PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 20:54

Good deductions there.. so the only thing I can expect is that tube showing a new invention of radar blocker/divertor.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Jan 2011 21:07

Looking at the exhaust images posted show that the Russians are well versed in the art of making flat exhausts. The question I that comes to mind is why have they not developed this type of exhaust for the PAK FA from the get go. As according to mu understanding the Flat exhaust is better when it comes to IR signature suppression.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 21:11

for high maneuverability reasons?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2011 21:16

Pratyush wrote:Looking at the exhaust images posted show that the Russians are well versed in the art of making flat exhausts. The question I that comes to mind is why have they not developed this type of exhaust for the PAK FA from the get go. As according to mu understanding the Flat exhaust is better when it comes to IR signature suppression.

Flat nozzles reduce the thrust generated. My guess is that if they do want to incorporate flat nozzles, they will wait for the AL-41 to come online. The 117S with flat nozzles might leave the aircraft underpowered.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Jan 2011 23:13

Can the flat nozzle turn 360* on the roll axis?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2011 07:15

Given my personal background as a poverty stricken ragged-dhoti wearing coward who has watched the herrows of the world for decades, it strikes me that the Americans for too long have accused the Russians of copying them while the Americans have consistently tried to outreach or match the Russians. Given that these two powers started their "race" after world war 2 when entire nations had built up factories and personnel for war - both nations ended up with awesome militaries that were sometimes blindly copying each other without rhyme or reason.

The tech routes that the US takes were not always the best route for the Soviets or Russia, and the particular technological routes followed by Russia were not necessarily the best of the US. Nevertheless they copied each other just to show that "We can do that too, and better".

The US has always accused the Soviets/Russian of copying them, but the US actually aped Russia in the space race and put a man on the moon merely to say "We can do it too but better than you". I am absolutely certain thatthe F-22 is a classic case of the US telling Russia "We can do it too, only better than you". With the F-117, B-1 and B-2 the US was quietly going along the stealth route while Russia suddenly rocked the boat by creating the MiG 29 and the Sukhoi series of aircraft that hogged the airshow limelight from the Americans - and Russia came out with "thrust vectoring" on an aircraft making it spectacularly agile. Initial US reactions were of cognitive dissonance "Oh those maneuvers are nothing. Good only for airshows etc" But the US had to match that and exceed it. Match and exceed they did. What the US did was to create a stealth fighter with thrust vectoring in the F-22.

For a cowardly, weak, dhoti shivering leftovers eating beggar like me, some thoughts come to mind.

There are some compromises made for stealth. Other compromises are made for agility. If you need agility and stealth you are making a mass of contradicting compromises. But it can be done. Those compromises can be made to work if you have the best of materials and the best of technology and endless amounts of money to throw.

Canards, good engine, lots of aerodynamic surfaces and thrust vectoring make the Su-30 class of fighter supermaneuverable. Shaping and special materials made the F-117 and B-2 stealthy. Combining the two required this funny business of shaping, special materials AND thrust vectoring - but stealth demanded that the usual circular nozzles be replaced by these oddball flat ones. As far as my knowledge goes flat nozzles reduce the thrust from the engine. That can be made up by having a super-duper engine of the best materials and technology - blisk, heat dissipating microstructure of turbine blades and other fancy stuff that this SDRE does not understand or know.

The technology for all this has been developed by the US and to an extent by Russia in a continuous effort starting from 1940 - around the beginning of WW2. With the induction of the F-22 into service in 2005 - it took the US 65 years of development leadership to get there. Russia will do a similarly god job with the PAKFA - but perhaps not exactly ike the F-22 - by 2015 or so.

What does this mean for the pariahs of technology like India - who set up their first military related research centers around 1960 or so with an industrial base coming up 50 to 75 years later than the west?

We remain 20-40 years behind the best. If we want to copy them, we will remain behind. The only way we can change things might be to
1) Leapfrog by beg borrow and steal
2) Do not blindly copy. Do what you do best and do it at your pace.

India is not going to make an f-22 anytime soon. India is not going to make a super efficient jet engine anytime soon. Demanding that India develops a F-22 on its own is unrealistic unless we are given at least 30 years more to deliver. We have to make what we can make using our tech.

The plane we make will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. It's engine will not be as efficient. Its range and payload will not be comparable. But it will be ours. If we can take pride in making something on our own without cursing each other for being incompetent bums who cannot match US/Russia/China etc - we will never ever get anywhere.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Jan 2011 21:15

shiv wrote:
SNIP.........
India is not going to make an f-22 anytime soon. India is not going to make a super efficient jet engine anytime soon. Demanding that India develops a F-22 on its own is unrealistic unless we are given at least 30 years more to deliver. We have to make what we can make using our tech.

The plane we make will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. It's engine will not be as efficient. Its range and payload will not be comparable. But it will be ours. If we can take pride in making something on our own without cursing each other for being incompetent bums who cannot match US/Russia/China etc - we will never ever get anywhere.

Shiv,

Most respectfully, I disagree with the points you have made above. The tech and industrial base of India is good enough today that an attempt to build the F22 / F 35 is well within reach of our country. All that is lacking is the vision & the will to do the things. Get the vision to & the will do things. Every thing becomes possible. Lack of previous experience notwithstanding. Today we concede the point even without knowing where we stand and where we need to be. If we know where we are. We know where we need to reach. We will get there, if we have the vision & the will to get there. In an acceptable time frame.

Now that, it, is possible that I have missed the purpose of your post. If that is the case, please accept my apologies. But having said so, I cannot accept the conclusions that you have drawn in your post.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jan 2011 21:27

No No. You have understood my post alright. We will have to disagree.

I don't see how India can acquire the experience of 50 years in 20 years. The key point is engine technology. We might make an engine. We might make a reliable engine. But I see a reliable, light, powerful and fuel efficient engine of the class that the F-22 uses as being at least 25 years away for India. In the absence of such an engine - the payload/range of any F-22 class fighter we might make cannot match the Raptor.

The point I was trying to make is that we must not try and achieve the exact levels of sophistication that the US has already done. No need to copy and match exactly. We cannot wait for that . We must make what we can and make it soon, within our capabilities and not lose heart or be critical if we do not reach F-22 level sophistication because, like I said, it is currently unachievable for us, given the current state of our sci-tech establishment.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 13 Jan 2011 21:31

^^ In short learn to crawl first, before you begin to walk let alone think of running.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2011 21:48

Don't have to crawl with the mom in the sense.. there is thing called "practice babies" for moms (tejas) (if you consider Kaveri is still crawling). Now, the only problem with practice babies are the attachment syndrome that might keep bothering when the real baby arrives.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Jan 2011 21:53

shiv wrote:No No. You have understood my post alright. We will have to disagree.

I don't see how India can acquire the experience of 50 years in 20 years. The key point is engine technology. We might make an engine. We might make a reliable engine. But I see a reliable, light, powerful and fuel efficient engine of the class that the F-22 uses as being at least 25 years away for India. In the absence of such an engine - the payload/range of any F-22 class fighter we might make cannot match the Raptor.

The point I was trying to make is that we must not try and achieve the exact levels of sophistication that the US has already done. No need to copy and match exactly. We cannot wait for that . We must make what we can and make it soon, within our capabilities and not lose heart or be critical if we do not reach F-22 level sophistication because, like I said, it is currently unachievable for us, given the current state of our sci-tech establishment.

Ah..........

But why must India try to match the Raptor. The point is that the IAF must decide what it wants. Keeping in view what the future threat scenario will be. Then get some thing that is good enough to meet it. If it lacks the sophistication of the Raptor no problem.

That is what I meant when I said

If we know where we are. We know where we need to reach.We will get there, if we have the vision & the will to get there. In an acceptable time frame.

I don't accept that an Raptor is 25 years away. A start today with the skill base available in country will get the results in the next 10 to 15 years max. If that is what is desired by the IAF. If the goal is followed as a national mission.

We have done our crawling & walking with the LCA. Now its time for us to run. Not doing so will result in another wasted decade with the precious skills so painfully acquired with the LCA to be lost and we will spend another decade to rebuild them. So we may get another new Indian fighter only after 35 years of effort if we wait for Indian industry to mature. If we don't try for the FGFA right now. Now, is the time to do this, tomorrow will be too late.

In a way the HF 24 was a bolder programme for a newly independent India when compared to a new FGFA programme that I am asking for today. It was attempted and achieved by that country. In a time period, when for all practical purposes its skill & industrial base was non existent.

Think about it.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 13 Jan 2011 23:25

Regarding 20+ years hence:
I have a certain take on this engine saga: advances in solid state lasers*, adaptive optics and IRST ranging tech will demand that a plane (stealthy or not) starts maneouvering violently to dissipate heat, when it detects start of a lasing by an opponent. TVC and its role in maneuverability is not going anywhere, despite F35 marketing talks about BVR missiles taking over etc.

Akin to Shourya spinning around while riding a wave up there.

* that old A60 testbeds with extra turbofans have started flying again. Messy chemical shots of ABL got canned, because of other tech coming online.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Jan 2011 23:32

any possibilities of hydrogen based combustion instead of avgas? h20 being let out to defeat infra seekers!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jan 2011 23:51

the overall science, engineering and production capability of a country has a impact on these multidisciplinary stuff like engines , sensors and materials. defence industry cannot exist in isolation unless its a system like soviet union where unlimited funds and the handpicked best manpower were directed to work for defence and aerospace in secret/restricted cities like chelyabinsk, irkutsk and arzamas-16. that system collapsed in a few decades.

I agree with Shiv that rona dhona about why we cannot make Intel i7 or APG79 or F136 engine is meaningless. build up composite national power in all spheres and these things will occur in the natural course of things without even overtly needing a special effort.

we need atleast 5 univs doing science and engineering at world level to get anywhere. it will take a couple more decades for sure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2011 05:45

Pratyush wrote:
But why must India try to match the Raptor.
<snip>
A start today with the skill base available in country will get the results in the next 10 to 15 years max. If that is what is desired by the IAF. If the goal is followed as a national mission.

Pratyush-ji - do you see the problem. The Raptor was flying a decade ago. If we develop an FGFA in 15 years - we are 25 years behind. And if it does not meet the Raptor's standards - people are going to curse "Indian incompetence".

I believe the problem in India is not merely technical, but it is a mental block that has consistently held Indian products back. Think about that. There is only contempt for something made in India and for the people working on Indian tech. This bar is more difficult to cross than a technological bar because it prevents funding, prevents people from joining a program and causes frustration. All this has been true for all Indian programs. The HF 24 itself was finally pushed under by Indian behavior.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jan 2011 06:01

hnair wrote:Regarding 20+ years hence:
I have a certain take on this engine saga: advances in solid state lasers*, adaptive optics and IRST ranging tech will demand that a plane (stealthy or not) starts maneouvering violently to dissipate heat, when it detects start of a lasing by an opponent. TVC and its role in maneuverability is not going anywhere, despite F35 marketing talks about BVR missiles taking over etc.

nair - one thing that these little "future scenarios" leaves out is that two adversaries will not always have the sensor/surveillance assets available all over the battle zone to achieve this trick. So an aircraft that is not designed to do all this may still end up being effective.

There is a problem of "war preparation management" here. If we assume that we are going to fight the USA of today - what you say is more true than untrue

If we say that we have to fight the China of today - it is less true

If we have to fight the Pakis of today - the chances of such tech being present across the battle zone in Paki hands is even smaller (compared to fighting China or the USA)

From this how do you estimate your "mix of fighter types" where you have less agile, less stealthy less expensive aircraft available for roles where they are still needed and how many agile, very stealthy and expensive fighters do you need for roles where their presence is vital?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jan 2011 06:44

All things are relative. Today, the US is still "upgrading" the A-10 - not officially. That said what we all know about the US is very little. So, really we do not have any idea how far behind anyone is behind the US. Given their funding capabilities the gap is even greater - even with the proposed reduction of funds.

That said the issue ought to be where does India want to be and where is her current capabilities as compared to this desire. Seems to me that India is sitting pretty well. Not as compared to anyone else, but, that is OK. IMHO of course.

I think/feel that what India is lacking in is: 1) data derived from research (that no one is going to give for whatever price - one has to steal like our friends across the border), and 2) mature research facilities that produce products that can be marketed (India used to be #1 in research papers - but something like 98% were pure research, no products).

IF there is a time to start it is now. The funds are there, the need is there and of course the researchers are there.

Can India "catch up"? Do not know. My question would be does India need to catch up. I personally feel there is no need to in most fields. I for one would work harder to dismember Pakistan and I feel that would do much more than building a pure Indian F-22 in the next five years.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jan 2011 09:03

as the economy grows, natural inflows of production, technology and manpower also occurs...in a sort of "push" model vs the "pull" model of actively seeking out technology we lack. between push + pull, the gaps get filled in. soviet union was not open to the world and had no "push" funnel open, hence their civilian sectors lagged badly and paid the price. such is not the case with India.

there is hardly any russian MNC today outside of oil , gas and minerals.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Jan 2011 18:31

shiv wrote: There is only contempt for something made in India and for the people working on Indian tech. This bar is more difficult to cross than a technological bar because it prevents funding, prevents people from joining a program and causes frustration. All this has been true for all Indian programs. The HF 24 itself was finally pushed under by Indian behavior.

couldn't help but say that I agree with you totally.What an insight!!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 14 Jan 2011 18:37

Singha wrote:the overall science, engineering and production capability of a country has a impact on these multidisciplinary stuff like engines , sensors and materials. defence industry cannot exist in isolation unless its a system like soviet union where unlimited funds and the handpicked best manpower were directed to work for defence and aerospace in secret/restricted cities like chelyabinsk, irkutsk and arzamas-16. that system collapsed in a few decades.

I agree with Shiv that rona dhona about why we cannot make Intel i7 or APG79 or F136 engine is meaningless. build up composite national power in all spheres and these things will occur in the natural course of things without even overtly needing a special effort.

we need atleast 5 univs doing science and engineering at world level to get anywhere. it will take a couple more decades for sure.

Singha garu, its not that Indians can't do that. In fact Intel's Pentium Team had many Indians and one of them returned to become Principal of a School to teach Maths , computers etc to Children ( after P-IV). I happen to know him in some ways. Now a days if you see the list of team members for a product ( western ones, esp software and hardwares of computers) many of them have Indians.

Its just that India has its own peculiar issues, well documented and dissected on brf and elsewhere.

manum · Post by **manum** » 14 Jan 2011 18:49

Singha wrote:the overall science, engineering and production capability of a country has a impact on these multidisciplinary stuff like engines , sensors and materials. defence industry cannot exist in isolation unless its a system like soviet union where unlimited funds and the handpicked best manpower were directed to work for defence and aerospace in secret/restricted cities like chelyabinsk, irkutsk and arzamas-16. that system collapsed in a few decades.

I agree with Shiv that rona dhona about why we cannot make Intel i7 or APG79 or F136 engine is meaningless. build up composite national power in all spheres and these things will occur in the natural course of things without even overtly needing a special effort.

we need atleast 5 univs doing science and engineering at world level to get anywhere. it will take a couple more decades for sure.

Totally agree with you on this...we need very efficient university system, we don't even have a system to catalogue our student researches nationwide...forget pooling resources...
but guess its goin OT

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Jan 2011 19:33

Not really OT, considering how you want your NG weapons made and delivered to our armed forces. These are good discussions as long the objective satisfies the thread.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 14 Jan 2011 23:59

shiv wrote:
nair - one thing that these little "future scenarios" leaves out is that two adversaries will not always have the sensor/surveillance assets available all over the battle zone to achieve this trick. So an aircraft that is not designed to do all this may still end up being effective.

true, true.. saar. no disputes there. Switching to a Naval example, one reason why we still have tons of corvettes (LCS as per latest marketing talk) with no flat paneled radars bolted to the bridge, to deal with lower-tech issues like low cost patrolling et al.

One thought I have over shooting a million dollah hellphyr at a jihadi is this: why cant they use a cluster pod of the lower cost un/guided Hydras? It is not like jihadis have highly accurate or effective counter fire options at the National bird during night nor does khan care about civvies (dubbed "other militants") who die due to the supposedly accurate hellphyr.

From this how do you estimate your "mix of fighter types" where you have less agile, less stealthy less expensive aircraft available for roles where they are still needed and how many agile, very stealthy and expensive fighters do you need for roles where their presence is vital?

I personally feel stealthy (as in cold war F22 ish) is never feasible for India's needs. Too many skin diseases to be considered seriously as a prime actor in a show and even its biggest user has decided it is an evolutionary dead end. I feel a small handful of MKIs that can get reliable inputs from a lot of fast flying drones can deal with both paki and chini in the near future.

Again, my original post was purely a "design your own craft, but leap far ahead of others" thinking that you were asking for: I feel the next round is going to go to that fighter that can haul the biggest energy density devices into air and still be nimble. At present my mind is blank on what the final form factor would be for that craft, as nothing seems to be out in the open source world, though one gets a glimpse or two when dhotis get purposefully folded (prime project's cancellations) with nary a chaddi beneath as a backup.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 15 Jan 2011 04:44

shiv wrote:The plane we make will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35. It's engine will not be as efficient. Its range and payload will not be comparable. But it will be ours. If we can take pride in making something on our own without cursing each other for being incompetent bums who cannot match US/Russia/China etc - we will never ever get anywhere.

Yes but all this applies to LCA/AMCA and not to Pak-fa and FGFA(token HAL involvement)

shiv wrote: There is only contempt for something made in India and for the people working on Indian tech. This bar is more difficult to cross than a technological bar because it prevents funding, prevents people from joining a program and causes frustration. All this has been true for all Indian programs. The HF 24 itself was finally pushed under by Indian behavior.

More than that there is self-goal by our own folks keeping our products on status-quo. In the newbie thread there was vehemant opposition against multiple-ejector pylons for LCA. On one hand, folks mock our bird as limited combat aircraft and on other hand there is concerted effort to keep it that way. Gripen using the same engine flaunts multiple ejector pylons, SH is celebrated as a "bomb-truck" but heavens forbid if we put multiple-ejector pylons on lca !!! but all this is OT here.

-------------

Why all this digression? PakFa is basically russkie plane and so will be FGFA mostly. So why all this digressionary rona-dhona about looking down on yindian product and yindia not matching upto unkil standards and all that ? Issue is plain and simple. Russkies are more advanced than us in aeronautics so expect a complete stealth job from them on fgfa than we would expect from AMCA. This means covering up the exposed engines at least besides putting the adjustable shielding blocker that has been talked about. Otherwise 10 years down we will have a chief saying AMCA is not 5th gen while accepting a much lesser fgfa without any grudges !

Who is talking about matching Raptor and its engines? The point is Dragon took russkie engines supposedly AL-31F and came up with a prototype that fewer people everywhere could criticize stealthwise. So was it worthwhile to do optimization between stealth and agility OR to go for as much stealth as possible? F117 was subsonic after all ! Optimization can either give you best of both worlds OR it can give you jack of all trades, master of none.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 08:20

Arya Sumantra wrote: In the newbie thread there was vehemant opposition against multiple-ejector pylons for LCA. On one hand, folks mock our bird as limited combat aircraft and on other hand there is concerted effort to keep it that way. Gripen using the same engine flaunts multiple ejector pylons, SH is celebrated as a "bomb-truck" but heavens forbid if we put multiple-ejector pylons on lca !!! but all this is OT here.

Completely OT because nobody has stopped India from putting multiple ejector pylons on the LCA. Multiple ejector pylons are different issue and mixing a discussion from some other thread about some other issue has no relevance to the fact that we are still beating about the bush regarding "FGFA". FGFA is supposed to be "Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft"

The Raptor is the only alleged FGFA currently in service. If you create a new aircraft and it does not match the Raptor, why would you or anyone call it "fifth generation"? Once again I ask - for the third time in 3 weeks. What is a fifth generation aircraft? People use Raptor and "fifth generation aircraft" interchangeably. if we leave out Raptor as a definition of fifth generation, then what is fifth generation exactly? I am surprised that nobody wants to even take a shot as this most fundamental question.

Is the Raptor relevant or irrelevant as a template for "fifth generation"? If it is irrelevant, what is fifth generation?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 15 Jan 2011 08:46

well here's the answer to your question in a nut shell...

Currently the cutting edge of fighter design, fifth-generation fighters are characterized by being designed from the start to operate in a network-centric combat environment, and to feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques. They have multifunction AESA radars with high-bandwidth, low-probability of intercept (LPI) data transmission capabilities. The Infra-red search and track sensors incorporated for air-to-air combat as well as for air-to-ground weapons delivery in the 4.5th generation fighters are now fused in with other sensors for Situational Awareness IRST or SAIRST, which constantly tracks all targets of interest around the aircraft so the pilot need not guess when he glances. These sensors, along with advanced avionics, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted sights (not currently on F-22), and improved secure, jamming-resistant LPI datalinks are highly integrated to provide multi-platform, multi-sensor data fusion for vastly improved situational awareness while easing the pilot's workload. Avionics suites rely on extensive use of very high-speed integrated circuit (VHSIC) technology, common modules, and high-speed data buses. Overall, the integration of all these elements is claimed to provide fifth-generation fighters with a "first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability".

The AESA radar offers unique capabilities for fighters (and it is also quickly becoming a sine qua non for Generation 4.5 aircraft designs, as well as being retrofitted onto some fourth-generation aircraft). In addition to its high resistance to ECM and LPI features, it enables the fighter to function as a sort of "mini-AWACS," providing high-gain electronic support measures (ESM) and electronic warfare (EW) jamming functions.

Other technologies common to this latest generation of fighters includes integrated electronic warfare system (INEWS) technology, integrated communications, navigation, and identification (CNI) avionics technology, centralized "vehicle health monitoring" systems for ease of maintenance, fiber optics data transmission, and stealth technology even hovering capabilities.

Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances. Supercruise may or may not be featured; it permits flight at supersonic speeds without the use of the afterburner – a device that significantly increases IR signature when used in full military power.

A key attribute of fifth-generation fighters is very-low-observables stealth. Great care has been taken in designing its layout and internal structure to minimize RCS over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies; furthermore, to maintain its VLO signature during combat operations, primary weapons are carried in internal weapon bays that are only briefly opened to permit weapon launch. Furthermore, stealth technology has advanced to the point where it can be employed without a tradeoff with aerodynamics performance, in contrast to previous stealth efforts. Some attention has also been paid to reducing IR signatures, especially on the F-22. Detailed information on these signature-reduction techniques is classified, but in general includes special shaping approaches, thermoset and thermoplastic materials, extensive structural use of advanced composites, conformal sensors, heat-resistant coatings, low-observable wire meshes to cover intake and cooling vents, heat ablating tiles on the exhaust troughs (seen on the Northrop YF-23), and coating internal and external metal areas with radar-absorbent materials and paint (RAM/RAP).

Edited Later: Link updated

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 08:59

Thank you. I repost same article with other important bits gaudily highlighted. Is there a link url?

If these are the standards one is looking for, electronics and thrust vectoring are as important as stealth.

More importantly FIFTH GENERATION is a whole slew of technologies around materials and electronics and not just a black painted aircraft.

Craig Alpert wrote:
Currently the cutting edge of fighter design, fifth-generation fighters are characterized by being designed from the start to operate in a network-centric combat environment, and to feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques. They have multifunction AESA radars with high-bandwidth, low-probability of intercept (LPI) data transmission capabilities. The Infra-red search and track sensors incorporated for air-to-air combat as well as for air-to-ground weapons delivery in the 4.5th generation fighters are now fused in with other sensors for Situational Awareness IRST or SAIRST, which constantly tracks all targets of interest around the aircraft so the pilot need not guess when he glances. These sensors, along with advanced avionics, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted sights (not currently on F-22), and improved secure, jamming-resistant LPI datalinks are highly integrated to provide multi-platform, multi-sensor data fusion for vastly improved situational awareness while easing the pilot's workload. Avionics suites rely on extensive use of very high-speed integrated circuit (VHSIC) technology, common modules, and high-speed data buses. Overall, the integration of all these elements is claimed to provide fifth-generation fighters with a "first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability".

The AESA radar offers unique capabilities for fighters (and it is also quickly becoming a sine qua non for Generation 4.5 aircraft designs, as well as being retrofitted onto some fourth-generation aircraft). In addition to its high resistance to ECM and LPI features, it enables the fighter to function as a sort of "mini-AWACS," providing high-gain electronic support measures (ESM) and electronic warfare (EW) jamming functions.

Other technologies common to this latest generation of fighters includes integrated electronic warfare system (INEWS) technology, integrated communications, navigation, and identification (CNI) avionics technology, centralized "vehicle health monitoring" systems for ease of maintenance, fiber optics data transmission, and stealth technology even hovering capabilities.

Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances. Supercruise may or may not be featured; it permits flight at supersonic speeds without the use of the afterburner – a device that significantly increases IR signature when used in full military power.

A key attribute of fifth-generation fighters is very-low-observables stealth. Great care has been taken in designing its layout and internal structure to minimize RCS over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies; furthermore, to maintain its VLO signature during combat operations, primary weapons are carried in internal weapon bays that are only briefly opened to permit weapon launch. Furthermore, stealth technology has advanced to the point where it can be employed without a tradeoff with aerodynamics performance, in contrast to previous stealth efforts. Some attention has also been paid to reducing IR signatures, especially on the F-22. Detailed information on these signature-reduction techniques is classified, but in general includes special shaping approaches, thermoset and thermoplastic materials, extensive structural use of advanced composites, conformal sensors, heat-resistant coatings, low-observable wire meshes to cover intake and cooling vents, heat ablating tiles on the exhaust troughs (seen on the Northrop YF-23), and coating internal and external metal areas with radar-absorbent materials and paint (RAM/RAP).

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 15 Jan 2011 17:32

Call to speed up Indo-Russian fighter project
The Hindu

Russia and India should speed up work on their joint fifth-generation fighter plane to meet the challenge from the Chinese rival unveiled earlier this week, said a leading military expert. “The Chinese prototype of a fifth-generation aircraft, J-20, appears to be a long-range strike aircraft and as such it will pose a potential threat to India,” said analyst Konstantin Makienko of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST).

China's stealth fighter made its first 15-minute flight on Tuesday over an airfield in the south-western city of Chengdu. Mr. Makienko called the test flight an “unquestionable success” for the Chinese defence industry. “China has emerged as the third nation developing the fifth-generation fighter plane after the U.S. and Russia,” he told The Hindu. The Russian expert said India and Russia should intensify efforts to build their advanced fighter plane if they are not to lose the race to China. “The J-20 fighter will be a direct rival of the Russian-Indian fifth-generation aircraft. The Chinese plane will be ready by 2020, so time will be a crucial factor.”

The PMF planes are expected to start rolling out around 2017, but delays cannot be ruled out, judging by past experience. The fifth-generation fighter will be the first Indo-Russian aviation project that will be marketed in third countries. The Russian Center for Analysis of International Weapons Trade estimates the global market for the PMF at over 400 planes. “In order to retain its competitive edge the Russian-Indian fifth-generation fighter should enter global markets before the Chinese plane and cap its price at $80-100 million per aircraft,” the Russian expert said.

nash · Post by **nash** » 15 Jan 2011 18:01

I think they want India to invest their money in PAK-FA as fast as possible and to make IAF req. clear from the beggining.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jan 2011 19:46

nash wrote:I think they want India to invest their money in PAK-FA as fast as possible and to make IAF req. clear from the beggining.

It is Russia variety of dhoti-shivering. Urgent reaction to one test flight.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 15 Jan 2011 21:23

Pratyush wrote: Shiv,

Most respectfully, I disagree with the points you have made above. The tech and industrial base of India is good enough today that an attempt to build the F22 / F 35 is well within reach of our country. All that is lacking is the vision & the will to do the things. Get the vision to & the will do things. Every thing becomes possible. Lack of previous experience notwithstanding. Today we concede the point even without knowing where we stand and where we need to be. If we know where we are. We know where we need to reach. We will get there, if we have the vision & the will to get there. In an acceptable time frame.

Now that, it, is possible that I have missed the purpose of your post. If that is the case, please accept my apologies. But having said so, I cannot accept the conclusions that you have drawn in your post.

JMT

Pratyush ji , I beg to differ on the above points.India neither has the industrial base nor manpower to pull of a project like F-22 before 2030 at the earliest.India simply doesn't have the critical mass as far as aviation sector is concerned till now.Now India has the talent to develop both indutrial capability and manpower but it will take sustained focus and investment on the part of GOI.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jan 2011 22:48

shukla wrote:Call to speed up Indo-Russian fighter project
The Hindu

Does anyone know what is this:

The Russian prototype, T-50, made its first flight a year ago. India joined the project only last month when the two sides signed a contract for the preliminary design of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft to be called Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF).

Would it be the same as the FGFA, just called different in Russian? Or is it the Russian side of the same effort that produces an India side FGFA?

I am not sure how much trust i can place on this reporter, but:

India will contribute about 30 per cent of the plane's total design by providing composite material components, some avionics, electronic warfare systems and cockpit displays.

Just wondering how much of the AMCA (per reports panoramic displays) will influence this project.

Indian designers will also be responsible for re-modelling Russia's single-seat fighter into a two-seater version for the IAF.

(Where will they conduct the wind tunnel test for this new plane I wonder.

)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2011 02:23

Yes.. it is a typo - "prospective" .

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2011 03:15

^^^ No it is not a typo ... The plane is supposed to be called so according to the Formal document signed between India and Russia during Medvedev's last visit.

The MOD's press release read as such.

INDIA, RUSSIA SIGN CONTRACT TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP FGFA

New Delhi: Agrahayana 30, 1932
December 21, 2010

A Contract for Preliminary Design of the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft was signed between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi here today. The Project involves design and development of a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft that will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities.

The aircraft to be jointly developed is termed Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent. The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the design & development of the PMF, its productionization and joint marketing to the third countries. Programme options include the design & development of a twin seater variant and the integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage.

Today's contract is only the first in a series of such contracts which will cover different stages of this complex programme. The total cost including options and the value of production aircraft will make this the biggest Defence programme ever in the history of India involving production of over 200-250 aircraft.

The Contract was signed by Mr. A Isaykin, General Director, Rosoboronexport and Mr. M Pogosyan, General Director RAC MiG & Sukhoi from the Russian side and Mr. Ashok Nayak, Chairman, HAL and Mr. NC Agarwal, Director (D&D), HAL from the Indian side at Delhi.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 03:32

Thanks Roy.

(Funny that the "PMF" will be based on the "FGFA"?) : ) . Never mind.

What is interesting, and conformational, is the engine - "at a later stage". Wonder if India will fund this engine and IF so what would be the implications of that, perhaps in relation to the J-20 too. So far it seems to me, that both the PMF and the J-20 will have the same engine. ????? Unless the Chinese have their own one somewhere between the drawing board and build.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2011 04:10

^^^ It would seem prudent to fund this engine and have a say on whether it can be exported to China. Also inclusion of funds might speed up the development. But it's really cat and mouse game.

If China gets its WS-15, a big honey-hole for Russia would dry up. If Russia sees that coming by 2020, then we can be assured of hearing many a nice tones on how Russia and India are the closest of brothers and how we should "co-develop" the engine. Bottom-line getting the funds for development. On the other hand if Russia foresees that China won't be able to field a WS-15 soon, they would like to sovereignty over their export. I think, the Russians believe the second is true and that's why their is no talk on the burden-sharing about the engines.

The same goes for China, if it sees WS-15 coming through in 2020, it will show a big "thenga" to Russia. Otherwise, it will display itself as a very lucrative market for such engines.They have just so many planes on AL-31F now. Russia will be our best friends who export engines which run every single fighter/bomber on PLAAF/PAF.

Same goes for India, if it sees China being able to produce the WS-15 by 2020, it will have almost no incentive to fund the Russo-engine strategically. Albeit as I said, fund inclusion could shorten the development time (but by how much given that Russo engine companies are not as cash strapped as the others). On the other hand if the Indian think tank thinks that the Chinese would rely on this Russo-engine, there is every reason to fund this engine if given a chance (which I don't think it will be)

.

P.S. I might seem to come down hard on the Russians in this post. But I am just being cold-blooded. Russians should do what is best for their country, and I would admire them for doing that. All of us are looking for our interests. Why should Russia loose out?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2011 06:00

^^^^^well.. in that case it was rahul bhai's answer to same question some pages back. whatever you may call it, it is fine as long as it is consistent.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 06:06

Roy,

From what I have read, it all depends.

The ONLY item of interest - as far as I can see - wRT this new "5th Gen" engine is its ability to cloak ALL signatures. Power is not the issue at all.

It is still 10 years away, so let us see.

(BTW, IF the chinese decide to pick up this new engine then, for sure, the backside of the J-20 will have to change.)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2011 06:31

Rao sahab,

True. I don't have much data to discuss it.

For Russia power is not the biggest hurdle. For China it is. They are trying to get a SDRE WS-10 give enough power for long enough time. The J-20 has to have strong muscles. with the box like fuselage, they have tried to push the max area as far aft as possible with the canards (though I don't understand why they gave it such a huge dihedral other than giving yaw control at high AoA). But at the end, they seem to be struggling to taper down again. One can see it very easily. They have tried to mitigate it with big actuator housings (at the cost of RCS). So they will need good muscles to push this thing through the paces. Actually with this design I believe the Chinese will face the same challenges that we faced/are facing with LCA. So power will be a criteria for them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2011 09:37

Well, ......................... the FADEC could either have a bug or a Trojan horse. Imagine, a J-20XXX crosses the Himalayan range and to our utter surprise falls out of the sky. Dang.

I will let the Chicom find out.

Sorry. Back to the thread.....................................