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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:10

The copy paste clown returns!! Oh wow. PS:Expect to hear from all those you plagiarize from as well.. IDRW buffoon/s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:15

Singha, here is a good read on possible approaches to the PAK-FA's primary sensor
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:36

srai wrote:I think that highlights low serviceability rates of Russian equipment in general regardless of whether it is in the IAF or RuAF.

Depends on a host of factors including funding though..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:37

This was actually the link I was looking for
http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to29.pdf
Page 32 has status on T-50 tests
Page 34 has status on NIIP AESA

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:42

AESA

here soon.
Could we start with the latter point? How is
the PAK FA AESA radar system development
and test programme doing?
To date, we have made six sets of the
forward-looking AESA radars intended for the
PAK FA. The first two radars are being used by
Sukhoi and us for bench tests to test advanced
operating modes. Three more have been
shipped to the customer to equip the third,
fourth and fifth flying PAK FA prototypes.
We kicked off the AESA activation test flights
on the third prototype (T-50-3) in summer
2012. The aircraft has fulfilled the bulk of the
flight tests of the AESA radar. In addition,
the fourth flying example has been flying in
Zhukovsky since last spring, having completed,
inter alia, a number of tests of our system. The
third PAK FA prototype furnished with our
radar, T-50-5, ferried to Zhukovsky from the
manufacturer plant, started flight tests recently.
Thus, there are three Tikhomirov-NIIP radar-
equipped T-50s undergoing trials now, with the
number of activated AESA radar flights logged
being close enough to a hundred.
Most of the flights conducted have been
successful. The main result is the stable enough
operation of the forward-looking AESA radar in
the air-to-air and air-to-surface modes from the
very beginning. Having seized the opportunity,
we dismounted the radars from the PAK FA
prototypes undergoing planned debugging and
bench-tested them. The AESAs’ characteristics
did not change and no modifications were
required, so the radar were mounted back on
the planes for continued flight tests.
The PAK FA kicks off its official tests in
Akhtubinsk this year. In the near future, the
aircraft fitted with our AESA radars will be
ferried there. There will be an opportunity to try
them under proving ground conditions as well.
As is known, the schedule of the PAK FA test
programme is pretty tight. The programme’s
Phase I must be complete by late 2015, so that
the manufacture and operational evaluation of
early production-standard aircraft can begin as
soon as 2016. We cannot see a reason to derail
the plan as far as we are concerned.

How many AESA radars more are planned
to be made for the tests, and when their
production could commence?

Within two years, we will supply the customer
with four more AESA radar sets to fit four
PAK FA flying prototypes. In addition, a set
is due for interdepartmental tests. The AESA
radar production is to be launched by the
Ryazan State Instrument-making Enterprise
in 2016. Mind you, the plant has taken part
in making our AESA radars starting from the
earliest prototypes, supplying us with individual
mechanical and electronic parts and units. For
now, we handle the final assembly, debugging
and calibration of AESA radars, but the plant in
Ryazan will productionise the radar in due time.
To fit the PAK FA, Tikhomirov-NIIP is
developing both the main forward-looking
AESA radar, which has been installed into
three fighter prototypes, and a number of other
subsystems. For instance, we unveiled a side-
looking AESA for the PAK FA at last year’s
MAKS 2013 air show. There will be two SLARs
like that onboard the fighter. In addition, the
fighter’s leading-edge slats will house L-band AESAs too, which we have displayed at
MAKS air shows. Another four PAK FA flying
prototypes will carry the complete integrated
multirole radar system, including forward- and
side-looking AESAs and L-band AESAs.
It is an open secret that the AESA radar we
are developing to fit the PAK FA is to serve
the basis for deriving a radar system for the
Russian-Indian fifth-generation Prospective
Multirole Fighter (Russian acronym PMI), or
the FGFA, as it is known in India. Tikhomirov-
NIIP has been selected as prime contractor to
develop the radar to equip the PMI, but Indian
engineers will participate in the development
too. The Indians are supposed to develop and
manufacture some of the subsystems of the
radar system, with the precise number of those
being discussed now.

Finally, I cannot but mention that the
experience we have gained from the
development of the AESA radar for the
PAK FA can come in handy in developing
an AESA multirole radar intended to equip
the Future Long-Range Bomber (Russian
acronym PAK DA). We have completed its
preliminary design. If we are awarded the
development order, our institute, which has
been a fighter and interceptor radar specialist,
will expand its envelope and start developing
radars for long-range bombers as well.

IAF Su-30 upg

The Irbis’s predecessor, the Bars, fits
approximately 250 Su-30MKI, Su-30MKM
and Su-30MKI(A) fighters that the Indian,
Malaysian and Algerian air forces have
operated with success. The radar has cleared
all of the phases of its trials, has been
streamlined to perfection and is capable
of all the tasks it was designed for. At the
same time, India wants the radars equipping
its Su-30MKI fighter fleet modernised
as part of the fleet’s upgrade, with its
intent on having such an upgrade voiced
several years ago. At Phase I, the Bars was
supposed to be refined while retaining its
passive electronically scanned array through
extending its range, enhancing its resolution
and ECM immunity and adapting it to
advanced airborne weapons. Phase II was
expected to replace the Bars’s antenna with
the AESA. Apparently, it makes sense to do
so after the AESA radar designed for the PMI
fighter has been tested, so that the lessons
learnt are put to use. I presume that other
operators of the fighter family – Malaysia
and Algeria – will show interest in such
modernisation too, just as India did

Phase 1 will be similar to Irbis. That radar

dars for long-range bombers as well.
Do you continue your work on passive
phased-array radars?
Our Irbis passed-array radar is second
to none in the world, as its characteristics
demonstrated in the trials have shown. Itflight tests on the Su-35 fighter have produced
unique results in terms of target acquisition
range far exceeding 400 km. Thus, the Su-35
equipped with our Irbis can see farther than
any other fighter in the world.
GRPZ is running full-rate production of the
Irbis. About 20 production-standard Su-35S
fighters delivered to the Russian Defence
Ministry under a contract for 48 fighters
of the type carry Irbis radars. Last year, we
successfully completed the tests designed as
part of the debugging resultant from Stage I
of the official trials that led in 2012 to the
issue of the preliminary report clearing the
productionising of the aircraft.

PAK-FA tests

According to UAC President Mikhail
Pogosyan, the PAK FA passed the factory test
phase in 2013. This year, the aircraft is to begin
its official tests, which first phase is slated for
completion by December 2015. The deliv-
ery of opeval-intended production-standard
planes to RusAF is supposed to commence
in 2016. According to Mikhail Pogosyan, the
PAK FA prototypes have displayed “a good
dovetailing of the development and bench
tests, including the tests of the AESA radar”.
According to Mr. Pogosyan, this applies to the
engine, “which thrust is 15% higher than that
of the AL-31FP and is considerably higher in
non-afterburning modes, which allows super-
cruise”. The tests of mid-air refuelling tech-
niques, supermanoeuvrability, etc., began as
part of the development trials too.
Late in May 2014, the third and fourth
T-50 flying prototypes were demonstrated in
flight as part of the nationwide final stage of
the Aviadarts 2014 combat skills competition
staged by the Russian Air Force. Sukhoi test
pilots Sergei Bogdan and Roman Kondratyev
performed a breathtaking terrain-hugging aer-
obatics set with attached underwing weapons at
the Pogonovo testing ground in the Voronezh
Region. Their aerobatics included simulated
ground target attacks. One of the fighters car-
ried a couple of medium-range and dogfight
missiles under wing, and the other packed
two high-speed precision-guided air-to-surface
missiles in addition to two air-to-air ones

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 08 Apr 2015 21:51

don't have PAK-FA details but Good read.

Su30mki RCS = 4m2

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ft-rcs.htm

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 21:56

wonder how they got that!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2015 22:03

Its useless without any source to back it up.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2015 22:13

Karan M wrote:This was actually the link I was looking for
http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to29.pdf
Page 32 has status on T-50 tests
Page 34 has status on NIIP AESA

Thats from July 14. We have heard little since in terms of the test points accomplished or addition of flight sorties towards testing. The last figure I could search was 450-500 sorties by the end of 2013. The best I could come up with based on official sources (Sukhoi and quotes from officials) was 100 flights/sorties in 21 months post first flight (100th flight occurred in Nov. 2011, Avionews) and a minimum of 350 sorties in the 23 months following that (Sukhoi). Would love to know how many sorties they have flown over the last 15 months and we can gauge the overall increase in sorties as the testing, system and number of aircraft become more mature and/or increase in number. Still a few months to August

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 22:19

>>We have heard little since in terms of the test points accomplished or addition of flight sorties towards testing. The last figure I could search was 450-500 sorties by the end of 2013.

That's because lets face it, Sukhoi is not exactly the most forthcoming of organizations about test schedules, testing etc. The stuff above that we do know is from one of the few reporters who has a very good relationship with them & unlike some western export oriented programs, Sukhoi has no real incentive to publicize the data either. The IAF would be briefed with classified details periodically, and VVS would have a ringside view. Rest can be managed by infrequent updates via websites/news media etc on ad hoc basis.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 22:20

brar_w wrote:Its useless without any source to back it up.

agree.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2015 22:25

That's because lets face it, Sukhoi is not exactly the most forthcoming of organizations about test schedules, testing etc. The stuff above that we do know is from one of the few reporters who has a very good relationship with them & unlike some western export oriented programs, Sukhoi has no real incentive to publicize the data either. The IAF would be briefed with classified details periodically, and VVS would have a ringside view. Rest can be managed by infrequent updates via websites/news media etc on ad hoc basis

They updated their website to highlight the fact that more than 450 sorties had occurred by the end of 2013. Haven't added anything else to that since. The last update they put on their website was last year mentioning the fire. Perhaps they'll share more in August.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Apr 2015 22:26

Sukhoi website? Do they even update it regularly? I see mostly PR pics and stuff there.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Apr 2015 22:30

Karan M wrote:Sukhoi website? Do they even update it regularly? I see mostly PR pics and stuff there.

Yeah they do it in the news section from time to time. 2014 entries on the PAKFA -

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5451

and

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5386

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2015 09:37

One wouldnt know how those each sorties which can last from couple of tens of minutes to more than an hour or two impact the flight testing program.

Those sorties dont really say much as we dont know what is the test point they have achieved with each sortie. The only thing mandatory that T-50 or any new Aircraft like Tejas would have to do is to fly the mandatory hours to get certified by the flying organisation to consider is worthy to fly after flying x number of hours which i think is 2000 hrs.

In the end for outsiders this is all guess work unless the organisation involved mentions what each sortie achieved or did not.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Apr 2015 14:28

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/d ... scows.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2015 14:37

Singha wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/d ... scows.html

IF Ajai Shukla was the DM he would have blacklisted Dassault and Sukhoi and would have bought the JSF

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Apr 2015 17:25

One wouldnt know how those each sorties which can last from couple of tens of minutes to more than an hour or two impact the flight testing program

There is a reasonable assumptions in such conditions that as the program matures more of these sorties are able to accomplish higher test points per sortie. It isn't altogether unreasonable that a highly mature test program is capable of accomplishing multiple test-points per sortie as well on occasions. Again having total number of sorties, or total number of flight hours (that may be asking for a bit much ) would still allow us to find out a lot more about progress then having nothing at all especially if the trend points to much higher volumes year on year.

In the end for outsiders this is all guess work unless the organisation involved mentions what each sortie achieved or did not

Yes its guess work, but thats what we can do

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2015 19:31

brar_w wrote: There is a reasonable assumptions in such conditions that as the program matures more of these sorties are able to accomplish higher test points per sortie. It isn't altogether unreasonable that a highly mature test program is capable of accomplishing multiple test-points per sortie as well on occasions. Again having total number of sorties, or total number of flight hours (that may be asking for a bit much ) would still allow us to find out a lot more about progress then having nothing at all especially if the trend points to much higher volumes year on year.

Yes and It all boils down to experience , if a country has wide experience in fighter aircraft development then it can reduce the numbers of sorties needed for test or achieve test points laid out which itself might vary on what some one wants to achieve with IOC/FOC and beyond that

Experience is the key factor and then there are also nitty gritties and nuances that each test program brings in new program

Its really hard to come by any data other then to just believe what official says about it. Its like for us crystal ball gazing

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Apr 2015 20:56

Austin wrote:
Singha wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/d ... scows.html
IF Ajai Shukla was the DM he would have blacklisted Dassault and Sukhoi and would have bought the JSF

If our Philip were DM, he'd ban everyone except for RSK MiG and go for the MiG-35 and Beriev for the flying boats.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 09 Apr 2015 23:11

Cosmo_R wrote:
Austin wrote: IF Ajai Shukla was the DM he would have blacklisted Dassault and Sukhoi and would have bought the JSF
If our Philip were DM, he'd ban everyone except for RSK MiG and go for the MiG-35 and Beriev for the flying boats.

If Philip was our DM, instead of buying puny Apaches armed with 70mm rockets, hellfire and stingers, Philip would commission a brand new Mi-XXMki helicopter derived from Mi-26 with smerch rockets, brahmos and s-400 with the fuselage armour and cannon from T-90

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 10 Apr 2015 02:25

I think we can create a new meme - "If Philip were our DM...." or "WWPD"

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Apr 2015 08:29

Just when a discussion was ongoing, USA fanboys have to, once again, crowd this thread.

By the way, the acrobatic display at Moscow air show (MAKS 2011) can indicate that the fighter jet is able to fly at least 5 minutes alright, in acrobatic mode - the point being certain presumptions can be made from such data. An example, from MAKS 2011: link

The jet can reportedly carry out combat duty in any weather at any time of day, and will feature a special coating making it less noticeable to anti-aircraft radars. It will also be able to cruise at super-sonic speed.
..
It has thrust-vectoring engine nozzles, so it flies safely at low, near-zero speeds. It's safe even when it flies tail first. The data environment in the cockpit is also new. The fighter provides intelligence support to the pilot.

That would have definitely required some amount of testing, for sure.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Apr 2015 08:49

If Philip was DM, ..never going to happen and thank goodness for that.

Some interesting stuff (PAK FA) on tests so far

«We planned to reach a certain level and I believe that we have successfully solved this problem in the network of the first stage. Some parameters appeared to be even higher than expected. For example, we have obtained outstanding characteristics in the area of supersonic cruise and super-maneuverability», - the First Deputy Director General of Project and Research Scientific Center of Sukhoi Design Bureau, Mikhail Strelets, said.

Even if they meet 2020, like I said 2025 at least.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/3/3/2947/

Development of a fifth-generation engine for PAK FA fighter will be completed in 2020
Russian Aviaton » Tuesday March 3, 2015 10:30 MSK

Development of a fifth-generation “Phase 2” engine for PAK FA fighter will be completed in 2020, RIA Novosti reports with reference to CEO of United Engine Corporation (UEC), Vladislav Masalov.

“The first test “Phase 2” engine will be ready in 2016 and it is going to fly on a flying testbed in 2017. The development will be completed in 2020,” Masalov said at Aero India-2015 airshow.

Today the PAK FA prototypes are powered by “Phase 1” engine – Product 117; its mass production has already been launched, the source added.

UEC CEO also noted that the “Phase 2” engine would outmatch the Product 117 in terms of fuel efficiency and thrust-weight ratio; it will comply with all the international standards for fifth-generation engines in terms of design solutions and technologies used as well as performance.

Bench testing of the engine’s components and core will be carried out this year, Masalov added.

According to him, almost all the design bureaus of UEC are involved in development of “Phase 2” engine for PAK FA; the main contractor is Design Bureau named after A.M. Lyulka. Chief Designer of this project is Evgeny Marchukov.

An overview of the PAK-FA design from its patent (focus on that, not the comparisons or interpretations of other a/c)
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/01/16/pat ... 32309.html

Good overview by Bill Sweetman of AWST
http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-t-5 ... nnovations

However, in recent months the Sukhoi design bureau has obtained several patents relating to the T-50, including the rationale behind the stealth fighter's configuration.

One Sukhoi patent opens by outlining a reference design similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22, but notes perceived shortcomings and areas where the Russian designers, starting a decade later after work on the Su-27 and its descendants, tried to do better. The F-22's thrust-vector control (TVC) system cannot provide roll or yaw control because the engines are too close together. The engine installation leaves no place for weapon bays in the same plane as the engines—they have to be installed around and below the inlet ducts. The serpentine inlet ducts add length and weight. Post-stall recovery is problematic if TVC fails, and the fixed fins and rudders are large.

The T-50 is a blended wing-body design, resembling the Su-27 in one key respect: the core of the structure is the “centroplane,” a long-chord, deep-section inner wing to which the rest of the airframe components—the forward fuselage and widely separated engine nacelles, wings and tail surfaces—are attached. Compared to the Su-27, however, the centroplane is deeper between the engines, to accommodate weapon bays.

The flight control system has 14 effectors—12 moving flight control surfaces and the engine nozzles. The wing leading-edge flaps are used symmetrically to maintain lift at high angles of attack and adjust the wing profile to the Mach number. The ailerons are used only at low speed and takeoff and landing, when the flaperons are used to increase lift. At higher speeds, roll control comes from the flaperons and horizontal tails.

The all-moving vertical tails sit on short fixed pylons that contain the actuators, and air intakes for engine compartment cooling and heat exchangers. One purpose of the pylons is to make room for a longer bearing arm for the vertical tail pivot, between the top of the pylon and the lower surface of the blended wing. This reduces loads and allows the bearings and structure to be lighter. At supersonic speeds, the T-50 is directionally unstable and uses active control via the vertical tails. That is why the all-moving surfaces can be much smaller than the F-22's fixed fins and movable rudders. The vertical tails replace the airbrake, moving symmetrically to increase drag with minimal pitch moment.

The large and unique moving leading edges on the centroplane help optimize the lift generated by that section in cruising flight, but their most important function is to recover the aircraft in the event of a TVC failure at post-stall angles of attack. They do this by deflecting sharply downward, reducing the plan-projected area of the wing-body section in front of the center of gravity.

The engines are widely separated, to make room for weapon bays and provide roll and yaw vector control. The engine centerlines are splayed outward to reduce effects of asymmetric thrust with one engine inoperative, placing the thrust vector of the good engine closer to the center of mass of the aircraft.

As on the TVC-equipped versions of the Su-27/30/35 family, the individual engine nozzles vector only in one plane, but the vector axes are rotated outward. Consequently, symmetrical movement of the nozzles creates a pitch force (each nozzle creates an equal and opposite yaw moment) and asymmetrical movement creates both roll and yaw moments. If yaw only is required (for example, in the Su-35's “bell” maneuver, a high-alpha deceleration followed by a 180-deg. change of direction) the roll moment can be counteracted by flaperons and ailerons.

The T-50's inlets are a compromise design. They are serpentine but the curvature is insufficient to obscure the entire engine face (as on the F-22, F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon), so they also feature a radial blocker similar in principal to that used on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Unlike the F-22 inlets, however, they feature a variable throat section and spill doors on the inboard, outboard and lower surfaces of the ducts. The result is a complex multiple-shock pattern at supersonic speed, which the Russians consider essential for efficient operation at Mach 2. The inlets also feature clamshell-like mesh screens and diverter slots to keep foreign objects out of the engine, as used on the Su-27 family.
[The T-50's sharply swept delta wings and high fineness ratio mean it will have no difficulty in cruising at supersonic speed without afterburning, up to the temperature limits of its engines. (Credit: Sukhoi)]
The T-50's sharply swept delta wings and high fineness ratio mean it will have no difficulty in cruising at supersonic speed without afterburning, up to the temperature limits of its engines. (Credit: Sukhoi)

The main challenge in the structural design was to provide space for tandem weapon bays running the entire length of the center section. This ruled out the structural concept used on the Lockheed Martin F-35 and F-22, which have multiple full-depth bulkheads carrying the wing loads, because this forces all the weapon bays to be ahead of the wing. The centerline structure on the T-50 has to be quite shallow, so that designing it to resist peak wing bending loads will be a very difficult challenge. The solution on the T-50 is to design the “centroplane” section as a stiff, integrated structure with two sets of full-depth longitudinal booms, located at the outer edges of the nacelles and at the wing-to-centroplane junction. These are connected by multiple (the patent drawing shows eight) spanwise spars that also carry the wing attachment fittings. The result is a structure that spreads the bending loads over the centroplane and reduces the peak loads at the centerline.

It is believed that the target maximum speed of the T-50 is around Mach 2. The goal was originally Mach 2.35, but this was reduced to Mach 2.1 and then to the current figure, compared to Mach 2.25 for the Su-35S. The main reason for the difference is that the T-50 uses more composite materials in its primary structure than the Su-35S, which makes heavy use of titanium.

The T-50 aircraft flying today are equipped with the izdeliye (Type) 117 engine, described by its designer in a 2011 interview as being more advanced than the 117S used on the Su-35S. The 117S appears to be an evolution of the AL-31 engine series with some technology from the 117. The 117 is claimed to have a thrust/weight ratio of 10:1.

However, Saturn Managing Director Ilya Fyodorov confirmed at a press conference last month that the company is designing a follow-on engine (referred to by the 117 designer as izdeliye 30) for the T-50, which is expected to offer higher performance than the 117 from 2020 onward.

More details of the fighter's weapons may be revealed at MAKS, but it appears that the T-50 is designed to carry variants of in-service missiles initially. Tactical Missiles Corporation General Director Boris Obnosov identified several T-50 weapons in an interview early in 2012, including the existing Kh-35UE anti-ship missile, Kh-38ME air-to-surface weapon and the RVV-MD, an improved version of the R-73E short-range air-to-air missile with an enlarged seeker field of view and a claimed 30% range increase. A significant development is the new Kh-58UShKE, a long-range (up to 245 km), Mach 4-capable anti-radar missile originally produced for the MiG-25BM Foxbat-E, fitted with folding wings for internal carriage.

However, Obnosov identified these specifically as being weapons at service entry, which he projected in 2014. There is still no definitive information about the T-50's internal weapons capability, but it seems likely that there are four separate weapon bays. Two bays outboard of the inlets each accommodate a single RVV-MD. Tandem bays between the engines each hold two missiles, but it is likely that the forward bay is deeper to house weapons such as the Kh-58UShKE, with the aft bay dedicated to air-to-air missiles in the R-77 family.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russia ... dbae7da1ee
Since the original blog is not available, this has a link to AWST report on new missiles etc.

But when it does enter service, even in limited numbers the T-50 could have a big impact on rival forces. Scanning the missiles on display at MAKS, Sweetman concluded that the T-50 could be armed with two powerful main weapons: a version of the Kh-58UShE anti-radar missile and the new RVV-BD air-to-air missile.

Both nearly 15 feet long, the Kh-58UShE and RVV-BD can hit targets 120 miles away or farther. The Kh-58UShE homes in on enemy radars; the RVV-BD is for destroying other warplanes.

WIB's take - might well be true in this case given T-50 design features

The T-50, on the other hand, is apparently being designed to blast through defenses in a fairly straight line, relying on front-only stealth features, high altitude, sustained speed and long range to swiftly fire long-reaching missiles at vulnerable targets deep behind enemy lines—without the help of aerial tankers, of which Russia possesses few.

Which is not to say the T-50 isn’t also highly maneuverable when it needs to be.

The Russian fighter’s preferred targets might include spy planes, Airborne Warning and Control System/Airborne Early Warning and Command (AWACS/AEW&C) aircraft, tankers and ground-based radars—in other words, all those vital systems that comprise the pricey, high-tech back-end in any U.S.-led air campaign

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Apr 2015 10:00

given its ability to loiter in supersonic, good fuel fraction(I hope) and radar coverage, lone examples of the pakfa might be used as "disrupters/flash mob" to snipe at and break up incoming enemy strikes on a wide front..the idea being to mission kill with BVR shots from high altitude and superior radars ...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2015 17:33

Cross post from the Rafale thread

nik wrote:. We need a 'cheap' 5th Gen jet to counter Chinese and effectively PAKFA (once it gets in Chinese hands)

I did not understand the reasoning behind this.

I will ignore the "cheap" bit for now, but I can't figure out why anyone would need 5th gen fighters to counter Chinese 5th gen or other fighters.

Over India we need good air defences. Over China or over water we need to avoid Chinese air defences. What has the generation got to do with it? Is the suggestion here that stealthy Chinese aircraft will be shooting Indian aircraft down at BVR ranges just like USA shot down Iraqi and Libyan fighters?

I am not sure that the scenario is as simple as that. I would be happy to have a little discussion of exactly what "5th Gen" means and what is it about Chinese 5th gen that we are looking at countering.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 15 Apr 2015 18:20

given its ability to loiter in supersonic, good fuel fraction(I hope) and radar coverage, lone examples of the pakfa might be used as "disrupters/flash mob" to snipe at and break up incoming enemy strikes on a wide front..the idea being to mission kill with BVR shots from high altitude and superior radars ...

Why loiter at supersonic speed? The fuel will get consumed in no time and the sonic boom will only help alert any enemy post nearby.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Apr 2015 18:29

Singha wrote:given its ability to loiter in supersonic, good fuel fraction(I hope) and radar coverage, lone examples of the pakfa might be used as "disrupters/flash mob" to snipe at and break up incoming enemy strikes on a wide front..the idea being to mission kill with BVR shots from high altitude and superior radars ...

Why defence/dogfight role again? Defence can be done by 3 and 4 gen with AWACS and BVR.

It's for attack roles that 5th gen can come into its own. Stealthy ingress, Standoff missile/PGM launch and supersonic egress.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2015 19:21

shiv wrote:I did not understand the reasoning behind this.

I will ignore the "cheap" bit for now, but I can't figure out why anyone would need 5th gen fighters to counter Chinese 5th gen or other fighters.

Over India we need good air defences. Over China or over water we need to avoid Chinese air defences. What has the generation got to do with it? Is the suggestion here that stealthy Chinese aircraft will be shooting Indian aircraft down at BVR ranges just like USA shot down Iraqi and Libyan fighters?

I am not sure that the scenario is as simple as that. I would be happy to have a little discussion of exactly what "5th Gen" means and what is it about Chinese 5th gen that we are looking at countering.

They dont need really one 5th gen fighter to counter another and chances are most airforce wont have more than 25 % of their fighter strength to 5th gen standards even 20 years from now. And also it not necessary the chance that every time you fly out to combat you end up dog fighting another 5th gen far.

The generation fighter jump is like PR created by Fighter Lobby along with media to justify their own existance and need to jump to different level of technology with perhaps only small percentage of over all mission needing that when other options are available. Something similar to the CPU war we see where every new CPU release comes with PR that the last one got obsolete and forcing the user to jump to new one but the reality would be the last CPU on an average never used 60 % of its capacity !

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Apr 2015 19:38

The generation fighter jump is like PR created by Fighter Lobby along with media to justify their own existance and need to jump to different level of technology with perhaps only small percentage of over all mission needing that when other options are available

The first "open literature" reference to fifth generation that I have come across has been in a USAF system command, Aeronautical systems division directive for the Phase 0 of the ATF program. This dates to somewhere in the 1983-1985 timeframe. Prior to this the TAWD ( Target acquisition and weapons delivery) study conducted in the 1970's showed how a "NEXT GENERATION" fighter with better performance capabilities (at this time stealth had not come into the picture so they were dealing with better sensors, speed, range, and performance) could run circles around the USAF that would have the F-15 and F-16 by the mid to late 1990's. That was the first to use the term "NEXT GEN. TACTICAL FIGHTER", and this followed the then generally used term/program - AFTI (Advanced fighter technology Integration). The OEM's, and the media only took the terminology floated by those that framed the requirements. No one at either the major defense contractors or the media publications can be credited with coining the term.

Note however that the original ATFI was a program to develop technology to be integrated into he F-15 and F-16 (much like the Su-35, and Mig-35 programs). This was one the reasons they continued with the various F-15 and F-16 based advanced technology and capability demonstration programs whether that was to demonstrated better STOVL performance, supercruise, better strike or TVC.

At the time however no one at the directorate knew what developments were taking place in the labs at Lockheed and Northrop (and to a lesser extent Rockwell) and what was being demonstrated at Groom Lake and Tonopah. This is known as a SAP or Special access program and is a designation for classification that is even higher than the regular CLASSIFIED used for most programs (only one man - SECDEF - can add to the list of people who know if what is happening and this includes Congress). Only when the ATFI leaders were given access to the SAP design efforts did they actually see what was possible, and then they considerably shifted requirements for the ATF and we got the first 5th generation fighter RFI issued (This also effectively killed MD and Boeing and forced them to team with one of the 2 firms that had the bulk of the LO contracts). The story was that they had to fly in independent evaluators from MIT to do a second pass at the results after they began adding LO characteristics at the time (before they were enhanced further mid way into the RFP of the ATF) in their simulations were extremely bad for the F-15 and F-16 combo (confirmed at Red Flags decades later when the F-15 and F-16 were routinely whooped by the F-22A). Hence despite of having considerable plans to considerably enhance legacy fighters (F-15 Advanced, F-16 Falcon 2000 etc) they never really looked back.

There has been some reference in the media that there could be some legitimate Russian claims to 5th generation terminology application but I don't have that info presently with me but I have read about it in the past.

As to who needs the qualitative advantage - That is up to the individual service chiefs to simulate and come to a conclusion based on their assessment and threat. At the moment many countries are working very hard to develop and field 5th generation capability including the IAF (PAKFA andAMCA), Russia, China, Turkey, South Korea/Indonesia and Japan. Additionally, many countries including some listed above, are in between an acquisition process that could see their 5th gen fleets making up close to 50% of their total fast jet fleet once it is finally concluded (USA, Turkey (TFX+F35), Australia (70 F-35A's) for starters).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 17:49

Some interesting historical facts about the SU-30 acquisition. I would not cancel the Apaches ordered,the order is small.One woiuld instead hasten dev. and production of our LCHs and transfer all attack helos and turboprop COIN aircraft (which we do not posses as yet) to the IA.

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/04/19/fgf ... 42685.html

FGFA story: Tale of an aircraft

April 19, 2015 Vinay Shukla

By scrapping a deal for 126 MMRCA and opting to buy Rafale jets in a fly away condition under a G2G contract, the Indian Prime Minister has taken the suggestion of a Russian expert Konstantin Makiyenko, offered eight years ago, to develop and more easily procure upgraded aircraft for the Indian Air Force.

FGFA story: Tale of an aircraft

Sukhoi’s T-50 PAK-FA project won the race for the development of a futuristic –fifth generation fighter aircraft by defeating its rival MiG’s similar project. Source: Sukhoi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut the Gordian knot of the US $ 25 billion ‘Mother-of-all-deals’ for the acquisition of 126 MMRCA by announcing in Paris last week that India will directly buy 36 Rafale fighters from the French aviation maker Dassault in fly-away condition under a government-to-government (G2G) contract.

Simultaneously, in New Delhi, his Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar confirmed in a press interview that G2G was the best option for the acquisition of strategic weapon platforms like the fighter aircraft and the lowest bidder (L1) was decided by “questionable life-cycle cost” factor of which even his UPA predecessor A K Antony was not even so sure.

This reminds me of Defence Minister Antony’s Moscow visit in October 2007 to co-chair the annual session of India-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission on military-technical cooperation (IRIGC-MTC) at which the two countries had signed the agreement for the joint development of a fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), with the aim to induct the futuristic stealth fighter by 2016-17.

“Why waste so much money on an older 4th generation plane, which will join the IAF almost simultaneously with next generation FGFA and advanced version of indigenous LCA Tejas?,” Dr Konstantin Makiyenko, Deputy Director of the Moscow-based independent Centre for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) asked.

Although Russian 4++ generation MiG-35 was also a strong contender at that time for the Indian tender, Makiyenko however, argued that it would be prudent to go for a stop-gap arrangement like buying additional Mirage 2000 and upgraded MiG-29 already in service with IAF and divert the funds on the development of FGFA and LCA Tejas to replace ageing MiG-21 fighters.

Related:

Russia and India get down to constructing test FGFA models
First series of T-50 aircrafts has entered the Russian Air Force
India, Russia to create FGFA ahead of schedule
Preliminary design for FGFA completed

Eight years later, we are coming back to the solution the Russian expert had proposed back in 2007. Defence Minister Parrikar has also not ruled out that to meet the operational requirements of IAF, India could buy more fighters along the G2G route, including additional Sukhoi Su-30MKI, which also fits in the ‘Make in India’ policy as they are already being assembled by HAL.

Very few people know the actual tale of the development of state-of-the-art multirole fighter Su-30MKI, where ‘I’ stands for India. It has been hogging the limelight ever since it was first inducted by the Indian Air Force.

But there is an interesting tale behind the birth of this warbird; how, for the first time in its history, the Indian Air Force got a fighter jet tailored to meet its specific requirements for decades to come. Not many are aware that, like deadly BrahMos cruise missile, Su-30MKI (Multirole, Commercial, Indian version), is also an embodiment of the vision and foresight of India’s ‘missile man’ and (now former) President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who spares no effort in reiterating his immense faith in Russia’s technological prowess.

In 1994, ahead of the Moscow visit of then Indian Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, Russian state arms exporter ‘Rosvorouzhenie’ (predecessor of Rosoboronexport) invited journalists for a briefing on Indo-Russian defence cooperation.

It was a challenging time for India, which was deeply concerned at the absence of critical spares to keep its fighters flying, warships cruising and tanks rolling as the Russian industrial complex lay in shambles in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many ordnance factories had gone to the 14 independent states, which broke away from the USSR.

In this backdrop the press was told that Moscow was going to offer India its latest Su-30 fighter and the Russian government has invited a senior IAF official to discuss the issue.

An old friend, representing HAL in Moscow, argued that no such plane exists and said Air Vice- Marshal S. Krishnaswamy would be arriving to evaluate Su-27 fighter, which was the best the Soviets had developed to counter US F-15 Eagle.

Eventually, India signed the initial Sukhoi deal worth US $ 1.8 billion with Russia’s Rosoboronexport (formerly Rosvorouzhenie) State Arms Trading Corporation on November 30,1996 for the purchase of 40 Su-30K planes and development of ‘MKI’ version and its subsequent license production in India.

At that time diplomats said that it was a major departure from the ‘buyer-seller’ relationship in defence with Russia and a confident step for transition to joint research and development of cutting edge weapon systems and platforms.

It was on August 15, 2002 that I got a call from the Kremlin press office inviting me to a tour of the Sukhoi Design Bureau with President Vladimir Putin two days later. Naturally the invitation was accepted with gratitude.

Sukhoi’s T-50 PAK-FA project had just won the race for the development of a futuristic –fifth generation fighter aircraft by defeating its rival MiG’s similar project, and there was a buzz about China and India taking interest in joining the Russian project.

As we were waiting for the President to arrive, Mikhail Simonov, the erstwhile chief designer of Sukhoi, who personally knew me, walked up to me and said that he would tell me the true story:

“When AVM Krishnaswamy came to our design bureau in 1994, he simply blasted our Su-27 fighter, considered the best in the West. I was very upset, given the fact that I was under probe on the alleged charges of treason for selling Su-27 fighters to China, I was rather depressed. So, I decided not to attend the evening reception hosted by the Indian Air Attaché in honour of Krishnaswamy,” recounted Simonov (1929-2011).

“However, my deputy persuaded me to go. I rang the bell of the Air Attaché’s apartment and Krishnaswamy opened the door with a welcoming smile. I saw a flower vase on a side table and was told to bring another of similar size and pour vodka in both of them. I gulped down one vase with vodka and challenged the Indian Air Marshal to follow suit, if he wanted me to come in and have serious discussions. Hats off! He did exactly what I requested and we got down to work and you see the result – the world’s best multi-role fighter. This also freed me from the ‘treason’ charges, since I invested the entire proceeds from the sale of Su-27 fighters to China for the development of absolutely new fighter with multiple roles,” he recounted.

“The Su-30MKI is the joint product of Sukhoi and IAF designers and engineers. The rich experience of joint development has enabled us to pick India as the partner in the fifth generation fighter aircraft on the basis of PAK-FA T-50 project,” said Simonov proudly, looking like a hefty Don Cossack out of (Mikhail) Sholokhov’s Nobel prize winning novel ‘And Quiet Flows the Don’ ”.

Now with the Rafale knot cut, other projects held up by it, like the FGFA, could be hastened and defence cooperation begin to gather pace.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Apr 2015 02:18

Interesting.

Analysis: India faces crunch decision over Rafale, PAK-FA

New Delhi faces a series of decisions on fast jet procurements that will determine the future direction and capabilities of the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) combat aircraft fleet.

At the heart of the matter is the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme - for which France's Dassault Rafale was down-selected in January 2012 - and Russia's Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter.

The central difficulty is what analysts in India described to IHS Jane's as a "massive disconnect between the Ministry of Defence [MoD], the IAF, and the political community in India who have to contend with larger diplomatic and industrial issues" on what the future IAF should look like.

At the centre of this conflict are those in favour of the Rafale and those who would instead place funds earmarked for that procurement into the development of a version of the T-50/PAK-FA, known in India as the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

For New Delhi, the issue is that "the money does not exist to have both the Rafale and T-50 programmes and, if you choose one over the other, you are making decisions that have long-ranging effects", an Indian analyst told IHS Jane's .

"If you put your resources into the T-50, then the IAF becomes an almost all-Russian fleet, and you are betting your future force structure on an aeroplane that is almost solely on paper at present. If you decide to go with the Rafale, then you are forgetting about having a fifth-generation aeroplane, but at least you know everything on this platform exists and works pretty much as advertised," he added.

The Rafale's fortunes are helped by what is regarded as a growing pro-Western shift within the IAF. The combined experience of working with the United States on programmes like the Boeing C-17 and Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 and Dassault aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 has led IAF officers to embrace the Western model for running and supporting programmes over the Russian style of doing business.

"Many in the IAF do not like the way the Russians work with them," said one Indian specialist. "The Russians treat Indians like they are children and the IAF officials with the gold braid on their caps are used to being treated with excessive deference and the Russians do not do that."

At the same time, however, the shift in the preference for Western aircraft within the IAF does not translate into a future market for a US-made fighter. The IAF is happy to have US-made transports and other platforms, but is not inclined to purchase a US aircraft for frontline combat requirements.

"There are still plenty of those within the armed forces who remember what happened in 1998 when sanctions were slapped on India by the US over its nuclear programme," said the Indian specialist. "Until all of those who were in the armed forces at that time are retired and gone there will be no major acquisitions of something like a [Lockheed Martin] F-35."

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Apr 2015 02:37

Philip wrote:This also freed me from the ‘treason’ charges, since I invested the entire proceeds from the sale of Su-27 fighters to China for the development of absolutely new fighter with multiple roles,” he recounted.

Freed because of a vase of vodka? Interesting. Meanwhile China went ahead and developed an entire family of multi-role fighters based on the Su-27. And used the AL-31 to power a complementary fighter program.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Apr 2015 04:17

^^^The biggest mistake is thinking of 5G a/c in terms of BVR/Stealth alone. True 5G a/c are going to lead with cyber warfare to disable/confuse enemy air defenses. To power those capabilities, you need hugely powerful engines that are also efficient. Perhaps brar_w would care to comment.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Apr 2015 16:07

Powerful engines are the easier part (of all things required), the art is in burying them and effectively managing your thermal signature, and having the computing power and software that is up to the task - that is fast enough, and competent enough to counter some of the most agile threats out there as far as ground based air defenses are concerned. Thats always a challenge (Computing power, processing, integration in the avionics and thermal cooling, and IR signature suppression) since the GB systems don't operate under the same constraints. Its not as much as I put in a system and thats it, its about developing an effective architecture and then developing a roadmap to keep the system up to date in computing power. As your software grows the amount of stuff you can do with data fusion is limited by the core processors..At least that has been the case with the F22 and F35. The solution is//was to build some 15-20 years of upgrade possibility in the avionics racks and adding computing power to the ICP every other block. Once the racks are full they do a complete overhaul of the ICP and shift to better systems in the 2040 time frame.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 May 2015 19:15

FGFA Spec to be downgraded ??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 May 2015 19:22

Not that crap website please.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 May 2015 11:32

CIAM presented the results of the research phase of promising engines and power plants civil aircraft 2025-2030 years

Central Institute of Aviation Motors. PI Baranov at an expanded scientific and technical council offices "Aircraft engines" presented the results of the 5th stage of the research project "Concept 2030", aimed at creating a competitive perspective NTRP for engines and propulsion 6th generation civil aircraft.

This work is performed under the state contract with the Russian Ministry of Industry. The objective of the program CIAM "Concept 2030" is the creation of scientific and technological potential and definition of concepts of engines and propulsion systems of the following types:

turbofan engines with high performance workflow;
turbovinto-fan motor ("open rotor");
motor complex thermodynamic cycles;
distributed power systems;
GTD with optional hybrid drive shaft of the fan motor;
engines for supersonic business and passenger aircraft.

The "Concept 2030" also provides for testing of critical technologies (3-4th level of technological readiness) required to create the elements, components and systems for advanced engines. The studies developed requirements for new materials and electrical equipment, performance requirements and operational properties of alternative synthetic fuels.

Research works include computational and experimental research and development of technologies for creating advanced engine assemblies: fan, low pressure compressor, high-pressure compressors of small, transient channels, heavily high turbines, heat exchangers, transmissions and other parts and components based on the new, including including composites.

Also within the framework of the program "Concept 2030" at CIAM is developing concepts and key technologies onboard environmentally friendly power plants on the basis of electrochemical generators of electrical energy (fuel cells) using kerosene and / or alternative fuels.
"The program of the" Concept 2030 "involved virtually all departments of the Institute, - said the head of works on the subject, the head of" Research the development prospects of jet engines for aircraft "CIAM Anatoly Polev. - To ensure the competitiveness of the aero engine we need right now to think about what and how will be made in 2030-ies, improving science, technology, technology, production processes, computer database, prepare the staff of science and industry. "

For reference.

FSUE "CIAM named after PI Baranova "- the country's only research organization conducting comprehensive research and scientific support in the field of aircraft engine development from basic research of physical processes to work together with EDB for creating, debugging and certification of new engines, including ground-based gas turbines. All domestic aircraft engines were created with the direct participation of the institute and were fine-tuning on its stand.
Press service: +7 (495) - 361-45-97

http://www.ciam.ru/index.php?NewsId=1882&lang=RUS

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 May 2015 10:19

Quite a detailed article on Black Wing created with Infusion Technilogy

The black wing for MS-21

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 May 2015 10:01

Photos : UMPO/AL-31 Production Plant

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/62583/