??? If this plane was such a success, it would've seen similar success than the Mig-29. But its success comes from exports. Says a lot about the capability that this isn't adapted in house by the Russians. They moved on to SU-35, etc.
I wasn't a part of the Shkhoi's design team but what if I told you I know enough about it enough? There are no visual cues here. If SU airframes were to be converted into anything Stealth, TRUST ME, the Russians and the Chinese would've done that long time ago, JUST for good press or marketing against the Raptor. The Russians actually spent a few hundred millions in trying to "do something" but it didn't work. They aren't big on nano-tech. But VERY sharp with one dimensional, older mainframe computing. And it is visible in their designs. Your want to see a basic comparison of technology? Google any Russian top line jet's cockpit pics in 2000 and then compare it with any modern American jet's cockpit (doesn't have to be top line). You'll see the magic of smaller - distributed / modular computing and architecture, paving the way for higher powered nano-tech devices that are currently being used in almost all kinds of new jets, specially, the Stealthy ones.
The SU's and overall Russian airframes and engines are ALWAYS known to be extremely high maintenance. Same was true for SU-30 just a couple of years ago. Add another complexity to it, that is the Stealth. Imagine the maintenance now. The MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is extremely low during flight within the SU series planes, including SU-30. In SU-35 series, the quality is much better. MTBF means a LOT of maintenance and major depot maintenance also with a few hundred hours of flight at times......imagine the risks due to this.
Also do this (you are about to dislike me a lot), take a look at the size of the Russian air force and its jet count. SU-30 supposedly is one of their top air superiority fighters. Why is it inducted in less than 5% of the air force like total around 100 or below? An X super power trying to "revive" its force.....why didn't they fulfill their needs first but sold hundreds of these to other places like India and China? The answer is, it was a great plane to show off force in the Indo-Pak or Indo-Chinese theater. It's not as great (for many reasons) to be facing off the US warplanes or NATO's advanced military might. Also, there was a reason why India went for Rafale
Now reason for the above issues lies in what you ignored from my post and tried to twist facts around. The lack of real advance engineering, lack of advance nano-tech based avionics, lack of proper quality measurement and control. At the end, you have a jet that has great features in some dimensions but lacks a lot in others. Such as maintenance, design, mufti-role, or something else. The Chinese are much ahead compared to the Russians if you take both the countries military industrial complex' starting and mid point. Reason is, the Chinese have learned a lot from the West and the US. Their tech base is on distributed computing and on PC / open architecture technology (which then gives birth to nano-tech). Which Russians spend decades using good old Unix and mainframes for their advance designs and technology. Sorry buddy. It is what it is!
. I can't answer that for you all the way. You can read up, in aeronautical, avionics and metallurgy schools, they teach basics of this. May want to take a course somewhere if you want to make a profession out of it.
Interesting answer. Definitely tells me clear difference between a fan boy reader vs. an expert questioning. I am afraid I can't answer you on here. Here's why answering in the same order your questions came in:
1) Enlighten you on the process of designing of the aircraft. The answer in detail will make me write here for hours and if you think I have that much time, you are absolutely insane. Not to mention the post would turn into multiple pages. But, here's a low down for ya: A plane's design is actually a full program within itself. First, it starts with the end-user requirements. For example, when the US wanted F-14, F-15 all the way to F-22, there are very detailed analysis put into an RFP for Boeing's, Lockheeds, etc of the world. Those hundreds of pages at times worth of details tell ya' the requirements, end-mission, specifications, functionality sought and capability needed and the competition that they want to match (usually kill in the US's case as each new aircraft usually goes two decades beyond what the market has).
Then, those requirements get solidify and priorities are given as to what's expected out of a program and in how much budget with what capability and with what "delivered" capability. Then the competing organizations start towards winning the contract by creating their baseline versions. The actual physical design starts from a concept on the paper majority of the time.
Then goes through a significant phase of computer aided design AND modeling. Then modifications are made. Then, more computer aided designs are conducted. Then, finally a small prototype or a proof of concept is created. That then goes through internal testing (static, flight - air-tunnel, etc). When this is being done, usually, in parallel to it, are the avionics engineering being done in simulator cockpits, etc. Many teams work together to create different parts of this program like the weapons package, perceived flight profiles, mission modules, radars, engines, metallurgy, physicists and chemical composition of the surface, material, paints, user interaction (or the Man-Machine Interface as used in the industry).
Then, all this comes together in the shape of a version 1 or small batch 1 airframe. This first iteration is primarily used for static tests initially. Later, the engines and basic set of avionics are installed and simulation flights are conducted under controlled patterns on the ground.
Then, eventually, when a ground safety clearance is given, a flight occurs, usually very short and sweet to ensure test pilots familiarization with the plane and to ensure his safety. During this short flight, many sensors are installed that provide reading on ALL basic flight components.
Based on which, later, more design changes are added and eventually, a plane flies with its initial desired flight performance package that traces back the capability sought initially to its maturity model (or Capability Maturity Model as the industry calls it).....validation of capability vs. the requirements is checked and enhancements are made.
Then the gov't awards a contract based after a ton of tests and competition. Once first batch serial production starts, the baseline is further enhance and blocks are created as a strategy (export vs. internal only with added features). I am dumbing this down as i can write all night on this. This process means thousands of highly qualified people working on the program and many companies that specialize in certain areas producing different parts of the "jet" you casually referred to. Hope this helps.
2) How do you design an airframe from Stealth
Some useful information is available on different forums also like alert5, etc. From its basics, its a combination of highly synthetic materials, super sensitive technology, specific special chemicals, highly skilled metals and computer tech that makes all that work together. Or you can be cheaper like semi-stealthy planes the Russians are building and create airframe based stealthiness that would work for many. Just don't bring it around the JSF or the Raptor. The pilot may never realize what hit it and how and where it came from.......in a conflict with the Raptor the only computerized sensor that works is the one that shows "EJECT.......EJECT.....EJECT" on the screen with loud beeping noise
3) On nano-tech and other advance tech being used in the stealth jets (i mean REAL stealth jets)....these are the key to achieving air superiority due to many reasons. I won't waste my time on here as you can research this yourself. Google will get you good basics.
4) What does advanced technology has to do with the airframe and jet design? What's the difference in Indian Maruti's and a BMW 3.5 twin turbo? Technology that had enabled the BMW to move beyond 1950's Maruti types of cars and really create a high performance, high tech sports coupe..... I HOPE this answers it. I have a feeling, just like your countrymen, you WILL still come back with another set of silly question.
You ignored details from my post and changed the topic (just like you guys do to divert attention from topics you don't want people to discuss). Answer me, if the SU-30 was SUCH a GREAT platform and air superiority fighter, why is it that the manufacturer of that plane, the Russians decide to induct it in VERY Little numbers but gave it to China and India in VERY Large numbers???? I'd really like to hear this from you or others who think SU-30 is the mother of all advanced jets.
That is quite interesting because I haven't even found any instance where there was "high maintenance" required even on mig21 and Mig27 Airframes, on which i worked. Now LGU's are different and from what I have heard, USAF's platforms even have a higher mismatch LGU life compared to the airframe.
I can see where the logic comes from, as the Su-27SM and Su-30SM are far apart when it comes to design intent and capability.
? Enough said !!
Here we go again, just like I predicted. This will go on. If I was to bring the chief engineer of the F-22 on here, you'd still question him nonsense all day long until he would get tired of it and would simply stop.
"A simple reply would do?" Didn't you ask me to enlighten you on the process? Had you known the whole thing yourself instead of checking on me as to what I knew, that question would have been stupid to even ask for as its very detailed, no matter what you do. And here, you write three lines worth of crap and tell me I was talking manufacturing??? You sound like an airframe tech who has no idea what happens in an entire program.
If my response was short, you'd then question my credibility that I didn't know enough.....sucks to argue with people who's brain waves change like their heart's EKG!
Flanker's "Evaluation" by IAF contractors means.....jack shi*t. These guys are paid and they want the deal done. You don't understand a thing man. Having an engineer background may make you smart in that, but that's all your focus is. You can't comprehend strategy.
Yet you keep arguing without having that bigger background. When the contractors are chosen to "review", majority of the time (90%) in the case of Russia - India or China - Pakistan or Saudia-US or Israel - US cases, the product has been sold ALREADY at a much higher level. This is just to ensure the package is what it should be from capability's standpoint.
The fact remains, the Russians don't think too much of the SU-30. They in fact have upgraded their Mig 29's to SM standards and will keep them (which is a two gen lower air craft in my opinion). I will tell you this, the Russians WILL field SU-35 or the next one in LARGE numbers as they desperately need more top line fighters. Otherwise, their air power will be out of touch with the reality in less then half the week in case of a war with the NATO (conventional I might add). And that's against their new global power ambitions. So that's that for the SU-30. Nothing else will be added to this topic, take it or leave it.
Flexural rigidity and tensile strength and 350 Cycles stuff you put down, is JUST a small part of the process and its really airframe's strength static and dynamic. And I totally disagree with you that 4th gen has nothing to do with the Radar signature and its just static and dynamic stress that play a role. That was the 70's. You are still reading last generations technology.
EVERY plane being designed now a days, as basic as the Chinese win engine trainer to JFT to F-16 Block 60+ or F-15 SE, etc, has a most critical need to reduce the cross section. There are literally teams that do Radar cross section analysis and actually the RCS reduction parameters NOW dictate the design change and the airframe profile. If people with your opinion are designing PakFa.....I could probably catch its signals with my CB Radio used for car emergencies.
Last, Russian planes are very high maintenance. If that's hard to swallow, ask anyone on here who's flown an SU-30 anywhere or other Russian products. The maintenance is getting better......but it is still way behind the Western world. Google it if you want. You'll find plenty of evidence. Why are you buying Rafale btw? Stick to the SU-30
In fact, back to my basic argument, the Chinese are producing more maintenance friendly machines than the Russians. The Chinese industry is based on distributed computing versus mainframes (the BIGGEST difference between the US and Russians military industrial complex many decades ago when they set their foundation). THAT is WHY, the top technologies come out of the US as the US had made hi-tech computing cheap and cost effective for everyone to go innovate.
The Russians wanted a mainframe based industry and didn't realize the way to go was distributed - PC computing. It is very visible in their design shapes too.
After this post, no matter how much your panties are on fire, I won't respond as it's become counter productive. I am not here to satisfy your personal or national opinion about how Indian products are so much superior to everything else. I am here to write the truth based on the knowledge that I have gained over a couple of decades.
Oscar - I think we are both saying the same thing about the main topic. Go see my post above to KarKay's response. The other guy has blown this issue out of proportion and even I don't know what my past three posts have to do with the core issue that started this random firing of irrelevant questions...
