PAK-DA not for us : IAF Official

[luckyyy]

lol. When you strap on a rocket on an aircraft, it doesn't remain an aircraft, it becomes a rocket.

Even shuttle rockets have astronauts in them, are they aircraft?

Mig-25 doesn't have a burn time, because they didn't use rockets. Burn time and Impulse are measures associated with Rocketry, not jet propulsion.

Mig-25 had a jet engine and its ceiling limit is 85,000 ft, and the special Mig-25 that crossed 1,20,000 ft had an air breather engine. An air breather engine is also a special ramjet engine, its not a turbojet.

the disccusion is not about technology of ramjet, turbojet or anything alse...
the point is aircrafts do fly at high altitude , you may rename them , if don't like to call them aircrafts...that's fine....i agree

 

[jagjitnatt]

the disccusion is not about technology of ramjet, turbojet or anything alse...
the point is aircrafts do fly at high altitude , you may rename them , if don't like to call them aircrafts...that's fine....i agree

Aircraft do fly at high altitudes. But how high?

1,50,000 ft is not possible, not even for prototypes. For an aircraft that can be used again and again, 70,000-85,000 is the limit.

And since the discussion is on PAKDA, I still stand by my view, that the service ceiling for PAKDA is 50,000 ft. Anything else is just typo or a huge mistake.

 

[prototype]

Aircraft do fly at high altitudes. But how high?

1,50,000 ft is not possible, not even for prototypes. For an aircraft that can be used again and again, 70,000-85,000 is the limit.

And since the discussion is on PAKDA, I still stand by my view, that the service ceiling for PAKDA is 50,000 ft. Anything else is just typo or a huge mistake.

U r right in ur assessment,usually planes do not fly at that height,but saying planes cannot fly in stratosphere is not right i think,usually commercial airliners fly at the altitude of 9-12 km which is the lower stratosphere.

And there r more planes which had touched the height like English Canberra B-2 which had touched a height of around 65000 ft

by the way I was unaware of this Mig-25's altitude climb,can u explain more about it?

 

[jagjitnatt]

by the way I was unaware of this Mig-25's altitude climb,can u explain more about it?

A regular Mig-25 doesn't go beyond 85,000 ft.
This particular Mig-25 had a air breather engine, which is technically a ramjet, the type of engine used in Brahmos.

These engines are inefficient at low speeds and low altitudes, but once at a high altitude, and speed, they become very efficient.

So as altitude increased, the engines became more efficient, and this Mig-25 made it to 1,23,000 ft.

 

[prototype]

A regular Mig-25 doesn't go beyond 85,000 ft.
This particular Mig-25 had a air breather engine, which is technically a ramjet, the type of engine used in Brahmos.

These engines are inefficient at low speeds and low altitudes, but once at a high altitude, and speed, they become very efficient.

So as altitude increased, the engines became more efficient, and this Mig-25 made it to 1,23,000 ft.

ya ramjet,I think its efficiency starts from the speed of mach 6,but then why every jet cannot be converted into a ramjet powered if it can climb such attitude

 

[jagjitnatt]

ya ramjet,I think its efficiency starts from the speed of mach 6,but then why every jet cannot be converted into a ramjet powered if it can climb such attitude

Ramjet is efficient from speeds Mach 2 to Mach 4
Every jet can be converted into Ramjet powered aircraft, but then it would require an aerodynamic shape to be able to sustain such high speeds.
- It wouldn't be able to fly low
- It would need a normal jet to take off since ramjets can not work at slow speeds
- It won't be able to fly slow either
There are a host of problems associated with ramjets.

 

[luckyyy]

Aircraft do fly at high altitudes. But how high?

1,50,000 ft is not possible, not even for prototypes. For an aircraft that can be used again and again, 70,000-85,000 is the limit.

And since the discussion is on PAKDA, I still stand by my view, that the service ceiling for PAKDA is 50,000 ft. Anything else is just typo or a huge mistake.

so , few years down the line , will you going to complaint it to russians , that why they made a aircarft fly at such a hight or you will object them on calling it a aircrafts inplace a spacecraft..?

actually you are making a huge mistake by rejecting it saying that a aircraft can fly at such a hight , mig-25 was build in 80s , it achive a high of 123000 and able to fly regulerly at 85000.......what making you think that technology has not evolved in 30 years...

 

[prototype]

so , few years down the line , will you going to complaint it to russians , that why they made a aircarft fly at such a hight or you will object them on calling it a aircrafts inplace a spacecraft..?

Why should somebody complain about it?That plane looks more like tech demonstrator rather than a regular project,thats why non of their later projects have such high ceiling,even their latest project pak fa only have a service ceiling of 65000 ft

actually you are making a huge mistake by rejecting it saying that a aircraft can fly at such a hight , mig-25 was build in 80s , it achive a high of 123000 and able to fly regulerly at 85000.......what making you think that technology has not evolved in 30 years...

Even Canberra's touched a height of 65000 ft during 60's,but they to did not continued this program,even spirit bomber and F-22 had only a limit between 50000 ft and 65000 ft

buddy u probably dont know much about jagjit,he posses a knowledge that is more than combined of both of us together.

He already explained that it is not feasible at lower altitudes and require a separate engine during take off's,so such projects r not at all feasible.

 

[jagjitnatt]

so , few years down the line , will you going to complaint it to russians , that why they made a aircarft fly at such a hight or you will object them on calling it a aircrafts inplace a spacecraft..?

actually you are making a huge mistake by rejecting it saying that a aircraft can fly at such a hight , mig-25 was build in 80s , it achive a high of 123000 and able to fly regulerly at 85000.......what making you think that technology has not evolved in 30 years...

It is technically impossible to make an aircraft fly at that altitude, and talking about bombers, which would be carrying 20-30 tons of ammunition flying at 1,50,000 ft, is just crap.

It is technically impossible, this is not gonna happen even a hundreds years from now, no matter how much technology evolves.

Did you think for a while that Mig-25 could get to such heights, why isn't Mig-31, its successor not breaking Mig-25's records??

Isn't Mig-31 better than Mig-25? Answer that to me, if you have a technical explanation.

 

[IND151]

It is technically impossible to make an aircraft fly at that altitude, and talking about bombers, which would be carrying 20-30 tons of ammunition flying at 1,50,000 ft, is just crap.

It is technically impossible, this is not gonna happen even a hundreds years from now, no matter how much technology evolves.

Did you think for a while that Mig-25 could get to such heights, why isn't Mig-31, its successor not breaking Mig-25's records??

Isn't Mig-31 better than Mig-25? Answer that to me, if you have a technical explanation.

coz MIG 31's service ceiling is 67600 feet. it is due to increased weight.
The new engine was specified for the MiG-31 in order to improve range, since this was the key performance parameter for which an improvement over the MiG-25 was demanded. The new engine necessitated some structural modifications, and the opportunity was taken to increase internal fuel capacity to 19 700 l (some estimates suggest 20 380 l). This, together with the lower specific fuel consumption of the D-30F, raised supersonic range to 2 135 km on internal fuel, or to 3 310 km at subsonic speeds. Increased weight reduced operational ceiling to 22 800 m. A semi-retractable refueling probe was fitted on the left side of the nose. MIG-31 can be refueled from tanker aircrafts IL-78 or SU-24T.
http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/mig31.htm

 

[PRACTICAL PATRIOT]

Stealth is the only reason above that is logical, the point number 2 above is not valid.

Since, MKI is multi-role, some MKI's can carry A2G while others can go for A2A, this way, the enemy planes will not come to know the mission of any of the planes.

When the enemy sees two different types of planes, its not difficult to guess that FGFA is just for escort and does not carry A2G, then the enemy will go all out against MKI and run away from FGFA.

Its just a case where youy are unable to hide all your cards.

you are missing my entire idea FGFA IS invisible to RADAR is what we are assuming
how can they see two planes when FGFA is supposed to be a stealthy plane and wont appear on RADAR (as per our assumptions so far)?
and do you think when MKI Is carrying something like BRAHMOS, it is fair to load it with A-A missiles aswell??
wont that overload MKI?

 

[1ndy]

stop this nonsense talk

 

[saumyasupratik]

There is a higher chance of Purchase of Rafale or Su34 as and when govt authorizes purchase of 40 aircraft for SNC ,simply becoz Rafale in its proposal showcased ready capability for nuclear delivery as its feature,while Su34 is dedicated ground attack fighter meant to replace Su25 in Russian service

I don't think the ASMP missile can be sold to us.France and India are both MTCR signatory and missiles is nuclear capable.The Su-34 is meant to replace Su-24's not Su-25's.

I guess SFC wants aircraft capable of launching a nuclear tipped air launched variant of Brahmos and nuclear bombs instead of nuclear tipped missiles from Russia or France.

 

[koushik]

If IAF not having then PAF should have it. Only two or three will do

joke of the millenium.

 

[MumbaiIndians]

It is technically impossible to make an aircraft fly at that altitude, and talking about bombers, which would be carrying 20-30 tons of ammunition flying at 1,50,000 ft, is just crap.

It is technically impossible, this is not gonna happen even a hundreds years from now, no matter how much technology evolves.

IAF used to say same thing about LCA and home-made engines(Kaveri) - "They would never fly".

Anti-Russian garbage that is printed in western magazines in one thing, science is another.

---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------

It is technically impossible to make an aircraft fly at that altitude, and talking about bombers, which would be carrying 20-30 tons of ammunition flying at 1,50,000 ft, is just crap.

It is technically impossible, this is not gonna happen even a hundreds years from now, no matter how much technology evolves.

IAF used to say same thing about LCA and Kaveri engine. That they would never fly.

Anti-Russian garbage that is printed in western magazines in one thing, science is another.