Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[A Bar Brother]

If we are to make sense out of this discussion and in the absence of hard data I think it boils down to making a case for our differing views and leave it to others to make their own judgement regarding reasonable and realistic build time for a 5th gen prototype.

In my view, an objective approach is to use information that are comparable and not in essence comparing apples to oranges e.g. serial production vs. prototype. The only recent data out there is the J-20 Chinese prototype (5th Gen) and these are the builds :

2002 - First known testing (10/5/2012)
2011 - First visual sighting (16/1/2014)

The main reason I am using this is because of the nature of the builds and what I can draw a reasonable picture from it. We know that there were significant design changes from 2002 to 2011. Between those dates was a lapse of approx. 18 months. It means after we provide a reasonable period of flight envelope testing, test result analysis, and design changes made, they were then incorporated into prototype 2011 and built. If we assume testing took between 6 - 9 months, then prototype 2011 took between 9 - 12 months to build from a go decision point.

In addition, the following additional prototypes first flew on :
2012 - 26/7/2014
2013 - 29/11/2014
2015 - 19/12/2014

Presumably prototype 2011 and 2012 provided evidence of stability in design which ended up with prototype 2014 and 2015. This means from those dates, I can reasonably conclude that the last 2 prototypes probably took less than 6 months to build.

This is not how production of aircraft during testing is done. Take the example of the LCA. The production of the PV-1 had begun well before TD-1 began flying. TD-1 flew in 2001, TD-2 flew in 2002, and PV-1 flew in 2003. The dates are even more closer than it was for the J-20.

The changes are actually incorporated much later. Some changes are incorporated into limited production versions and is a gradual process.

So you can say the J-20 2011 version was designed and built as soon as 2001 started flight tests, the design may have been completed before 2001's first flight, as it was for the LCA. You can't design and build something with such large changes in just one or two years.

The F-22 is a much better example. The TD's first started flying in 1990 and YF-22 won it in 1991. After that it took LM 6 more years to get the first prototype flying.

This article should provide more clues. It is dated 2002.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, the long lead items have to be procured 3 years in advance in order to complete the production cycle within 2005.

 

[Brumby]

You are living up to the reputation of being a pain. I don't mind having robust discussions but just not senseless ones that plainly goes no where and becoming increasingly trivial. I would take the trouble to justify my statements so that it is not simply accusations.

This whole thing originated from just a simple issue of what is a reasonable build time for a prototype. You claim that it takes 2-3 years and claim examples of production aircraft but can't give evidence in support. I then took the example of the J-20 development and laid out the case to demonstrate that it can be done within 6 - 12 months. Typically in a rebuttal, you identify under cutters to my case to defeat my position. You have offered none. You then offered your case. Your case doesn't undermine mine because even if proven sound they are not mutually exclusive. I can offer my under cutters to undermine your case but that will involve effort. We already have gone through a number of iterations and so any more effort is diminishing in value and pointless because in return you will then offer some other vacuous replies. However I will make one more effort and after this I am done with this conversation because you have exhausted my goodwill.

This is not how production of aircraft during testing is done. Take the example of the LCA. The production of the PV-1 had begun well before TD-1 began flying. TD-1 flew in 2001, TD-2 flew in 2002, and PV-1 flew in 2003. The dates are even more closer than it was for the J-20.

The changes are actually incorporated much later. Some changes are incorporated into limited production versions and is a gradual process.

You are offering red herring because the examples is about aircraft development timelines and path and not an attempt to demonstrate reasonable build time which is what the issue is all about.

So you can say the J-20 2011 version was designed and built as soon as 2001 started flight tests, the design may have been completed before 2001's first flight, as it was for the LCA. You can't design and build something with such large changes in just one or two years.

You are offering brute facts i.e. claims without even an attempt to justify your claims.

The F-22 is a much better example. The TD's first started flying in 1990 and YF-22 won it in 1991. After that it took LM 6 more years to get the first prototype flying.

Irrelevant. The issue is about probable build time and not development time.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You are living up to the reputation of being a pain. I don't mind having robust discussions but just not senseless ones that plainly goes no where and becoming increasingly trivial. I would take the trouble to justify my statements so that it is not simply accusations.

This whole thing originated from just a simple issue of what is a reasonable build time for a prototype. You claim that it takes 2-3 years and claim examples of production aircraft but can't give evidence in support. I then took the example of the J-20 development and laid out the case to demonstrate that it can be done within 6 - 12 months. Typically in a rebuttal, you identify under cutters to my case to defeat my position. You have offered none. You then offered your case. Your case doesn't undermine mine because even if proven sound they are not mutually exclusive. I can offer my under cutters to undermine your case but that will involve effort. We already have gone through a number of iterations and so any more effort is diminishing in value and pointless because in return you will then offer some other vacuous replies. However I will make one more effort and after this I am done with this conversation because you have exhausted my goodwill.



You are offering red herring because the examples is about aircraft development timelines and path and not an attempt to demonstrate reasonable build time which is what the issue is all about.



You are offering brute facts i.e. claims without even an attempt to justify your claims.



Irrelevant. The issue is about probable build time and not development time.

Provide proof of when you believe J-20's (2001) design stage started and when the 2011's design stage started.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You are living up to the reputation of being a pain. I don't mind having robust discussions but just not senseless ones that plainly goes no where and becoming increasingly trivial. I would take the trouble to justify my statements so that it is not simply accusations.

This whole thing originated from just a simple issue of what is a reasonable build time for a prototype. You claim that it takes 2-3 years and claim examples of production aircraft but can't give evidence in support. I then took the example of the J-20 development and laid out the case to demonstrate that it can be done within 6 - 12 months. Typically in a rebuttal, you identify under cutters to my case to defeat my position. You have offered none. You then offered your case. Your case doesn't undermine mine because even if proven sound they are not mutually exclusive. I can offer my under cutters to undermine your case but that will involve effort. We already have gone through a number of iterations and so any more effort is diminishing in value and pointless because in return you will then offer some other vacuous replies. However I will make one more effort and after this I am done with this conversation because you have exhausted my goodwill.



You are offering red herring because the examples is about aircraft development timelines and path and not an attempt to demonstrate reasonable build time which is what the issue is all about.



You are offering brute facts i.e. claims without even an attempt to justify your claims.



Irrelevant. The issue is about probable build time and not development time.

It appears all the aircraft makers are wrong and only you are right. You can't manufacture an aircraft in a year without long lead items. There is a reason why they are called "long lead."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's an example, the F-35.

Acquisition of long lead items for lot eight - Feb 2013.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Contract for lot 8 signed - Nov 2014.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article says that delivery will happen in the Spring of 2016.

If you can calculate the time between contract for acquisition of long leads to the time of delivery it is more than 3 years. Actual production is between two and three years.

What's more important is LM's claim that the F-35's production cycle has been halved compared to legacy aircraft like the F-16.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the time it takes to build the F-35 has been reduced by nearly half.

So even if we assume the F-35's construction started at the end of 2014, it is still going to take roughly 1.5 years for delivery, and that's a little over half that of the F-16's build time. Even if PAKFA's long lead items are magically available, it will still take 1.5 years or more to manufacture it considering the PAKFA is being manufactured at the same speed as the F-35 is, which is impossible since the F-35 is in limited production coming out of an assembly line while PAKFA prototypes are handmade and take longer to build and assemble. Unlike the F-35, where the acquisition of the long leads is already planned for, the PAKFA's attrition long leads are not planned.

The rest is common sense.

 

[b787]

Deino and I are not the same person and I'm not debating any point with you. I don't have a conspiracy theory. I was simply pointing out that your usage of sources is not wise. Nobody is attempting to silence you. It's important to not only list sources but also understand where the source is coming from, if the source is still valid after a certain point. These are the things important when we are evaluating information that we have. It really has nothing to do with Sukhoi.

well my point from the beginning was i am not against any other poster`s opinions, my point was i am ignorant of the real facts, thus i kept a very conservative opinion, i posted one article from Tass because i found in Russian aviation forums other useful reports, i wanted only make clear that Sukhoi did indeed know what did happen, but still they were not ready to give a final report in July 2014.
This was a month after the accident.

If you are fan of Russian aviation like i am, you will know that for example MiG-25 prototypes has problems early in the 1970s, nobody knew in the west at the time about it, a pilot was killed while rolling the aircraft in the 1970s; in 2013 the Russia tv program Wings of Russia made an excellent documentary about it, MiG engineers talked about it

if you are interested watch it

.

In the case of June 10th Sukhoi did indeed report it, they did not cover it, so i am sure in few years even months if borth 55 was written off will be known, in 2015 Russia does indeed make a lot of TV programs about T-50, some even are in English, so i find funny some posters do think Sukhoi lies, of course i know i know they can lie, but personally i do not think this is the case.

And i think Sukhoi, Rostec and UAC are excellent sources and tv channels like Channel one Russia or TV Zvezda are reliable enough even you can watch structural tests of T-50 prototypes made perhaps a few months ago.

That was only my point i did not consider any of your post personal attacks only i thought they were not reliable enough to be considered the last word about the issue

 

[tphuang]

It appears all the aircraft makers are wrong and only you are right. You can't manufacture an aircraft in a year without long lead items. There is a reason why they are called "long lead."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's an example, the F-35.

Acquisition of long lead items for lot eight - Feb 2013.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Contract for lot 8 signed - Nov 2014.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article says that delivery will happen in the Spring of 2016.

If you can calculate the time between contract for acquisition of long leads to the time of delivery it is more than 3 years. Actual production is between two and three years.

What's more important is LM's claim that the F-35's production cycle has been halved compared to legacy aircraft like the F-16.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So even if we assume the F-35's construction started at the end of 2014, it is still going to take roughly 1.5 years for delivery, and that's a little over half that of the F-16's build time. Even if PAKFA's long lead items are magically available, it will still take 1.5 years or more to manufacture it considering the PAKFA is being manufactured at the same speed as the F-35 is, which is impossible since the F-35 is in limited production coming out of an assembly line while PAKFA prototypes are handmade and take longer to build and assemble. Unlike the F-35, where the acquisition of the long leads is already planned for, the PAKFA's attrition long leads are not planned.

The rest is common sense.

alright, let's move on from this discussion. Don't think we are going to get anywhere here.

well my point from the beginning was i am not against any other poster`s opinions, my point was i am ignorant of the real facts, thus i kept a very conservative opinion, i posted one article from Tass because i found in Russian aviation forums other useful reports, i wanted only make clear that Sukhoi did indeed know what did happen, but still they were not ready to give a final report in July 2014.
This was a month after the accident.

If you are fan of Russian aviation like i am, you will know that for example MiG-25 prototypes has problems early in the 1970s, nobody knew in the west at the time about it, a pilot was killed while rolling the aircraft in the 1970s; in 2013 the Russia tv program Wings of Russia made an excellent documentary about it, MiG engineers talked about it

I understand that it is not easy to be a Russian aviation supporter in this forum, because several moderators (like myself) are probably not as impressed with current progress of some Russian military aviation projects. But I think we welcome everyone to come here and put out their viewpoint, since different viewpoints to help us out to learn more. It's important that we use these to learn from each other, although a lot of times we end up in arguments rather than healthy debates. Seeing that this thread gets quite heated at times, I think we the moderators observe this more than normal.

The point of sourcing has been very important on this forum because this is a Chinese forum and due to language/cultural barriers and lack of transparency in Chinese news, we've had to be very careful about which sources we use for Chinese news here. And I've tried to show this to other members and become somewhat of a source police. So while it may appear that we are using this as a way to suppress your viewpoint, we are actually doing this because getting the sources and using the context/time of the source is very important here. Knowing where the source came from and their bias is very important. I always tell the Chinese members here that a Chinese article saying that China developed a world class system in xxx does not necessarily make it that way, because they are biased in their viewpoint. Similarly here, we should have same perspectives toward other manufacturers. Also, it's reasonable to interpret the same sources differently based on our previous experience with them. The moderators sometimes will ask members to move on when it appears they are just in disagreement about interpretation of something, so please be mindful of that too.

 

[b787]

I understand that it is not easy to be a Russian aviation supporter in this forum, because several moderators (like myself) are probably not as impressed with current progress of some Russian military aviation projects. But I think we welcome everyone to come here and put out their viewpoint, since different viewpoints to help us out to learn more. It's important that we use these to learn from each other, although a lot of times we end up in arguments rather than healthy debates. Seeing that this thread gets quite heated at times, I think we the moderators observe this more than normal.

The point of sourcing has been very important on this forum because this is a Chinese forum and due to language/cultural barriers and lack of transparency in Chinese news, we've had to be very careful about which sources we use for Chinese news here. And I've tried to show this to other members and become somewhat of a source police. So while it may appear that we are using this as a way to suppress your viewpoint, we are actually doing this because getting the sources and using the context/time of the source is very important here. Knowing where the source came from and their bias is very important. I always tell the Chinese members here that a Chinese article saying that China developed a world class system in xxx does not necessarily make it that way, because they are biased in their viewpoint. Similarly here, we should have same perspectives toward other manufacturers. Also, it's reasonable to interpret the same sources differently based on our previous experience with them. The moderators sometimes will ask members to move on when it appears they are just in disagreement about interpretation of something, so please be mindful of that too.

Let me tell you that in the case of the Russian aerospace news, that is not the case, today if you want to watch a TV program about PAKFA, get the specification of any Sukhoi fighter you just need to go to the page of UAC or watch a TV program of TV Zvezda or wait for the news of Channel one Russia. If you want the latest news you can go directly to the website of the Russian ministry of defense.

Now if the moderators are or not impressed, for me is not important, because i will still like Russian aircraft, and to be honest i doubt you are an expert in the Russian aerospace, i have decades following the Russian aerospace and i know to be an expert you need to be a guy like Dmitryi Olegovich Rogozin who really is aware of the problems and successes of the Russian aerospace, or at least Sergei Bogdan who flies T-50, but i know i am not an expert but a fan, but by watching TV programs, visiting official Russian aviation websites and Russian aviation forums i have a well informed opinion for a fanboy if you want but it does not make me an expert but i have enough knowledge to conduct me in aviation forums and being able to spot when people have bias opinions not based on basic facts or are simply talking without basic knowledge a fan must have.

 

[tphuang]

Let me tell you that in the case of the Russian aerospace news, that is not the case, today if you want to watch a TV program about PAKFA, get the specification of any Sukhoi fighter you just need to go to the page of UAC or watch a TV program of TV Zvezda or wait for the news of Channel one Russia. If you want the latest news you can go directly to the website of the Russian ministry of defense.

Now if the moderators are or not impressed, for me is not important, because i will still like Russian aircraft, and to be honest i doubt you are an expert in the Russian aerospace, i have decades following the Russian aerospace and i know to be an expert you need to be a guy like Dmitryi Olegovich Rogozin who really is aware of the problems and successes of the Russian aerospace, or at least Sergei Bogdan who flies T-50, but i know i am not an expert but a fan, but by watching TV programs, visiting official Russian aviation websites and Russian aviation forums i have a well informed opinion for a fanboy if you want but it does not make me an expert but i have enough knowledge to conduct me in aviation forums and being able to spot when people have bias opinions not based on basic facts or are simply talking without basic knowledge a fan must have.

Alright, I've tried to explain to you what the crux of the issues is and welcome you to the forum and incorporate you in discussion, but you are still very defensive and talk as if we are bullying you on an issue that i frankly don't care about. That's fine. There are certain rules in this forum to follow like staying on topic, don't get into x vs y topics and no political discussions that you can see in the forum. Please respect moderators when they tell you to move on from a topic.

 

[b787]

Alright, I've tried to explain to you what the crux of the issues is and welcome you to the forum and incorporate you in discussion, but you are still very defensive and talk as if we are bullying you on an issue that i frankly don't care about. That's fine. There are certain rules in this forum to follow like staying on topic, don't get into x vs y topics and no political discussions that you can see in the forum. Please respect moderators when they tell you to move on from a topic.

i will respect the rules, but i am not hypocrite, i know perfectly why you say you are probably not as impressed with current progress of some Russian military aviation projects and i know why you do not go further, i will respect the rules, but if you want to discuss PAKFA you first have to consider Sukhoi press releases as good sources and if you want to really talk about the Russian aviation your need to present your evidence for your stand, i have watched enough Russian aerospace programs to know what the Russians admit they have as weaknesses and what they say they have as strengths, and you can be moderator but at the same time you are poster who has opinions and as such i know why you said you are probably not as impressed with current progress of some Russian military aviation projects and in that you have to admit your humanity and at the same time your opinions and biases.

 

[b787]

Russian fifth-generation aircraft T-50 cannons will get better

For the Russian perspective complex tactical aircraft developed an arsenal of various high-precision weapons, which will effectively destroy targets in the air and on land and sea. But the T-50 will not be forgotten and this time-tested weapons as aircraft gun.

"In 2014, undergoing flight tests of the modernized rapid-aircraft cannon 9A1-4071K allowing to work all the ammunition carrier in any mode, on a plane Su-27SM.

After completion of the test, in 2015 it is planned to test the ROC gun on the plane of the 5th generation of the T-50 ", the official website of" Instrument Design Bureau ":

According to military experts, the presence of the T-50 advanced sighting systems will significantly increase the efficiency of aircraft cannon armament, which in some cases is much more preferable than the expensive missile systems.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!