PAK-FA and FGFA: News & Discussion - June 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by P Chitkara »

As soon as the PAKFA reaches a degree of maturity required by Ru, expect to see a lot more of
1. Jacked up prices
2. All sorts of denial in promised tech - T90 barrel is a shining example
3. Change in agreed terms of engagement

Also, with the induction of MMRCA cant we wait for AMCA? It should give us at least that much leeway. Our western neighbour should not much to be worried about and as far as China is concerned, the production J20 with okish configuration will get inducted post 2020 if pace of earlier inductions is something to go by. Being a first attempt, I don't expect it to be a super duper million line code, sensor fused aircraft with uber stealth.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by vishvak »

We've to be prepared that russians are going to get super nasty from here on.
Replacing suppliers ... meaning hassle free outsourcing of supply chain to USA instead of dealing with Russia? The joke is on us if we can't see USA scheming in internal matters (south, east and of course ***** of fourfathers pakis) along with actual naval presence in the Indian ocean (post-genocide world police). There is no excuse to not buy FGFA under "there are no threats" BS label. When the British left, they left pakis next to us. We can't leave out any options for next century just so that we remain "busy" some way or the other in the Asian century.
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Rien »

ravi_g wrote: Even Uropains are not relying on nEUROn. They perhaps may go in for something useful based on tech derived from it. They are not like the nouveau-riche Amerikhan. They generally take time – perhaps the reason why they got Amerikhans to do their bidding even when they never come to the aid of the Amerikhans when the Amerikhans need them the most. They do come in on sure things like Libya where they are assured of the glory of an easy win.
UCAVs/UAVs are cheaper and more efficient to conduct missions that manned fighters are. The budget conscious Europeans will have to make cuts as the Italians already did to the JSF. But France and UK will also have to make cuts to their big expensive fighter programs.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/mega-f ... d-the-dcp/
By any reasonable calculation, the DCP is heavily oversubscribed. I can’t recall a time in which there were so many very large projects. The DCP doesn’t have just one elephant in the room, it has a herd of them. The future submarine, future frigate, F-35 joint strike fighter, armoured vehicles for the Army and maritime patrol aircraft projects total, by my estimation, over $100 billion for the acquisition phase. To put that in perspective, the current annual acquisition budget is around $5 billion.
There is no money in the budget. So Australia, just like other Western governments are going to have to make cuts to the most expensive program. Or they will have to sacrifice everything else.
ravi_g wrote: <snip>
The requirement of ~150 longer legged FGFA is quite a reasonable one esp. if we can get the AMCAs, LCAs etc. to complement it over the full range of requirements. Essentially their MMRCA is our HMRCA and we need the really long-legged, really heavy multi-role FGFA only for a very limited set of requirements. We are not ameirika that we must have thousands of 75 million USD :P 5th gen plane.
In violent agreement that neither the Chinese nor the Pakistanis, even in combination are a justification of expensive 5th gen fighters.
ravi_g wrote: Rien ji, UCAVs do nothing currently. Except on even more paper than a JSF program office churns out. Nobody yet knows what they want to do with UCAVs. All they have done is release a few missiles aimed at some poor camel borne threat to world peace. Oh & off course they have also released another trial balloon saying we can code ‘n million’ lines hence everything can be automated hence all missions can be done & hence pilot is useless. It follows that Indians should fight their wars based on the manuals these egg-spurts lay out for us. It does not matter to them that Chinese and Pakis do not agree with their manuals. Ok man whatever! what can I say, after all the Amerikhans save my sorry SDRE donkey from a new alien threat every Friday night. But I have a strong suspicion that maintaining distance is a better bet. These Amerikhans, also have a habit of saying ‘new/improved/latest/bestest’ after every release of autumn/fall collection on parisian catwalks.

Look, merely because all available experiments look alike, it does not follow that all of later developments will bind themselves to that one hexy development path. In any case I am not such a big believer in UCAVs. I restrict myself to UAVs and that is it. Somehow I cannot get rid myself of my fantasy for sensors, tracking and targeting. Personal preferences ji, no accounting for it.
The DRDO is working on AURA. An AURA equipped with Nirbhays and Brahmos can pentrate even the best defences China will have in the next 20 years. You should also be aware that we have the Harpy drone, which is a kamikaze drone that takes out air defence sites. So your love of UAV's only doesn't mean that much anymore, even we already have drones that can fire missiles or commit suicide by crashing into things or drop bombs.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/india-ey ... art-bombs/

All of this from Wiki on Rustom

Rustom-2 is an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) developed by India on the lines of the American Predator drones.

In October, 2010 A senior DRDO official stated,
“ The American RQ-1 Predator is an obvious template for the Rustom program. We’ve built a credible unmanned flying platform. The way the Americans converted a robust surveillance drone into a combat drone is something we are confident we can replicate for the Rustom-H. It will have a great deal of mission flexibility. [..]

In February 2012, ADE Director P S Krishnan stated,
“ Designing of Rustom-2 has been completed, purchase orders have been placed and we are on schedule to fly for the first time in February 2014

So you are outdated only.
ravi_g wrote: Moving on to Nirbhays, I am clear in my head and you cannot budge me from here - missiles are not a substitute for a plane.
Gulf War. There is nothing a plane can do that a cruise missile can't do. Or WW2 with the V2 if you want an even earlier example. I don't see what a plane can do that is any improvement on a cruise missile. And missiles have substituted for planes, for both the Pakis and us. We used to have nuclear gravity bombs. I"m pretty sure that both the Pakis and us now rely on missiles only.
ravi_g wrote: I beg to differ again - deep strike is not a dream. There are fair number of examples to show it is not.

But yes the essence of your concern is right in that a political authority that cannot muster courage to hit back at smaller levels will never need anything bigger. They can sue for 'Peace' & 'be happy’. Be that as it may, kindly realize we are not stuck in time. Successive stages of Indian political manhood has been in the works and these things will become useful in time. Furthermore you fail to realize the full implication of your arguments. For example nobody has used nukes after 45 and nuke subs have never even been seen in use much less being actually used. Should we then give up those items too. What about the Indian Navy - in 71 the navy chief was almost begging the PM to allow him some measure of glory. So I guess Indian navy is also out. We don't need Indian navy for things like Maldives. Motor boats and dingy should suffice.
Bhai saab. How much time? Is this universe going to be around? We are not Israel. Even the USA has never conducted the fabled deep strike missions into the USSR that the B2 bomber was supposed to permit. Only one country has ever pulled off deep strike, and that country is definately not us.

Shallow strike first, then only after that can we even begin to talk of deep strike. Also, realistically, deep strike doesn't make any sense against China. China has thousands of cruise missiles. If a strike is launched on any worthwhile Chinese city, we will get hit like in the Gulf War by thousands of cruise missiles.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

Cruise missiles are going to have a diminishing importance in the future. They'll be important, but the mission sets will be greatly reduced. One lesson that most observers have learnt from the PGM wars (GW 1, 2 and Balkans) is not to give nice, fixed targets for long range PGM's to target. C2C, A2AD/IADS are all going to be mobile, integrated, connected with lot many decoys spread out to deter against long range strikes from things like a Tomohawk, JASSMER or Storm shadow. There is no substitute for being over an area of interest with a sensor with the discriminating power to pick things up and target them in a time-critical fashion. There was a very good time for the PGM's during the last few wars, but they have to adapt to the adapting enemy who will try his level best to cover up the vulnerabilities.
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Rien »

P Chitkara wrote:As soon as the PAKFA reaches a degree of maturity required by Ru, expect to see a lot more of
1. Jacked up prices
2. All sorts of denial in promised tech - T90 barrel is a shining example
3. Change in agreed terms of engagement

Also, with the induction of MMRCA cant we wait for AMCA? It should give us at least that much leeway. Our western neighbour should not much to be worried about and as far as China is concerned, the production J20 with okish configuration will get inducted post 2020 if pace of earlier inductions is something to go by. Being a first attempt, I don't expect it to be a super duper million line code, sensor fused aircraft with uber stealth.
The Russians have been good on technology transfer so far. We are also their lifeline on this project and they know it. Jacking up prices happens in every avionics program everywhere. The Tejas was supposed to be completed years ago for a much lower price. Do we ask for a refund on the Tejas? Are the Americans going to get their 1.5 trillion dollars back on the JSF?

Your fears are overblown. We have done this kind of joint product already with Russians for Brahmos and the Su-30 MKI. The prior track record gives me confidence this will work.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

There is no substitute for being over an area of interest with a sensor with the discriminating power to pick things up and target them in a time-critical fashion. There was a very good time for the PGM's during the last few wars, but they have to adapt to the adapting enemy who will try his level best to cover up the vulnerabilities.
This.

Now design a plane to fit this rec.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

The problem here is that people see what PGM's have done in the previous few wars and are thinking that this will continue. If you look at those that used the PGM's in those wars you'll find very interesting trends emerge from their on-going weapons development programs. For the Pacific (CHINA) threat a lot of money is being spent on multi mode seekers, PNT advancements and operating in a data-link & GPS denied environment. This strategy is not pulled out of thin air, but due to an understanding that the enemy will target satellites, mess up the RF spectrum and make long range PGM strikes extremely less effective. What worked in the 90's cannot be taken for granted in 2020, 2030 or beyond. UCAV's are great, but lets get back on this topic when someone actually designs a UCAV that can operate with full autonomy over non-permissive environments where GPS is denied, where data links are denied and where the IAD threat is the absolute cutting edge.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

Which is why "prior track record" does *not* instill much confidence in me. It is not the capability that I challenge, it is the ability to act or even react to a constantly changing environment. The one that sets or defines that environment will have the upper hand - only for a while - only to be challenged by the next change.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

Precisely, the unique situation we find ourselves in is that China which is main high-tech threat is gearing up to challenge and deny the USAF and USN and it damn well knows that in order to do so it has to find a way around their Precision weapons particularly those smart weapons that can be put on platforms and used from stand off ranges (Tomahawks, JASMER's etc). In addition china is also fully aware of the UCAV inventories within these forces and where things are heading. If you look at some of the recent DARPA programs you'll find that a lot of time, and money is being spent on getting around the PNT vulnerability where the current GPS backbone is not expected to perform as planned in the pacific corridor without some serious PNT efforts to chop off some of the shortcomings. ASAT capabilities is another area where the chinese are clearly and rapidly developing a denial capability. Without solutions to these programs one cannot even begin to contemplate a design for a UCAV that can operate in the biggest threat environments. Sollutions are being worked out but will take a lot of time to implement and have their shortcomings removed. The entire concept of the ASB is based on eliminating these weaknesses and targeting other weaknesses that the enemy may posses. Simply, put as things stand against a near peer adversary a tomahawk would be much less effective than what it has historically been hence the shift to fitting a common fleet wide passive suite and developing munitions that can rapidly switch from one mode to another depending upon what is denied and what is still available. Expect the eventual JDAM replacement to fully mimic the sensor suite of the SDB II and the future JASMER replacement to incorporate some of the LRASM's capability to operate in GPS denied environments.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

In the next 10-20 years I fully expect China to be ahead of Russia in such matters - outside of a good, reliable engine (which they may have too by then - who knows).

In fact, IF India exerts efforts in the right direction, with proper funds, I do not see why she too cannot be a player in these matters.

Relying on Russia, IMHO, would be a huge mistake - granted this is a very, very, very broad statement. Not a knock on them, just an observation.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Indranil »

This thread is borderline derailed. Please get it back to discussing development on PAKFA/FGFA.
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by P Chitkara »

Rien ji,
We went to the Russians because we don't have the expertise and experience to pull it off within desired time. IAF has already expressed their reservations on engines and other improvements that they want. Coming to your statements:
The Russians have been good on technology transfer so far
We have done this kind of joint product already with Russians for Brahmos and the Su-30 MKI.
Late 90s and early 2000s yes, but not now. There is a reason I quoted the T90 barrel example and am not even talking about the Gorshkov saga. Not letting the Indian team near the aircraft hardly inspires any confidence.
Jacking up prices happens in every avionics program everywhere. The Tejas was supposed to be completed years ago for a much lower price. Do we ask for a refund on the Tejas?
I am pretty damn sure this will not be confined to avionics only which is something that will be our home built anyways. And wasn't this precisely the reason we went to them in the first place - they being far ahead of us in aviation? That is not to say there will be no cost overruns, however, as long as proper visibility is maintained on where our $$ our spent, with us being on board, it should not be a major issue. Right now I have absolutely no idea on how the Indian side is benefiting from the millions we are pumping in and there is no evidence of involvement of Indian side, so far. There also seems to be either unintentional or deliberate disconnect between what we want and what we will get if you see statements coming from both sides and this is when we are supposed to be partners on the so called joint development.
Are the Americans going to get their 1.5 trillion dollars back on the JSF?
Did you give a thought to the sophistication levels and variants of the two birds here?
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Rien »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Arihant, cryogenic technology. We are even now doing the Sukho Superjet and got the Russian Agat seeker. The Russians, especially compared to the US, have been great on technology transfer. We are getting a prototype soon, according to the official PAKFA schedule.

Our benefit is being involved right from the start in co-development instead of being handed an already finished product and then making minor changes after the fact like the Su-30 MKI.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/02/07 ... 32917.html
“Russia has already given the draft R&D contract to us. It will include the cost of designing, infrastructure build-up at Ozar, prototype development and flight testing. So, India will have scientists and test pilots based both in Russia and Ozar during the R&D phase up to 2019. HAL will subsequently begin manufacturing the fighters,” the newspaper's source said.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece
“The use of composites will reduce the plane’s weight and give it lower signature. Our version will also have more advanced Indian-made avionics,” Mr. Subrahmanyan told The Hindu at the Moscow Air Show-2013. He is leading a HAL delegation to the biannual air show being held this year from August 27 to September 1.

“Thanks to these improvements we will get a better and more powerful platform,” Mr. Subrahmanyan said.
These upgrades can also be shared with the Su-30 MKI, so we can have even more commonality in the fleet. The engines and avionics are probably going to be shared. These are a large set of advantages, and there are simply not that many 5th gen fighter programs to choose from in the first place.
Are the Americans going to get their 1.5 trillion dollars back on the JSF?
Did you give a thought to the sophistication levels and variants of the two birds here?
Do you? The PAKFA is the design that makes sense. The JSF is already obsolete, competing against UCAVS and cruise missiles that can do the same job for a fraction of the price. The PAKFA, on the other hand, comes in at a reasonable price and does air to air combat, which is something modern drones still can't do. Considering the Light Combat Helicopter, Aura UCAV and Nirbhay, I just can't see what the JSF even has to offer. This applies for the US as well. It simply doesn't make sense to go ahead with an expensive program that is already obsolete when the present is already unmanned, and Predators/Reaper drones are out doing what expensive manned fighters couldn't.

Cost is a huge factor. The fact that we are involved means the PAKFA will probably be the cheapest 5th gen fighter around, even undercutting the Chinese.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Yagnasri »

how much is paid so for an how much is to be paid as per present arrangements/estimates? Any gurus?
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by P Chitkara »

The JSF is already obsolete, competing against UCAVS and cruise missiles that can do the same job for a fraction of the price.
JSF obsolete? How so and what UCAVs is it competing with? I will specially like to know what UCAVs that are flying today, it is competing with.

I am not going into the second point about replacing the fighters with CMs - a separate topic altogether. That being said, a lot of AFs world over will not agree with you.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

The notion that stealthy unmanned aircraft will take over the stealthy - penetrating mission is a fantasy that is totally unsubstantiated by facts. I am currently writing something related to this for my blog which should go active early next month. If someone knows of a way to operate UCAV's in an A2AD setup against a near peer adversary please provide it to me :). I have asked this a couple of times to those that have claimed " so and so capability will make XYZ obsolete" but have not received anything as of yet.

The challenges of an extreme A2AD environment (such as those that China is looking to create or has created already) -

- GPS denied
- SATCOM denied
- RF domain comprehensively jammed and at best contested
- Large number of Decoys
- An integrated air defense consisting of mobile C2C, large decoys, and a shooter capability that extends to space and includes Directed energy

Would love to know how an unmanned aircraft will operate under these conditions, and the technologies that would enable it to do so.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Sep 2014 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Philip »

Not to mention viruses through cyberwarfare. The cost too at the moment of UCAVs is staggering.One would've imagined that without the need for pilots,cockpits,displays,etc.,etc.,the cost would come down but it hasn't,apart from technical issues,just look at this report.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... oad-ahead/

Xcpts:
The problems begin in late 2012, when the original Navy UCLASS requirement was submitted to the DoD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC). Headed by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. James Winnefeld, the JROC severely “dialed back” the Navy’s robust UCLASS requirement that previously had included strike/reconnaissance missions into “contested” airspace. Instead, the revised JROC requirement projected a more surveillance-oriented mission set in “permissive”/undefended areas, with only a limited strike mission and a payload similar to the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. While the justification for this revision was never fully explained by DoD, there appear to have been several reasons for their reluctance to specify a more capable and robust UCLASS, including:

Cost – Despite the well-understood cost benefits of unmanned systems versus manned aircraft, the JROC appears to have thought that the cost of developing and fielding a “high-end” UCLASS would be too great, and potentially unsupportable in the projected budget environment for the rest of this decade. This could become particularly troubling in light of the Navy’s continued acquisition of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the probable move to high-rate production of the F-35 JSF.

Risk DoD and the Navy are still stinging from the cost escalations that transpired during the development and fielding of both the F-35 JSF and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). In particular, the U.S. Navy’s inability to control development and contractor costs, along with a number of risk-related problems bringing new technologies to the fleet, probably caused the JROC members to want to limit UCLASS.

Fighting the Last War – There is an unfortunate and common tradition within DoD and the military services to buy weapons systems and develop tactics/doctrine to fight the war just finished. Given that the U.S. military has been fighting insurgencies over the past dozen years, it is very easy to forget that across the globe, the militaries of many countries are buying state-of-the-art air warfare systems. These include fifth-generation fighter aircraft (Sukhoi PAK FA/T-50, Chinese J-20, etc.), and advanced surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems like the Russian Almaz S–300/350/400 series.

When word of the JROC-revised UCLASS requirement was released earlier this year, the reactions from the halls of Congress to the naval aviation community itself ranged from outright disbelief to outrage. Members of the House of Representatives wrote directly to Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus, expressing concern over the inputs from the JROC, and the possibility that the pending UCLASS requirement would make for a much less capable aircraft. Numerous editorials and opinions from analysts and aviation experts supported these concerns. However, a recent GAO report also expressed concerns with the anticipated pace and risks of the UCLASS program, which intends to put four detachments of four to six aircraft on carrier decks for deployment in the 2020 to 2022 timeframe. All this public attention appears to have recently had an effect on the near-term future of the UCLASS program.

“As a system, what we want to do as an affordability initiative is to ensure that the air vehicle design upfront has the growth capability without major modifications to go from permissive to contested [environments].”

Beginning earlier this month, the Navy began to lay out its own vision for UCLASS, explained by Rear Adm. Mat Winter, USN, the commander of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Unmanned Aviation and Strike Systems Program Executive Office (PEO). “As a system, what we want to do as an affordability initiative is to ensure that the air vehicle design upfront has the growth capability without major modifications to go from permissive to contested [environments],” Winter said. “Specific proposals and the designs that are given back to the government, those will be informing us of how much of that permissive to contested and the air refueling provision actually shows up in their designs. Air refueling provisions are still part of the requirements.”
Lockheed Martin UCLASS

The Lockheed Martin Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) air vehicle concept is likely one of the four competitors for the U.S. Navy UCLASS program. Lockheed Martin rendering

In speaking to the basic UCLASS requirement changes from what the JROC specified in late 2012, Winter explained, “Some are modular, some are fill…. so there is a whole spectrum of traditional design growth paths. We have to wait to see what industry proposes. The plan here is to provide an early operational capability that will be verified and validated for a light strike permissive environment. What we will ensure is that the design of the system (UCLASS) does not preclude what we call “capability growth,” to be able to operate in contested environments.”

Winter explained where the program stands during a Nov. 7 press conference.

Currently, four contractors are planning to submit bids, including Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics.

“That draft [UCLASS] request for proposal is in the final approval stages of our senior leadership authorities,” he said. “We anticipate that being released by the middle of December.”

Currently, four contractors are planning to submit bids, including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics. The UCLASS contract award is currently anticipated in late 2014, with the achievement of an early operational capability in the 2019 to 2021 timeframe, according to Winter.
General Atomics UCLASS

The General Atomics’ submission for the UCLASS program is based around their Sea Avenger. General Atomics photo

“That’s the current timeline,” he said. “With that, we’ll go into our source selection activity to down-select to a single air vehicle vendor. From that point we’ll be able to determine the exact timeline or schedule for the UCLASS program because we will have picked the specific air vehicle.”

While the Navy seems to have regained control of the UCLASS program and schedule, it remains to be seen if they can possibly put airframes onto an operational carrier deck by the end of this decade. Fiscal limitations alone could derail both the program and schedule, resulting in a delay of years before UCAVs operate from the decks of U.S. aircraft carriers.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

I don't think the cost is staggering by any metric. On cost alone a reaper or the more advanced Avenger will always be more economical both to procure and to operate. With an operational life many times that of a fighter and combat hours making something like 80% of the flying there is really nothing in favor of using a manned asset for the same mission (drones don't have to be in the air for 200-300 hours per annum like manned fighters do). The problem is technical, AI is not advanced enough to completely do away with having a pipeline (either big or small) and if you do rely on a pipeline your ability to penetrate a defended airspace is limited by the survivability of that pipeline and not necessarily the RCS of your aircraft. Thats where the UCAV will not be able to compete with a manned strike asset for many many years to come, and that is why things like the F-35, AMCA, Rafale are not going to loose their relevance.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by SaiK »

there are certain frequencies (example raptor uses within its AESA configuration) specifically operated in very high frequency for comms in burst/switch mode with LPI techniques. For sat comms, I can be still in duplex mode (drone and remote ops) using such techniques and avoid being jammed.

darpa has hermes program @>10ghz, and interesting specifications.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

LPI techniques would be a constantly shifting capability and a general rule is to exercise restraint and emcon. What may work for sensors and targeting would not be a given for long distance control of an unmanned aircraft. You could count on directional LPI data links with a narrow pipeline but then you'll be limited to LOS and having a drone slaved to yet another manned penetrator (sort of like what smart wearables are at the moment in the consumer electronics domain though this may change in the next 24 hours or so ;) ). This also does not satisfy the tactician that has to assume a strong ASAT capability for a near peer adversary and be prepared to fight in space. There are a few interesting things going on @ DARPA with cyber warfare and they are even now openly discussing armed escort of data (no kidding) and real time cyber damage assessment..but that still does not solve the underlying problems of protecting large pipelines that would need to be in place for full combat strike missions to be offloaded to the unmanned domain. The UCAS-D program was demonstrating mock 1 ship and teamed co-ordinated SEAD missions nearly a decade ago and a lot of the stuff even then was autonomous, yet a lot of that is not being brought into the frontline for a NP adversary sort of capability and for damn good reason. Perhaps the secret work going on for the Next generation Long Range Strike Bomber could provide a solution to that problem, but based on what is available in the public domain there is nothing to suggest that this GIANT problem is going to be overcome (and an advantage being maintained) until autonomy catches up and that will most likely take a few decades given the level of autonomy coming into military hardware and the current PNT programs that are not expected to be online before 2025-2030
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Sep 2014 01:40, edited 1 time in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by TSJones »

...problem is, some of you guys are all into these striking cobra, kicking stork, zoom-zoom maneuvers instead of weapons development, combined with EW and low RCS technologies. that's where the real game is and you can't even acknowledge that due to political ideology.

please buy Pak-fa but it is not going to be trouble free.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

Pak-fa but it is not going to be trouble free
It all depends on how one defines "trouble".
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by SaiK »

Low RCS techniques (BVR only): plenty and achievable, and 100% doable.
Jam resistant and/or Zero Emission communication is next to impossible.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

Low RCS techniques (BVR only): plenty and achievable, and 100% doable
Already being done. The APg-77 is an in operation LPI radar. Yet until and unless you stay up to date it will diminish in capability. The APg-77 has already been jammed by the Apg-81. Sensors and LPI to achieve stealth is one aspect, but the main tactic is advanced SA despite of emocon. This is possible with a manned stealthy fighter. A bit different when you send in an unmanned aircraft ;)
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Rien »

P Chitkara wrote:
The JSF is already obsolete, competing against UCAVS and cruise missiles that can do the same job for a fraction of the price.
JSF obsolete? How so and what UCAVs is it competing with? I will specially like to know what UCAVs that are flying today, it is competing with.

I am not going into the second point about replacing the fighters with CMs - a separate topic altogether. That being said, a lot of AFs world over will not agree with you.
The Chinese Air Force is in violent agreement with me about cruise missiles, and you should worry a lot more about that.
I know of no AF that doesn't have thousands of cruise missiles. Please explain. Even we are going to have a thousand Brahmos.

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/tag/skat%20kh-31/

The JSF is in competition with the both enemy and US UCAVS. This includes ours, such as the DRDO AURA. Everyone is building UCAVS. But particularly for them, the X-47 B
The U.S. Navy has done the math and realized that they need UCAVs on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service before the end of the decade. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. The math problem that triggered all this is the realization that American carriers had to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching current manned bombers. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with a range greater than 800 kilometers. The X-47B UCAV has a range of 2,500 kilometers and is seen as the solution.

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/tag/skat%20kh-31/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by shaun »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Baapre!!!!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: IGNORE IGNORE!!!
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_20317 »

Philip wrote:Not to mention viruses through cyberwarfare. The cost too at the moment of UCAVs is staggering.One would've imagined that without the need for pilots,cockpits,displays,etc.,etc.,the cost would come down but it hasn't,apart from technical issues,just look at this report.
The cost cannot come down this way. Because with a human pilot you have effectively got a super computer sized brain incharge. That is the cheapest possible solution.

The only two ways that can be beaten, is either working the way a brain cannot or putting more brains to the job on the ground, thinking. In both cases however it is only going to be more costly.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

came across this in SJ twitter
https://twitter.com/SJha1618
DRDO is involved in over 200 joint projects with the Russians. And how many with the Americans exactly?

Regardless of the typical push and pull with the Russians, the fact is We are doing very interesting stuff with them indeed.
What are these 200 Joint project we just know a few in opensource ?
Ranjani Brow

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Ranjani Brow »

Austin wrote:came across this in SJ twitter
https://twitter.com/SJha1618
DRDO is involved in over 200 joint projects with the Russians. And how many with the Americans exactly?

Regardless of the typical push and pull with the Russians, the fact is We are doing very interesting stuff with them indeed.
What are these 200 Joint project we just know a few in opensource ?
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Sep 13
There are many. Many. Most are classified, so you won't get them in the public domain anytime soon.
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/510335059493019649
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by negi »

^Our dear Phillip sir now has the ammo to deal with opposition for next 100 years , opposition wallahs must be now feeling like INC (allah aap sab ko takat de). :oops:
sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by sattili »

^^^^^^
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

on a serious note - however we despise the russkies we do lot of collaboration (or dependency based on how you look at it). Be it the Brahmos JV (I read Mr.Pillai's book and he is all praise for them), Help in ATV project, Help in Naval design, Letting us use Gramov to test Kaveri engine, Sub crew training(I read in Vayu that they even established a dedicated school for the children of IN sailors), DRDO Torpedo testing(or is it Kazakhstan?)....ityadi.

Hey then even let us install our own Idli & Dosa makers on the ships while they are still at russkie yards (Viki got one)- and they didn't ask us to sign CISMOA for doing that ;-)
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_20317 »

Russians and Amerikhans have a very very different strategy both grounded in their own world view.

When the Russian defeat came in the 90s in the Cold War, they gained a need to heave off the role they thought they were best placed to drive till that time. At times they still seem to be doing the same old cold warrior chauderaahut.

Americans OTOH thought they must be doing something right hence the Russians lost out in the cold war and as a result they gained a need to keep doing exactly that. From the Amerikhan PoV an India or a China is just a zygotic Russia to be nipped in the bud even before the next Cold War starts. Do anything, pretend anything but just do not let these countries grow.

Amerikhans went on to deny to both Indian and China while Russians kept arming both Indians and Chinese. There is no third country on the planet, the size of India and China, to be armed, otherwise that third country too would have been sourcing products and technology from the Russians. Historically Amerikhans have only created short term trust (whatever), but long term dependency and Russians because of their no. 2 position ended up creating short term dependency but long term they left people free to do whatever they wanted. Just look at Europe reduced to the level of rich sharecropper - today playing the role of a bunch of 'personally incorruptible but spineless' entities :D.

Amerikhans will absolutely surely end up requiring tactically brilliant but strategically stupid allies while Russians stand at least some chance of eventually gaining a respectable position among some super strong equals. Equals that possess some really long memories.

Both are doing what they best see fit for themselves.

The 200 seems a big number but in reality if you have been helped nukewise then you have been pretty much been given everything. A large number of little things even if all of them comprise big money items, is still not as final as handing over nuke-subs and sharing some really denied knowhow.

From the Russian POV there really is only two things they can keep doing - 'Oil' where they are and will remain challenged by the West and 'MIC' which they are more then willing to trade on. Russians perhaps sense that they are useful for the world only till the time they can provide workable military solutions to countries facing some serious odds.

Dependency is a strange concept. In 71 we absolutely were dependent on the Russians and we got the support we needed under a Kongi sarkar. In 90s after the shock therapy the Russians were absolutely dependent on anybodies charity and the Indians helped out with their money despite facing serious difficulties of their own, again under Kongi sarkar. Both times the the Kongis were lead by the most pragmatic of people from among them.

In 71 (actually forever) the Pakis too were absolutely dependent on the Chinese and Amerikhans and they still are. Tough luck bh..tniwalon. In 20s, 40s and the cold wars, the Europeans were absolutely dependent on the Amerikhans and they still are. Heh Heh, serves you right white man.

Not a causation but still where there is smoke, fire cannot be very far.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by vishvak »

Well, adding to it, Russians also don't force intrusive inspection clauses for each and every purchase that we pay with hard cash.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Philip »

The 5 most important Indo-Russian JVs/projects to me are the ATV/N-sub tech and transfers (Akulas),BMos missile development,and the SU-30MKI production and upgrades.Russian cooperation in naval construction with the Vik-A modernisation,frigates,sensors,weapon systems ,etc.,and T-90/MICV production rounds up the list. One is very confident given the successes of these projects that the FGFA in the future will be another bright shining star.We have no equivalent defence cooperation with any other nation,barring Israel with the B-8 JV ,delayed and yet to be put through its paces .Hawk assembly counts for little.

The US is unable and unwilling to part with any of these above mentioned tech items.It just wants India to be a captive buyer.The alleged treason of Quisling Singh,as exposed in the N-thread,where he effectively sabotaged/delayed India's FBT programme and wanted to enslave India to US/Western N-suppliers ,is graphically illustrated in a report posted. The acute reluctance to even share JSF stealth tech with closest ally,pet poodle Britain,is enough evidence of its great reluctance to share anything cutting edge with anybody.

Recent reports say that China still has a long way to go to match Russian/Western stealth/aviation tech.After the Americans,the Russians have the best mil.tech and its mil. capability and tech advancement is rapidly growing under Vlad Putin at a rate than Russia can afford,not wanting to get trapped in a vicious arms race with the Yanquis as was seen during the Cold War that led to the eco crisis and collapse of the Soviet empire.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

hecky wrote:What are these 200 Joint project we just know a few in opensource ?
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Sep 13
There are many. Many. Most are classified, so you won't get them in the public domain anytime soon.
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/510335059493019649[/quote]

Their reluctance to transfer barrel and armor tech for the T-90 is certainly in the public domain. Their 'benevolence' in projects instituted while strapped for cash in the 90s is hardly reflective of what we can expect from a well-off Russia, an example being the ToT roadblocks vis-a-vis the PAK FA/FGFA. For the record, prior to '91 we still received downgraded (monkey-model) variants of Soviet equipment.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Russian cooperation in naval construction with the Vik-A modernisation,frigates,sensors,weapon systems ,etc.,and T-90/MICV production rounds up the list.
The Gorshkov would never have been signed had the brass known what it would actually cost and the time-frame in which it would actually be delivered. As for the T-90 purchase, its certainly been a successful venture... for the Russians.
One is very confident given the successes of these projects that the FGFA in the future will be another bright shining star.We have no equivalent defence cooperation with any other nation,barring Israel with the B-8 JV ,delayed and yet to be put through its paces .Hawk assembly counts for little.
The FGFA is proving to be an utter sham of 'joint venture'. We buy a HAL-stamped Russian aircraft at prices defined by Russia. It would have been one-thing to buy the PAK FA upfront, but trotting out the line that its even a partially Indian venture is an exercise in self delusion.
The US is unable and unwilling to part with any of these above mentioned tech items. It just wants India to be a captive buyer.
That's what all manufacturers want, American, Russian or European.

As long as what they're selling offers better value than the competition, its worth it. You want technology? Invest in domestic R&D.
Recent reports say that China still has a long way to go to match Russian/Western stealth/aviation tech.After the Americans,the Russians have the best mil.tech and its mil. capability and tech advancement is rapidly growing under Vlad Putin at a rate than Russia can afford,not wanting to get trapped in a vicious arms race with the Yanquis as was seen during the Cold War that led to the eco crisis and collapse of the Soviet empire.
Russian stealth/aviation tech is not at par with the West, so lumping them together and comparing to the Chinese is just wrong. And as a matter of fact, most recent reports indicate that the Chinese have caught or are on the verge of catching up with the Russians in most segments (with the exception of propulsion, where too its only a matter of time).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

came across this in SJ twitter
https://twitter.com/SJha1618
DRDO is involved in over 200 joint projects with the Russians. And how many with the Americans exactly?

Regardless of the typical push and pull with the Russians, the fact is We are doing very interesting stuff with them indeed.
What are these 200 Joint project we just know a few in opensource ?
Hmmm......

IF they are really classified, how come SJ knows the number? And, that they are "interesting"?

classified means, by definition, it does not exist. Unless of course they are re-classified and are no longer classified.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

The alleged treason of Quisling Singh,as exposed in the N-thread,where he effectively sabotaged/delayed India's FBT programme and wanted to enslave India to US/Western N-suppliers ,is graphically illustrated in a report posted.
Well ................................. Dr. Singh was *re-elected* by the people of India AFTER he supposedly ran that program into the ground + (plus) the very party he belonged to tried to drive him into the ground during his re-election bid.

LoL.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by srin »

Philip wrote:The 5 most important Indo-Russian JVs/projects to me are the ATV/N-sub tech and transfers (Akulas),BMos missile development,and the SU-30MKI production and upgrades.Russian cooperation in naval construction with the Vik-A modernisation,frigates,sensors,weapon systems ,etc.,and T-90/MICV production rounds up the list. One is very confident given the successes of these projects that the FGFA in the future will be another bright shining star.We have no equivalent defence cooperation with any other nation,barring Israel with the B-8 JV ,delayed and yet to be put through its paces .Hawk assembly counts for little.
:rotfl:
You were making sense till you attempted to embellish with examples of Vik and T-90 and FGFA.
Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 311
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Asit P »

Indo-Russian Jet Program Finally Moves Forward
India and Russia have finally sorted out all sticky issues that have been holding back an agreement on the Fifth Generational Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program, a Russian diplomat in India said, ending the opening chapter of a program expected to build 200 jets at a cost of $30 billion.

No Indian Defence Ministry official would confirm that all problems had been resolved, especially those related to workshare between the two countries.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin discussed the matter during a summit in Brazil in July,a source in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said. Both leaders agreed the FGFA deal should move forward, the source added.

In 2010, officials signed a preliminary design agreement between India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau to jointly produce the FGFA for use by both countries. A final accord, which will pave the way for production, has been pending because the Indian Air Force hasn’t approved the design and the manufacturers have not yet ironed out how much work each side does.

India has wanted to boost its workshare from 18 percent to more than 25 percent. Both countries have invested $295 million.

The Russian diplomat said India’s share will steadily increase to 40 percent as the Indian industry matures, especially with respect to incorporating sophisticated technology into the aircraft.

India and Russia will sign a final agreement on the program by year’s end, the MEA source said.

Russia reportedly has also agreed to the Indian Air Force’s demand that the jet be a two-seat design; the prototype is a one-seater.

HAL and Sukhoi Design Bureau have sorted the list of systems and subsystems that each side will supply, a HAL official said. According to the agreement, India and Russia will jointly develop the thrust vectoring system for the plane; HAL will supply the mission software and hardware in addition to the avionics suite of the aircraft.

India’s beyond visual range missile, the Astra, is being developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation, along with Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which will be mounted on the FGFA, the Air Force official said.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau and HAL proposal for the jet is a derivative of the Russian T-50 aircraft, which is in the prototype stage.

The Indian Air Force expects to receive the first FGFA prototype by 2016 for user trials, followed by delivery of two more aircraft in 2018 and 2019. The FGFA is scheduled to get into production by 2021, the Air Force official added.
Post Reply