PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

jimit · Post by **jimit** » 22 Feb 2010 00:21

Gaur, Pratik

Thanks

username changed to pathik. you can ask for a
human sounding username of your choice if you want,
provided it's not taken,
Rahul.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Feb 2010 02:11

Will the enhanced maneuverability that 3D TVC yields be enough to negate the advantage the F-22 has?

carl, we can be sure that PAKFA will eventually employ some kind of RCS reduction measures on the engines but probably not to the extent of the f-22 in order to retain the 3D TVC.

now, the question comes down to low RCS and IR signatures of PAKFA in what sector ? from what we can see the PAKFA should be comparable to the f-22 in front and side aspects and that is where >90% A2A fights will be fought when in BVR. people expect that a VLO vs VLO fighter fight will come down to a knife fight at close ranges, with dogfighting ability and pilot training deciding the final outcome. there, 3d TVC will be absolutely invaluable. in fact we should remember that both the top end fighters pay close attention to high maneuverability, with the RuAF top bosses insisting from day one that PAKFA should have super-maneuverability. what exact performance requirements constitute that we don't know yet but again, I'll wager it will be more maneuverable than the f-22 by a fair margin.

the russians have made a deliberate risk vs rewards decision wrt 360 deg stealth and high maneuverability. in WVR they will depend heavily on the IRST rather than the radar.

jimit · Post by **jimit** » 22 Feb 2010 02:24

username changed to pathik. you can ask for a
human sounding username of your choice if you want,
provided it's not taken,
Rahul.

can you please change it to jimit, its my first name.
Thanks

done,
Rahul.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Feb 2010 02:35

Rahul M wrote: people expect that a VLO vs VLO fighter fight will come down to a knife fight at close ranges, with dogfighting ability and pilot training deciding the final outcome. there, 3d TVC will be absolutely invaluable.

Can we really say with confidence that a VLO v VLO encounter WVR will be an important thing to consider in the design of a plane? Wouldn't these fights be decided long before they come in visual range?

The reason I'm questioning this is because, do the Russians have enough experience with VLO v VLO to make that call?

I'm certainly not saying they don't have experience, but if they've come up with a different solution than the US, who has extensive experience at least in training and simulations, isn't it fair to question as to why the Russians have a different idea?

I am completely speculating though, I don't pretend to have any idea...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Feb 2010 02:49

Can we really say with confidence that a VLO v VLO encounter WVR will be an important thing to consider in the design of a plane? Wouldn't these fights be decided long before they come in visual range?

in a 1v1 does seem so. unless one side has overwhelming superiority in the total war machine, I can't see how it can be otherwise. the detection ranges themselves will be very low taking BVR out of the equation. that is of course assuming equivalent aircraft, where one would ask the question if the PAKFA is/will be equivalent to the f-22. well, we don't know for sure but indications are that it will be.

The reason I'm questioning this is because, do the Russians have enough experience with VLO v VLO to make that call?.

that I'm not sure is really a very big problem. shouldn't be difficult to simulate. if one side can come up with the idea of VLO with no prior experience, why can't the other side come up with the idea of a counter with no prior experience as well ?

I'm certainly not saying they don't have experience, but if they've come up with a different solution than the US

have they ? the f-22 sets quite high standards for maneuverability. if I'm not wrong it's the most maneuverable of modern US fighters. it's just that the russians have placed a higher premium on agility than they have.
in fact do I sense that the USAF didn't expect that it will have to counter VLO fighters anytime soon in the first place and didn't prepare for it ?

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 22 Feb 2010 13:57

@Austin

I thought you meant the F-22 was to take out key installation which I don't agree. I will agree to the rest you said in the later post.

F-117 was shot down in Serbia using a long wavelength radar. Will the PAK-FA and Raptor be vulnerable to this ?

Cruise missiles are not so easy to detect at first place because of their smaller RCS and terrain hugging nature. Make them smaller faster and stealthier and you got a great weapon to strike hard and deep.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2010 14:09

Even in the US there is debate about the real usefulness of stealth such as that on the F-22,which comes at exorbitant cost,requires massive maintenance and for the above reasons and fear of its tech getting into wrong hands should it be shot down,fight in even the Af-Pak region! based at Guam,war gaming has shown that larger numbers of PRC land based Flankers would eventually outfight the F-22s which could only carry a limited number of AAMs.With the Russian lead in metallurgy,it appears that the PAKFA is a trade-off in stealth and other capabilities,to find the most cost-effective solution,not neccessarily the costliest stealth fighter.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 23 Feb 2010 20:31

PAK-FA Vs F-22 = PAK-FA

the PAK-FA ‘surprise’ is that the aircraft has been designed with a clear understanding of the effects of ‘stealth’ on air combat when both sides present with low-observable aircraft. Obviously, the combatants will be closer when their radar sensors detect the other side, so close in fact that the Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST) might be the first sensor to detect the presence of an enemy aircraft. The problem is this: the PAK-FA has IRST capability and the F-22A does not. Worse, the extreme agility of the PAK-FA will allow it to dodge the F-22A’s AIM-120 missile shots, while the Raptor will likely not be able to out-turn the more advanced Russian (and Chinese) missiles. Surviving F-22As would then be committed to what fighter pilots call a ‘knife fight’ – close-in dogfights where superior agility wins – and the PAK-FA will out-manoeuvre the F-22A.

The author also goes on to question US logic of ceasing funding to the F-22 program.. and wonders if US will overturn that decision, now that the PAK-FA is in the picture...

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230210-1.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2010 22:07

The Power of Oz (PoO). Oh boy, such a nice source.

Perhaps the memo that PAK-FA started some 10-15 years ago did not reach PoO? That the US made the decision to stop funding the F-22 was made AFTER the PAK-FA (in its current state) was mature enough to make a decision? That, perhaps, the F-22 - a manned plane - is no longer in fashion? That the USAF is hiring far more "pilot"s for unmanned assets that for manned planes?

(BTW, the F-22 is a 1981 plane.)

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 23 Feb 2010 22:11

If I remember correctly, there was a buzz that PAK-FA would be able to fire in any direction not just head up. I mean all around ...360 in a plane...!

This very thing has been escaping the attention...can GURUS put some light of enlightenment over it..!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Feb 2010 22:36

That was a feature that was attribute to the MKI too!! The rumor was that the MKI had a rear-facing radar and missiles that could do a 180.

Well, the PAK-FA does seem to have a rear-facing and side-facing. So, who knows at this point? But, it is a possibility that did not quite exist in the MKI.

I would hope and expect it to have that capability.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Feb 2010 23:14

MKI does not have a rearward facing radar as clarified by GJ man .

As for all aspect AAMs as long as the missile in question has the LOAL capability 180deg off bore sight kills are possible . Afaik Python-5 and ASRAAM have successfully engaged targets flying behind the host aircraft .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Feb 2010 00:25

Yeah, the rumor (of MKI having a rear-facing radar) predates GJMan's confirmation. By a year or more.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Feb 2010 00:48

IIRC, the discussion stated, a question was put to an IAF officer regarding the rearward radar. And the officer stated to that effect that, it is off-limits for any discussion.

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Feb 2010 00:50

^ Yes I remember that but if you compare tail booms of Su-34 (whihc has a rearward looking radar ) and the MKI it is difficult to imagine a Radar in that thin spine specially when it also houses the drag chute.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Feb 2010 08:48

OT but some background information on Peter Goon and Dr Carlo Kopp of APA fame from another forum link

Peter Goon was the director of Australian Flight Test Services (AFTS), an aircraft engineering company, in partnership with Dr Carlo Kopp, which submitted the F-111S upgrade proposal for AIR-6000 program for the RAAF's replacement fighter/strike capability.

The guts of the proposal was that AFTS would (through the use of sub-contractors, because AFTS operated out of Goon's own private house and had little to no inherent engineering capacity of it's own) upgrade the F-111 using new engines, combat systems, weapons, sensors and avionics to allow it to serve until 2040 or somewhere around that point.

To address the fighter replacement, Goon and Kopp proposed that RAAF conduct a direct acquisition presumably through FMS of the F-22A Raptor and operate Australia's own "High/Lo" mix of F-22/F-111.

Both Goon and Kopp have gone on public record claiming that because they submitted a proposal that RAAF should acquire the F-22 they are in fact entitled to substantial "consultants fees" because they submitted the idea to RAAF that it should acquire the F-22 in a response to an ADF request for tender...

Basically they believe that they would be entitled to a hefty slice of the contract fees if Australia purchased the F-22, because they "thought of it". The idea is that they would be selected to supply the F-22 and they would then subcontract L-M to provide it... Rolling Eyes

Hence their subsequent campaign against anything that is not the F-22 or F-111, fulfilling RAAF's future air combat needs. If ANYTHING else is chosen, there is zero prospect of cash for Messrs Kopp and Goon...

Essentially this was their proposal:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Evolved-F-111-DP-V.5-S.pdf

Ofcourse now we know that F-18F was chosen as an interim replacement for F-111 pending the acquisition of F-35 as a real replacement for F-111

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Feb 2010 09:35

Mods, atleast change the name of this thread to PAK-FA flight testing (Instead of "first flight" as it is now)
There have been second and third flights already.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2010 07:13

Interview: Deputy Director of JSC "NIIP" Anatoly Sinani ( in Russian )

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 26 Feb 2010 11:12

negi wrote:^ Yes I remember that but if you compare tail booms of Su-34 (whihc has a rearward looking radar ) and the MKI it is difficult to imagine a Radar in that thin spine specially when it also houses the drag chute.

What about the Su-35? It carries the rear facing radar too iirc. Is that tail boom considerably different from the MKIs? I think a LOT about the MKI is still under wraps and will come out into the open only after the MLU.

CM

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Feb 2010 11:35

Su-35BM tail boom .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2010 11:41

CM the Su-35 does not carry any rearward facing radar , you can check that from horses mouth http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/Su-35/ Tail Boom Image Su-35

The Su-35 Tail Boom is no different from MKI in size , to have an effective rearward facing radar one need an Antenna of right size and gain to be use and with all that cooling and electronics the tail boom has to be large.

Having seen the tail boom of MKI first hand and I am sure many other here would have seen that as well , there is no place out there to put in a radar , the chutes occupy all the place and the boom are narrower at the end.

Compare the tailboom size of Su-34 which has a tailboom radar with Su-35/MKI and you will realize there is a significant difference in size not just to accommodate the radar and electronics , but also the chutes which pop up from behind the boom.

I do not think MKI or Su-35 will ever get a tailboom radar as that would mean significant changes that needs to be done on the boom, it probably makes more sense to have a new generation passive MAWS.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2010 11:44

negi wrote:Su-35BM tail boom .

No Different from MKI Tail Boom Pics

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2010 12:51

Via Keypubs

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 26 Feb 2010 13:26

Thats a mean looking beast.

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 26 Feb 2010 18:55

Not sure if these have been posted before or not but, here are some high-res photos of the PAK FA/T-50 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/agamemnon/

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 26 Feb 2010 19:18

Austin wrote:Via Keypubs

<snip>

Thanks a lot Austin saar....guess this is my new desktop background

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 26 Feb 2010 19:47

Srivastav wrote:
Austin wrote:Via Keypubs

<snip>
Thanks a lot Austin saar....guess this is my new desktop background

here's the real thing

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 27 Feb 2010 22:13

Moscow Defense Brief - Russia Joins the Fifth-Gen Game

Russia flew a prototype of its fifth-generation fighter on January 29, 2010, in what analysts agree was a major milestone for the national aerospace industry. The Sukhoi corporation’s T-50 jet, developed under the PAK FA (Future Front Line Aircraft System) program, took off from a Komsomolsk-upon-Amur airfield for a 47-minute maiden flight. The aircraft is the first radically new Russian design that looks likely to enter commercial production since the first MiG-29 and Su-27 prototypes of the previous fourth generation took to the air back in 1977.

The maiden flight of the PAK FA has broken America’s complete monopoly on the development and production of fifth-generation fighter jets. It has also demonstrated that while not America’s equal militarily, Russia is still a solid second in terms of defense technology, outranking both Western Europe and China and punching well above its economic weight.

But while the maiden flight itself was a major coup for Russia, the success of the PAK FA program is not a foregone conclusion. Serious financial, technical and even political hurdles still remain. They have the potential to cause major delays or even stall the program completely.

* In terms of technology, the biggest worry is the remaining uncertainty over the so-called “next engine”. The existing T-50-01 prototype is equipped with deeply upgraded fourth-generation engines. And while they provide the necessary amount of thrust (even for supersonic cruising), they are not up to the fifth-generation spec in terms of the thrust-to-weight ratio and fuel economy. Many observers are skeptical about Russia’s chances of creating a proper fifth-generation engine that could compete with America’s Pratt & Whitney F119. Problems also remain with the new radar and other onboard equipment, but recent progress suggests that the risks here are moderate.

* The financial risks stem from uncertainty over Russia’s economic prospects, which are too dependent on exports of oil, gas and other natural resources. The PAK FA project could well grind to a halt if the country suffers another economic shock like the one it went through in 2009, when the economy shrank by 8 per cent and the budget deficit spiraled to 5.9 per cent.

* The political risk is that cumbersome Russian bureaucracy could well stymie Indian participation in the program. And without the Indians, mass production becomes commercially unviable because the Russian Defense Ministry’s order for the new jets will be very modest.

But although it would take at least another decade to turn PAK FA into a proper combat system, the maiden flight of the T-50 has been a major boost for the Russian aerospace industry. Its existing customers can now see a clear way forward for their national air forces, and their choice of Russia as a supplier has been vindicated. Russia can now negotiate with potential foreign customers from a much stronger position, and that includes civilian contracts as well as military. Several countries, including Libya and Vietnam, have already expressed their interest in the future Russian fifth-generation fighter.

Of course, any serious military, political or commercial dividends of the PAK FA program hinge on Russia’s ability to take it from the prototype stage to mass production. If that happens, America’s F-35 and the Russian T-50 will be the only two players on the world market for combat aircraft after 2020. The European offerings, which are all based on essentially fourth-generation technology, will be marginalized, and Europe itself will most likely be eliminated as a serious competitor. That opens up very alluring and hitherto inconceivable prospects of cooperation between the Russian aerospace industry and some European aerospace powers which still retain a large degree of sovereignty and independence from the United States.

At present, very little is known about the T-50’s onboard equipment, and even less about its future missile systems, so there is no point trying to compare the Russian and American fifth-generation fighters in terms of their combat capability. But it would not be much of a stretch to say that regardless of the T-50’s actual strengths and weaknesses, it is guaranteed to seize up to 30 per cent of the market simply by virtue of not being American. The new Russian-Indian fighter clearly has excellent prospects on the Asia-Pacific markets, especially those which Russia has already staked. What is more, when paired with the Su-35, the T-50 could be an even more enticing offering that America’s much-vaunted bestseller of the future, the F-35.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 28 Feb 2010 08:42

Thanks for the post..

sumshyam wrote: * The political risk is that cumbersome Russian bureaucracy could well stymie Indian participation in the program.

Wonder what made the author contemplate that? I doubt that would really happen for the following reasons...

1. Russia is fully aware that this project will be financially unviable without India.
2. India is on the verge of signing the dotted line with specifications on level on Indian participation in the project.
3. India is knee deep in terms of commitment.
4. If this doesn't work out both parties will be at a serious disadvantage, especially Russia (It would not like to be at the wrong end of a potentially lucrative defense market)

I agree with the rest of the points though..I think the serious challenge will be not just coming up with a 'true' 5th gen fighter but doing so 'on time'... The prospect of Russia introducing an 'interim' version (ie. minus the F119 like engine, radar, etc..) by 2015 as a face saving measure is not unthinkable..

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 02 Mar 2010 05:28

Cockpit Simulator on the T-50-0. Gotta say the New HUD is a great improvement, and the cockpit looks FULLY digitalized to say the least!! I guess it is true to the definition of it being a 5th Gen Fighter!!! Great going so far, let's hope it continues and achieves the milestones wrt to Radar and Engine!!!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 02 Mar 2010 05:38

Cross post from Keypubs!

Some clarification on the capacity of the internal weapons bays (RIA Novosti - russian language version)

(translation)
The aircraft has a large internal weapons bay. It can accommodate up to eight missiles R-77 air combat or two large guided bombs weighing 1,500 kilograms. The Fighter is capable of carrying two extra long-range missiles from design bureau "Innovator" on external slings. These missiles are capable of destroying aircraft at a distance of 400 kilometers, for example AWACS type

So claiming the total number of missiles to be 10 would be incorrect. (8 internal ~ would NOT affect the RCS) while with the addition of 2 external, it would affect the RCS of Pak-Fa. But if the benefits outweigh the risk, then So be it!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Mar 2010 05:56

The "external sling" - I think - is that odd looking feature below the wing close to the body - a wedge shaped stuff.

added later, here it is:

Also, this is just the first go. I would imagine the PAK-FA would go through at least 2-3 iterations in design/looks. I would also imagine that the lean look could mean that there is some give in terms of adding some depth (height) if need be. With the new engine there is plenty of scope to build out.

I would not bet that this is what the plane would like in the final avatar.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2010 07:45

why is the painted surface too glossy?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 02 Mar 2010 08:01

Putin tours Sukhoi design facility in Moscow (demands a new strategic bomber after Pak-Fa success), Alexander Davydenko - Russian jet's chief designer, optimistic about 2015 deadline for induction.. reiterates price advantage over the F-22.. possibility of arming it it with Brahmos..

Russia's fifth-generation stealth jet fighter will be ready for use in 2015, its designer said on Monday

Asked to compare his brainchild to the U.S. F-22 Raptor, built more than a decade ago, the Russian jet's chief designer Alexander Davydenko told reporters: "The basic features are the same but we tried to do it better." He said Sukhoi, which produced the T-50 prototype of the jet, had simulated duels with the U.S. stealth fighter. "I think we will have a competitive price. As for the efficiency-and-cost ratio, we will be much better," Davydenko said.

The T-50 will also be produced in a 50/50 joint venture with India and could be armed with jointly made BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, Davydenko said.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... dChannel=0

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 02 Mar 2010 09:09

shukla wrote:
"I think we will have a competitive price. As for the efficiency-and-cost ratio, we will be much better," Davydenko said.

So it means that....the idea was to make a 90 % efficient aircraft at 50 % cost. Having said that I would like to say that PAK-FA would basically be F-35 killer rather than F-22.

Anyhow I am open to be corrected.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Mar 2010 09:32

sumshyam wrote: Having said that I would like to say that PAK-FA would basically be F-35 killer rather than F-22.

carlo kopp loves you !

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2010 12:19

The PAK FA aka Flaptor should have retractable pylons for externally carried AWACS busters.Event of conflict fire them first at extreme long range and let the missiles be guided by satellites rather than Phalcon or by its own radar.Then retract the pylons become more invisible and go for the smaller fish.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 02 Mar 2010 15:06

Another 3 PAK-FA's before year end...

The Sukhoi Corporation is to make another three fifth-generation fighter planes before the end of 2010 and early 2011, Russian Itar-Tass news agency reported. Sukhoi's chief Mikhail Pogosyan said by that time it planned "to conclude a contract with India for an original design of the aircraft and finalise the accomplishment of tasks connected with the follow-up development of all the systems of the aircraft". He said this to journalists on Tuesday.

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v5/ne ... ?id=478975

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2010 17:27

Russia, India to develop joint 5G-fighter by 2016

"I hope that we will be able to build a joint fifth-generation aircraft in the next five to six years. It is a time-consuming and complex project," said Alexander Fomin, first deputy head of the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation.

Fomin said the fighter for the Indian Air Force could incorporate several integrated on-board systems developed by third parties.

"The integration is good because we will not have to invent a bicycle and can use the things that our neighbors already have, but it is also a difficult task because we will have to combine all the elements in a unified system," the official said.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2010 17:37

killing the JSF will address all needs but a direct war with the sher khan, which is very unlikely for Russia and India. it will address 99% of the market which has only to worry about JSF/typhoon/rafale/gripenNG/J13/JSF/F16/F18/F15 et al.