PAK FA - VOOU!!!

[Marechal-do-ar]

Então... Se é XXL e biturbina é russo?

[cabeça de martelo]

O F-22 não tem aquele alongamento normal dos caças Russos. Para além disso é um verdadeiro caça furtivo, não anda com misseis nas asas.

[mmatuso]

E o F-22 não solta pecinhas.

[cabeça de martelo]

Não, mas fica em terra de vez em quando porque os pilotos ficam sem sistema de oxigénio...

[Skyway]

O F-22 não tem aquele alongamento normal dos caças Russos. Para além disso é um verdadeiro caça furtivo, não anda com misseis nas asas.

Vish, é verdade.

Olha esse monte de aeronaves russas:

[cabeça de martelo]

O F-22 não tem aquele alongamento normal dos caças Russos. Para além disso é um verdadeiro caça furtivo, não anda com misseis nas asas.

Vish, é verdade.

Olha esse monte de aeronaves russas:

Em que contexto foi colocado estes misseis? Porque este não é a opção normal dos F-22.

Já nem lembrava-me deste protótipo, obrigado pela foto, mas pelos vistos os Norte-Americanos faziam caças "limpos" à mais tempo que os Russos...

[Skyway]

EDIT: Os pilotos de RA-5C que voaram uma penca de missões no Vietnam não vão gostar de você chamar o avião deles de protótipo.

[cabeça de martelo]

Fiz confusão!

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-303b.htm

[kirk]

Tava meio sumido, mas voltou. Fotos de junho agora. Parece estar mais lapidado, não?

Se tá lapidado não sei mas tem uma "rachadura" na lateral da entrada de ar !

[Bolovo]

Dê a uma chance a você mesmo, Kirk. Eu te tirei da ignore list, pensando que seria uma critica séria... e vejo isso. Enfim, é o compartimento do trem de pouso.

[mmatuso]

[Skyway]

É que o engenheiro foi o mesmo que desenhou o painel do Rafale em que o piloto bate as pernas na tela central quando ejeta.

[prp]

Aposto que veio nas tots do mistral

[Viktor Reznov]

É que o engenheiro foi o mesmo que desenhou o painel do Rafale em que o piloto bate as pernas na tela central quando ejeta.

É sério issso?

[Penguin]

India Compromises To Smooth FGFA Disputes
By Vivek Raghuvanshi 5:25 p.m. EDT June 16, 2015
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /28730155/


NEW DELHI — Ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Russia on July 7, the Defence Ministry is toning down points of conflict about the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program to reach final agreement with Russia, said an MoD source.

FGFA is proposed to be jointly developed and produced by India and Russia and a preliminary development agreement was signed in 2011 between Russia's United Aircraft Corp. (UAC) and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) when India paid its 50 percent share of US $250 million toward initial development cost.

However, a final agreement, which will release a payment of about $6 billion as India's share in FGFA development, has yet to be inked because of conflict over issues relating to work share, a firm aircraft order from the Indian Air Force, its desired mix of single- and double-seat aircraft, and changes demanded by the Indian Air Force.

The Defence Ministry wants to reach an agreement, will not insist on the Indian work share at this stage and will agree to delivery of single-seater aircraft as against the earlier demand of two-seaters, the source added.

A firm order of 154 FGFAs will also be included in the draft agreement, the source said.

Defense analysts said that despite the delays, the FGFA project will not be dropped.

"At this juncture, given the unfolding international geopolitics and Russia's fast-depleting defense export order books, it is highly unlikely that Russia would take a

take-it-or-leave-it stand. FGFA is a landmark, collaborative, futuristic defense project that would doubtless benefit both countries," Kapil Kak, a retired Indian Air Force air vice marshal and defense analyst, said.

India-Russia FGFA collaboration benefits both counties, he said.

"Russia required FGFA for its industry to stay competitive with the Western systems, reduce development cost and guarantee an export customer; India saw it as a means to address the IAF–People's Liberation Army Air Force imbalance and impart a measure of resonance to its combat aircraft development programs."

A Russian diplomat here said India's concern about low work share can be addressed and its workload gradually increased as Indian industry is better able to absorb technology and produce components for the aircraft in the years ahead.

The FGFA is based on the Russian T-50 platform and is already in prototype stage for use by the Russian Air Force and could be inducted in 2016 or 2017.

India wants about 40 changes to the Russian prototype and has a preference for a double-seater.

However, the main sticking point has been resolving a dispute over an increase in India's work share in the FGFA from the current level of less than 20 percent to 50 percent. The increase in work share would help the Indian aerospace industry get additional orders for the fighter.

"Signing of the contract is mainly based on agreement on work share on research and development. While Russians have already taken the lead in this and the Russian prototypes are already flying, there appears to be deadlock on this aspect between HAL and Rosoboronexport on behalf of UAC," Daljit Singh, a retired Air Force air marshal, said.

"The work share would have to be finalized fast to get the project on track. Delay in this also dilutes the authority of the Indian side to have a say in major design of the aircraft. Final agreement can [be reached] if the contracts between the two agencies are signed," Singh said.

While defense analysts and Air Force officers agree on India's urgent need for the FGFA, they don't want the parameters recommended by the service to be diluted to rush the deal.

"Given that India entered the project after the FGFA design had been frozen and prototypes were flying, any changes would face constraints. But India is going ahead with plans to fit indigenous avionics, navigation-communication systems, aero-structures and other components," Kak said.

Singh says the essential features of the FGFA for both Russia and India will remain the same.

"The basic design of the aircraft is based on stealth, super-cruise and super-maneuverability features, and this would remain as the base design," Singh said. "Therefore aircraft structure and power plant would be the same for both air forces and that would also ensure lower R&D costs. The IAF would be looking at some of its own requirements of sensors, avionics and weapon carriage capability. These issues are required to be finalized and mutually agreed and then the project would move much faster."

However, Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia, retired Indian air marshal, said the service wants a greater share in development and production to give it an indigenous look.

"IAF questions the indigenous development aspect in this skewed ratio. The AL-41 engine, which is supposed to power the FGFA, is not yet developed. AL-31, which powers the Su-30 MK, is not capable of supersonic cruise. Avionics, including active electronically scanned array radar, do not have any visibility."

At this stage, does India have any other options?

"This appears to be an academic question at this stage. It is too late in the day for India to explore other options given the extreme complexity and huge costs involved in an FGFA program," Kak said. "The indigenous FGFA, Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft [AMCA], still on the drawing board, is an excellent alternative provided it follows a better trajectory than the delay-ridden indigenous Light Combat Aircraft project. An AMCA success would also signal the arrival of India on the global aerospace industry market as another manufacturer of FGFA aircraft after the US, Russia and China."

Ahluwalia offered various options.

"Considering the anticipated delay in the project and to avoid any shortfalls in the IAF force levels, the options include: develop the indigenous AMCA; LCA MK II development would be indicative of capability; consider increased procurement of Rafale or F-35; propose to purchase 18 T-50s off the shelf and subsequently assess the probability of success of the FGFA," he said.

Email: vraghuvanshi@defensenews.com