, Russia needs more ICBMs, Submarines, SBLM and hypersonic weapons, a light fighter in my opinion is more for export.

Also i do not know how ewffective are S-400s and S-500s, if the can down stealth aircraft with ease, and if Su-57 is effective with S-70 Okhotnik why spend more in a light fighter that can be outperformed by a robot plane?

I am not saying you are wrong, just that in my opinion under the limitations of the current military budget, it seems to me more logic to have okhotnik downing fighters with high offbored missiles like R-74, any way today modern missiles do not need a very agile fighter, and Okhotnik can be built without a human putting his life in risk, while a manned fighter is resticted to 9Gs and is a human life that is lost.


I agree that Russia might be looking for a light weight fighter, and perhaps they will build it, but in my personal opinion i see Russia using Okhotnik as a F-35 unmanned equivalent just for price.

Who knows perhaps we will see the light weight fighter, I want to see it but realities based on economics make me think Okhotnik has more chances than the new MiG
 
Last edited:

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
99
I am not saying you are wrong, just that in my opinion under the limitations of the current military budget, it seems to me more logic to have okhotnik downing fighters with high offbored missiles like R-74, any way today modern missiles do not need a very agile fighter, and Okhotnik can be built without a human putting his life in risk, while a manned fighter is resticted to 9Gs and is a human life that is lost.


I understand you. But why isn't the S-70 capable of playing the role of a promising light fighter? The S-70 is banally slow and non-maneuverable, as well as the issue of target designation and selection of air targets. I fully believe that it can be a flying air defense system, that is, in fact, a patrolling launcher. Or an escort fighter for PAK DA. But not more. And for a full-fledged light fighter, this is not enough.
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
99
Who knows perhaps we will see the light weight fighter, I want to see it but realities based on economics make me think Okhotnik has more chances than the new MiG

And if we go back to the light MiG of the 5th generation. Then again, this is not now, this is a perspective. That is, the thirties.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
Specifically, JSF is unlikely. But the X-32, which has lost a lot of weight and without the possibility of vertical takeoff, looks quite adequate in my opinion.
The compartments can be small, those that are in the fuselage, for one missile such as K-180 \ 180PD and Kkha-38, for example, well, there is a Grom bomb. And short-range air-to-air missiles, yes, as on the Su-57, under the wing, or even on the wingtips in the outboard compartments. Not very subtle, but better this way.
Naturally, this is my opinion based on part of the exposed model.
The STOVL requirement not only was heavy on the F-35 but also on the X-32, the engine extended all along the fuselage from nose to tail, so the weapons were, as in the F-35, placed in parallel with the engine in a very inconvenient way for the weight and cross section of the plane. If the STOVL requirement is removed, one bay with the rough size of the ones on the Su-57 can be placed between the intake and the engine proper, that could accommodate A2G or A2A weapons. Kh-38 is 4.2 m like the rest of big missiles designed for internal carriage, so if you can carry it you can carry any other weapon like Kh-58, Grom or Kh-69. The model shown seems compatible with that approach, at least what we saw. Wing root bays like the ones in the Su-57 are ideal for SRAAM, I don't know whether they are used on the new model too.

X-32_03.jpg
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
13
Anyway, I guess the above discussion was really about engine choices for a potential RuAF light fighter, which led us into the discussion.

I guess the real question is:
Is Klimov working on a developed RD-33?
Would actually it be worthwhile, or productive? Even in a clean sheet design?
I'm not so sure.
Engines are very expensive things to develop.

That remains to be seen. as clearly they would want piece of pie too. as Lyulka already have so many. giving new lightfighter 117S or 117 might not sit well with Klimov especially if they want to stay in the game of fighter engine market. Unfortunately there seems to be no plan yet for "large RD-33" in same thrust class as AL-31F family.

Going twin engine path will just repeat the unfortunate case of MiG-29's today where there arent many potential customer who want twin engined light fighter.
RD-33 with Thrust of 12 ton, like their F414EPE counterpart could be that thing that makes MiG-35 actually a worthwhile purchase.
MiG-35 IMP has two limiting factors - unclear status of AESA radar and not that impressive TW ratio for GeN4+ fighter.
RD-93MA was sent for testing earlier this year.
Earlier in the decade plans were for 2019 roll out of RD-33MKM, but I have not seen news re. that in a while.
Isn't RD-93MA is just an RD-93, a export variant with mirrored gearbox that throttled up to RD-33MK level of thrust - 8800-9000kgf?
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
737
Reaction score
431
Anyway, I guess the above discussion was really about engine choices for a potential RuAF light fighter, which led us into the discussion.

I guess the real question is:
Is Klimov working on a developed RD-33?
Would actually it be worthwhile, or productive? Even in a clean sheet design?
I'm not so sure.
Engines are very expensive things to develop.

That remains to be seen. as clearly they would want piece of pie too. as Lyulka already have so many. giving new lightfighter 117S or 117 might not sit well with Klimov especially if they want to stay in the game of fighter engine market. Unfortunately there seems to be no plan yet for "large RD-33" in same thrust class as AL-31F family.

Going twin engine path will just repeat the unfortunate case of MiG-29's today where there arent many potential customer who want twin engined light fighter.
RD-33 with Thrust of 12 ton, like their F414EPE counterpart could be that thing that makes MiG-35 actually a worthwhile purchase.
MiG-35 IMP has two limiting factors - unclear status of AESA radar and not that impressive TW ratio for GeN4+ fighter.
RD-93MA was sent for testing earlier this year.
Earlier in the decade plans were for 2019 roll out of RD-33MKM, but I have not seen news re. that in a while.
Isn't RD-93MA is just an RD-93, a export variant with mirrored gearbox that throttled up to RD-33MK level of thrust - 8800-9000kgf?


The thing is that there are thoughts that twin engined aircraft are more expensive to maintain than single engined one for not much of return. e.g why purchase MiG-29/MiG-35 when there is Su-30 or maybe F-15's with more capabilities.
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
13
The thing is that there are thoughts that twin engined aircraft are more expensive to maintain than single engined one for not much of return. e.g why purchase MiG-29/MiG-35 when there is Su-30 or maybe F-15's with more capabilities.
Mikoyan DB describes MiG-35 as much cheaper to maintain than Sukhoi due to MiG-35 finally catching up to Sukhoi family in terms of airframe life expectancy. I have doubts abut that, but still.
Plus it's not only MiG-35, there is also carrier variant. MiG-29K with such engines and avionics from MiG-35 would be an excellent Gen4+ carrier plane, plus considering taht Russia and India using STOBAR carriers it would significantly improve thir ability to launch aircraft, as it allows a laucnh from 1st and 2nd positions even at full load, or with reduced TOW but carrier being stationary.
117 are still low power for a manned 5th generation fightet.
Err, 117 provides 900kg less of thrust at AFB and and really significant thurst advantage of F119 over 117 is at full military power - 8800 vs 10500. But that's because 119 was specifically designed for the best high-alt, non-AFB perormance. And is heavier than Russian counterpart, with specific thrust 8.94 vs 9.32.
The only engine that currently have specific thrust more than 10 is F-135 as of now. And, F414, assuming it was actually bulit.
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
Err, 117 provides 900kg less of thrust at AFB and and really significant thurst advantage of F119 over 117 is at full military power - 8800 vs 10500. But that's because 119 was specifically designed for the best high-alt, non-AFB perormance. And is heavier than Russian counterpart, with specific thrust 8.94 vs 9.32.
The only engine that currently have specific thrust more than 10 is F-135 as of now. And, F414, assuming it was actually bulit.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Pogosyan said that izd. 117 produces 2.5 tf more than the AL-31F while weighting 150 kg less, that would mean 15 tf for 1370 kg or a TWR of 10.95
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
13
Err, 117 provides 900kg less of thrust at AFB and and really significant thurst advantage of F119 over 117 is at full military power - 8800 vs 10500. But that's because 119 was specifically designed for the best high-alt, non-AFB perormance. And is heavier than Russian counterpart, with specific thrust 8.94 vs 9.32.
The only engine that currently have specific thrust more than 10 is F-135 as of now. And, F414, assuming it was actually bulit.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Pogosyan said that izd. 117 produces 2.5 tf more than the AL-31F while weighting 150 kg less, that would mean 15 tf for 1370 kg or a TWR of 10.95
That's too low, considering that 117 has enlargened LP turbine and TV nozzle, which is heavier.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
24
Err, 117 provides 900kg less of thrust at AFB and and really significant thurst advantage of F119 over 117 is at full military power - 8800 vs 10500. But that's because 119 was specifically designed for the best high-alt, non-AFB perormance. And is heavier than Russian counterpart, with specific thrust 8.94 vs 9.32.
The only engine that currently have specific thrust more than 10 is F-135 as of now. And, F414, assuming it was actually bulit.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Pogosyan said that izd. 117 produces 2.5 tf more than the AL-31F while weighting 150 kg less, that would mean 15 tf for 1370 kg or a TWR of 10.95
That's too low, considering that 117 has enlargened LP turbine and TV nozzle, which is heavier.
I has been reported that it is lighter than Al-31 and has more thrust, but for Su-57, 117 is not the ideal engine, they say T-30 is the ideal engine


The engine of the second stage for the fifth generation fighter Su-57 surpasses all comparative analogues in terms of its specific thrust. In this group, in the new issue of the program "Military Acceptance" of the shooting television channel "Zvezda", the General Designer-Director of the OKB im. A.M. Cradle seats »Evgeny Marchukov.

“I would say that this is generation 5+, slightly ahead of the fifth. The engine corresponds to this generation in terms of specific thrust, specific consumption and specific gravity, ”Marchukov said.

Marchukov notes that the engine is superior to all foreign analogues, with a completely new product and a completely new engine for the Su-35 fighter.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/20 ... 9-5mml.htm

“Specific fuel consumption opposes specific thrust. The best fuel consumption is obtained with civilian by-pass engines, but they have the least specific thrust due to the high by-pass ratio. In single-circuit engines, on the contrary, the specific thrust is high, but the consumption is also high. Due to the use of new designs and technologies in "Product 30", the specific consumption remained at the same level, but the specific thrust increased, "Marchukov said.



"The main advantages of the new unit: weight, consumption and specific thrust. Such thrust is not produced by any engine in the world," said Evgeny Marchukov, general designer of the Lyulka Design Bureau.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/rg.ru/amp/ ... -mire.html
 
Last edited:

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
I has been reported that it is lighter than Al-31 and has more thrust, but for Su-57, 117 is not the ideal engine, they say T-30 is the ideal engine
Observe the strongest point of izd. 30 is the specific thrust, that means, it is optimized for supercruise. Nobody has said how much more max thrust the engine delivers, compared to izd. 117, but I understand it will not be as high as some have assumed. I have been saying this for a while, Marchukov seems to be hinting that izd. 30 is a VCE, otherwise I don't know how you get the same fuel consumption of the AL-31F with a specific thrust supposedly better than that of the F119, it would mean to reduce the latter's fuel consumption like 15-20%? That would be a huge leap and would demand quite extreme technological parameters (TIT, OPR).

So in the Su-57 supercruising is rated very high and therefore having an engine optimized for that makes a lot of sense. For a smaller fighter that would act as a complement of the Su-57 in the VKS and as the main asset for other quite smaller air forces supercruise would be, IMHO, a "nice to have", but not necessarily a must. The fuel needed to use supercruising effectively favours heavy fighters. If the engine is a VCE then it would offer good behaviour both in subsonic and supersonic regimes, therefore would be ideal for a smaller fighter too, barring possible economical issues due to the technology involved. If it is a low BPR engine, it would not be the ideal choice for a small fighter IMHO, it would be better to have an engine with the best possible SFC to help with the range / persistence / payload characteristics that would be naturally more challenged due to the reduced size of the aircraft.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
24
The source spoke about the plans to test the drone "Okhotnik"

The Russian heavy attack unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Okhotnik will use weapons on air targets for the first time in exercises in 2021, a source in the aircraft industry told RIA Novosti.

"The first missile launches from the Okhotnik UAV are planned for the second half of 2021. We are talking about firing with in-body air-to-air missiles, which were previously tested on the Su-57. agencies.

According to him, tests of the Hunter are also planned with the use of air-to-surface weapons.

Thus, the "Okhotnik" will become a full-fledged multifunctional vehicle that can be used as a long-range unmanned fighter-interceptor (more precisely, a patrolling interceptor - approx. EVA).

Earlier, a source in the military-industrial complex told RIA Novosti about a series of Hunter flights with functional guided missile simulators. The maneuvers were carried out to assess the coupling of the vehicle's onboard equipment with the ammunition homing heads. The imitators were deprived of the engine and warhead.

The Ministry of Defense officially announced the first flights of the Okhotnik drone, during which only its flight qualities and the operation of the main systems were checked.

The Okhotnik, developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau, will become the first heavy drone with shock functions in the Russian army. The device is made according to the "flying wing" scheme with the use of materials that reduce the radar signature.

According to open sources, the UAV has a length of 14 meters, a wingspan of 19 meters, and a take-off weight of 20 tons. The maximum speed of the "Hunter" reaches 1000 kilometers per hour. The first flight of the device took place on August 3 and lasted more than 20 minutes.

 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
Specific thrust of F119 is not that high. F135 has much better values.
You refer to thrust to weight ratio, the inverse of which is what Russians call specific weight. The F119 has that big 2D TVC and is therefore very heavy compared to engines with normal nozzle like F135, which is besides more modern. I refer to thrust per unit of airflow, that is maximum in the F119 among current engines if I am not wrong, due to the low BPR / design specific for supercruising.
 

LMFS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
139
Reaction score
191
Light Strike Aircraft, With or Without Pilot

RSK MiG, and Sukhoi too undoubtedly, are conducting conceptual work on variants of lightweight tactical combat aircraft. They all have a lower status than the PAK DP project, given there is no procurement or government financing for the variants under study.

Sergey Chemezov, the CEO of Rostec, to which UAC, RSK MiG and Sukhoi belong, told reporters in early December 2020 that the corporation is developing the concept of a fifth-generation fighter “in the light- and medium-weight class.”

“This could be a universal platform in manned and unmanned versions,” he added. On Dec. 16, 2020, Andrei Yelchaninov, deputy chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission board, told the Izvestia newspaper that “MiG is working on the creation of a light strike aircraft, which can be either manned or unmanned.”

Both Chemezov and Yelchaninov underlined that the work “is conducted on an initiative basis and is not funded by the state.” They also emphasized the export orientation of this project and possible cooperation with a foreign partner.

One of Russia’s possible partners is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In February 2017, during the IDEX 2017 exhibition, Chemezov announced that Russia and the UAE had agreed to jointly create a new-generation lightweight fighter. Chemezov proclaimed the signing of an appropriate contract later that year.

The aircraft would be produced in the UAE and was intended for the UAE Air Force and neighbor services. In the following years, apart from a few general declarations that the project is up to date, details were not available.

There are three known acronyms for Russia’s new lightweight fighter project.

The official strategy of UAC for 2016-2035 was published in December 2016. That document interchangeably uses “LFI,” an acronym translated as Lightweight Tactical Fighter, or “PLIB,” translated as the Future Lightweight Fighter-Bomber, as the names of this program.

In 2018, the United Engine Corp. (UEC) said in a presentation that the LFI/PLIB’s powerplant could be a single “izdeliye 30” turbofan developed for the Su-57 fighter. According to the same presentation, two modified “izdeliye 30” engines would be used to provide propulsion for the PAK DP.

The RSK MiG uses the acronym “LMFS” for its lightweight fighter project. In December 2019, RSK MiG ordered TsAGI to “calculate the aerodynamics of a lightweight multifunction tactical aircraft (LMFS) in a twin-engine configuration” and compare it with foreign counterparts. One of the known RSK MiG LMFS designs is a canard that has a large delta wing, with small control surfaces at the rear and on the sides of the engine nacelles. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 kg (54,000 lb.) and is designed to reach speeds of up to Mach 2. The ferry range with additional fuel tanks will be 2,160 nm, and the basic weapon load is to be carried inside the fuselage.

The current conceptual work on the RSK MiG LFMS is a continuation of the LFI lightweight tactical fighter program launched by MiG as early as 1986. The LFI fighter was later refreshed in the form of the E-721 project for the purposes of the PAK FA stealth fighter program. In 2002, the MiG E-721 lost the PAK FA competition for the Sukhoi T-50 project, the present Su-57.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...ing-future-interceptor-technologies-new-light
 

Geo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
44
Reaction score
51
IDEX 2021 is coming...

We probably can't expect a public presentation(?), but there will definitely be new information about UAC's LFI/PLIB.
 

Similar threads

Top