PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
sharma.abhinav
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2009 18:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby sharma.abhinav » 12 Aug 2013 21:07

I do agree with Philip sir on it. I think they should do away with AMCA and instead should focus on building a fifth gen fighter bomber kind of aircraft with either the engines from Su-30 mki or from the FGFA itself. Make it big pack it with long range precision guided bombs and mid ranged cruise missiles.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 12 Aug 2013 21:10

That is the plan, at any rate. With the country's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program increasingly adrift ahead of a 2015 squadron service target, there has been skepticism within the Indian air force about the pragmatism of committing resources toward an indigenous fifth-generation platform, especially when more than $10 billion will soon be committed to the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL)-Sukhoi T-50-based fighter program. But those concerns have not stood in the way of resources and funding flowing into the AMCA program and an elaborate wish list of technologies being lined up to define an aircraft that almost certainly will not see a first flight before the next decade.


So, it is being funded to SOME extent.

Saraswat has also appealed to Indian private-sector companies to support and get involved in the program. Industry executives indicate that aircraft makers including Saab, Dassault and EADS have expressed a willingness to consult with the ADA on the AMCA concept to speed things along. A formal selection of possible foreign technologies could happen this year.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 12 Aug 2013 21:14

sharma.abhinav wrote:I do agree with Philip sir on it. I think they should do away with AMCA and instead should focus on building a fifth gen fighter bomber kind of aircraft with either the engines from Su-30 mki or from the FGFA itself. Make it big pack it with long range precision guided bombs and mid ranged cruise missiles.


Open source articles do address that too. They have stated that the AMCA in that case would no longer be a medium aircraft.

That is all.

I am not sure why, but the simple fact that the base technologies for such planes is the key. At the moment the idea of what such a plane would be used for is not at the forefront of thinking. Techs have changed so much that what was possible a few years ago is out dated.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 13 Aug 2013 02:17

The cost of JSF is 400 billion$ and rising. It's perhaps not appropriate to be optimistic on JSF and not so on PAK FA which will be available as an Indian fighter built as per our own requirements and available for a long time. In fact, it is competition that also affects price and tech too by itself.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 13 Aug 2013 08:01

There is a valid point being made by some that "sensitive tech" indigenously developed won't be parted with,just as other nations do not part with theirs.Classic example of the manner in which the US has treated its JSF partners,esp. the UK ,who are getting far less than what we are getting with the FGFA/T-50.But we have to get our priorities straight.Our armed forces have to be equipped with enough modern eqpt. with which ti fight.No amount of fab. tech demos. will be of any use in a conflict.So the two tasks of regular modernisation of the armed forces has to go hand in hand with max. indigenisation,and here as tech in aviation esp. increases rapidly each year,obsolescence creeps in and unlimited timeframes for development of aircraft projects cannot be unlmited.From observing projects both east and west, 20 years is the general timescale before an aircraft is developed and enters production.in the case of the AMCA,even being generous,it will be around a min. of 15 years from today,if the green light is given before we can expect the bird to enter service.that's half the time that it has already taken for the LCA to get where it is today.

We also have a yawning gap as MIG-21s are being pensioned off,50+ yrs. after the type entered service,surely a world record! The Bison will still soldier on until the end of the decade too.The Rafale acquisition is vital for the 4++ tech that it will bring as well as beef up the IAF's strike capability.There is even a case that even the Rafales aren't enough if as some analysts want,a 1000 strength IAF with at least 50 sqds.That may arrive only by 2030 and may by that time indeed have AMCAs in the inventory.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2013 08:22

There is a valid point being made by some that "sensitive tech" indigenously developed won't be parted with,just as other nations do not part with theirs.


Nope. The statement was that since India cannot expect to get leading technologies from someone else India needs to develop it in-house. No options there. (So, that should answer "Where will these technologies come from?")

Classic exapmple of the manner in which the US has treated its JSF partners,esp. the UK ,who are getting far less than what we are getting with the FGFA/T-50.


Says who? That India is getting from Russia more than the UK is getting from the US? Russians have very clearly stated that they have a PAK-FA and then they will export a totally different plane. The stuff for the MiG-35 does not count - it did not make the cut. Russians are no fools (check out the tin can), even if they do not part with the latest/greatest they still get more than a pound of flesh and blood. Imagine what India will have to pay if it top of the line stuff. either way the Russians are in it to make money too - not their fault. {BTW, the F-35, per Russian claims, should be better than the PAK-FA, which should be better than the F-22.}
But we have to get our priorities straight.Our armed forces have to be equipped with enough modern eqpt. with which ti fight.


Very true. When it comes to planes it is called the AMCA. Check.

No amount of fab. tech demos. will be of any use in a conflict.So thetwo tasks of regular modernisation of the armed forces has to go hand in hand with max. indigenisation,and here as tech in aviation esp. increases rapidly each year,obsolescence creeps in and unlimited timeframes for development of aircraft projects cannot be ulnimited.From observing projects both east and west, 20 years is the geenral timescale before an aircraft is developed and enters production.


{Somebody provide this poster with a spell check please. Too many complex, compound sentences - if any.}

in the case of the AMCA,even being generous,it will be around a min. of 15 years frpom today,if the green light is given before we can expect the bird to enter service.that's half the time that it has already taken for the LCA to get where it is today.


Done. $100 million already allocated in 2010 for the AMCA. The project has been worked on since around early 2000. New DRDO chief has stated they will deliver in 12-15 years. No reason to believe that it will not. My feel: it will happen earlier if India ditches the SI-FGFA (which she should).

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 13 Aug 2013 08:58

Vivek K wrote:Is the F-35 any good? If IAF wants an American fighter then it perhaps should be the F-22. Some feel that F-22 would wipe the floor with the F-35.


I have the same choice but US is not going to part this baby to anyone and we will not be able to afford it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 13 Aug 2013 17:21

So the Q still remains,where will we develop the key tech for the AMCA? Engines,radars,weaponry,IRST-are we also going to develop a helmet display like the JSF? The simple answer is that when we cannot develop the same for the LCA Mk-1,we are going to wave as I said before,PC Sorcar's magic wand and within a decade have the aircraft in production?!

DRDO chiefs as distinguished as Kalam have come and gone.They have all made optimistic statements about our indigenous efforts.They have to be optimistic,but they come and they go,but projects languish.If one takes even a cursory look at how long it has taken the US to get to where it is with the JSF,nowhere near production and costing a bomb (pun intended),when it doesn't have to depend upon any nation for its cutting edge tech,I will believe the AMCA timeframe when I see it flying in IAF colours.To give us confidence in our desi capability,the speedy arrival of LCA MK1 and MK 2 will go a long way in restoring confidence.

As for cancelling the FGFA deal,it would be the height of stupidity,as at the very least,even if we gain precious little (which I contest) from the JV,where we are going to add our own tech input to the basic design,we will at least get a 5th-gen aircraft in service by 2020 at the latest.It will give us a lead over our mortal enemies,China and Pak .As for that beauty,the JSF,we've got western assessments that its dogfighting capabilities aren't better than late model F-16s and the FGFA is expected to be in service at around the same time .
Which is why as Sweetman and others have reported in AWST,western nations having evaluated the entire JSF programme and its escalating costs,are looking at 4++ fighters as alternatives,while drastically reducing numbers of JSFs.

Here is a Russian commentator viewing the current aviation 4th.5th gen aircraft market from a Russian perspective.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/1 ... ircraft-0/

Does anyone need 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft?
11.07.2013

Does anyone need 4th and 5th generation fighter aircraft?. 50581.jpeg

Russia's Mikoyan Design bureau has been going through hard times during the recent years. Not that long ago, the word "MIG" was a symbol of power of the Soviet military aviation. Nowadays, despite its glorious history, the corporation reports losses annually and becomes a regular recipient of government subsidies.

Perspectives on international arms markets are not encouraging either. At the end of 2011, there were contractual obligations to deliver 20 MiG-29 to Myanmar, 45 MiG-29K/UB for Indian aircraft carrier program, plus an order for the modernization of 62 MiG -29 aircraft for Indian Air Force and an order for 24 MiG-29M/M2 planes for Syrian Air Force.

The last of the above-mentioned contracts was dropped for obvious reasons. Another order appeared, though - 24 MiG-29K and 29K/UB for Russian deck-based aviation. Nevertheless, with such a skinny portfolio, MiG remains far behind its main Russian rival - Sukhoi.

In addition, competition on the export market has been extremely high these days. The crisis pushes the countries that either were part of the Warsaw Pact, or had agreements on military cooperation with the Soviet Union, to sell their stockpiles of military hardware and aviation, including used MiG-29 aircraft. Hungary has recently announced the sale of the last batch of these.

High hopes were pinned for a new model, but the MiG-35 - an outstanding representative of the "4 + +" class - has not been lucky on international markets for some reason. This aircraft has attracted widespread attention on the global air shows when it made its debut in 2007. However, it has not received one single serious contract. A crushing blow for the jet was the Indian MMRCA tender. The Russian fighter did not even make into the short list, losing to Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Experts and the media name various reasons for the defeat. If we talk only about the technical side of the issue, the majority tend to think that the Indian military declined the Russian jet over the RD-33MK engine, which is an upgraded version of the RD-33 from 1972. In addition, there were reports saying that India did not like Zhuk-AE radar system, even though it is promoted as a major highlight of the MiG-35. According to Russian designers, the radar system guarantees the jet victory in an air battle against any "4 +" fighter. Moreover, the radar system of MiG-35 makes it comparable to 5th generation aircraft.

If we talk about the reasons other than technical performance of the aircraft, then it appears that the motives of the organizers of the tender look completely unclear. MiG-35 would have cost less than its rivals ($10.5 billion for 126 aircraft, plus the transfer of licenses and technology). In addition, Indian Air Force and Navy already have about a hundred MiG-29 aircraft of various modifications. Therefore, purchasing a fighter that is generally unified with the 29th model would have promised extra savings.

Explaining such a strange turn of events, MMRCA experts tend to allude to India's desire to diversify its program of military cooperation. To put it in a nutshell, India tends to limit the dependence of the material part of its aircraft on Russian manufacturers, taking into consideration the existing contracts for the purchase of 230 Su-30MKI fighters and upcoming programs on the joint development of T-50/PAK-FA project.

It was expected that Russia's failure at the Indian tender would have a very negative impact on the prospects of the MiG-35 in Russia. This year, though, the Defense Ministry of Russia decided to purchase a trial batch of 24 fighters. What was it? Was it an order to "preserve the unique personnel" or a "trial balloon" before the decision to replace the remaining 200 MiG-29 in the Russian Air Force with a better aircraft? Time will tell.

As for the current state of affairs in Mikoyan Design Bureau, the failures that the company has been dealing with during the recent years are related to the specific development of Russia's military-industrial complex since Soviet times. MiG and Sukhoi were working in parallel on projects of light and heavy fighters the same way it was done in the United States.

The difference was about the fact that the Americans, when passing aircraft from various commercial manufacturers into service, required maximum unification on main components. This is how a dual control aircraft was born from the F-15 by Boeing and the F-16 by Lockheed Martin - they had a one and the same Pratt & Whitney F-100 engine. The U.S. Air Force not only managed to save on the transition to the fourth generation of fighters, but also simplified their future maintenance and upgrades.

In the USSR, the situation was somewhat different. Major design bureaus in the Soviet military industrial complex were more reminiscent of the property of feudal owners from the High Middle Ages. Both MiG, and Sukhoi could use the developments of only "their own" research institutes, rely only on "their own" production base and were engaged in a competition for the exploitation of resources of the planned economy.


The administration of the Soviet defense industry that was still thinking with the categories of the Great Patriotic War, was convinced that such a state of affairs was quite acceptable. Parallel production chains were seen as a mobilization reserve to dramatically increase military production in case of a large-scale war. Any future unification between Su-27 and MiG-29 in such circumstances was out of the question.

The Soviet Union could afford maintaining two independent systems of fighter aircraft, but the Russian Federation could not.
Problems of the past put the two companies in "the winner takes it all" situation. The winner will have to fit into international arms markets.

Something like that was happening in the West too. The end of the Cold War led to sharp reductions in military spending; the new generation of military hardware was many times more expensive than the previous one. The number of independent aircraft manufacturers reduced sharply, whereas other manufacturers joined their efforts to survive. An aircraft could exist if it could be exported. Everybody had to learn to survive on their own, without relying on government support.

Sukhoi entered the new period with the T-10 platform that could be modernized and modified to meet customer's needs. As a result "4 +" clones of Su-27 and Su-30 became in abundance on international markets, while MiG was languishing without significant international contracts for a whole decade.

In addition, the Su-27 was adopted after the MiG-29 and was delivered to numerous allies and partners in much smaller quantities. Sukhoi was playing on the field with no other players nearby.

An export model by Mikoyan, the universal light fighter MiG-29 CMT, did not justify hopes. Developers tried to embrace as wide a spectrum of potential customers and ultimately the plane turned out to be "for all and for nobody." Too heavy for its class, the MiG-29 CMT lost the flight characteristics relative to the original 29th model. It also carried limited ammunition and eventually became as expensive as Sukhoi heavy fighters.

In addition, the creation of a new aircraft required almost the resources of the company for the modernization of the RD-33 engine. MiG engineers later designed RD-33MK engine, which was installed on the MiG-35, with thrust vector control and extended afterburner. However, the trust of potential customers to the engine had been irrevocably undermined.

To crown it all, it turned out that the export MiG model had strong competitors in the markets of third world countries, particularly in the face of Chinese "dragons" J-10 and JF-17. With all their advantages and disadvantages, they had had a major and indisputable advantage in the eyes of buyers - the export price of Chinese aircraft was 10 million dollars less than that of Mikoyan fighters.

In fact, today's potential customer is lost in the wilds of brochures about fighters of "fourth" and "fifth" generation. They do not really understand what they are for. Yet, they are well aware of the fact that having such an aircraft in the fleet of their air force would certainly be prestigious, although it is : a) expensive, b) technically difficult.

If there is a question about the adoption of a system into service, the answer is hidden in the definition of a potential enemy, its technical capabilities and the cost of the equipment required to guarantee the execution of specific military tasks. Global trends are not a clue at all.

Based on this simple logic, aircraft on the 5th, and all sorts of "4 + +" generations will lose to more simple and cheaper solutions, particularly in the markets of the Third World.Technical complexity and versatility are surely able to provide for strategic advantage, but only in combination with a sufficient quantity. The latter will be impossible to reach due to the high price. Having invested heavily in a relatively small fleet of technically advanced aircraft, the air force of a small country is at risk of finding itself in this type of situation: "there will be no air support - the pilot fell ill."

The USA's refusal to use the F-22 during the Libyan conflict - "because the plane was not designed to attack ground targets" - forced many to think.

The assumptions above are partly supported by the behavior of potential customers at the recent Le Bourget Air Show. Customers were mostly interested in attack helicopters, UAV nEUROn and P. 1 HH Hammerhead, simple and inexpensive training and combat aircraft and all kinds of "flying tractors" like the American Archangel or the Brazilian Embraer Super Tucano EM 314B.

Meanwhile, China announced the completion of the work on the light combat training JL-10 fighter jet, which is to become the cheapest aircraft in its class - 10 million dollars against 15 million for Russia's Yak-130. Most likely, this is the type of aircraft that will determine the face of the international aviation market in the next few decades. Non-industrialized countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as private military companies, will be interested in such aircraft most.

Most likely, a crisis is in store for manned aviation against the backdrop of rising prices and increasing requirements for training of pilots. The number of countries that can afford modern piloted aircraft will inevitably decline. Sooner or later, this number will coincide with the number of countries-manufacturers. As a result, aviation producers will have to choose from either internal markets or a very narrow circle of several potential customers who will be able to afford to have and upgrade a fleet of "fourth" and "fifth" generation fighters.

Alexei Baikov
Pravda.Ru


The above contains some issues which I've asked many a time. The IAF's own aim has been standardisation,with as few aircraft types in service in the future.If we look at the "Russian line",the Sukhoi bureau aircraft,there is a continuity from the SU-30/35 to the FGFA.Our desi development should have a uniformity starting from the LCA programme (which is an absolute neccessity solely from the affordability it gives in both costs and numbers) leading to its later avatars,and hopefully in the fullness of time,the AMCA.Now developing both the LCA and the AMCA at this moment in time requires key foreign components like engines,radars,etc. Our own input which we are told is under dev. for the AMCA can usefully be inserted into the LCA future avatars and the FGFA programme for commonality and cost-effectiveness.The MMRCA project was also supposed to get us key western tech like AESA radars which we've been unable to develop thus far.With three major programmes running consecutively,LCA,FGFA,Rafale,synergy between all three is essential for future programmes,as well as mutual support for each. Plowing one's lonely furrow with an AMCA ,imagining that an "all-Indian" effort will succeed given our track record,will also lead to the MIG vs Sukhoi situ ,with "feudal" fighters in service,making the IAF's task of training ,maintenance and support a nightmare!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2013 19:57

So the Q still remains,where will we develop the key tech for the AMCA? Engines,radars,weaponry,IRST-are we also going to develop a helmet display like the JSF? The simple answer is that when we cannot develop the same for the LCA Mk-1,we are going to wave as I said before,PC Sorcar's magic wand and within a decade have the aircraft in production?!


I am assuming you mean real top notch technologies. If so, then for the Nth time, India.

NO ONE is going to part with these technologies, not even Russia. The FGFA effort cannot fill these critical gaps.

Just look at the JV/partnership saga of the Kaveri. IF (this is not meant to be a knock on the Russians) the Russians were so close, why is that India does not JV the engine with them?

Any country will provide an "export" version of what they develop - a watered down version.

IF India wants something on the leading edge, India needs to invest AND protect that investment.

And, as far as I know outside of the Kaveri, such efforts are underway. I have no clue where they stand, but am hopeful. Or, I have no reason to doubt the Indians (yet?).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 13 Aug 2013 20:06

ON the FGFA.

There are (were) two dimensions to this project: the IAF (who needs to build on their squadron strength) and the Labs (who need exposure and experience to leading edge technologies).

Cancelling the FGFA will NOT help the IAF, especially in the near term. I would think a cancellation for them is unacceptable and that is to be expected.

But from the Labs point of view, the FGFA did not meet their original expectationS. So, it really does not make much sense to continue with the original plan for sure. Perhaps with a watered down revised plan makes some sense. But the option of letting the Russians integrate the systems and India just pays for that effort should satisfy the IAF + Russians. In any case it is important that the Labs be freed to focus on the most important of work ("Where are we going to get the engine, IRST, radar, etc?") to be performed. And, I just do not see that to be the FGFA. The Labs need to develop all technologies that India can never get from anyone. THAT should be their focus.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 13 Aug 2013 21:08

I agree in the main.This is why some key projects should not be time bound to fit in as "replacement stock" for the services.A concentrated effort should be made to develop the same in the national interest.However,what we can glean from simultaneous projects on the anvil which will speed up time and usher in commonality should be obtained so that apart from uniformity/cost-effectiveness,it will also become easier to sell to the service concerned,who should be embedded in right from the start.Some reports say that our AURA UCAV will fly by 2015 and enter service by 2017.That would be a huge accomplishment. Perhaps some of the tech for the other projects are common to this one too.

Sujata
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Sujata » 13 Aug 2013 23:26

Looking back on past posted comments I can see who favors a self sufficient jet fighter industry for India,and who doesn't.

"Continuation" is what every jet fighter program needs to survive ,and russia gets that,and India stays idle.

How hard would it be to offer Sweden and South Korea a partnership to build ,and manufacture all of the parts to the LCA,AMCA,and Stealth Bomber in India.They would take it in a heart beat.I think they would be very honored by being given the chance to do so.

If India does go through with the pakfa ,and russia decides that they will start their 6th generation fighter jet.They will just repeat the process of sticking out their hand offering high tech transfer until India signs on,and pull their hand back because they know they can ,and have done this to India for the last 50+plus years.

russia Has already sold out India with selling the Su-35 ,and that already gives china the jump on more advance tech then what India has.

The lack of true leadership for the Indian government to protect its aerospace industry is what really bleeds the Indian people dry.The biggest problem isn't lack of money,but lack of foresight that the Indian people don't seem to have is real leadership that can look into the future ,and protect it's major industries and keeping the money from not leaving India.

National pride in investing into the future military projects that will protect India in not only in the present ,but also future generations of the India people.

"Continuation" is what russia is stealing ,and not just from one generation ,but many more.

India being a 30 Billion plus partner shouldn't have to pay no more then 20% of spare parts ,and future software upgrades in the Life Span of this pakfa. If they don't get that then call off the deal.

Seeing the repeat cycle of abuse,and not seeing any high tech companies grow,mature,and help develop present ,and future IAF project is clear sign that the russian partnership has done very little but to promote "Continuation" of thier aerospace industry ,and not India's.

It is very disheartening to see all of the talent of the Indian people go to waste.While all of the money of the Indian people goes to another country. I wish India could build these 2 fighters and see who would mess with you then.Nobody would!!!

http://www.socwall.com/desktop-wallpape ... 3-and-b-2/

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 14 Aug 2013 03:27

Philip wrote:So the Q still remains,where will we develop the key tech for the AMCA? Engines,radars,weaponry,IRST-are we also going to develop a helmet display like the JSF?


The same question applies to the Chinese, but that somehow did not stop them from taking the leap for developing not one but two types of Stealth Fighters. In fact, we are ahead or have better access to technology to cover the aforementioned gaps. It's a matter of application and taking risks (exploding a nuke in Pokhran will also clear the horizon). One thing we cannot match the Chinese is the 3.5 trillion $$$ in reserves and we know what got them there - Not importing but supplying to the world.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 14 Aug 2013 03:41

Sujata wrote:russia Has already sold out India with selling the Su-35 ,and that already gives china the jump on more advance tech then what India has.


And France will sell us out moment we buy the Rafale. They are already lobbying hard to remove arms export restrictions to China post Tiannneman square. They supplied Agosta to Pakis and Mirages as well. Swedes are the same, selling Erieye to Pakis and now wanting to sell us Gripen ?? The world is only loyal to money and their next buyer. Russia, France, Sweden, UK and US...are all the same kind!

If we do not want to be enslaved or be dismembered again, then have to fight with what we can make. Importing defense gear is a disease which has fallen many, time and again in History.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 14 Aug 2013 09:20

Then the GOI / MOD should take positive steps to involve the entire nation's industry into the goal of indigenisation instead of continuously rewarding poor performance DPSUs from delivering products decades late and of poor quality! I've posted earlier how the indig. push allocation in the budget was reduced from 89 crores to just 1 crore.So who is to blame? Who is protecting the inefficient DPSUs? Why hasn't the entire-or most of the defence industry been opened out to Indian industry? Secondly,the tech base for aviation high-tech cutting edge components doesn't exist within the country as yet. We can't make engines,turboprops at that (!),radars,most weaponry is imported,munitions,etc.We have made good progress in composites and our software capabilities is perhaps the best strength that we have,but we have to involve firang manufacturers to build up our base through JVs,where we can acquire at least current tech and save time reinventing the wheel.

If you look at the Chinese,they are acquiring tech every which-way,JVs,direct imports,domestic dev.,theft-the major manner in which they've built up their high-tech knowledge base.They've set up an entire plant to manufacture A-320s,100 a year in China! Did they think that they could develop such an aircraft on their own? NO.What have we done by comparison in the transport sector other than the Dornier production? The RTA project by the way is an excellent one which is within our capability to succeed on time if managed properly. China didn't pull out of a hat suddenly a totally local defence industry.If we think that we can go it alone,good luck.It will take decades by which time the tech developed will have many obsolete items.The FGFA and MMRCA deals are giving us exposure and access to the tech in those systems.Even the LCA has a foreign engine and radar.I'm not mentioning other smaller components like helmets,ejection seats,etc.As said before,we have to in parallel begin a holistic programme for the same,to cover the entire gamut of aerospace.

At least the new DRDO chief has acknowledged our backwardness and in one report said that engine development would be given a priority.Now here,looking at our future requirements for the LCA MK-2,AMCA ,AURA whatever,we should first choose an engine/engines and get full TOT/as much as poss. to build them here.The engine manufacturers are woefully short of orders.I read a recent report where the RR boss was hopeful of more involvement with India.Haven't we made a success of the Brahmos JV? A similar JV for aircraft engines should've been initiated.

In retrospect,we must take a brief look at our past history of the last 4-5 decades.Initially,we were sold only second line western birds.We were given only the HUnters,Mysteres and production for the little Gnat-which performed superbly in the hands of our great pilots.The US denied us even the modest Skyhawk for the Vikrant.No Sabres, Starfighters,Phantoms,etc. So we turned to Russia who gave us an entire MIG-21 production base and SU-7s.Hundreds of MIG-21s formed the backbone of the IAF for 5 decades,hailed by our CoAS recently in a special function to mark the event.Our own excellent effort,the HF-24 designed by that renowned German Dr.Kurt Tank,couldn't achieve its full potential because of lack of an engine.The same malady is being repeated with the LCA,where Mk-1 is underpowered and Mk-2 is the "great brown hope"! Why is history repeating itself? Have our decision makers learnt nothing from our past experience?

As time passed our needs became more sophisticated,the Jaguar (DPSA) was chosen after the Viggen was ruled out due to its US engine.Then cane MIG-23s,25s,27s to combat Pak's F-16s,but the real qualitative edge vs Pak came when we acquired M-2000s and MIG-29s.Since then,we've further extended our qualitative edge with the SU-30 acquisition,which gave us a world beater,proven in many exercises with western air forces.270 of these fighters will now form the backbone of the IAF. So don't denigrate the manufacturer or country which has sold it to us.We took the basic superb aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft (one IAF pilot involved in the Bison upgrade (VAYU) said that the Russians are the best at this aspect of aircraft design,after also flying the Yak AJT) and adding western and Indian avionics,etc to it turned it into the worldbeater that it is. Our own effort to replace MIG-21s with LCAs in the meantime has languished and whose fault is it? So we upgraded the Bisons which have done us proud too,outperforming 4+ gen western aircraft!

We now wish to maintain our lead over Pak and China with the FGFA 5th-gen stealth fighter.This is the harsh reality.We need a combat inventory for the IAF to maintain its superiority while pushing the bar constantly higher towards indigenisation.This cannot be done by us alone.Those who think so are living in a fool's paradise.Why,according to one report posted,we are now to trying and see what common weaponry we can produce/acquire with the US! The positive side today is that there are several JVs which hold out great promise.The FGFA,Brahmos (hyper),MTA,AEW with Embraer,Barak-8,Missiles with MBD,foreign input where we lack in engines both for aircraft and MBTs,apart from the list of indigenous systems being designed.But indigenisation should meet targets if they are to be integrated into the services' acquisition plans.This is where a distinction should be made as to which projects should be stand-alone and which involve JVs/foreign input.The AMCA can benefit from the other aircraft projects underway.If we look at the Navy for instance,sub design and production is almost totally dependent upon foreign manufacturers.We have unduly delayed the decision for the second line and today's tragic accident and loss of a sub underscores the sub crisis.

I agree though that some key projects have to be stand alone like DEW systems.This is the future and here we will not get any major support from abroad.Similarly,no one is going to give us BM/MIRV tech, for strategic and WMD weaponry. We must be thankful that we have at least obtained much tech support from Russia for the ATV when BARC couldn't deliver.The support has been graciously acknowledged by the GOI/MOD when the ATV was launched and leasing to us Akula SSGNs is something no other nation has offered.Even the setting up of our SSBN naval base is also allegedly being done with similar input.Like the Chinese,we have to every which-way acquire what we need for the forces to be fighting fit with contemporary advanced mil.eqpt.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Aug 2013 17:42

sharma.abhinav wrote:I do agree with Philip sir on it. I think they should do away with AMCA and instead should focus on building a fifth gen fighter bomber kind of aircraft with either the engines from Su-30 mki or from the FGFA itself. Make it big pack it with long range precision guided bombs and mid ranged cruise missiles.


Sir Philip at one time wanted the nation to drop Tejas development completely, and set all our energies into creating a mig 21 + improvements a/c.

Now after the success of Tejas sir philip would like us to develop a Tejas Mk. 3 instead of AMCA. Now I agree that in coming 50 years Tejas has to be continually developed to Mk. 14, 15 & 16.

but

NOT INSTEAD OF AMCA. What is the problem if we don't have engine ready, we can use fgfa engines until kaveri 20 gets ready, or GE 414 EPE which is going to power Tejas Mk. 2

And who says we can't have our own home made radar? Why it has to give performance equivalent to f 35 or f 22?

In Mk. 1 avtaar it can just give fgfa radar performance and later we can improve :rotfl: couldn't resist sorry.

FBL right now may look too advance but 2030, IAF might say 'look now the world has moved to fbl' so just like Tejas designers showed farsightedness in going for quadra FBW, they are aiming for what would be a normal thing in 15 years.

Parallaly sir philip will be praising chinese for their already having J 20 models flying, but will run a crusade here against Bharatvarsh creating its own indigenous fighters.

In the past it was Tejas, now its against AMCA in future sir philip will be against HBA develpment, instead he'll suggest we go for PAK DA instead.

I think its a big big moorkhtaa on our part to flush 60 billion dollars in funding PAK FA the russian a/c.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 14 Aug 2013 19:58

Several years ago,Tejas/LCA was going nowhere.I've been posting about the LCA for about 15 years now.There was much scepticism a decade back,even 5 years ago.I've posted poor Kalam's 2203 statement "200 LCAs by 2010" earlier.What happened? We had to upgrade MIG-21s into "Bisons" .Read Air Cmde. Sen's memoirs posted earlier abour the IAF's own scepticism because the tech base/scientific knowhow did not exist in the country for the majority of the key components and still hasn't like the engine,radar.etc.!. It was only in recent years as the crisis of obsolescence escalated,that the GOI/MOD/IAF got their act together and started cooperating.One reason for sure is that our mortal enemies China and Pak got their act together in developing their own fighter.It was therefore imperative that we did not fail with the LCA.Once Kaveri was also abandoned as the LCA's engine ,and the GE plant selected ,further progress accelerated.Those oldies will remember my original posts along with many others,to get Mk-1 in just air combat capability into the air asap.That has not changed. In the meantime the MMRCA has been selected,upgrades for MIG-29s and M-2000s and Jaguars and MIG-27s are in the works and further orders of SU-30s have stemmed the tide of falling numbers and capability.

We are now in the second decade of the 21st century.I've been to every Air Show that has taken place.Major developments have taken place .Stealth was touted as being a "magic bullet".True,it does give a superb advantage,but at huge cost and massive maintenance problems,why the F-117 has been retired after a short innings.Air forces worldwide are becoming more cost-conscious.How many programmes can India afford,that too all on its own?Its why we have to adapt with the changing situ and examine alternatives and options.Inflexibility is disastrous.Even the Brits went "flip-flop" with the type of JSF for their future carriers.Cats abandoned as being too costly to install and operate,driving up the carrier const. cost too by a few billions.

So what is wrong with suggesting a lower cost MK-3 LCA with stealth features? It could prove successful,and be an alternative to the AMCA,as we already have an FGFA /PAK-FA/T-50 size 5th-gen aircraft in hand. It would also be cheaper to develop taking off after MK-2 arrives. There could be good export prospects otoo from developing nations.SoKo and Turkey too are also considering such sized future fighters for the same reasons.Easier "to bite off and chew" than aping the US or Russia..
My philosophy is a pragmatic one.It is not anti-desi,far from it, but we have to be realistic and adopt a holistic strategy in getting to our goal,using every method to get there.Buy,co-develop in JVs,acquire /JVs for key components,develop on our own,steal if need be too! that's how the Chinese are making dramatic strides in self-sufficiency.For this to happen,the entire Indian industry,both PSU and Pvt. has to be involved.

PS:When we plan for at least "200" LCAs to be in service,it sounds great,but what I found depressing was AKA's recent statement posted in a td. in answer to a Q in the house that "efforts are being made to install infrastructure to produce 8 aircraft per yr." or words to that effect.With such a small production capability,it will take 25 years to fulfill,that means 2040 at this rate! That doesn't include the 40+ that the IN want. Even if ramped up to "12" as was mentioned about 6 months ago,"from 2018" or so,it will still be only as early as 2030 before we get the 200.Is a MK-1 or Mk-2 LCA still going to be a worthwhile proposition by then,even at lower costs when better aircraft are in enemy inventories before this decade is out? Please ponder on the same .The great fear is that if we slacken and do not hasten development as well as ramping up production to at least 16 per year,the IAF may not want more than about 120+ come 2020+,once it has "tasted" the Rafale and FGFA .This is why an even better Mk-3 needs to also arrive to give us the "desi" (with a little help from our friends) option.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2013 20:36

I think its a big big moorkhtaa on our part to flush 60 billion dollars in funding PAK FA the russian a/c


I agree. Let us see what this newly established pricing committee decides. IF they take the better part of 2014 to decide that itself may spell the end of the FGFA. Which IMHO would be great.

Garooda
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 00:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Garooda » 15 Aug 2013 20:59

90's tech and demos IMO.

Northrup_AESA_AEHF

"Our demo marks the first time that AESA antenna technology has been used to communicate with the AEHF network," said Byron Chong, Northrop Grumman's B-2 deputy program manager. "We showed that our antenna will consistently produce and maintain the high-gain beam needed to communicate with AEHF satellites." Not sure if this is really true :)

During the test, he added, Northrop Grumman successfully demonstrated extended data rate (XDR) communications between the AESA antenna and the AEHF satellite at EHF frequencies. XDR communications take advantage of the AEHF satellites' most advanced, most secure signaling protocols and communication waveforms.

The new antenna is designed to support both tactical and strategic missions. Its innovative "no radome" design allows it to bring new communications capabilities to the B-2 while maintaining the aircraft's major operational characteristics.



http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/18 ... /20733.jpg[/img]

http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/18 ... /20734.jpg[/img]

http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/18 ... /19656.jpg[/img]
Last edited by Jagan on 29 Sep 2013 23:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Dont like to supersized images.. please find a thumbnail or med sized image to link to

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2013 09:57

New Moves : T-50 Design Rationale unveiled ( AW&ST ) ( Pg 43 )

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416275188&e=true

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 18 Aug 2013 20:43

Tx Austin.That was a very interesting article on the concept and design rationale behind the FGFA,esp. the location and size of internal weapons bays to accommodate the various types of Russian tactical missile sin service.A must read. If we have ambitions of developing an AMfCA,whatever,we should study the philosophy behind the FGtFA.The drawback with the JSF is that there is a limit to the number of internal weapons it can carry,and underwing munitions would reduce its stealth making it vulnerable to far better 4++ dogfighters.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 18 Aug 2013 21:23

Is there anything new in that article (that people following the PAK-FA were not aware of that is)? Tho' much to take away from it.

1) That the Russian engine vendor is hoping to build a suitable engine for the PAK-FA by 2020. Just goes to show how - even a mature engine manufacturer takes time and funds to build a next gen engine. IIRC this vendor is a group of ALL soviet era builders put together. And, yet they are taking so long - some 10-12 years. This is not a knock on them, but just to prove how difficult it is to get the next engine out

2) A great shout out for the Russian Air Force to accept an older engine while the new one is being developed. A very, very respectful step on their part

The Indian take away from the PAK-FA is called the FGFA (a great plane).

The AMCA, per the last open source article, is done with modeling. Is it subject to change? I hope so, but that article claimed it will not change much.

(Just BTW, the F-35 and the PAK-FA have (external)hard points. So far, finger's crossed, the AMCA has none. But, all this for AMCA thread. Sorry.)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 01:19

True,that all stealth fighters do have external hard points for weapons.The point is which have more space available in their internal weapons bays for more ordnance.This beggars another Q.Wasn't there some time ago stealth external pods/dispensers being developed?

Just check out this intriguing pic of a US secret bird.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/22 ... _aircraft/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 07:24

I am very glad that someone (finally) agrees that the AMCA is a superior 5th gen aircraft !!!! :mrgreen:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2013 07:32

Nrao here is a CG of test F-18 with a stealth weapon carrier under belly. slated to undergo testing this year
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-conten ... 90x350.jpg
note the CFT also http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/upl ... OEING1.jpg
http://aviationintel.com/2011/11/06/mor ... iguration/

It will also have less of one key thing, radar cross-section, via further external treatments and the total elimination of external stores pylons, instead going with stealthy weapons pods under the wings and centerline. In this configuration the jet will be able to pack an astonishing 12 AMRAAMS, as well as 2 AIM-9X’s! Thats a lot of Slammers to keep bad guys busy in the A2A arena. Another loadout would see 2 x 2,000lb class weapons and 4 AMRAAMs carried all in stealthy, aerodynamic enclosures. The need for wing tanks will be eliminated via conformal fuel tanks fitted to the sides of the center “barrel section.”
.........
Finally, the jet will get some much-needed aerodynamic fixes as well as some more powerful and efficient motors derived directly from the GE-F414s currently onboard.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 08:00

Interesting. Boeing is certainly hedging on the F-35, are they not. : )

But, more power to them.

The way I look at stuff is that the FGFA is nice - better than any thing that the IAF has or will have in the next 10 years. But, I just do not think that "India" (NOT the IAF) can let that be the final solution. And, for the next solution India needs to start now. And, that has to be the AMCA. And the IAF better be on the same page in history. Else they will be part of the failure. I tend to think they are, even now - but that is a diff story.

Nothing against the FGFA, but everything for the AMCA. Zimple as that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 08:06

BTW, as I had posted, there is at least one Russian def expert who thinks that the PAK-FA is an over kill. And, he bases his thinking on the threats Russia faces.

I had made that argument long back (WRT Indo-US getting closer), but IF true, I can see India funding the PAK-FA too to some extent. Just the way I see India funding the Rafale if India were to select it. Neither of these countries have the need to build these aircrafts< In the current environment they need their mil industries humming and do not have a need to keep them humming. So, enter India who has a need, (some) funds and no industry to speak of.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 08:31

The cost of stealth fighters whether from east or west is going to be the major factor affecting numbers built.Secondly,a mix of 5th-gen and 4/4++ gen fighters will be in the inventories of even the US,safety in numbers.Thirdly,drones and LR UCAVs are becoming the bird of choice for strike and both the US and Russia are developing their own stealth bombers as well.Therefore stealth fighters perhaps will be used more in the air dominance role ,with stand-off missile strikes secondary.The fear of losing a stealth fighter over enemy territory is a major fear for the west.See how the US did not use the F-22 in Libya.Russia is also fielding large numbers (90+?) of SU-34 bomber versions of the Flanker.Some reports even talk of 150-200 to replace the SU-24s.A sqd. of SU-34s would be very useful in the IAF's inventory keeping the PRC in mind and targets in Tibet..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 08:43

Like the US needed to use the F-22 in Libya.

Whom are you kidding?

And, Russia will, hopefully, field a 5th gen in 2016ish. And that too a planned 200 in years to come. With an engine coming in 2020. I would not be surprised at all, Russia, like France, will need a good deal of exports to sustain the induction of the PAK-FA. Of course, had China been open to the French I suspect they would not even have bothered with India and Russia could perhaps follow that path. And, why not?

Apples and oranges.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2013 11:10

F-18I seems to have a lot of legs left..just like the F-15SE...probably 100s in service even in 2030 with rolling gold plated upgrades backported from the JSF/UCAV systems.
both these platforms like the F-solah would hence enjoy nearly a 60-70 years of in-service if you consider F-15A came in early 70s and F-18A must have come late 70s.
US seems to be a master as breathing new life into old airframe designs and keeping them going. they even re-engined some KC-135/C5 I think and B52 airframes made in 1950s still stand ready in diego garcia.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 11:22

The fact is the F-22 could've been used on the first days when its much-touted "stealth" would've been particularly useful ,but it seems that its capabilities are pretty overrated ...from the wordss of the US Def. Sec. himself!

What happened to the large stocks of missiles that Libya possessed? Where have many of them supposedly ended up? Bhengazi truths.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... x-Involved

On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.'s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were "diverted to Libya" and ended up being stolen and falling into "the hands of some very ugly people."

DiGenova represents Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson. He told WMAL that he "does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles."

He claimed his information "comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community." He said the biggest concern right now is finding those missiles before they can be put to use. "They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner," he claimed.

On August 4, Breitbart News covered a report in The Telegraph that said 35 CIA operatives were working in Benghazi when the attack against the consulate took place. The Telegraph claimed these operatives were allegedly in an "annex near the consulate [working] on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian Rebels."

Months earlier, following then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's February 7 testimony on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested that one of the causes behind the terrorist attack "may have been that there was a gun running operation going on in Benghazi, leaving Libya and going to Turkey and [distributing] arms to the [Syrian] rebels."


Posted in Air, International, Policy

Donley told a reporter at a Tuesday morning breakfast in Washington that the plane would have flown in Libya if its capabilities were viewed as a requirement for the operation. When pressed for more on what capabilities were needed, he waited a few seconds before saying, “multirole, maybe?”

Lets see three weeks, three excuses for the no show of the F-22 in Libya. Lets review, week one. Communications problems with NATO aircraft and needed a Global Hawk in the air to communicate with US forces and each other. OK Week Two. Only deployed only in the CONUS, no infrastructure in NATO for the F-22. This of course ignores the deployment of the Navy's E/F-18G Growler which effectively shut down the Libyan Air Defense System, note there is no reported firings of a single ADM so far in the Libyan air war. Now week three, well we would have sent it, if was needed, but really not as a multi-role fighter. Lets see the NATO altitude for ground attack in Libya is 15,000 feet, it see all that is required is a bomb truck. Our smart weapons at that altitude are not very. The higher you release a weapon the greater the CPE. At 15,000 ft. the JADAM II with a 2.5 meter CPE goes into being measured by Zip Codes.

The 45 2000 lb. bombs release by the B-2's (at classified altitudes) missed their targets by so much that when it rains a couple of times in Libya the country will have it's own lake district, for future Islamic Poets.

At 15,000 ft. lasers no longer work, moisture in the air deflects the light, and JADAMS II's go back to being plane old dumb bombs with a $50,000.00 kit on them. So I guess the F-22 with two bomb bays wouldn't be all that effective. Which begs the question, just what can the F-22 do for the US air efforts that need doing now that is not being done by an existing platform and done a lot cheaper?


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/07/a-lit ... bya/?wh=wh

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 16:47

I guess we can see another thread: "F-22, :Turkey or ......" and then fill that thread too with biased articles.

To me the Libyan and now Syrian "war"s are just plain show case encounters - proxy ones too. Rafale fires while inverted ....... EuroFighter takes off from UK, refuel over Turkey, fires ....... In between they beat up on some hapless tanks, fear some AA this and AA that.

on

,but it seems that its capabilities are pretty overrated


Perhaps, I do not follow F-22 (and until very recently rarely followed even the F-35). BUT, IF the Israelis could use a F-15/16 to beat a rather advanced Russian air defense system to attack a nuclear plant in Syria (among other things they have done) talk to me about such achievements.

On "overrated", yes, I would hope that scientists from various nations are working hard to beat techs like the F-22 - that is what it is about, to see such efforts. They all are or become - even the PAK-FA is today overrated. BUT that is how it is. I have yet to see the goose that laid a golden egg.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2013 16:57

F22 may be useless or useful as a warfighting platform but considering it as a tech demo vehicle,
nearly 20+ years after its TD and 10 years after its IOC,
- nobody has been able to match the size of its radar
- russia hopes to field a comparable engine in 2020!
- nobody else has demoed and proven the concept of internal weapons carriage

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4006
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby kit » 19 Aug 2013 18:00

Maybe they can keep the F22 s in reserve to fight the aliens and revive those mothballed F16s for terra use :mrgreen:

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 19 Aug 2013 19:26

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that we didn't send in the F-22s and show those Libyians who is Boss of the Skies! Why send the B-team when you can really impress some Libyians with F-22s struting thier stuff for everyone to see and appreciate?

Those Wild Weasels in their F-16s are getting a little bit tiresome with bragging and everything.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2013 19:29

Look,the F-22 is arguably the best fighter in the air today.No Q about that.The US has fielded its best 4++ fighters and the F-22 has got the better of them.However,when it comes to strike,a good old fashioned 4th gen "bomb truck" with PGMs is holding its own cost-effectively.Though it has better all-round stealth features than the JSF,that aircraft reportedly has more advanced electronics and avionics. I'm going to post later in the JSF td. a piece in a US journal ,the pros and cons of that aircraft as they see it.It's why a Russian analyst has asked whether we are overrating 5th-gen stealth aircraft,as anti-stealth advances improve and the cost of such aircraft keeps on skyrocketing.The maintenance regime of a stealth aircraft is enormous and the USMC is wondering how it will manage to maintain the JSF in a marine environment where sea and salt is going to degrade the exotic stealth coatings on its version.More of that in that thread.

The Q is that in a conflict,where the F-22 is outnumbered by a 3:1 enemy force of PRC Flankers-as has been wargamed,it will run out of AAMs pretty fast and the advantage will be with the enemy.This was supposedly in response to the US trying to prevent a PRC take-away of Taiwan.Until the F-22 sees conflict,we will be in the realm of speculation.Costs matter too.The US piece says that for every F-35C (currently estimated @ $186.5M,US figs,not mine! ),it could buy 2.8 F-18SHs (@ $66.9M)! Add to that the extra intense maintenance and support and the stealth wet dream could turn into an MRO nightmare.

What is going to make or break the FGFA is its comparative cost with the US stealth birds.If it comes in at around $100M it would be worth it. At equivalent US costs for their 5th-gen birds,very questionable.From the current info,the Russians are playing safe with flying the first versions with a proven engine and other systems,waiting for the enhanced one to arrive.Thus far they seem to be on target.It's the cost factor of development and production cost by 2020 which will materially determine how many are actually built,the other factor to be kept in mind how the PRC's own birds fare as the IAF has to maintain the qualitative edge over the PLAAF.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby karan_mc » 19 Aug 2013 19:30

F-22 will not be Exported Ever , so no need to show off and also why need to send A team when B team will do same job at cheaper operational cost ?

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Aug 2013 19:54

^^^
They said the same thing about F-15. Because of this the four European countries went ahead and built the EFT. What happened next, Japan got F-15J. Israel got the F-15 too. So F-22 will not be exported right now. But it will be in the future without the its crucial components.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 19 Aug 2013 20:22

It is very easy to sit in our houses and be (constructively?) critical of such machines are the F-22 (cost-effective, etc), but one has to acknowledge the amount of "stuff" that went into a plane like that. 10 years of development, some 10 versions of it, killed a darn good competitor, seeded a ton of new technologies and thinking. And, all you can come up with is that there is a better bomb-truck? Even the Russians (yes, Russians) are STILL trying to beat the F-22 (with their PAK-FA), and the Russians are not some Podunk, yahoo critters who do not know what they are talking about. It has taken them some 14 years or so to get the PAK-FA to where it is and the PAK-FA was never a leading edge machine - they (the Russians) had about a decade to THINK about it before they even started designing it. Think about that alone.

Honestly I have no clue about the F-22 - never followed it. But, even with all its flaws I am dead sure that the world would give an arm and a leg to get some of her technologies.

Now what a tactician sitting in DC does is a totally different matter. Why it was not sent into Libya (I personally do not care) is nothing to do with technologies. Like I have repeatedly stated - if an Israeli F-15/16 could fly fairly deep into Syrian territory, then what to speak of an F-22 IF they really wanted it to go in? Does not mean that the F-22 is flawless or that the PAK-FA is not better. But to beat it based on what you have provided so far is silly.

Technologies are meant to get beaten - THAT is progress. And the one that got beaten need not bow his/her head. No shame in it.

It is not about beating the F-22, it is about why it took so long to beat the F-22 ...................... actually there is nothing out there that has beaten it yet, perhaps in 2020.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 19 Aug 2013 21:29

the only thing you guys can talk about is what and where it flawed.. the stealth is all about what is not revealed including its capabilities. it would be foolish to take raptor 1:1 without understanding and spilling out the beans of contending platforms in comparisons.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests