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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 06 Apr 2014 06:38

There is a significant difference between the SU-30MKI acquisition and the BMos JV.The issue is not spares and support.We do not have IP rights to the SU-30,SU-35,SU-34 and other variants developed by Russia on its own.Sure,they will be given to us if we ask for them,but we are not "stakeholders".After a decade+ in service,raising the indigenous content of spares,support,etc. is great -proving the success of the acquisition and support from the OEM,but we do not get any royalties out of our fine-tuning the MKI to our needs as it is specific for our requirements alone. However,if a customer specifies Indian eqpt. aboard,and if we are willing to part with it,we will make some pocket money.

With BMos,first ,as said before,the cost of development was halved,and we have a 50% stake in whatever exports materialise in the future. The demand form our armed forces is huge,and until this requirement is first completed,exports may have to wait,unless really close pals like Vietnam get their quota. Secondly,both countries are working together to develop even more sophisticated versions of the missile,a task infinitely harder for us,particularly as we lag behind decades in engine tech.,etc. We are co-developing the missile to suit our specific needs,like the steep vert. dive version for land attack for Himalayan/mountain warfare.

If Russia is still manufacturing Yakhonts what's the problem? Yakhont has been stated as having a range of 500km.If they have to replace old rounds with new ones its their business.BMos may bee its brother,perhaps even a twin brother,but not an identical twin.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 07 Apr 2014 12:49

Philip wrote:There is a significant difference between the SU-30MKI acquisition and the BMos JV.The issue is not spares and support.We do not have IP rights to the SU-30,SU-35,SU-34 and other variants developed by Russia on its own.Sure,they will be given to us if we ask for them,but we are not "stakeholders".After a decade+ in service,raising the indigenous content of spares,support,etc. is great -proving the success of the acquisition and support from the OEM,but we do not get any royalties out of our fine-tuning the MKI to our needs as it is specific for our requirements alone. However,if a customer specifies Indian eqpt. aboard,and if we are willing to part with it,we will make some pocket money.


We don't need the IP rights to the Su-30, Su-35, Su-34 and other variants. All we need is the right to customize our own Su-30MKIs, which we do have.

With BMos,first ,as said before,the cost of development was halved,and we have a 50% stake in whatever exports materialise in the future. The demand form our armed forces is huge,and until this requirement is first completed,exports may have to wait,unless really close pals like Vietnam get their quota.


Relative to our orders the development cost was minuscule, especially considered that it does not differ greatly from the already developed Yakhont. Also if export orders were immaterial we wouldn't have been chasing after Russian orders.

Secondly,both countries are working together to develop even more sophisticated versions of the missile,a task infinitely harder for us,particularly as we lag behind decades in engine tech.,etc. We are co-developing the missile to suit our specific needs,like the steep vert. dive version for land attack for Himalayan/mountain warfare.


Developing different variants of the baseline BrahMos doesn't need decades of experience in engine tech (they employ the same propulsion). And the genuinely new designs (BrahMos-M & BrahMos-2) could still have been pursued through a JV between BEL/DRDO and NPO M, subject to Russia placing actual orders for these missiles.

If Russia is still manufacturing Yakhonts what's the problem? Yakhont has been stated as having a range of 500km.If they have to replace old rounds with new ones its their business.BMos may bee its brother,perhaps even a twin brother,but not an identical twin.


By most accounts, the Oniks/Yakhont has the same range as the BrahMos. And were this range 500km, it wouldn't have been available for export, which it is. Despite having a joint venture on the BrahMos, they are produced and marketing a competing product. Therein lies the problem.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 492
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby maitya » 07 Apr 2014 14:55

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:There is a significant difference between the SU-30MKI acquisition and the BMos JV.The issue is not spares and support.We do not have IP rights to the SU-30,SU-35,SU-34 and other variants developed by Russia on its own.Sure,they will be given to us if we ask for them,but we are not "stakeholders".After a decade+ in service,raising the indigenous content of spares,support,etc. is great -proving the success of the acquisition and support from the OEM,but we do not get any royalties out of our fine-tuning the MKI to our needs as it is specific for our requirements alone. However,if a customer specifies Indian eqpt. aboard,and if we are willing to part with it,we will make some pocket money.


We don't need the IP rights to the Su-30, Su-35, Su-34 and other variants. All we need is the right to customize our own Su-30MKIs, which we do have.

Nope we don't - we can't "customize" anything in Su-30MKI and Russia would NOT agree to any sort of customization etc (irrespective of however superior the "customized replacement" technology-wise/cost-wise) without asking for a hugely appreciated price for allowing it.
And, any system/sub-system/parts that are not agreed to be sourced from a 3rd party in it's entirety in the parent contract would require explicit approval for replacement/customization etc from the OEM to ensure warranty-support is not null and voided.

But then, Russia is not alone in enforcing such stuff - everybody else does it!!

Even for agreed 3rd-party supplied systems and subsystems (e.g. RLG, INS etc in MKI), some rudimentary level of approval is required from the OEM platform supplier before changing/customized replacement etc - as the OEM would still be bound by the parent contract on basic platform performance, availability etc. - but yes, approvals etc for customised replacements for such systems/subsystems are easier to obtain compared to OEM supplied systems/subsystems (purely, as OEM doesn't have any chance to gain financially too much from such customized replacement etc.

So for example, if we decide to replace the Ti based wings/tail/fuselage of MKI, which are currently being manufactured (from Ti sourced from Russia, if I may add - maybe at an inflated price from what we ourselves produce indigenously) by HAL, with composite-structures to minimize the platform weight etc, do you think Russians will agree to it - no way!!
And the excuse that you'd hear for that "Nyet" would be it will impact the structural integrity, overall aerodynamic profile etc etc - and teh small print that will never get reported would be those structural integrity parameters, aerodynamic never-exceed limits etc were not shared in the first place.
Actual reason would be loss of revenue due to perpetuating the Ti based airframe manufacturing both in terms of royalty money and Ti-raw material based export revenue.
Furthermore, all such technical problems would evaporate if you are ready to negotiate an "upgrade" at a suitable price-point that underwrites the above-mentioned revenue-loss.

A rhetorical question to ask would be if we could somehow magically master capability to manufacture CMSX-6 based 3rd Gen SCB Turbine blades, would Russia agree to replace the AL-31FP blades, with them. Answer is, plain NO.


And, all of such issues gets somewhat obviated via a JV route - of course, the big disclaimer to such a claim is how intelligently the JV contract was negotiated and codified and how likely and rigorously is the OEM willing to honor contractual terms and conditions.
Had Su-30MKI been a JV, with India supposedly in charge of developing the required engine for it, the above situation would become possible - and not only that the overall platform aerodynamic parameters (e.g. in this case, the airflow pattern and pressure on the Fan face etc.) will have to be shared with India as a part of executing the JV itself, facilitating the above-mentioned "customization".

With Brahmos, this exactly what happens - Russians have no locus standii wrt the seeker, and despite what Philip and others claim, the fantastic level of acceptance of Brahmos to Army (apart from Navy) is more because of the tailor-made land-attack capabilities that has been developed due to this seeker flexibility that we possess. Pls try finding out just how much difference is there wrt the engine and aerodynamic-hardware-profile (and not aerodynamic control software tweaks etc) between Block-I and Block-II/III etc.
Note Russia still benefits from it's share of the revenue from any Brahmos sell to Army - however they will not be able to price-gouge/downright-deny changes to the seeker etc.
On the contrary, on the AF version, Russia gets much more leeway on deciding/reasoning/dictating etc as the basic airframe-profile is going to be changed (though not much).

Thus a JV is always the much desired route, as it will force the original platform IP owner to share complete manufacturing knowhow of all parts plus of course you get additional flexibility of leap-frogging the technological aspects of your share of the systems and sub-systems. There is a price to be paid for this of course viz.
1) Inflated upfront JV cost - often referred to as "R&D" cost etc - to basically underwrite the revenue-loss of the original-platform-developer (Russia, in this case) wrt material-export and royalty-accrual
2) Risk sharing of the platform development etc


But to be able to form a JV, you need to be mature enough to be capable of bringing something of your own in terms of a major system like Engine, Radar, Avionics etc - in mid 90s, we had didly squat in terms of these so contracts like those of MKI ended with ToT. Now, it's abundantly clear that we are capable enough to build most systems in its entirety (e.g. Akash SAM), but the JV route is going to shorten the devt/testing/qualification life-cycle (like LR/MR SAM etc) - so it's the flavor of the season.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 07 Apr 2014 15:46

maitya wrote:Nope we don't - we can't "customize" anything in Su-30MKI and Russia would NOT agree to any sort of customization etc (irrespective of however superior the "customized replacement" technology-wise/cost-wise) without asking for a hugely appreciated price for allowing it.


We certainly do. From mission computers to composite control surfaces, (which we in turn have exported for the SM & MKM). And yes it requires the OEM to be on board, but the OEM itself has little incentive to be obstructionist, given the Indian side is formally striving to maximize the domestic content in the aircraft (something the MKI contract allows for).

So for example, if we decide to replace the Ti based wings/tail/fuselage of MKI, which are currently being manufactured (from Ti sourced from Russia, if I may add - maybe at an inflated price from what we ourselves produce indigenously) by HAL, with composite-structures to minimize the platform weight etc, do you think Russians will agree to it - no way!!


I thought the Ti was sourced from Midhani. Plus composite content introduced in the Mk3s is quite significant, even if its not comparable to later 4.5G aircraft.

A rhetorical question to ask would be if we could somehow magically master capability to manufacture CMSX-6 based 3rd Gen SCB Turbine blades, would Russia agree to replace the AL-31FP blades, with them. Answer is, plain NO.


Perhaps if we were importing them, but my understanding was the deal included ToT for the AL-31 and that its SCBs were being/to be manufactured domestically.

And, all of such issues gets somewhat obviated via a JV route - of course, the big disclaimer to such a claim is how intelligently the JV contract was negotiated and codified and how likely and rigorously is the OEM willing to honor contractual terms and conditions.


Most of these issues could be addressed within a license production contract as well (downside being the poor regard for contracts among the Russians).

With Brahmos, this exactly what happens - Russians have no locus standii wrt the seeker, and despite what Philip and others claim, the fantastic level of acceptance of Brahmos to Army (apart from Navy) is more because of the tailor-made land-attack capabilities that has been developed due to this seeker flexibility that we possess. Pls try finding out just how much difference is there wrt the engine and aerodynamic-hardware-profile (and not aerodynamic control software tweaks etc) between Block-I and Block-II/III etc.


Do share please. Google's not being very helpful.

Thus a JV is always the much desired route, as it will force the original platform IP owner to share complete manufacturing knowhow of all parts plus of course you get additional flexibility of leap-frogging the technological aspects of your share of the systems and sub-systems.


Complete manufacturing knowhow can be transferred through a traditional non-JV contract as well.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Brando » 07 Apr 2014 16:05

SaiK wrote:having a dependency with russia is fine, but having to face problems with spares etc is a big pain


How is being "dependent" on anybody FINE ? And if facing problems in spare motivates self-reliance and self-sufficiency, then it is a blessing in disguise. I don't think there is such a thing like an "efficient dependency" (such a thing is akin to sweet poison) and even the Americans are sometimes slow or unwilling to respond to those who use their equipment. Israel in particular has a pick of the crop when it comes to American equipment but history has shown them that they are quite vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and therefore they look to make most of what is feasible inhouse.

I think if these problems today with Russian spares and poor maintainability among the services continues to be a serious issue, both the military and the civilian establishment at the MoD will be more motivated to produce domestically and accept Indian products even if they are not the latest and the greatest if reliability and serviceability are significantly improved.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 07 Apr 2014 17:08

the fine aspects are related to how much loosly decoupled is the realtionship,where we are encouraged to have freedom to develop, maintain, parts subcomponents and subsystems to our likes and charter.

example: i need a new passive device to be part of the deisgn.. russkies agrees to design, and perhaps offers to supply components. India builds it at her own specifications. there is a dependency, but that is just FINE!

if they agree, and then later on chew on us supplies, then that is the concern of pain to what i said earlier

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 08 Apr 2014 07:37

Tx Maitya,for making the issue much clearer.You hit upon a very important point,about chronology and indigenous capability in engaging in a JV,when compared earlier to "licence manufacture" and "TOT" of a developed item.There is simply no way that we can be 100% indigenous,there will always be some amount of firang input,both design and dev.,plus components.

The BJP manifesto aims to redress the glaring issues in the def. min.,raise domestic production,quick decisionmaking and even a review of the NFU N-stand.This latter point is "alarming" the Western hypocracies,who are using every means to prevent Mr.Modi from becoming PM.They will now put pressure upon potential NDA allies,esp. pot election time when the numbers have been added up.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 08 Apr 2014 08:27

Nope we don't - we can't "customize"


Do not know about the MKI, but I was informed years ago, by someone in the flying flock, that the MiG-21 was modified/customized and when the Soviets came for whatever reason, the part was removed/replaced. And this bird, from the flock, today is a Air Commodore - should be up for the next level.

I am fairly confident that India does make modifications.

Also, as a FYI, when the LCA was first proposed a IIT prof at Bombay proposed to modify the MiG-21 - get rid of that planes -ves as he put it. Indians have a very good picture of what is happening and modifications should not be an issue. I think one could discuss what can be modified, what cannot be and what is.

And yes it requires the OEM to be on board


Like I said, some that can be and needs such approval would fall under this cat. Else ............................

we cannot expect the IAF to lug around handheld GPS units all the time. : wink :

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 17 Apr 2014 01:19

March, 2014 :: The case for speeding up India's domestic fifth generation fighter projects

I no longer think the FGFA is worth the time and money (at $11 billion for R&D). India is not getting what she wanted out of this project. Perhaps cut losses and order only to build up numbers.

This article has some good data points.

The Indian Air Force's (IAF) quest for its first fifth generation fighter has been running into the usual back and forth with the Russians as well as domestic discord with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) . It seems on top of the reported delays, the Russians are also hiking the costs associated with the Fifth generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project. Meanwhile, the IAF is at odds with an apparent HAL move to surrender almost two-thirds of its purported work share for the FGFA development programme. The Americans are also testing waters by making offers to India to join the F-35 programme although that is not really on the cards. In the midst of all this it is clear that India needs to pursue the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme with maximum zeal. If India truly has to fashion an airpower doctrine for the new millennia it has to concurrently develop the in house hardware needed to execute that doctrine optimally.

Although HAL signed a preliminary design contract (PDC) valued at 295 million dollars with Russia's UAC way back in 2010 that was completed in April 2013 there is as yet no firm date for the signing of the final research and development (R&D) contract. While it was earlier expected to be signed in 2012 itself it seems that the final agreement is likely only in fiscal 2014-15. The IAF's plan to start inducting the FGFA from 2022 onwards hangs in the balance and it remains to be seen if the earlier hope of getting a prototype each in 2014, 2017 and 2019 for trials at the HAL manufacturing facility at Ozhar actually materializes on schedule.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) knows that the timeframes mentioned above are becoming dicey and it has now established a committee to assess the rise in costs indicated by the Russian side. The final R&D contract is estimated to be worth 11 billion dollars with India and Russia each bearing half of the said amount. The development contract includes the cost of designing the airframe, setting up infrastructure at Ozhar, prototype manufacturing and flight testing related development costs.

Painfully aware of the issues associated with the development of the FGFA, the IAF in 2012 pared down its requirement to just 144 single seat fighters from the earlier requirement of 166 twin-seaters and 48 single seat versions. Previously the IAF had wanted twin-seaters in keeping with its air superiority doctrine of having two pilots on-board with one serving as a dedicated weapons systems operator - a doctrine that it has evolved through its experience with the Su-30MKI. But in the case of the FGFA it seems that there is an appreciable loss in terms of stealthiness arising from a larger radar cross section (RCS) for the two-seater configuration. There are also accompanying payload and combat radius penalties. These factors when taken together with the rising costs of development mean that the two-seater version does not make that much sense anymore.

But the decision to opt for only single seat fighters also means that some of the development work that was earlier envisaged for modifying the basic frame itself is no longer on the anvil. HAL after all was tasked with providing designs for the tandem seating configuration and attendant cockpit displays for the two-seater. To be sure, a twin seat modification is something that UAC itself must have done on the drawing board at some point since the Russians usually build type trainers for their combat jets. Indeed the fact that the twin seat configuration has been discarded rather quickly suggests that the Russians must have already done some preliminary SWOT analysis on that modification.

Nevertheless in 2013 there was talk of HAL 'surrendering' almost two-thirds of the 50 per cent work share that it is supposed to contribute to the FGFA. To begin with, this notion of a 50:50 work share between HAL and UAC even for a two seat version would have been bit of a stretch. The PAK-FA which serves as a baseline design for the FGFA is far too down the development path for any 'equal' division of the work share.

The IAF on its part has of course been very keen to make the FGFA unique to itself in terms of sensors, avionics, weapons nomenclature and perhaps also with regard to the choice of future propulsion units. Some 43 improvements to the prototype PAK-FA designs have also been recommended by the IAF after observing flight trials at Zhukovsky aerodrome. All this, the IAF believes, should have kept HAL well engaged in the development phase. On the other hand, the fact that the IAF itself has reduced overall orders for the aircraft suggests that now HAL now might just be keen to contain development costs since they will be amortized over a smaller number of airframes.

The FGFA was also envisioned by the IAF as being lighter than the PAK-FA through the extensive use of composites, something that India has developed competence in through the LCA project. There are Russian sources who suggest that composites cover 70 per cent of the PAK-FA's surface which has led to large weight reductions over a comparable all metallic airframe. But the Indian side seems to have a different view and believes that Sukhoi (UAC) designers have still stuck to the Russian practise of heavy use of metallics in the airframe. In fact the PAK-FA is very much designed in keeping with Russian industrial strengths and to suit Russian airpower doctrine. It carries forward the legacy of the Sukhoi Flanker series in some important respects and is naturally based around the requirements of the Russian Air force. It was already quite 'developed' by the time the IAF chose to join in and that is probably why Russian Air force commander General Victor Bondarev has been saying his service would receive production aircraft in 2015. This 2015 timeline is of course also considered too optimistic by some observers but it is becoming apparent that the PAK-FA was much further down the road than people expected when it was publicly unveiled in 2010.

Truth be told an uncharitable view would suggest that the FGFA is now beginning to resemble the Su-30 MKI project that involved customization rather than any co-development much less co-design. UAC President Mikhail Pogosyan for instance has reportedly said that both the Russian and Indian versions "will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical on board systems and avionics". This would seem to be a little at odds with statements attributed to former IAF chief Browne's comments that clearly talk about the FGFA having different sensors and weapons from the Russian Airforce's PAK-FA. Of course given that HAL seems to be voluntarily abandoning a part of its work share, Pogosyan could end up being more accurate than not.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2014 03:23

A few more data points:

Russia finalises PAK-DA bomber design

Meanwhile, the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter continues to add more flight test aircraft to the programme, with five prototypes now undergoing validation flights. One more prototype will be delivered for the flight test schedule in 2014 and then two more in 2015. In 2016 the programme is scheduled to begin a low rate of deliveries to operational units, but this is still open to change due to a lack of any concrete facilities within the Russian Air Force (VVS) for the testing of some of the aircraft's performance parameters.

Because of the phased introduction into service and the number of improvements being planned beyond the original configuration the T-50 is probably headed for a very long service life. Projections are, said Pogosyan, that it would be in service well after 2050.

Pogosyan is also understood to have confirmed that the slow pace of the introduction of the T-50 PAK-FA fighter means that the Sukhoi Su-35S 'Flanker-E' will be the backbone of the VVS for the foreseeable future. Pogosyan envisages that as a result, the Su-35S, and later derivatives, will remain in production for at least another decade for the VVS. Of the 48 Su-35S aircraft on order, 12 have been delivered so far, with a further 12 planned in 2014 and 14 in 2015. As a result, several additional Su-35S batches are expected to be procured to replace Su-27 and Su-30 models that are being retired, as PAK-FA aircraft will not be able to replace these older models on a one-for-one basis.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 22 Apr 2014 18:31

Russia Offers Brazil Joint Development Of PAK-FA Stealth Fighter

Russia plans to offer Brazil joint development of the fifth-generation combat aircraft, the Sukhoi T-50, according to Alexander Fomin, the head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation.

The proposal is reportedly in support of an unsolicited offer by Sukhoi whose Su-35 fighter was taken off Brazil’s shortlist for its F-X2 tender for the purchase of 36 fighter jets worth $4 billion.

Russia is still hoping to sell the Su-35s or similar aircraft to Brazil outside the framework of that tender, sweetening the deal with the new proposal, according to Ria Novosti.

New Delhi and Moscow are currently already developing a derivative of the T-50 for the Indian Air Force. According to executives from India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the two sides completed the preliminary design of the aircraft, tentatively dubbed FGFA, earlier this year and are now negotiating a detailed design contract.


The Indo-Russian deal to co-develop an FGFA with capabilities tailor-made for India is worth approximately $6 billion
.


Hmmmmm.............

Already from $5.5 to $6 billion.

And, where is the "tailor-made". Per the horse himself India will get everything as is from the PAK-FA. Including avionics.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1535
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Sumeet » 23 Apr 2014 17:26

NRao,

I do not disagree with you but if we get off PAK-FA bandwagon the import lobby in IAF, MoD, Babucracy & extra talent like Shukla ji may throw us into JSF pit. That will be comparatively speaking really bad option. That lobby has greater ability to scuttle any indigenous effort towards FGFA.

Plus sticking with PAK-FA gives us extra time to work on desi fifth generation fighter while our teeth's get fresh edge in for of PAK-FA MKI. Barring F-22/JSF nothing else can challenge it. It will be worry for China and Pak.

I for one was not happy that we didn't decide to go for PAK-FA back in early 2000's. I first expressed this opinion about 8 or 9 years ago on BRF. For some reason I cannot locate that post now.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 25 Apr 2014 00:02

Sumeet wrote:I do not disagree with you but if we get off PAK-FA bandwagon the import lobby in IAF, MoD, Babucracy & extra talent like Shukla ji may throw us into JSF pit. That will be comparatively speaking really bad option. That lobby has greater ability to scuttle any indigenous effort towards FGFA.


No such thing as an 'indigenous effort' towards the FGFA. At this point its just a slightly customized PAK FA.

The wasted investment aside, by financially committing ourself to the program before it goes into production, we lose critical leverage over the vendor. When the production contract is being negotiated, the Russians can demand outrageous prices, knowing that the Indian side cannot walk away with a nonrefundable $6 billion already invested.

If we wait another couple of years, we'll not only have a clearer picture of the aircraft's performance and costs, we can at the very minimum use the F-35 to squeeze a better deal out of the Russians.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby srin » 25 Apr 2014 01:52

Well - to be honest, I'm quite surprised that we even expected to be partners in development. I'm not talking about the sheer number of agreements that have been signed and will need to be signed or that we are quite late in the cycle, but I don't believe we quite have the expertise or the confidence to be an equal partner in fifth gen fighter development. I think the Govt realized it quite early and that's why didn't assign the FGFA partnership responsibility to ADA - the design agency - and instead to HAL - the production agency.

Having said that, IAF will require stealth fighters to match up with the contemporary and rival air-forces. And PAKFA or its MKI'ed derivative FGFA is the surest way to make up numbers.

But don't expect mastery over the technology. For that we need to focus on our AMCA. Whether you get to AMCA by scaling up the Tejas (with twin engines and stealthized) or by scaling down a PAK-FA (single engined stealth form factor) or do it from a completely clean slate, it needs to our design. We may get radar from Israel, ejection seat from UK, engines from US, missiles from Russia - it may be a full kichdi, but it will give our designers the option of modular swapping later on if we run into sanctions trouble.

It is unfortunate though that we don't have multiple design agencies that can offer competing designs (Mig vs Sukhoi, Boeing vs Lockheed) and let the best design win.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 25 Apr 2014 03:02

I for one was not happy that we didn't decide to go for PAK-FA back in early 2000's


I have wondered about this too.

IF there is any vendor that *knows* the IAF it has got to be Sukhoi. The two (with other Indian Labs) worked very closely to design+build the MKI.

So, why is it that the this relationship did not mature into something in the earlier stages with this 5th Gen machine? I suspect it has something to do with a lack of confidence within the Indian (IAF?) establishments.

Now, is the current IAF reservation a trailing/lingering thought from that? wonder.

Also, India has graduated its involvement and now is withholding perhaps the most important phase of the development.

Meanwhile the numbers have dropped dramatically, the scope has changed even more dramatically, ..................

And, then:

Meanwhile, the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter continues to add more flight test aircraft to the programme, with five prototypes now undergoing validation flights. One more prototype will be delivered for the flight test schedule in 2014 and then two more in 2015. In 2016 the programme is scheduled to begin a low rate of deliveries to operational units, but this is still open to change due to a lack of any concrete facilities within the Russian Air Force (VVS) for the testing of some of the aircraft's performance parameters.

Because of the phased introduction into service and the number of improvements being planned beyond the original configuration the T-50 is probably headed for a very long service life. Projections are, said Pogosyan, that it would be in service well after 2050.

Pogosyan is also understood to have confirmed that the slow pace of the introduction of the T-50 PAK-FA fighter means that the Sukhoi Su-35S 'Flanker-E' will be the backbone of the VVS for the foreseeable future. Pogosyan envisages that as a result, the Su-35S, and later derivatives, will remain in production for at least another decade for the VVS. Of the 48 Su-35S aircraft on order, 12 have been delivered so far, with a further 12 planned in 2014 and 14 in 2015. As a result, several additional Su-35S batches are expected to be procured to replace Su-27 and Su-30 models that are being retired, as PAK-FA aircraft will not be able to replace these older models on a one-for-one basis.


Are some of these an indicator that the PAK-FA is not fully funded? Were they expecting Indian funding from the R&D phase to contribute towards these activities and the delay in the Indian funding is contributing to some of these phases?

Wonder.

And, finally, the FGFA = PAK-FA per Pogosyan.

Given that the RuAF and IAF have diverging philosophies, I wonder how they can compromise on a base plane. Would the introduction of different models increase the costs beyond acceptable limits?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vic » 25 Apr 2014 13:53

Sequence of bait and switch in PAKFA:-

Stage 1- India will have two seater with major structural differences + own engines + own radar

Stage 2- India will have two seater with major structural differences + Russian engines + own radar

Stage 3- India will have two seater with major structural differences + Russian engines + Russian radar

Stage 4- India will have same single seat aircraft with major structural differences + Russian engines + Russian radar & avionics

Stage 5- India will have same aircraft as Russians and Order is only 144 units, we will just give them USD 6 Billion to let us watch and fetch them vodka

Stage 6- India will have same aircraft as Russians but as order is only 144 units there fore most of manufacturing will be done by Russians due to cost issues, HAL will only do screwdrivergiri.

Stage 7- India will have same aircraft as Russians but as order is only 144 units therefore we will have to pay extra for new engine, new radar, two seater design. Hence cost goes up to USD 15 Billion for R&D and USD 200 Million of each unit of PAKF*cked. For 144 PAKFA we will pay USD 45 Billion. In the meanwhile AMCA does not even get USD 45 Million

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 25 Apr 2014 15:52

Going by past experience, the Russians will in all probability squeeze us really, really hard in production phase and that too will come with riders. The screwdrivergiri my not be transferred in a fuller extent under the garb of protecting secrets. This, after we would have sunk in $6 billion or more - I refrain from calling it an investment as I am skeptical on the returns.

Some parallels may be drawn with Saudi funded development of block-60 with the following differences:
1. We will have no or very little rights on the finished product.
2. Russians will make another variation and export it freely, without asking us OR paying us any royalty for technologies developed with our money

There was a time I had absolute faith in Russians however, the last decade or so has made not only me, but I guess, a lot of us rethink. Investing even 10% of the amount in local aerospace will get us a decent 5th gen or close to it aircraft that we will be able to take pride in, and call our own.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 25 Apr 2014 20:19

I would put money where it pays us. home grown technology, even if it takes time [perhaps re-energized setup and following established patterns and corrections], is the way to go forward.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_23360 » 26 Apr 2014 06:30

if we don't invest in FGFA, what will be our options
1) invest ONLY in AMCA, its definitely gonna take 10 - 15 years or may be 20 years before FOC. Can we wait for that long when Chinese are fielding J 20?
2) buy F 35?
3) or acquire anti stealth technology?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 26 Apr 2014 16:51

akshat.kashyap wrote:if we don't invest in FGFA, what will be our options
1) invest ONLY in AMCA, its definitely gonna take 10 - 15 years or may be 20 years before FOC. Can we wait for that long when Chinese are fielding J 20?
2) buy F 35?
3) or acquire anti stealth technology?

The AMCA isn't likely to enter regular service before 2030 and there is no silver bullet solution against stealth technology on the horizon.

First off, we need to forget about the FGFA and start thinking in terms of the PAK FA. Which means handling it like a normal acquisition instead of chasing after the mirage of co-development.

Wait until 2016 or so, when Sukhoi can make a pre-production/production aircraft available. Invite LM to compete. Have both entries flight tested by the IAF, and have both countries pitch the T-50K and F-35IN to the MoD. Go with the package offering better value for money.

Of course our resident Russophiles won't be too pleased with that since Russian equipment usually loses when contesting an open competition. Either way, the Indian taxpayer wins.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 28 Apr 2014 10:52

Ha!Ha! Memories are so short .Remember the Indo-US exercises where even the supposedly obsolete Bisons got the brtter of F-15s? US analysts as posted have rated the JSF inferior to the T-50 inaerial combat
and as for strike, loaded with underwing munitions, poof goes stealth!

Ps:Read the media report (Hindu?) about SU-30MKI prod.at HAL.Titanium blocks supplied from Russia, 60-70% now indigenous.When current indig. stands at only 30%, official figs, this is no mean achievement.

Secondlly, where is it said that in the BMos JV there was a guaranteed buy-back figure from Russia? Where has the GOI said that we are "desperate" to sell it to Russia? We can barely produce enough for our own requirements which saw a second plant being set up. JV negotiatoons and contracts are made by the MOD.It is absurd to suggest that only Russian deals are suspect/defective while others from the West/US are well drawn up.Unfortuately the US is deeply worried and jealous about BMos for which it has no answer to, worried about independent nations getting the same and is looking for similar ventures to offer India but is hamstrung with its own contradictions reg.adv. tech sales, intrusive agreement clauses, etc. and finding something that India needs.Is it willing to part with
N-sub tech., BM tech.cruise missile tech, stealth tech....? The negotiations for such would be so prolonged that it would make the MMRCA deal look like a fast food sale! Plus the GOI well knows how the
US did try and sabotage the KKNPP allegedly funding the protests through German and French entities, allegedly spending hundreds of millions of $$$ who passed on the money to our quisling NGOs and churchwallahs.
Last edited by Philip on 28 Apr 2014 11:34, edited 2 times in total.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vic » 28 Apr 2014 10:57

144 PAKFA + USD 6 Billion is equal to 1000-1500 LCA Mark-2 in terms of cost. China faced off Soviet Union by quantity and grit and not imports.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 28 Apr 2014 11:27

Good Q Vic.But can we build the same at speed? OfficialLCA prod. rate 8/r
yr going onto 12+ later.Current SU prod rate by HAL in report today 16! It is becos the SU is a perfected bird both in dssign and prod.the LCA is not. FGFAs will start arriving before 2020 for the IAF, from 2016 for Russia.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby krishnan » 28 Apr 2014 14:21

put in the money and kick some ass, show some spine and get the ball rolling , you can get 20 or even 30 LCA per year

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vic » 28 Apr 2014 15:14

Give the second LCA line to Reliance, they will kill off Rafale and PAKFA as well roll out LCA at a phenomenal rate.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby SaiK » 28 Apr 2014 21:51

so who is stopping them?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 29 Apr 2014 15:41

Philip wrote:Ha!Ha! Memories are so short .Remember the Indo-US exercises where even the supposedly obsolete Bisons got the brtter of F-15s?

There were lessons to be learned from the exercise. The importance of numbers & training, importance of BVR sensors/weapons, the potential of low-tech platforms in a WVR melee, (F-5E v F-15, F-16 v F-22) etc. But its astounding that one can leap from that to - MiG-21 Bison > F-15C.

As regards short memories, here's a reminder about a few competitions that Russian equipment was involved in - MMRCA/MiG-35, AH-64E/Mi-28N, CH-47/Mi-26T, A330/Il-78, C-17/Il-76, EC Fennec/Bell 407/Ka-226T, Arjun/T-90.

US analysts as posted have rated the JSF inferior to the T-50 inaerial combat

As has been stated numerous times before and will probably need to be stated numerous times in the future, the RAND study did NOT analyse aircraft performance, let alone compare the F-35 to the PAK FA. Please don't duck that fact and continue to repeat this patently false claim ad nauseam.

and as for strike, loaded with underwing munitions, poof goes stealth!

Which would matter only if you could prove that the PAK FA has a higher internal payload than the F-35. So far you haven't.

Secondlly, where is it said that in the BMos JV there was a guaranteed buy-back figure from Russia?

Who's questioning the legal position of the Russians vis a vis the BrahMos? I'm not. We could have modified and manufactured the BrahMos under a standard license-production agreement without giving them half the shares of BAPL. If we negotiated an agreement naively expecting good faith and ended up burnt, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The trouble begins when the Russians come offering an FGFA JV, with the FGFA being advertised as the only version to be exported and we nod along and sign the $6 billion cheque. Make no mistake, we'll be the only 'customer' for the FGFA. Other parties (if any) will do their negotiating exclusively with the Russians.

Where has the GOI said that we are "desperate" to sell it to Russia? We can barely produce enough for our own requirements which saw a second plant being set up. JV negotiatoons and contracts are made by the MOD.

Perhaps you could give Mr Pillai of BAPL a piece of your mind then -

During the visit of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to the BrahMos complex here, head of the Joint Venture A Sivathanu Pillai urged the visiting dignitary to ensure induction of the missile in Russian Navy, officials said here. (link)

Plus of course there's our Defence Minister's repeated pleas to Russia -

It was déjà vu in Indo-Russian defence ties when Indian Defence Minister AK Antony said in New Delhi on Tuesday that Russia should induct BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in their fleet so that the success achieved in the joint venture will be fully appreciated.
The reason why Antony’s remark on BrahMos this week triggered a feeling of déjà vu is because he had made a similar remark almost seven months ago during his official talks with the visiting Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin in July 2012.
(link)

It is absurd to suggest that only Russian deals are suspect/defective while others from the West/US are well drawn up.

The more important issue is not how they're drawn up but whether they have any weight. In the west, respecting contracts is a cornerstone of business, in Russia, not so much. If there is a dispute with an American company, there is an independent judiciary that can be approached. On the other hand, if there is a contractual dispute with Russia... well, your solution Philip, was to send a 'high level delegation' to plead with request the Russians to honour their side of the agreement.

Unfortuately the US is deeply worried and jealous about BMos for which it has no answer to, worried about independent nations getting the same and is looking for similar ventures to offer India but is hamstrung with its own contradictions reg.adv. tech sales, intrusive agreement clauses, etc. and finding something that India needs.Is it willing to part with N-sub tech., BM tech.cruise missile tech, stealth tech....?

First off, the BrahMos isn't the only supersonic AShM is production let alone development (read: ASMP-A, Perseus, C-803, YJ-12). And coming to evolving technologies, I would strongly suggest you find out where the most successful hypersonic research programs are based (hint: Waverider). As for what tech the Russians will transfer, perhaps they should have started with ToT for the T-90 barrel/armor. 'Stealth tech' can wait.

US did try and sabotage the KKNPP allegedly funding the protests through German and French entities, allegedly spending hundreds of millions of $$$ who passed on the money to our quisling NGOs and churchwallahs.

Did it do so, or did it allegedly do so? Was it the US or France, or was it both (in a JV perhaps)? Do you think a restriction on building a nuclear reactor (even a non-US one) would help or hinder Westinghouse/GE/Areva's prospects in India? As for spending 'hundreds of millions of dollars' (that's what, a quarter of the CIA's covert ops budget? more/less?), just how big do you think the profit margins in the nuclear power business are?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 30 Apr 2014 04:33

There were lessons to be learned from the exercise. The importance of numbers & training, importance of BVR sensors/weapons, the potential of low-tech platforms in a WVR melee, (F-5E v F-15, F-16 v F-22) etc. But its astounding that one can leap from that to - MiG-21 Bison > F-15C.


The obsolete Bisons did get the better in the melee didn't they and the US learnt a valuable lesson not to underestimate obsolete MIG-21s and were outclassed by the SU-30s were they not?

As regards short memories, here's a reminder about a few competitions that Russian equipment was involved in - MMRCA/MiG-35, AH-64E/Mi-28N, CH-47/Mi-26T, A330/Il-78, C-17/Il-76, EC Fennec/Bell 407/Ka-226T, Arjun/T-90.


If you examine some of the contests,you will find as mentioned ad nauseum (as with the C-17 to benefit Boeing before its C-17 line closed,etc.) extraneous considerations dictated the result.No one is also suggesting that every piece of Russian weaponry is superior to western wares.Or vice versa.One also has to look at the affordability factor,prices of each and the unique Indian requirements.Secondly,we have wisely decided to diversify our foreign acquisitions so as not to be totally dependent upon any country.I've always advocated "horses for courses" and if there is a transparent acquisition policy the best nag for our needs will win.

US analysts as posted have rated the JSF inferior to the T-50 in aerial combat,
As has been stated numerous times before and will probably need to be stated numerous times in the future, the RAND study did NOT analyse aircraft performance, let alone compare the F-35 to the PAK FA. Please don't duck that fact and continue to repeat this patently false claim ad nauseam.


False claim? JSF "not built as an air superiority platform" says the head of the US Air Combat Command's veteran leader,Gen. Michael Hostage.
It is you who are ducking the facts spelt out from the Horses' mouth itself! In Gen.Hostages' own words with out the F-22 the JSF is irrelevant".Therefore, for every JSF you need F-22s to protect them! Imagine what that adds up to the actual eventual cost of acquisition and air forces who cannot afford or will not get the F-22?!

(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/

There are several comparisons by analysts posted in earlier posts,other than Rand,which suggested that the JSF was inferior to the FGFA/T-50 but not the F-22.perhaps you missed them.Here's an educative report from just one US source which shows an actual decline in performance!

Feb 3/14: F-22s needed. USAF Air Combat Command’s veteran leader, Gen. Michael Hostage, offers an interview answer that ignites much more controversy than he expected. After firmly stating that he intends to defend every single one of the 1,763 F-35As in the program, and adding that “adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade”, he’s asked about expensive upgrades to the F-22:

“A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console…. I have to… try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet [of under 200 F-22As], I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.”

Gen. Hostage’s views are more complex than this, and his ideas concerning “the combat cloud” with F-35s as its backbone are especially interesting. His position is also operationally prudent. The problem is that Lockheed Martin and the USAF have been selling the F-35 as an air superiority aircraft. Meanwhile, outside commenters have been skeptical based on design tradeoffs and test data, and pointed to fighter design advances outside the program. Now, the head of USAF ACC has just confirmed their skepticism. Can a political military and industry handle that? Sources: Defense News external link, “Interview: Gen. Michael Hostage, Commander, US Air Force’s Air Combat Command” | The Aviationist, “”If we don’t keep F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant” Air Combat Command says” | Canada’s National Post, “Canada’s multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says” || Breaking Defense external link (2013), “Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The ‘Combat Cloud’”.



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... rsy-05089/

Jan 13/13: Testing. The Pentagon’s Department of Operational Test & Evaluation submits its 2012 report, which includes 18 pages covering the F-35. The fleet continues to work through significant technical challenges, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual is the steady stream of deliveries that will have to be fixed later, in order to address mechanical and structural problems found during testing. From an air-to-air point of view, 2 issues deserve special mention.

One issue is weight. The F-35 was designed with little margin for weight growth, but new capabilities and fixes for testing issues often add weight. Weight growth above designated limits directly affects aerial performance, and at some point, weight dilemmas can become a lose/lose proposition. One frequent consequence is higher costs, for example, as very expensive but lightweight materials are used to save an extra pound here and there. Another consequence is reduced performance, as seen in the F-35B’s drop to 7.0 maximum Gs after its aggressive weight reduction effort. A third consequence involves ruggedness and survivability, as seen by the fleet-wide problem created by saving just 11 pounds in all variants. Without fuelstatic flow fuses and Polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant shutoff valves, DOT&E estimates that these flammable substances make the F-35 25% less likely to survive enemy fire.

The second issue that deserves especial mention is that key aerial combat standards have been lowered, following initial tests. All F-35s will sit at 5.0g or less sustained turn performance – a figure that places them in a class with 1960s era planes like the F-5 or F-4 Phantom, instead of modern designs like the F-16. Acceleration is also poorer, compared to a reference F-16C Block 50 with AMRAAM missiles on its wingtips zooming from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2.

The USAF’s F-35A dropped the most, from an expected 5.3g – 4.6g in sustained turns. Acceleration will take 8 seconds longer than the F-16.

The STOVL F-35B dropped from 5.0g to just 4.5g sustained turns, and more thrust during vertical landings comes at the expense of straight flight performance. Its acceleration takes 16 seconds longer than the F-16.

The Navy’s large-winged F-35C did best in turning, with a slight drop from 5.1g – 5.0g, but trans-sonic acceleration was abysmal at 43 seconds longer. DOT&E report external link [PDF] | Lockheed Martin re: 2012 testing external link | Reuters external link | TIME external link magazine. | Washington Post external link.

How you can defend the JSF's alleged superiority in the light of these actual test figures is beyond comprehension!

Quote:
and as for strike, loaded with underwing munitions, poof goes stealth!
Which would matter only if you could prove that the PAK FA has a higher internal payload than the F-35. So far you haven't.


The T-50 carries 6 AAMs,upto 8.I've posted several reports including some from DID brought out by the US defence dept. and here are details from AWST after the 2013 Moscow air show.
Russian T-50 PAK FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation) fifth generation stealth fighter aircraft carrying six Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile (BVRAAM) in its main internal weapons bay.

http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.in ... ak-fa.html
[/quote]

F-35′s internal capacity will be no larger than half of the F-22′s (no more than 4 missiles, vs. 8 in the F-22A).

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.


This a minimum of 6.Other pics show that each tandem bay can hold 3 AAAMs each.Which would make a total of 8.As mentioned elsewhere,some of these missiles are LR missiles with greater range than those carried on the F-22/JSF.

Stealth vulnerability.

DID
Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 (Russian and European) is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.
The F-35′s lower infrared and radar stealth levels mean that these advances will affect it more than they’ll affect the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches to 2050.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”


America: The Argument Room
This analysis by Pierre M. Spey, a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams, cast sharp doubt on the F-35′s capabilities:

“Even without new problems, the F-35 is a ‘dog.’
If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be: “Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter… [F-35A and F-35B variants] will have a ‘wing-loading’ of 108 lb per square foot… less manoeuvrable than the appallingly vulnerable F-105 ‘Lead Sled’ that got wiped out over North Vietnam… payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay… With more bombs carried under its wings, the F-35 instantly becomes ‘non-stealthy’ and the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this configuration for years. As a ‘close air support’… too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire; and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods… What the USAF will not tell you is that ‘stealthy’ aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft… As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35′s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.”

On Sept 18/08, Lockheed Martin fired back in “F-35: Setting the Record Straight external link.” It takes direct aim at both the Australian press reports, and the CDI article, noting that external weapons clearance is indeed part of the F-35′s current test program. Lockheed Martin added that:

“…The Air Force’s standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios… In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois… In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented “see/shoot first” and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament… We do consider all of this in today’s fighters…

…Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access — all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again.”

Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infrared stealth against modern IRST (infra-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian fighters. The F-35 will use a clever system that circulates fuel near the aircraft skin to remove some frictional heat, but it still has a 40,000 pound thrust turbofan in the back, and Russian IRST designs already have ranges from 50 km (OLS35, head on) to 90 km (OLS35, rear). Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

Hence Lockheed Martin’s limited success in the public relations sphere. Aviation Week’s veteran journalist Bill Sweetman, for instance, greeted Lockheed Martin’s September 2008 air superiority claims with a reaction best described as incredulity:

“Moreover, it’s made just as Graham Warwick reports (subscription) that Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch, stated last week: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.” There is surely a universe where these two statements are compatible, but we don’t live there… If the F-35 can really do all that, why did the USAF spend billions on supercruise, rear-aspect stealth and supermaneuverability (the reason for 2D vectoring nozzles) for the F-22? And does this mean that the all-aspect/wideband LO tech on the B-2 and X-47B UCAS is superfluous?”
[/quote]

http://aviationweek.com/awin/t-50-detai ... w-air-show
The Kh-58UShE high-speed, long-range, anti-radar missile will give the T-50 an offensive electronic-attack capability. (Credit: AW&ST /Bill Sweetman)

It was also confirmed at MAKS that the T-50 has been designed to carry larger weapons than will fit in the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35. Tactical Missiles Corp. showed a video of the T-50 carrying the Kh-58UShE anti-radar missile, a highly modified version of a weapon in service since the 1970s, with folding wings for internal carriage. It has a shorter radome than the original Kh-58, inertial mid-course guidance and a broadband seeker where earlier Kh-58s were fitted with different seekers for different targets.

Also likely to be carried internally by the T-50 is the RVV-BD (long-range air-to-air missile), a modernized version of the Vympel R-37 that was designed for the MiG-31M Foxhound-B but never put into production. Its total external dimensions are within centimeters of the Kh-58UShE with wings folded. It seems likely that the T-50 forward bay has been designed around the minimum-risk RVV-BD, with the Kh-58 being modified to fit the same envelope.

Both weapons are long-range types. The Kh-58UShE is a 1,400-lb., Mach 4 weapon with a range up to 130 nm from a 65,000-ft. launch altitude, and the RVV-BD has a claimed maximum range of 110 nm against a head-on target. This indicates a different operational philosophy from U.S. stealth aircraft, for which a key principle has been to use stealth to permit the use of short-range, low-cost weapons.


Flight Intl:Some snippets from DID

The Aviationist external link, “No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says”.

...On the “bright” side, the F-35 is said to have good instantaneous turn performance and good high (50 degree limit) angle of attack performance, comparable to a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet.
That may be true, but many air combat engagements quickly descend from high altitude and into lower altitudes and speeds, as participants bleed energy in turns and maneuvers. Energy is life, and acceleration matters. As for the F/A-18A-D Hornet, it’s a good but not great dogfighter by 1990s standards, whose defining strength is its performance at slow speeds and “nose authority” to point and take a shot.

All fighters have limitations, and fighting to your plane’s strengths is a big component of good airmanship. What’s concerning is the apparent number and extent of the F-35′s kinetic weaknesses, and the structural difficulty of fixing them. The net tactical effect is that pilots will be forced to depend even more heavily on electronics like the EO DAS and APG-81 radars, and on a stealth profile that’s less effective and more variable than the F-22A’s. Flight International external link.


Can you honestly say after reading these reports that the JSF is superior to the FGFA/T-50 when US and Western sources themselves express such serious doubts about its capability?


Quote:
Secondlly, where is it said that in the BMos JV there was a guaranteed buy-back figure from Russia?
Who's questioning the legal position of the Russians vis a vis the BrahMos? I'm not. We could have modified and manufactured the BrahMos under a standard license-production agreement without giving them half the shares of BAPL. If we negotiated an agreement naively expecting good faith and ended up burnt, we have no one to blame but ourselves.


"we have no one to blame but ourselves."
Then don't blame Russia for our incompetence.

The trouble begins when the Russians come offering an FGFA JV, with the FGFA being advertised as the only version to be exported and we nod along and sign the $6 billion cheque. Make no mistake, we'll be the only 'customer' for the FGFA. Other parties (if any) will do their negotiating exclusively with the Russians.


Not being privy to the details of the JV one can only speculate.However,I'm sure that if we have contributed significantly to the development of the JV,we will have our interests protected.

Regarding the plea from AKA,Dr.P.etc. on Russia buying BMos for their navy ,I've explained in another td. that the RuN has already inducted Yakhont before we did.Secondly,Russian anti-ship missiles are based upon its priority of destroying US carriers from CW days.Heavier missiles that could also carry N-warheads and with far greater range.BMos is under the MTCR range regime of 300km and insufficient for Russian needs.Perhaps smaller new Russian warships of frigate and corvette class could carry BMos,which is why there was a recent report that a Russian frigate conducted tests of BMos.It may be that for new construction of smaller warships,and Russia is supposedly unhappy at the high costs of one of its corvette designs,that BMos may be found suitable.In any case we have several friendly nations lining up to buy the missile,which can be done once our own rapidly increasing needs for BMos are met.

Secondly,which other supersonic anti-ship missiles other than BMos and earlier Russian missiles are currently in service? The Chinese may have reverse-engineered one,but its capabilities would be open to Q.The West is trying to catch up and will take several years before it does so.As for hyper missiles.BMos hyper is under dev. so what's the problem? No nation has as of now perfected and inducted hypersonic tactical missiles .We are developing in the JV cutting edge/bleeding edge tech. and in all likelihood will be the first to induct it.

US /Western attempts at sabotaging KKNPP.The plan is to make us perpetually dependent upon western N-tech and fuel for the plants which would eventually cripple our indigenous efforts and at great cost.The agitations were also orchestrated to force us to compromise us on the N-Liability bill passed by parliament to ensure that another Bhopal gas disaster episode involving a foreign N-plant was suitably covered/insured by an open figure compensation penalty.The profit margins are indeed huge,recurring billions for fuel and power.


In particular, a small group of European countries led by Italy and France "operate a seamless web of diplomat-agents, businessperson-agents, NGO-agents and scholar-agents not just to collect information, but to ensure that a policy matrix gets chosen that would ensure that India or its entities never pose a commercial challenge to them," a senior official within one of the infiltrated agencies claimed. As an example of their reach, he claimed that "information on Sonia Gandhi and her children by the Italian, French and Spanish missions in Delhi is far more comprehensive than the sketchy details available with the Intelligence Bureau" about the family that controls policy within the Manmohan Singh government. Such depth and accuracy can be attributed to "the easy access that diplomats and other nationals of these countries have to Sonia Gandhi and her immediate family" i.e., children and sisters, "access that is far superior to that of even Cabinet ministers in the Manmohan Singh government", the source ended.


Here is our very own PM on the issue!
Foreign hand nuking Tamil Nadu nuclear power project, says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kuda ... 75007.html

This is also the first time that the government has named the US and Scandinavian countries as the source of foreign funding of NGOs behind the antinuclear stir in Tamil Nadu and anti-GM movement in different parts of the country.

Virtually declaring a war on civil society activists, Singh said: "The atomic energy programme has run into difficulties because these NGOs, mostly I think based in the United States, don't appreciate the need for our country to increase energy supply."

The PM was alluding to the stalled commissioning of the 1,000-MW, Russian-aided Kudankulam nuclear power plant.

Continuing his scathing attack on voluntary bodies for opposing the government's pet projects, the PM observed: "There are NGOs, often funded from the United States and Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces."

Exuding scepticism, another GM food critic Devinder Sharma said: "It is amusing to hear this talk of foreign funding of NGOs from a PM whose entire economic prescription is based on foreign direct investment. Whether it is GM crops or nuclear plants, the PM is more interested in the commercial interests of American and European companies. He is not concerned about the environmental and human impact of these risky and unwanted technologies on his people."
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kuda ... 75007.html


'3 NGOs diverted foreign funds to fuel Kudankulam stir'
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 16352.aspx

Senior Home Ministry officials said the NGOs were issued show cause notices and their bank accounts had also been frozen, ostensibly for diverting money for funding agitations against nuclear projects. Officials said that it was found that the NGOs had hurriedly ``manufactured’’ receipts to show utilisation of lump sum payments, originally meant for charitable purposes. Officials said the ministry suspected ``serious irregularities’’ in the management of funds by about a dozen NGOs, mostly in Tamil Nadu.

Meanwhile, Home Ministry officials said that a German national who was picked up by Tamil Nadu Police in Nagercoil for allegedly assisting the anti-nuke protests was deported earlier on Tuesday.


http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/02/28/kudankulam-n-plant-protests-cases-registered-against-4-ngos


And here are allegations that the Jaitapur plan agits were similarly orchestrated.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/maharashtra-congress-alleges-foreign-ngos-funding-jaitapur-n-plant-protests-181279

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 30 Apr 2014 04:44

A report on the T-50 from AWST with more details:
T-50 Details Emerge At Moscow Air Show

Stealth and counter-stealth on show at MAKS
Sep 2, 2013 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

More details of the Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter emerged at the MAKS air show at Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, last week. It was confirmed that the T-50 is being designed to carry heavy, long-range missiles internally, its engines incorporate built-in features to reduce radar cross-section and infrared signature and a new engine for the aircraft, offering improved supercruise performance, is under development.

The initial service-entry engine for the T-50 is the United Engine Co. 117. It was not shown at MAKS but a UEC engineer confirmed it is very similar to the 117S engine for the Sukhoi Su-35S, that was. Both engines are derived from the AL-31F series used on the Su-27 and other members of the Sukhoi family. In particular, the stealth technology applied to the 117S will be carried over and improved for the 117.
[New radar-absorbent material applied to the Su-35's UEC 117S engine was shown at MAKS, but protected from curious fingers. (Credit: AW&ST/Bill Sweetman)]

The inlet casing and guide vanes, as well as the spinner of the 117S, are coated with a new radar-absorbent material developed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the UEC engineer tells Aviation Week. To reduce the engine's infrared (IR) signature, the nozzle features a new air-cooling system. Also, the thrust-vectoring nozzles can be deflected to provide partial line-of-sight blockage to the rear of the engine, with the aircraft's aerodynamic controls being used to counter the resulting pitch moment.

The 117S has an inlet diameter of 932 mm (36.7 in.) versus 905 mm for the AL-31F, providing more thrust (32,000 lb. maximum versus 27,500 lb. for the basic AL-31F), and has a digital control system. UEC has also developed an upgraded AL-31F, the 29,750-lb.-thrust Series 42 variant for the Su-27SM upgrade program being implemented by the Russian air force.

The aerodynamic design of the T-50's 117 engine is similar to the 117S, the UEC engineer says, but it is further uprated to 33,000 lb. thrust, has a new digital control system and incorporates new materials. The weight is reduced, but the most important change is that the hot-end temperature limits are increased, to allow the engine to sustain maximum non-afterburning thrust to higher speeds. Combined with the T-50's aerodynamic design, this is intended to meet the fighter's supersonic cruise goal. The 117 also features additional signature-reduction measures.

The 117 will be used on initial production T-50s, but an all-new successor engine identified as Type 30 is in full development. It will be lighter, more powerful and fuel-efficient than the 117, and offer a further improvement in supersonic cruise speed. Other details remain secret, including whether the Type 30 incorporates variable-cycle technology.
[The Kh-58UShE high-speed, long-range, anti-radar missile will give the T-50 an offensive electronic-attack capability. (Credit: AW&ST /Bill Sweetman)]

It was also confirmed at MAKS that the T-50 has been designed to carry larger weapons than will fit in the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35. Tactical Missiles Corp. showed a video of the T-50 carrying the Kh-58UShE anti-radar missile, a highly modified version of a weapon in service since the 1970s, with folding wings for internal carriage. It has a shorter radome than the original Kh-58, inertial mid-course guidance and a broadband seeker where earlier Kh-58s were fitted with different seekers for different targets.

Also likely to be carried internally by the T-50 is the RVV-BD (long-range air-to-air missile), a modernized version of the Vympel R-37 that was designed for the MiG-31M Foxhound-B but never put into production. Its total external dimensions are within centimeters of the Kh-58UShE with wings folded. It seems likely that the T-50 forward bay has been designed around the minimum-risk RVV-BD, with the Kh-58 being modified to fit the same envelope.

Both weapons are long-range types. The Kh-58UShE is a 1,400-lb., Mach 4 weapon with a range up to 130 nm from a 65,000-ft. launch altitude, and the RVV-BD has a claimed maximum range of 110 nm against a head-on target. This indicates a different operational philosophy from U.S. stealth aircraft, for which a key principle has been to use stealth to permit the use of short-range, low-cost weapons.

Also exhibited here was the T-50's helmet-mounted display (HMD), comprising a module attached to the custom-fitted pilot's helmet and incorporating light sources for the optical head-tracking system. A unique feature is that the HMD has two visors—a seamless outside visor for physical protection, and an inner visor on which binocular, wide-angle symbology can be projected. The Zvezda company exhibited the T-50's ejection seat, the K-36D-5, which incorporates a fully electronic control system and an improved parachute-deployment mechanism that is designed to meet the same “expanded-pilot population” standards as recent Western seats, accommodating pilots weighing 55-125 kg (121-275 lb.).

Future air-launched weapons for the T-50 and other combat aircraft may have new propulsion systems, according to Tactical Missiles Corp. General Director Boris Obnosov. Responding to questions about the company's ramjet effort, Obnosov said it is moving away from ramjet/scramjet propulsion “because it is not possible to design a universal propulsion system,” a simple, scalable technology for different missile requirements and flight profiles. Asked whether this meant the company was looking at higher-energy solid propellants (Russia in the Cold War era had a large program to produce such a fuel, ammonium dinitramide or ADN), Obnosov told Aviation Week, “We don't have enough scientists for that” and said the company is looking at new liquid-fuel systems.

Liquid fuels have higher energy than solid propellants, but complexity, storability and harsh carriage environments have precluded their use in tactical air-launched weapons. Obnosov declined to say what approach Tactical Missiles Corp. is taking to solve those problems.

While pursuing development of its own stealth fighter, Russia's defense industry is maturing counter-stealth radars. The Nizhny-Novgorod Research Institute (NNIIRT) brought the newest configuration of its multi-band 55Zh6ME radar complex, designed to support the Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile system. It also used the show to unveil the new 55Zh6UME, a single-unit, dual-band system designed for customers with more modest needs and budgets.

The 55Zh6ME comprises three truck-mounted radar “modules,” operating in metric (VHF), decametric (L) and centimetric (S) bands, all with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. The VHF unit has an antenna area of 235 sq. meters (2,530 sq. ft.), carrying 168 VHF transmit-receive modules, and is claimed to be able to detect a target with a radar cross-section of 1 sq. meter at 510 km range and 30,000 meters altitude in jamming conditions. The radars can be deployed in 15 min., NNIIRT says.

The new 55Zh6UME has a smaller VHF array (with a 430-km range under the same conditions) with an L-band AESA trailer-mounted on the same structure, facing the opposite direction.
[NNIIRT's 55Zh6UME radar system combines two AESA radar antennas—VHF and L-band—operating back to back. The smaller antenna below the VHF array is an identification-friend-or-foe interrogator. (Credit: AW&ST /Bill Sweetman)]
NNIIRT's 55Zh6UME radar system combines two AESA radar antennas—VHF and L-band—operating back to back. The smaller antenna below the VHF array is an identification-friend-or-foe interrogator. (Credit: AW&ST /Bill Sweetman)

Stealth targets that claim radar cross section of less than 1 sq. meter do not achieve those numbers in the VHF band, according to NNIRT engineers. For instance, the Chinese Dongfeng-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002-sq.-meter radar cross section in X-band, but is a 0.6-sq.-meter target in VHF, company officials tell Aviation Week. This is because radar waves are scattered by a “resonant” mechanism (rather than specular reflection, which stealth shaping is designed to manage) when the dimensions of the target, or its parts, are similar to the wavelength of the radar. They are not affected by shape or by surface coatings.

The S-400 and the 55Zh6ME are in service with the Russian armed forces, while the 55Zh6UME is now on offer for export.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 30 Apr 2014 15:41

Philip wrote:The obsolete Bisons did get the better in the melee didn't they and the US learnt a valuable lesson not to underestimate obsolete MIG-21s and were outclassed by the SU-30s were they not?

In a WVR melee any aircraft can be dangerous. As far back as the 70s, it was seen that the F-15s kill-ratios fell precipitously as the size of the WVR engagements grew. It doesn't imply that the F-5Es they were training against had become superior aircraft. As far as being 'outclassed' by the Su-30 is concerned, there isn't enough evidence to say either way - they were flying without the Aim-120 or JHMCS. That said, they're broadly comparable platforms; F-15C < MKI < F-15E/K/SG < Super Sukhoi.

If you examine some of the contests,you will find as mentioned ad nauseum (as with the C-17 to benefit Boeing before its C-17 line closed,etc.) extraneous considerations dictated the result.No one is also suggesting that every piece of Russian weaponry is superior to western wares.Or vice versa.One also has to look at the affordability factor,prices of each and the unique Indian requirements.Secondly,we have wisely decided to diversify our foreign acquisitions so as not to be totally dependent upon any country.I've always advocated "horses for courses" and if there is a transparent acquisition policy the best nag for our needs will win.

Then I suppose you'd agree that a head-to-head competition run by the IAF & MoD would be the best means of picking the right horse.

False claim? JSF "not built as an air superiority platform" says the head of the US Air Combat Command's veteran leader,Gen. Michael Hostage.

It is you who are ducking the facts spelt out from the Horses' mouth itself! In Gen.Hostages' own words with out the F-22 the JSF is irrelevant".Therefore, for every JSF you need F-22s to protect them! Imagine what that adds up to the actual eventual cost of acquisition and air forces who cannot afford or will not get the F-22?!

Did you miss the part about this being part of a lobbying effort to get the F-22 upgrades sanctioned? Lets retain some perspective please.

There are several comparisons by analysts posted in earlier posts,other than Rand,which suggested that the JSF was inferior to the FGFA/T-50 but not the F-22.perhaps you missed them.Here's an educative report from just one US source which shows an actual decline in performance!

Ease up on the bolding Philip, makes your post harder to read.

To sum up -

1. Gen Michael Hostage - no comparison to the PAK FA made.

2. Defense Industry Daily - no comparison to the PAK FA made.

3. Pierre M Spey - no comparison to the PAK FA made.


You said - 'US analysts as posted have rated the JSF inferior to the T-50 in aerial combat'

Despite a large disjointed post, you've posted no evidence to support this claim.

The T-50 carries 6 AAMs,upto 8.I've posted several reports including some from DID brought out by the US defence dept. and here are details from AWST after the 2013 Moscow air show.

F-35′s internal capacity will be no larger than half of the F-22′s (no more than 4 missiles, vs. 8 in the F-22A).

The F-35A is currently intended to carry 4 AAMs at IOC which will be increased to 6 AAMs post block 4.

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.


This a minimum of 6.Other pics show that each tandem bay can hold 3 AAAMs each.Which would make a total of 8.As mentioned elsewhere,some of these missiles are LR missiles with greater range than those carried on the F-22/JSF.


1. So that's 6 AAMs for the PAK FA in the two main bays (3 x 2). Same as the F-35.

2. The only difference according to you and all these sources is the two side bays. So the 'large' difference in armament between the F-35 & PAK FA equals just two SRAAMs.

(BTW Philip can you please point out these side-bays on the PAK FA and explain how they work?)

3. PAK FA -> K-100. F-35 -> Meteor.


Stealth vulnerability.

DID Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 (Russian and European) is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.
The F-35′s lower infrared and radar stealth levels mean that these advances will affect it more than they’ll affect the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches to 2050.

F-35 may indeed have lower IR and radar stealth levels than the F-22. But its still a league ahead of the PAK FA which appears entirely devoid of any IR suppression measures.


The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with effective beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

America: The Argument Room
This analysis by Pierre M. Spey, a key member of the F-16 and A-10 design teams, cast sharp doubt on the F-35′s capabilities:

Predictably, neither Mr Spey nor RAND's one-slide-know-all-analysis mention the EODAS or the VSI HMDS anywhere. Fact remains, unless its a guns-only engagement, the F-35 will dominate WVR combat against both 4th & 5th gen foes.


Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infrared stealth against modern IRST (infra-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian fighters. The F-35 will use a clever system that circulates fuel near the aircraft skin to remove some frictional heat, but it still has a 40,000 pound thrust turbofan in the back, and Russian IRST designs already have ranges from 50 km (OLS35, head on) to 90 km (OLS35, rear).


The F-35 has an active liquid cooling system to address frictional heating on the surface, in addition to an IR top coat sprayed on. The exhaust has been extensively shaped to minimize its radar & IR signature. The power-plant is sited deeper inside the hull to insulate it. And the '40,000 pound thrust turbofan' has a very high bypass ratio (0.57 compared to 0.20 for the F-22).

Now... how does the PAK FA address threats from 'modern IRST air to air systems'?


http://aviationweek.com/awin/t-50-details-emerge-moscow-air-show
The Kh-58UShE high-speed, long-range, anti-radar missile will give the T-50 an offensive electronic-attack capability. (Credit: AW&ST /Bill Sweetman)

It was also confirmed at MAKS that the T-50 has been designed to carry larger weapons than will fit in the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35. Tactical Missiles Corp. showed a video of the T-50 carrying the Kh-58UShE anti-radar missile, a highly modified version of a weapon in service since the 1970s, with folding wings for internal carriage. It has a shorter radome than the original Kh-58, inertial mid-course guidance and a broadband seeker where earlier Kh-58s were fitted with different seekers for different targets.

Also likely to be carried internally by the T-50 is the RVV-BD (long-range air-to-air missile), a modernized version of the Vympel R-37 that was designed for the MiG-31M Foxhound-B but never put into production. Its total external dimensions are within centimeters of the Kh-58UShE with wings folded. It seems likely that the T-50 forward bay has been designed around the minimum-risk RVV-BD, with the Kh-58 being modified to fit the same envelope.


Possible but unlikely. The Kh-35 is 4.8m long, which is about the same length as the PAK FA's weapons bay door. The bay itself will obviously be somewhat shorter.
(Otherwise you could arguably adapt a folding wing variant of the AGM-88E for internal carriage on the F-35. At 4.1m its a shorter than the F-35's bay door.)


The Aviationist external link, “No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says”.

I'm sure F-35 test pilots would disagree.


...On the “bright” side, the F-35 is said to have good instantaneous turn performance and good high (50 degree limit) angle of attack performance, comparable to a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet.
That may be true, but many air combat engagements quickly descend from high altitude and into lower altitudes and speeds, as participants bleed energy in turns and maneuvers. Energy is life, and acceleration matters. As for the F/A-18A-D Hornet, it’s a good but not great dogfighter by 1990s standards, whose defining strength is its performance at slow speeds and “nose authority” to point and take a shot.

Again... EODAS, VSI HMDS & Aim-9X Bk2. The long winded turning fights come into play only when engaging with guns. Even for older fighters with HOBS weapons & HMS, WVR engagements will be decided in just one or two passes.


Can you honestly say after reading these reports that the JSF is superior to the FGFA/T-50 when US and Western sources themselves express such serious doubts about its capability?

I can honestly say after reading these reports (which BTW don't mention the PAK FA) that the F-35 will be a match, if not superior, to the PAK FA, at a lower life-cycle cost while delivering better reliability.


Who's questioning the legal position of the Russians vis a vis the BrahMos? I'm not. We could have modified and manufactured the BrahMos under a standard license-production agreement without giving them half the shares of BAPL. If we negotiated an agreement naively expecting good faith and ended up burnt, we have no one to blame but ourselves.


"we have no one to blame but ourselves."Then don't blame Russia for our incompetence.

Not blaming Russia here. Blaming the MoD for foolishly expecting a negotiation in good faith. If Russians renege on their commitments, its the MoD which is to blame for giving them that leverage.

Not being privy to the details of the JV one can only speculate.However,I'm sure that if we have contributed significantly to the development of the JV,we will have our interests protected.

Lets for the moment overlook the T-90 saga as well as the quality of support delivered for the MiGs over the last two decades.

With Russian specialists (as mandated by the contract) nowhere to be seen and local MRO facilities still remaining unconstructed, unserviced Su-30MKIs are ending up grounded. On Russian sourced HUDs & MCs failing, HAL's pleas for support are duly ignored, while the UAC brushes off media reports as western sourced propaganda.


Regarding the plea from AKA,Dr.P.etc. on Russia buying BMos for their navy ,I've explained in another td. that the RuN has already inducted Yakhont before we did.Secondly,Russian anti-ship missiles are based upon its priority of destroying US carriers from CW days.Heavier missiles that could also carry N-warheads and with far greater range.BMos is under the MTCR range regime of 300km and insufficient for Russian needs.Perhaps smaller new Russian warships of frigate and corvette class could carry BMos,which is why there was a recent report that a Russian frigate conducted tests of BMos.It may be that for new construction of smaller warships,and Russia is supposedly unhappy at the high costs of one of its corvette designs,that BMos may be found suitable.In any case we have several friendly nations lining up to buy the missile,which can be done once our own rapidly increasing needs for BMos are met.


The Yakhont has the same range & payload as the BrahMos, has remained in production & been exported by Russia even after the BrahMos became available, and will continue to equip new Russian ships such as the Gorshkov class frigates.

(MTCR, N-warhead, corvettes... all irrelevant.)


Secondly,which other supersonic anti-ship missiles other than BMos and earlier Russian missiles are currently in service? The Chinese may have reverse-engineered one,but its capabilities would be open to Q.The West is trying to catch up and will take several years before it does so.As for hyper missiles.BMos hyper is under dev. so what's the problem? No nation has as of now perfected and inducted hypersonic tactical missiles .We are developing in the JV cutting edge/bleeding edge tech. and in all likelihood will be the first to induct it.


No problem. Just disproving your (rhetorical?) statement about the US being 'jealous' of Russia because it had 'no answer' to the Russian arsenal of supersonic missiles. So far the most successful hypersonic program by far, remains the X-51A which will form the basis for the High Speed Strike Weapon(link).

(Also for the record the very much western ASMP entered service in the mid-80s.)

US /Western attempts at sabotaging KKNPP.The plan is to make us perpetually dependent upon western N-tech and fuel for the plants which would eventually cripple our indigenous efforts and at great cost.The agitations were also orchestrated to force us to compromise us on the N-Liability bill passed by parliament to ensure that another Bhopal gas disaster episode involving a foreign N-plant was suitably covered/insured by an open figure compensation penalty.The profit margins are indeed huge,recurring billions for fuel and power.


The Nuclear Liability Bill applies to both western and Russian suppliers. Sabotaging a Russian program will hardly help western businesses set shop in India. And its downright absurd to claim that any company or intelligence agency has 'hundreds of millions of dollars' available on hand to fund a pointless campaign against something that actually helps their business. It isn't going to net them a single extra cent, though they may end up losing a few dollars/euros (if the anti-nuclear movement succeeds). With respect, these conspiracy theories are better suited to ToI comment columns than BRF.

In particular, a small group of European countries led by Italy and France "operate a seamless web of diplomat-agents, businessperson-agents, NGO-agents and scholar-agents not just to collect information, but to ensure that a policy matrix gets chosen that would ensure that India or its entities never pose a commercial challenge to them," a senior official within one of the infiltrated agencies claimed.

So is it the US, France, Spain or Italy? Govts or NGOs? Corporatists or environmentalists?

Here is our very own PM on the issue!
Foreign hand nuking Tamil Nadu nuclear power project, says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kuda ... 75007.html


Same PM whom you accuse of being an 'American stooge'?

Its true that there is a very influential anti-nuclear movement in the world, based primarily in the west, which has even pushed Japan and Germany into decommissioning their nuclear power reactors. And leftist NGOs are no doubt backed by leftist lobby groups (mostly in Europe). But to allege that there is a shadowy cabal of govts, intelligence agencies & nuclear power companies behind the Kudankulam protests is just silly.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 01 May 2014 03:52

I find it difficult to comprehend how an aircraft like the JSF which has been stated is NOT an air superiority fighter by the experts quoted ,which can carry only 4 AAMs-let's wait and see when the 6 to be carried will appear and on which prototype,is superior to the FGFA/T-50 which carries more missiles,is far more agile,designed to be an outright air-superiority fighter,which also carries longer ranged BVR AAMs,etc.The performance stats have been mentioned.It shows that perhaps the F-16 will still be superior to the JSF in air combat.
In addition,please read the statements that without the F-22 the JSF is irrelevant! It requires the F-22 to protect it! And the Growler too for EW warfare as posted in earlier posts! How on earth can you therefore state that the JSF will be superior to an aircraft the Western analysts themselves rate as superior?

Secondly,with the various details posted,the JSF is still under development ,with serious defects still behind schedule whose dates are slipping.costs both unit and operating are escalating by the day.What was the headline of the latest AWST article? "Fix it or else".Please read the post in the JSF td.

Regarding the number of missiles carried for the FGFA/T-50,these are specs from western sources not Russian.AWST has 2013 details showing new anti-IRST details of engine nozles."Entirely devoid of IR suppression measures?" Please read carefully.
The inlet casing and guide vanes, as well as the spinner of the 117S, are coated with a new radar-absorbent material developed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the UEC engineer tells Aviation Week. To reduce the engine's infrared (IR) signature, the nozzle features a new air-cooling system. Also, the thrust-vectoring nozzles can be deflected to provide partial line-of-sight blockage to the rear of the engine, with the aircraft's aerodynamic controls being used to counter the resulting pitch moment.


The JSF when designed was never meant to be an air combat fighter,the hope was that its stealth features alone would be its magic bullet.However,as pointed out by so many analysts,once you lose the BVR battle you enter the dogfighting arena,where the more agile fighter with a larger inventory of agile SRAAMs has the advantage.This is the great concern of US generals quoted who say that they have nightmares about the JSF's tiny arsenal of only 2 BVR missiles.What was it described as being,a dog?!

Both weapons are long-range types. The Kh-58UShE is a 1,400-lb., Mach 4 weapon with a range up to 130 nm from a 65,000-ft. launch altitude, and the RVV-BD has a claimed maximum range of 110 nm against a head-on target. This indicates a different operational philosophy from U.S. stealth aircraft, for which a key principle has been to use stealth to permit the use of short-range, low-cost weapons.

So western stealth birds are going to be outranged in the BVR mode and outgunned in aerial combat in the WVR mode.By he way,the FGFA has

Anyway,if those JSF enthusiasts want to reject the views of American generals,analysts,etc. about the aircraft's shortcomings,they are indeed most welcome.

Please show me which Western supersonic anti-ship missile is in service? None. ASMP is an air-launched missile meant to carry a nuclear warhead!

Yakhont has a range of 500km+.BMos is limited to 300KM.As mentioned ad nauseum,it appears that you haven't understood Russian naval tactics and their anti-carrier bias when it comes to anti-ship missiles.They have the much longer-ranged Granit missile ,which we wanted but due to the MTCR were unable to obtain. Secondly,if there is no buy-back clause that Russia must buy BMos,whose fault is it? Do we even know what comparable costs are there between Yakhont and BMos and unique differences in its seeker,etc.? Here is a quote (Wik) that the size of Russian warships is a factor.
According to unspecified sources the BrahMos could be fitted to the updated Gorshkov class of frigates which will be entering the Russian Navy soon.[100][101] The defence ministry reported that due to the size and hull specifications of the BrahMos, few if any of its new ships will be able to accommodate it.[102]


Perhaps when BMos-M is fully developed,it will be possible for both Russia and India to retrofit BMos-M to smaller surface combatants.

Western supersonic missile progress:
[2.3] WESTERN SUPERSONIC ANTISHIP MISSILES

* No supersonic antiship missile has yet been fielded in the West. Vought designed a ramjet-powered "Supersonic Tactical Missile (STM)" for the US Navy that had a top speed of Mach 2.7, but though test flights were performed beginning in 1979, the STM was apparently regarded as a pure research effort. In any case, it did not lead to an operational weapon.

In fact, although it would seem that such a weapon would give a target vessel less time to react, supersonic performance has drawbacks. A weapon with supersonic performance is more expensive and has less range than a subsonic weapon. A supersonic antiship missile also cannot fly as low over the waves and has a more prominent infrared signature than that of a subsonic antiship missile, and the warning time for a subsonic missile is short enough. The current thinking seems to be that stealth technology and a clever guidance system do more to improve missile effectiveness at lower cost than supersonic performance.

The French and West German governments collaborated in an investigation into such a weapon in the early 1980s, under the designation "ANS" (for "Anti-Navire Supersonique", or "Supersonic Anti-Ship"). Investigations were protracted and the ANS program fell apart when the Germans pulled out for budgetary reasons.

The French began development of another supersonic antiship missile in the late 1990s under the designation "Future Antiship Missile" ("ANF" in its French acronym), with Aerospatiale as the prime contractor. The ANF and ANS were similar, with both envisioning a ramjet-powered vehicle with a top speed of Mach 3 and a range of up to 200 kilometers (125 miles). The ANF was clearly related to the French ASMP nuclear stand-off weapon, though whether the ANS had any relationship to the ASMP is unclear. In any case, work on ANF was suspended in early 2000.

MBDA is now considering a new supersonic multirole / antiship missile concept named "Perseus", primarily for ship launch but capable in principle of being handled by any launch platform that can use an Exocet or Harpoon. The Perseus is envisioned as about 5 meters (16 feet) long, with a launch mass of 800 kilograms (1,760 pounds), a range of about 300 kilometers (186 miles), and Mach 3 performance. It would use some class of ramjet propulsion, with a capability for agile maneuvering, and would have a warhead with a mass of 200 kilograms (440 pounds), including two inertially-guided submunitions released for terminal attack. The multimode seeker would include an active-array radar, a laser radar, and a laser seeker. Antiship attack modes would include high-altitude cruise / dive attack or sea-skimming. MBDA officials don't see Perseus as being in service before 2025.
LRASM-B

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the US Naval Research Lab have been working on a "Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)" program, one of the initial components being a supersonic "LRASM-B", the prime contractor being Lockheed Martin. It was to use a Pratt & Whitney-built rocket-ramjet propulsion system, involving a ramjet with a solid-fuel rocket in its exhaust to bring the missile up to speed and then burn out of the exhaust to allow the ramjet to operate. The engine was based on that used by the experimental "Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (ASALM)", which was test-flown about a half-dozen times in 1979:1980 before being canceled. ASALM demonstrated reliable flight at Mach 4.

LRASM-B was cancelled without being flown, though work has continued on the subsonic "LRASM-A" -- now just known as "LRASM". It is a derivative of the AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER)" air-launched cruise missile with updated avionics systems. It will be air-launched or vertically launched from warships. LRASM is to be introduced to service no earlier than 2015. It seems the US Navy sees little need for supersonic antiship missiles.


If the West (in this report) thinks that supersonic anti-ship missiles are not required,( the US only,because of their carrier strike forces equipped with LR cruise missiles and SSNs like the Ohio class which carry LRCMs in their silos instead of BMs) why are the French then developing Perseus which will only arrive by 2025 ? By that time the hyper-BMos would've been developed and in production!
However,if you read the views of US naval analysts like Friedman,even Klub is considered very difficult to counter.Here are a few reports.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 375203101/
Israeli navy seeks to counter Russian ship-killer
July 30, 2013

Xcpt:
HAIFA, Israel, July 30 (UPI) -- Israel's navy is installing the Barak-8 air-defense missile system aboard its combat vessels to protect against Syria's new supersonic Russian-built Yakhont anti-ship missiles, which the Jewish state views as a potent threat to its long-held naval supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean.


http://www.rense.com/general59/thesunbu ... wesome.htm
The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf

By Mark Gaffney

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/10 ... -missiles/
How vulnerable are U.S. Navy vessels to advanced anti-ship cruise missiles?
There’s an imminent threat to U.S. Navy surface warships, which evidently has Navy leaders worried. Scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington are working fast to develop a new kind of electronic warfare (EW) module that can be fitted quickly onto ships to meet these threats.

Navy leaders are known to be concerned with advanced radar-guided anti-ship missiles such as the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn and SS-NX-26 Oniks.The Sunburn and Oniks missiles have sufficient destructive payloads to pose serious threats to large U.S. warships like aircraft carriers, which are at the heart of U.S. power-projection strategies around the world.


U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Johnathan Greenert referred to that critical “chain of events” in May, and said the Navy was developing, or had developed, systems, means and procedures for disrupting or countering the DF-21D. As it did with the threat of Soviet missile-carrying Tu-22M aircraft in the Cold War, the Navy seeks to break early links in the chain, such as detection and identification, with maneuver and control of emissions—but Greenert himself cast doubt on that approach at the surface navy conference. Noting that the Navy needs a new emphasis on “electromagnetic maneuver warfare,” Greenert says, “we have to learn what our signature is when we use radar, communications and Wi-Fi. We think that we turn everything off and everything is silent. But we have done tests and we are not silent.”
http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-sees-chinese-hgv-part-wider-threat

Hypersonic missiles.Waverider is not an operational missile,only a tech demonstrator.True,India/Russia,China and the US are working to develop the same.But the US isn't assisting us,or has offered to do so,who is? Russia.

KKNPP:
Yes,our quisling PM,reluctantly had to admit the facts, when reality dawned upon him as to what was happening.The attempts to sabotage the KKNPP plant lasted an entire year before the SC put its foot down.Unfortunately the US uses and discards leaders around they world once they cease to be useful.The Shah, Saddam,Noriega,etc. In future,any nation that wants to sell its N-plants to us will have to agree to the liability clause too.No more Bhopal gas tragedy equivalents.

Just for the record,for those who imagine that Russian weapon systems are always inferior to western/US ones,here's a quote from Friedman,the US's most well known naval analyst on Russian torpedoes.

Torpedoes are an often-unappreciated threat to surface ships,” he said.
“The usual countermeasures are noisemakers intended to decoy an approaching homing torpedo. Unfortunately the Russians use wake-following torpedoes that do not respond to the usual countermeasures at all.”

The Russian Type-53 torpedo includes sensors that detect the churn made by ships underway. Once the torpedo senses the chopped water it will follow a ship in a S-pattern between the wakes until it finds its targets.

“Anyone who buys Russian Kilo-class submarines — almost anyone the U.S. would come into conflict with — uses torpedoes which do not respond to U.S. torpedo countermeasures,” Friedman said.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 01 May 2014 04:06

Pl. read the entire article ,I've just posted one quote.
F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.


http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwe ... 270-1.html

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II vs. Sukhol PAK FA T-50

"The F-35 will not cut it on the modern battlefield," stated a military expert Pierre Sprey, one of the founder and designer of the F-16 and the A-10 Warthog airplanes. He explains some major technicalities on why the F-35 will fall short on the battlefield. One of the main reason of this because the wings of the F-35 is too small, causing a drag when lifting during turning or maneuvering during an air to air fight. As a result, the F-35 doesn.t turn very much. In an air to air dog fight, means both enemies are in the minimal range of missals fire, and the best option is going for a gun kill. Thereby, to get the gun kill, a fighter pilot must turn better, faster, and effectively and in this case it is vital for this purpose.
In addition to other report such as : RAND Corporation report: .Air Combat, Past Present and Future.. - .Double Inferior. relative to modern Russian / Chinese fighter designs in visual range combat. - Inferior acceleration, Inferior clim, inferior sustained turn capability.. - The review resulted in as the F-35 can.t turn, can.t climb, can.t run.. - In an experiment of visual aid test the result were daunting: - .The Red Force dominated the exercise going up against two versions of Blue Force, both of which were roundly defeated. One way the Red Force summation of events has been described is that it was like clubbing a baby seals.. - In addition to this rather blunt Red Force summation, the war gaming exercise demonstrated the F-35 aircraft were next to useless.. - While the Super Hornets of both Blue forces were seriously and significantly overmatched.. - Hundreds of Blue Force aircraft were lost in the first twenty minutes..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 01 May 2014 05:03

Ser Philip,

Mr. Sprey is the one who stated that MiG-21 can take on the F-35. So, if I were to believe him, how come the Russians have not?

I find it difficult to comprehend how an aircraft like the JSF which has been stated is NOT an air superiority fighter by the experts quoted


If the F-16 was a brick that could fly, then the F-35 is the brick that can see. Thus it need not be a air superiority fighter in the traditional sense. All this software stuff they talk about is *not* related to making this plane a gee wiz super maneuvering plane. Never been the intent. It is designed to first-to-see. The USMC Gen let that cat out of the bag, but most have not caught on to that (for some very odd reason).

,which can carry only 4 AAMs-let's wait and see when the 6 to be carried will appear


The current versions are with 4 missiles. The 6 are down stream (I do not recall which one off-hand), *but* that is what has been said since 2007/8. Planned that a way. So, why all this nakra? People - those experts - have to read.

Same happened with it cannot fire a missile, yada yada yada. Simple fact was that the plane - at that point - was not expected to do those things.

and on which prototype,is superior to the FGFA/T-50 which carries more missiles,is far more agile,designed to be an outright air-superiority fighter,which also carries longer ranged BVR AAMs,etc.The performance stats have been mentioned.It shows that perhaps the F-16 will still be superior to the JSF in air combat


Yeah. Problem is people do not read. Mr. Sprey is the very guy who designed (so he claims) the F-16. And he is the one making most of these claims (and others quote him - and a few others). So, why are Russian, China, Japan, India and perhaps a couple of other nations pouring so much funds into their so called 5th Gens? (Rhetoric question - you, nor these experts have an answer).


The fact of the matter is that such planes are huge risk. The F-22 was, now the F-35 is. Things work only as long as the opponent does not have an answer that can be verified. The one who is willing to take the most risks will stay ahead .................... until the other figures out a response. And the game goes on.


BTW, I just do not think one can take a 4th gen plane and make it as stealthy as a designed stealth plane. More on that some other time.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby VishalJ » 01 May 2014 05:07

Photos from 2014:

051

Image

052

Image
Image

053

Image

Launch

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 01 May 2014 09:04

NR,these aren't my statements,but straight from the "horses' mouth",the top US defence officers involved with the programme.Reposted from the JSF td. PL. go into it and see my latest post with extensive details about JSF developmental problems and rising costs from the AWST "Fix it or Else" article. Unfortunately,some "cannot see the wood for the trees".
The F-22 is NOT built as an air-superiority platform ,it needs the F-22" Is anything clearer than that about its capabilities? Even the F-22 has to be upgraded to match the air fleets of the "adversaries",and who might they be? Russia (India) and China!

Feb 3/14: F-22s needed. [b]USAF Air Combat Command’s veteran leader, Gen. Michael Hostage,[/b] offers an interview answer that ignites much more controversy than he expected. After firmly stating that he intends to defend every single one of the 1,763 F-35As in the program, and adding that “adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade”, he’s asked about expensive upgrades to the F-22:

“A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console…. I have to… try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet [of under 200 F-22As], I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.”

Gen. Hostage’s views are more complex than this, and his ideas concerning “the combat cloud” with F-35s as its backbone are especially interesting. His position is also operationally prudent. The problem is that Lockheed Martin and the USAF have been selling the F-35 as an air superiority aircraft. Meanwhile, outside commenters have been skeptical based on design tradeoffs and test data, and pointed to fighter design advances outside the program. Now, the head of USAF ACC has just confirmed their skepticism. Can a political military and industry handle that?

Sources: Defense News external link, “Interview: Gen. Michael Hostage, Commander, US Air Force’s Air Combat Command” | The Aviationist, “”If we don’t keep F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant” Air Combat Command says” | Canada’s National Post, “Canada’s multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says” || Breaking Defense external link (2013), “Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The ‘Combat Cloud’”.


PS:Please give Gen.Hostage kudos for some common sense,sometimes quite uncommon.He wants large numbers,remembering the Cold War philosophy that "numbers had a quality of their own",well knowing that China will have an air fleet that will far outnumber the US's stealth fighters in the Indo-Asia-Pacific theatre. The IAF's numbers and number of sqds. have alarmingly dropped in recent years under the UPA-2.Delhi sources allege that it has been the US which has delayed the finalisation of the MMRCA deal to weaken our capabilities.Apart from whatever stealth fighters we eventually acquire,we need large numbers of 4++ fighters,both light and medium which are affordable-the only way in which they can be acquired in large strength to meet the twin threat of a "JV" from China and Pak..The LCA will make up the light fighter requirement,where we must push the programme with max effort to ramp up production and dev. of MK-2.The medium fighter requirement has a few options.We may have our favourites,but the IAF must put into place this plan B due to the cost controversies,etc., with the Rafale.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 May 2014 10:41

Philip wrote:Just for the record,for those who imagine that Russian weapon systems are always inferior to western/US ones,here's a quote from Friedman,the US's most well known naval analyst on Russian torpedoes.

Torpedoes are an often-unappreciated threat to surface ships,” he said.
“The usual countermeasures are noisemakers intended to decoy an approaching homing torpedo. Unfortunately the Russians use wake-following torpedoes that do not respond to the usual countermeasures at all.”

The Russian Type-53 torpedo includes sensors that detect the churn made by ships underway. Once the torpedo senses the chopped water it will follow a ship in a S-pattern between the wakes until it finds its targets.

“Anyone who buys Russian Kilo-class submarines — almost anyone the U.S. would come into conflict with — uses torpedoes which do not respond to U.S. torpedo countermeasures,” Friedman said.


OT alert

Are our torpedoes Varun and Takshak same like russian ones wake following?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 01 May 2014 15:11

Philip wrote:I find it difficult to comprehend how an aircraft like the JSF which has been stated is NOT an air superiority fighter by the experts quoted ,which can carry only 4 AAMs-let's wait and see when the 6 to be carried will appear and on which prototype,is superior to the FGFA/T-50 which carries more missiles,is far more agile,designed to be an outright air-superiority fighter,which also carries longer ranged BVR AAMs,etc.The performance stats have been mentioned.It shows that perhaps the F-16 will still be superior to the JSF in air combat.


Yes it was designed as a multi-role fighter fighter not a dedicated air superiority fighter. Pitted against the F-22, one would obviously bet on the F-22. And had the PAK FA being an actual F-22 analogue, the same might have applied to it as well. Unfortunately, the PAK FA is not equivalent to the F-22. Never will be.

Just defining it as an air superiority fighter doesn't take away the drawbacks from the bulbous IRST on the nose, huge exposed engine surfaces, lack of S-ducts, open grills all over the place, actuator bulges on the wings, lack of an internal LDP, to the shoddy build quality & poor edge alignment (compare it to the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes from the 90s).

As far missile loads are concerned - the F-35 is currently equipped with only two while the PAK FA carries zero. Six missiles are planned for the F-35, six-to-eight are expected on the PAK FA including two SRAAMs. (BTW I'm still awaiting the explanation as to working of the PAK FA's sidebays.) On the other hand, the F-35 will carry upto eight SDBs or CUDAs. The PAK FA features no equivalent munitions.

In addition,please read the statements that without the F-22 the JSF is irrelevant! It requires the F-22 to protect it! And the Growler too for EW warfare as posted in earlier posts!


1. How many F-22s will the USN & USMC operate? How many will Israel or UK operate?

2. How many Growlers will the USAF & USMC operate? How many will Israel or UK operate?

How on earth can you therefore state that the JSF will be superior to an aircraft the Western analysts themselves rate as superior?


Oh yes, to return to that point.. which US analyst rated the PAK FA as a superior aircraft? Because none of these criticisms of the F-35 appear to mention the PAK FA at all.

Secondly,with the various details posted,the JSF is still under development ,with serious defects still behind schedule whose dates are slipping.costs both unit and operating are escalating by the day.What was the headline of the latest AWST article? [b]"Fix it or else".Please read the post in the JSF td.


Fix it or else what? They'll cancel the program? Don't be silly. All they'll do is reduce the orders during the SDD phase, which means the LM and P&W profit margins will be reduced over the short term.

Its NOT going to make any difference to the aircraft's capability at IOC or its price at full production. Yes the F-35 hasn't met its reliability targets yet, its software is still in development and its running behind schedule.

The trouble Philip, is that you want to trumpet those facts while glossing over other facts, such as - the PAK FA is being delivered to the Russian Air Force with an unreliable interim engine since 117 is still in development. I believe that's called a double standard.

Regarding the number of missiles carried for the FGFA/T-50,these are specs from western sources not Russian.AWST has 2013 details showing new anti-IRST details of engine nozles."Entirely devoid of IR suppression measures?" Please read carefully.
The inlet casing and guide vanes, as well as the spinner of the 117S, are coated with a new radar-absorbent material developed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the UEC engineer tells Aviation Week. To reduce the engine's infrared (IR) signature, the nozzle features a new air-cooling system. Also, the thrust-vectoring nozzles can be deflected to provide partial line-of-sight blockage to the rear of the engine, with the aircraft's aerodynamic controls being used to counter the resulting pitch moment.


Is that really it? An air cooling system for the nozzle? What about the exhaust? What about rest of the huge exposed engine surfaces? What about frictional heating of the airframe? Or do believe that since its an 'air superiority fighter' all that doesn't matter?

The JSF when designed was never meant to be an air combat fighter,the hope was that its stealth features alone would be its magic bullet.However,as pointed out by so many analysts,once you lose the BVR battle you enter the dogfighting arena,where the more agile fighter with a larger inventory of agile SRAAMs has the advantage.


Thanks to the EODAS mated to the HMDS, the F-35 will have the first-look-first-shoot advantage against the PAK FA in WVR combat every time. And since the Aim-9X BlkII is the only SRAAM equipped with a two-way datalink, its Pk in a LOAL profile will likely remain unmatched.

This is the great concern of US generals quoted who say that they have nightmares about the JSF's tiny arsenal of only 2 BVR missiles.What was it described as being,a dog?!


That would have been a more credible criticism Philip, if not for the fact that the PAK FA in the same air-to-ground configuration will also have a 'tiny arsenal of only 2 BVR missiles'.

Dog as well, I suppose?


Both weapons are long-range types. The Kh-58UShE is a 1,400-lb., Mach 4 weapon with a range up to 130 nm from a 65,000-ft. launch altitude, and the RVV-BD has a claimed maximum range of 110 nm against a head-on target. This indicates a different operational philosophy from U.S. stealth aircraft, for which a key principle has been to use stealth to permit the use of short-range, low-cost weapons.

So western stealth birds are going to be outranged in the BVR mode and outgunned in aerial combat in the WVR mode.By he way,the FGFA has


I'd pick the AGM-88E over the Kh-58, Meteor over the RVV-BD, Aim-120D over the RVV-AE and Aim-9X over the RVV-MD, any day.

Anyway,if those JSF enthusiasts want to reject the views of American generals,analysts,etc. about the aircraft's shortcomings,they are indeed most welcome.


Again, which general and which analyst mentioned the PAK FA in their criticism against the F-35? Also for the record criticism in the US is generally welcomed as an incentive to improve. You don't get fired by Putin for daring to criticise the defence industry.

But if you want to continue believing that the lack of any whispers (aside from the IAF's outburst of course) means the PAK FA program is running whisper-smooth, you go right ahead.

Please show me which Western supersonic anti-ship missile is in service? None. ASMP is an air-launched missile meant to carry a nuclear warhead!


The fact that its not an anti-ship missile doesn't make it any less supersonic. Especially given that you could probably adapt the air launch BrahMos to carry a nuclear payload as well.

Yakhont has a range of 500km+.BMos is limited to 300KM.As mentioned ad nauseum,it appears that you haven't understood Russian naval tactics and their anti-carrier bias when it comes to anti-ship missiles.They have the much longer-ranged Granit missile ,which we wanted but due to the MTCR were unable to obtain. Secondly,if there is no buy-back clause that Russia must buy BMos,whose fault is it? Do we even know what comparable costs are there between Yakhont and BMos and unique differences in its seeker,etc.?


Granit is irrelevant we're talking about the Yakhont here. The fact that the Yakhont is available on the export market proves that this 500km+ range is plain fiction. Its got the same propulsion and the same range as the BrahMos. The BrahMos' seeker on the other hand is probably an upgrade from the Yakhont. As far as obligations go, you're right, the Russians had no obligation to negotiate in good faith and cannot therefore be faulted for the 'joint venture' aspect of the acquisition being a farce.

Here is a quote (Wik) that the size of Russian warships is a factor.
According to unspecified sources the BrahMos could be fitted to the updated Gorshkov class of frigates which will be entering the Russian Navy soon.[100][101] The defence ministry reported that due to the size and hull specifications of the BrahMos, few if any of its new ships will be able to accommodate it.[102]


The BrahMos is the same size as the Yakhont. Lets see if the Russians merely throw BAPL a bone or actually commit to the 'Indo-Russian' BrahMos. I'm not holding my breath.

If the West (in this report) thinks that supersonic anti-ship missiles are not required,( the US only,because of their carrier strike forces equipped with LR cruise missiles and SSNs like the Ohio class which carry LRCMs in their silos instead of BMs) [b]why are the French then developing Perseus which will only arrive by 2025 ? By that time the hyper-BMos would've been developed and in production!


Whatever time-frame the Perseus may arrive in, fact remains that there is only one scramjet project that has ever actually demonstrated sustained hypersonic flight (after several failures) and that's the (very western) X-51A Waverider.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 01 May 2014 15:46

Dhananjay wrote:
Philip wrote:Just for the record,for those who imagine that Russian weapon systems are always inferior to western/US ones,here's a quote from Friedman,the US's most well known naval analyst on Russian torpedoes.


OT alert

Are our torpedoes Varun and Takshak same like russian ones wake following?


Wake following torpedoes are not a Russian innovation or even particularly unique in today's world - the NATO fielded them as far back as the late 60s. Suffice to say, if it were a IN requirement the Varunastra and/or Takshak would most certainly be capable of wake-following.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_23694 » 01 May 2014 16:34

^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
good feedback with a lot of things making sense.

- YF 23 first flew in 1990, B2 and F-117 much earlier and they did not have any exposed engine surfaces. Why was it not included in PAF-FA design seems strange to me
- PAK-FA may be a good fighter but for a true blue 5th gen fighter tech just look at the F 22 / YF 23 in terms of overall design and form factor
for stealth , the Helmet-mounted display system of F 35 etc . They really look just too advanced.
- F 35 may be delayed with lots of criticism but then it also depends on the kind of bench marking. This could also be one of the reason for
the reported outburst by IAF against PAK FA. May be for IAF the benchmark is ~F-22

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 01 May 2014 22:09

Signal radio manufacturing plant will deliver the first "Himalayas" EW suites for T-50 fighters soon
Stavropol-based Signal radio manufacturing plant will deliver the first “Himalayas” EW suites for T-50 (PAK FA) fighters soon, RIA Novosti reports.

Russian air forces expect to take delivery of the first serial T-50 fighter in 2016 and the EW suite is one of the jet’s key elements. Last winter the air forces took delivery of the first test PAK FA jet. Today only one country of the world operates fifth-generation fighters – USA (F-22 and F-35).

"We are taking part in production of Himalayas EW suite. The production of first systems is underway", — the enterprise’s CEO, Alexander Logvinov, said.

PAK FA’s EW suite is much smaller than its predecessors: "It features different ideology".

It was reported earlier that T-50 will be fitted with unique aircraft systems and components. As a result the jet’s weight will be decreased and the vehicle’s service life will be extended.


via Jo/Keypub

The enterprises of the concern conduct R&D work on EW and SIGINT systems of a new generation including:

•creating spatially distributed EW aircraft systems, adaptive to the composition and characteristics of enemy weapons control radar systems, together with digital processing and distributed generation of coherent jamming signals for unmanned aerial vehicles of the 6th generation (Programme codename: "Himalaya")- Prime contractor KNIRTI.

•the establishment of EW with ultra-wideband (two octaves) solid state transceiver modules and broadband digital processing of radar signals based on multibeam (at least four simultaneously generated beams) antenna arrays for decimeter (1-6 GHz), centimetre (6-18 GHz) and mm (32-40 GHz) range of wavelengths, for aircraft of the 5th generation, including the PAK-FA, Su-35S* (Programme codenames: "Ricochet" and "Rank"/'Rang'), Prime contractor KNIRTI.

•create basic hardware and software modules for the real-time monitoring and detection of radar signals of a complex signal code structure (Programme codename "Slipway"/'Staple'), Prime contractor: Design Office of radar control systems, navigation and communications.



http://vpk.name/news/92403_boevyie_laze ... _voin.html


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests