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.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby KrishnaK » 27 May 2014 02:36

Karan M wrote: Of course, your vast experience and knowledge in military systems makes you confident that Russia is incapable of doing so, irrespective of whether it chooses to or not. Seriously, your rabid pro America posts are one thing,
The only thing I find hilarious is how your knickers gets into a god almighty twist, when somebody points out facts. The Russian GDP is 2+ trillion and the American one 7.5 times. So long as the US continues to attract capital and human talent in droves, it'll continue to maintain a broad based dominance in all sectors of technology. Incidentally, it's Paypal that made Elon Musk, a South African, the person behind SpaceX. Making a missile and radar here, a fighter there is all Russia's going to be able to do. Even those are financed almost entirely by Indian and Chinese purchases. All they'll have left is the likes of Iran, Algeria and Morocco once we start making our own.

This segues very well into Russia having won WWII. Military production during World War II By the end of WWII, the USA was manufacturing more than the other players in the war, allied and axis, put together.
Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."


given there are umpteen weapons systems wherein Russia developed something that matched American capabilities or even exceeded them in several parameters.
You'd have a better argument if you had pointed out the long list of nobel laureates Russia has produced in the sciences. How much do you think their desire to make weapons to compete with the US contributed to their collapse ? I think you should stick to droning on about PESA and AESA.
Last edited by KrishnaK on 27 May 2014 02:44, edited 2 times in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 27 May 2014 03:00

Russia cannot deliver is rather juvenile,given its track record,Fishbeds,Fulcrums,Flankers,etc..Thus far from our experience,they have always delivered,improving all the time systems supplied.The latest success is BMos and the production of MKIs at home.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 May 2014 04:26

KrishnaK wrote:The only thing I find hilarious is how your knickers gets into a god almighty twist, when somebody points out facts.


ROTFL, more like you got your panties in a bunch because folks here don't buy into your rah-rah USA USA stuff based on googled up claims and a bunch of unrelated twaddle.
I asked you specifically, to prove your point that the US would always maintain a lead no matter what. The answer is you can't. Because, copy paste apart, it takes a certain interest in the topic to note that the Russians still have a state of the art MIC which is actually ahead of the US in several areas (eg mobile SAM systems) and have historically managed to meet & even surpass the US in several areas of fighter dominance having taken a more conservative, cost efficient route to market. In contrast, you post this twaddle:

The Russian GDP is 2+ trillion and the American one 7.5 times. So long as the US continues to attract capital and human talent in droves, it'll continue to maintain a broad based dominance in all sectors of technology. Incidentally, it's Paypal that made Elon Musk, a South African, the person behind SpaceX.


In other words, string together a bunch of vapid claims about rah!rah! US economy, throw in the "broad based dominance" and "human talent" rubbish, and then claim Paypal is the logical answer to how MICs operate ...never mind that the Russians could do far more with less, given their current programs are not suffering from the pork barrel politics, overpriced, badly managed programs like the JSF are and that with the end of the Cold War, they have access to state of the art commercial technology from the west, east - all of which can be used to rapidly prototype and develop state of the art systems and even grow their own capabilities, which BTW is exactly what they have done. Instead of launching boondoggles like the B-2, mcguffins like the JSF, the Russians focused their substantial financial resources on key programs and are achieving breakthroughs. Not wasting the entire treasury on foolish foreign interventionism is another plus. Don't mix up the slapdash manner in which the US has mismanaged its efforts to the rest of the world.

Making a missile and radar here, a fighter there is all Russia's going to be able to do.


Oh gee! At least you got till there, eh? From the rather idiotic assertions earlier that no matter what, the US'd be ahead, now we have the gracious donation that the Russians have a missile here and a radar there.

BTW, if you actually knew anything of the topic, instead of spouting off with such vehemence, you'd know the Russians are actually making & fielding dozens of missiles, and several fighters (not one!) - all on a budget a fraction of the United States, and several of these missiles and platforms are ahead of their American peers in several respects (the horror of it all, hire Elon Musk someone, the Russians are ahead!!)!

Even those are financed almost entirely by Indian and Chinese purchases.


When you are in a hole, stop digging! The bulk of Russian military development for several years now is being driven by their own finances. The Indian and Chinese purchases help, but they are by no means the single determinant anymore.

All they'll have left is the likes of Iran, Algeria and Morocco once we start making our own.


As versus the US, which has the bastions of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc to buy their stuff as well.

This segues very well into Russia having won WWII. Military production during World War II By the end of WWII, the USA was manufacturing more than the other players in the war, allied and axis, put together.


And much of it crap. Tommy cooker Shermans versus T-34s for instance.

Quote:
Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."


Yeah, mass production of trucks etc. Interesting - if you actually knew anything about the topic - was that the Americans standardized on cheap, cost effective designs and mass produced them. The exact opposite of their break the bank, current approach. Whereas their rivals are doing the opposite.. so much for the WW2 analogies.


You'd have a better argument if you had pointed out the long list of nobel laureates Russia has produced in the sciences. How much do you think their desire to make weapons to compete with the US contributed to their collapse ? I think you should stick to droning on about PESA and AESA.


ROTFL, so now a handwave and a surrender. So twit, we were talking about weapons systems, and wherein you were bragging that the Russians could never catch up. So when that fallacy of yours is pointed out, you want to downhill ski into nobel laureates and the like (which of course is not at all linked to Cold War politics and the like, yeah right).

BTW, I can "drone" about PESA and AESA because those details matter in an aviation forum and an aviation topic.

Gasbags like you can fart about the "musky" tales that you proffer, because at the end of the day, facts are not your forte & all you have are vapid claims packed full of jargon & bluster.

No specifics about weapons systems or even technology in detail re: those systems. All that, your brain can't handle. Its meant for greater things. You are welcome to all that rubbish.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby KrishnaK » 27 May 2014 08:10

Karan M wrote: ROTFL, more like you got your panties in a bunch because folks here don't buy into your rah-rah USA USA stuff based on googled up claims and a bunch of unrelated twaddle.
I asked you specifically, to prove your point that the US would always maintain a lead no matter what. The answer is you can't. Because, copy paste apart, it takes a certain interest in the topic to note that the Russians still have a state of the art MIC which is actually ahead of the US in several areas (eg mobile SAM systems) and have historically managed to meet & even surpass the US in several areas of fighter dominance having taken a more conservative, cost efficient route to market. In contrast, you post this twaddle:
You seem to have trouble thinking clearly. You didn't ask me to prove anything. Now you've also claimed, I can't.

In other words, string together a bunch of vapid claims about rah!rah! US economy, throw in the "broad based dominance" and "human talent" rubbish, and then claim Paypal is the logical answer to how MICs operate ...never mind that the Russians could do far more with less, given their current programs are not suffering from the pork barrel politics, overpriced, badly managed programs like the JSF are and that with the end of the Cold War, they have access to state of the art commercial technology from the west, east - all of which can be used to rapidly prototype and develop state of the art systems and even grow their own capabilities, which BTW is exactly what they have done. Instead of launching boondoggles like the B-2, mcguffins like the JSF, the Russians focused their substantial financial resources on key programs and are achieving breakthroughs. Not wasting the entire treasury on foolish foreign interventionism is another plus. Don't mix up the slapdash manner in which the US has mismanaged its efforts to the rest of the world.
Oh man, Phillip would be proud of this para :lol: As against Phillipesque facts you've provided, here's another vapid googled up claim. I haven't been able to find a comparison of military R&D so here's overall R&D spending by country Per capita spending on R&D on a PPP basis numbers for the US is 1,275.64 and Russia is 165.62. Almost 8 times. If we assume same ratios hold for military R&D, Russian frugality would have make them 8x efficient before they can match the US. Can you provide one single shred of proof that the Russians are 8x efficient at anything at all besides consuming vodka ? How does it matter if I don't spend time reading up on mobile SAMs ?

As far as Elon Musk/SpaceX a south african DOO has managed to shake up old entrenched players in an industrial sector very similar to the MIC. Extremely impressive. I'll put my money on an economy which attracts more top technical talent from around the world than it's competitors. It doesn't matter if most of it is not in the defense sector. That economy is bound to create more technology and be more efficient at that. If it allows for new businesses to successfully take on older entrenched players, even better. IMO the trouble is that no Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Elon Musk will want to enter the defense sector. The profit margins are just not that big there and the business not as sexy.

As versus the US, which has the bastions of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc to buy their stuff as well.
Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Korea, Japan, UK, Australia and then some. Total sales of the top US arms manufacturers is 150 billion (I've left BAE out, which makes a bunch selling to the US). Around 90 with a 0.6 conversion factor. Hell just that much is more than the Russian defense budget ? Just how much more inefficient is the US because of it's mismanagement for the Russians to compete with an industry that has access to 10x the market ?

When you are in a hole, stop digging! The bulk of Russian military development for several years now is being driven by their own finances. The Indian and Chinese purchases help, but they are by no means the single determinant anymore.
Must be the reason India's putting in 50 % for the FGFA.

And much of it crap. Tommy cooker Shermans versus T-34s for instance.
This was mostly for a another post. That said, I guess I'll have accept the fact you've presented over Stalin's statement.

You'd have a better argument if you had pointed out the long list of nobel laureates Russia has produced in the sciences. How much do you think their desire to make weapons to compete with the US contributed to their collapse ? I think you should stick to droning on about PESA and AESA.


ROTFL, so now a handwave and a surrender. So twit, we were talking about weapons systems, and wherein you were bragging that the Russians could never catch up. So when that fallacy of yours is pointed out, you want to downhill ski into nobel laureates and the like (which of course is not at all linked to Cold War politics and the like, yeah right).
Weapons systems are built on top of technology that an economy has access to. I'd like to think that gauging the scientific output is a good indicator of the technological ability of a country. It's irrelevant if that was because of the Cold War or not. India couldn't do that today no matter how badly it wants to. The capability doesn't exist.

Russian military exports are 10% of it's defense budget. All of it's budget, not just the capex. Military exports are bound to shrink. Oil and gas are it's biggest exports and it's rank on the ease of doing business index is 92. Given all this, my bragging is based on the claim that, in spite of having top notch scientific ability, this small matter of having a dump of an economy and access to much smaller markets means Russians will have trouble sustaining its arms industry, let alone match the Americans.

BTW thank you for the entertainment. It's been a slow day for me.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 27 May 2014 08:54

US GDP is like built on House of Cards if you know economy you know their Debt is out matching GDP , which is to says the 17 Trillion GDP has far greater debt then the economic output. ( to be pricise it has $59 Trillion of total debt )

Not to mentione some of those GDP figures is based on many hundred of times over leveraged derivatives that are itself a nice pack of cards.

Thanks to the greedy banking sector US economy is broke and banks insolvent and there is little hope in hell it would be better any time soon with a crisis like 2008 looming over the horizon , with consequences far worse than 2008 as the Fed has done with its printing.

Well lets see when the QE stops how well they fare or it that ever stops for long :lol:

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 27 May 2014 09:22

EO Suite of PAK-FA ( via mp.net/paralay )

Opto-Electronic Integrated System made by UOMZ (Ekaterinburg)

OEIS 101KS consists of 6 elements.

101 KS-0 (oboronitelnaya - defensive) - IR jamming system against missiles with IR seekers.
101 KS-V (vozdushnaya - air) - a quantum optical location station
101 KS-U (ultrafioletovaya - UV) - optical station for fire solution output of KS-O.
101 KS-N (nazemnaya - ground) - a ground aiming equipment in a wing-pod.


101 KS computer: http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(100).jpg
101 KS-V: http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(11).jpg
101 KS-O: http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(72).jpg
101 KS-N: http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(14).jpg
101 KS-U: http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(132).jpg

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16961
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 27 May 2014 09:52

Russian military exports are 10% of it's defense budget. All of it's budget, not just the capex. Military exports are bound to shrink. Oil and gas are it's biggest exports and it's rank on the ease of doing business index is 92. Given all this, my bragging is based on the claim that, in spite of having top notch scientific ability, this small matter of having a dump of an economy and access to much smaller markets means Russians will have trouble sustaining its arms industry, let alone match the Americans.


I agree.

The difference is reflected in where (these two) nations stand.

_______________________

BTW, are the PAK-FA models close to a production model? Or are we to expect some/many changes to the body of the plane?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2014 04:18

Viv S wrote:- The Russians have never delivered an operational AESA to date. Expecting something in the APG-81 class would be highly highly optimistic.
So? The US never fielded an ESA before the Apg77 or an HMS before the 2000s, didn't stop them from delivering good products. This is even easier now that the open market makes all sorts of tech available to the Russians.
- No EOTS. The PAK FA will use a external pod for PGM delivery. Even there, given that its importing (third gen) Damocles pods from France, how can you expect something in the Litening G4/Sniper XR class?
Fair enough, but they could always use a MIG-35 type OLS if really needed
- Maybe the PAK FA will feature an EW suite comparable SPECTRA class. Maybe. Comparable to the Barracuda... not likely.
Broad assumptions - Based on what data?
- VSI HMDS analogue. Not advertised. Speculative.
AFAIK, an HMDS was in the offing based on a couple of images posted by flateric on keypubs
- MMI & sensor fusion? Lets see if it matches the Eurocanards for now.
again, how exactly do you compare the sensor fusion of the JSF vs. the Ecanards vs. the Su-35/pakfa?What exactly do we know that the JSF does in this aspect that the Pakfa can do/ cannot do, esp. at this point in time? Simplistically, the way I see it, this is a matter of integration and software - the ability to t seamlessly provide input from multiple sensors - is there a reason why russians/indians can't do this? Are they short of software expertise?
- High end VLO capability? Compromised by the IRST & MAWS 'bulbs', lack of S-ducts, exposed exhausts etc. Indian MoD 'sources' put the RCS at 0.5m2 while the recent Russian patents placed it at 0.1-1m2.
Pakfa has curved ducts, and blockers - as per their patent, the non faceted IRST housing might be temporary or might not create enough of a difference for the designers to create it. It would be rather illogical for SDB to go to great lengths in terms of chining, alignment, composite usage, surface shaping, angled radar mounting etc. and then throw it all away on such issues. There is no rule that every approach to stealth has to be as per the US
# The munitions complement will be entirely Russian so 'could be more diverse' is an understatement really. (The SDB has become essential even for the F-22. No CBU-105 analogue either.) As far as integration of non-vendor items goes; does the PAK FA employ open architecture like the F-35? The Russians advertise it for the Su-30MK and MiG-35 (I even recall seeing it for the Mi-38), and yet nothing on the PAK FA.
SInce they have already used OA for other platforms, don't see why pakfa would be an issue. While Pakfa munitions are still being developed (and the JSF is ahead here), I don't see why we can't have analogues from Russia or India in years to come.
I'm just saying it'll be as well linked within Indian networks as any other aircraft (with the possible exception of the IAF's AEW&C units).Nothing exceptional in terms of NCW vis a vis the PAK FA in the Indian context. Agreed. But then NCW was never offered as a reason why India should, in Mihir's words, 'ride the lightning'.
Which 'uber capability' is lost with all those assets? Radar, DAS, ESM systems, stealth, sensor fusion et al... its all still there.
Aha, but isn't this what Nrao has talked about for a long while. The JSF's NCW capabilities? And I don't entirely disagree, this looks like a nice feature to have, and Brar has explained it well - NCW it seems allows it to create effective EMCON by seamlessly presenting inputs from a variety of assets. Problem is, I am not so sure it is entirely relevant to India
Some aircraft have it does not make it essential. Well.. maybe if you need to operate over the huge Russian hinterland or the Western Pacific.
But then, IIRC it was LM who noted that SC is integral to gen 5 when the Raptor was the only game in town. Now that the JSF can't do it, I suppose SC is not that essential. I think it makes a huge difference to combat persistence and economy - factors that cannot be ignored, esp, in the INdian context with such a huge airspace and designated zones ranging from Hormuz to Malacca.
L-band yes (though as BW mentioned its there on the F-35 as well). Conformal AESAs I mentioned. Near 360 deg IR spectrum coverage is there on the Rafale and an option for the EF through the PIMAWS. The latter also features the Striker 'imaging' helmet.
The F-35 has a DIRCM option and the emphasis here again was to ensure that it doesn't jeopardize the VLO qualities, by flushing it with the airframe.
how much more do you want? Add to this, stealth and exceptional airframe performance in all regimes and the ecanards are nowhere in the picture.

A major feature of the F-35 is its low-observable design, vital to its stealth capabilities. Anything sticking off the plane could threaten those stealth characteristics, so ThNDR will be installed inside the jet, with a window cut out to allow the lasers to operate. (link)

My point, in all this is that while much of what the JSF has in terms of sensors and electronics e.g. MADL or HMDS or conformal OLS can be progressively added to the Pakfa it if is deemed essential, you cannot however, suddenly or progressively make the JSF capable of supercruise or super maneuverability or make it accelerate dramatically faster or improve its STRs and ITRs etc.

This (JSF vs. Pakfa) issue can be argued about ad infinitum Viv, another thing to consider is that while there seem to be areas in which the JSF excels the Pakfa, we don't really know how much of a gap this translates to in actual scenarios. This is not too different from the old Mig-29/Su-27 vs. F-16/F-15 debates. While the "electric" jets offered a number of superior technological components, this did not necessarily translate into effective combat performances as seen from a number of DACT exercises. At the same time, there is no argument about the Pakfa being well ahead of the JSF in terms of flight performance, and it seems hardly likely that the JSF could ever reverse this. Proponents, of course would argue that it is unnecessary, which brings me back to the earlier point of this capability being very essential in the IAF/non-US/NATO context.



Huh? Blanking out HUDS and MFDs. Non-operational Su-30s piling up because the overhaul facilities remain unbuilt, deputation of Russian specialists being 'on hold' for over a year despite desperate pleas from HAL and now Russian supplies to HAL being 'on hold' as well. And that's without going into the recent IAF broadside against the FGFA.


About IAF (not HAL) complaining regarding the MKI - in about 15 years of frontline service - there are hardly any. This is not to say that there is not an issue with Russian supplied hardware - this seems to be their biggest drawback, but clearly there are aspects to it that are not entirely covered either. For example - IAF had issues with HAL built MKIs not too long ago, in fact a couple of crashes were attributed to HAL's role. This is a back and forth between the HAL and Sukhoi, the former complaining that supplies are delayed with increased costs and the latter that orders are not placed in a timely fashion to begin with (and this might have much to do with the MOD's rather slow going in such matters as well). And this is precisely why the FGFA SCM should be better - a) because of lessons learned and b) because it allows for more control over production.

At the very least it merits caution while negotiating agreements (how well they're respected is a different issue) and the current pay-first-examine-later model is the very worst way to do it.

It all depends upon what is in the contract... but I would agree that this merits a lot of caution.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 28 May 2014 04:31

brar_w wrote:
The F-35 can be equipped with the ODL as well. Everything it sees it'll be able to pass off to friendly aircraft and vice versa. Israel for example, is adding its own comms & data-links to the F-35I. The MADL will still be available to modified F-35s


MADL is just form of LPI information exchange. The beauty is that its seamless, almost like a WIFI connection. As soon as an aircraft is within range (few miles) sensor information is automatically updated on the displays to build up Situational awareness. No pilot input is required, and information received from multiple sensors is fused and automatically updated. In a four ship formation for example, the aircraft on the extreme right has a totally different picture than the aircraft on the extreme left and all this information si fused together and displayed on all aircraft within the MADL network.

What makes MADL more than just a communications tool is its ability to connect with other planes and automatically share situational awareness data between fighters. The more planes in the network the greater the data shared and the more comprehensive a picture is formed.

Picture a group of jets flying in formation. The pilot farthest to the right will have a different situational awareness picture than the pilot on the left. But once they’re networked, all the information is automatically shared among the pilots.

Prior to takeoff, planes would be designated with partners to form the network. When a plane gets within range, the network is automatically created.

“Like on your computer, your network into the local area, we’re building that network in the sky and it’s keeping up with all the dynamics and spatial changes,” said Bob Gough, director of CNI technology and programs at Northrop. “MADL has the smarts to keep up with all of that and keep the network in place so they can share the same data.”

Gough declined to say how close jets need to be to trigger the network link, but did say tests have shown “very fast” acquisition times once within range.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... lthy-Comms

MADL is not the only data link or communication/info sharing tool on the F-35 and the CNI suite has room for addition of any data link the customer may so desire. As you've mentioned the IDF will add its own secure data link. MADL is just something that is hardwired into the Avionics and SA picture the integrated avionics build up. Link 16 is used for long range data transfer within f-35's and with other aircraft. SATCOM capability will also be available from block 4 if I recall correctly.


Thanks for the information on MADL Brar, even though, at first reading it doesn't seem to be that different, I assume it to be a leap ahead of what the RUssians used to speak of in terms of Mig-31/MKI acting as AWACS or even the Gripen's famous data-link set up. Perhaps in terms of simplicity in acquiring network addresses and a greater degree of automation, less button pressing for the pilots, stealth and security - jam-proof. Anything else?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 06:53

MADL is quite a bit different from what has been present elsewhere. Even in the Western world the closest thing to it is the IFDL that is present on the F-22. In a way the MADL is a much advanced version of the IFDL but more ambitious in scope and much greater in terms of the benefits it provides. Your basic data links were about sending targeted information to others in the loop about various stuff one wanted to share, such as weapons track and radar data. The MADL on the other hand is build from the ground up to share absolutely everything. For example, imagine you have 6 F-35's, 2 F-22's and a couple of UCAV's in the loop all linked through LAN. You can designate various assets to perform various roles. The F-22's can be high up doing your passive tracks using its impressive geolocating abilities, the UCAV's can be performing SAR and ISAR ground roles to build up a comprehensive picture of the air to ground threat and the F-35's can use their radars and passive suite to build up situational awareness. Everything that every MADL platform sees is automatically updated into the network and the picture shows up automatically into the integrated avionics suite of the other aircraft. The F-22's Displays will be showing the complete picture that the entire "team" has built up without any effort from either the F-22 pilot or the F-35 pilot. Similarly, the integrated picture can be used for targeting. The F-22, even though it lacks an IRST for example will have information displayed on its MFD's using other IR sensors and can target using the same (EOTS has weapons grade targeting ability). The interoperability and simplicity is the key here, and EVERYTHING is shared in an integrated fashion. In the F-22 and F-35 scenario you have 30 antennas on the F-22 for passive track, 12 on the F-35, you have 2 X band radars, EOTS and EODAS on the F-35. All these will automatically work ALL THE TIME to form a comprehensive picture and the picture would be shared between platforms automatically and in total. If you look at the gold standard for data links you have the Link-16, which is no where close to the capability of either the IFDL or the MADL (Link-16 will be on the rafale). Link 16 is obviously longer ranged, and thats what the F-35 will use as well. MADL is for formation flying between 4, 6 , 10 or so aircraft. MADL allows you to GET RID of things like side arrays, side facing radar, rear radars etc etc which degrade stealth by emitting. As I mentioned a few weeks ago the RWR and passive EW suite of the F-22 which began to be designed in the 80's and 90's is probably the reason why the US values emission control so much on the stealth fleet. The F-22 in the 90's is said to have been able to pick up even the faintest of RF returns some 200 nm away with weapons grade quality. Given such capability one can understand why the stealth designers with any experience (Basically northrop grumman and lockheed) have made sure that emissions are kept at a bare minimum in the B-2, F-22 and F-35. Given the last 2 are fighters, the problem of having a comprehensive 360 degree picture was solved through net-centricity using MADL or its less capable cousin in the IFDL. MADL was developed to complement the Link 16 or any of its advanced versions being developed in the lab. The problem that MADL solved was that 5th gen jets had an exponential increase in the amount of data they could gather, process and use for targeting. For example your basic EW suite on legacy 3rd or 4th gen platforms were information providers, while on the F-22 the -94 could not only provide you emission data from hundred of miles away but also provide you with a passive weapons solution (weapons grade) therefore this became a legitimate way to target a fighter or a ground based radar for example (passive geolocation). The F-22 has 30 such embedded antennas at various bands (L, VHF etc). The F-35 has a similar EW suite in the barracuda, has the Apg-81 radar, has the EODAS and EOTS. Combine the two and you have ISR assets in the truest sense. A mini AEW aircraft, a Mini JSTARS, and a Mini SIGNIT aircraft rolled into one (F-22 has been called a legitimate SIGNIT aircraft)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sup ... ole-01379/

The C4ISR journal speaks of the F-35:

The plane’s potential as a digital killer blurs the traditional line between platforms that collect aerial electronic intelligence and those that act on it. A plane that drops precision munitions may also sever analog and digital links in an enemy network: between troops, between anti-aircraft missiles and their guidance radar, between an insurgent’s cell phone and a roadside bomb.

5th gen designers particularly the second 5th gen effort in the JSF recognized the advantage of sharing such vast amount of data across platforms to achieve maximum capability. Data from dozens of sensors mounted on each aircraft. Not only was the volume large but it also needed to be sent through a LPI setup that was damn hard to jam. The solution was to limit the data link to 5th gen integrated avionics that could not only process the information but also transfer it through the CNI. Thats why the MADL range is limited. By definition the strongest LPI data links that are the most jam proof are the ones that are short ranged, the longer ranged your data link the more vulnerable it is to jamming (simple science). For longer ranged communication or to talk to the legacy jets the F-35 uses your NATO standard Link 16 and for even longer capability it would eventually have SATCOM. By block 4 the F-35C and possibly the B aircraft will get a brand new long ranged data link designed by the US navy lead rockwell collins TTNT effort which is an extremely ambitious data link program with its associated risk. As an example the goal is to break the kill chain of the enemy from much greater distances then previously possible allowing Naval forces to operate in areas where the enemy has built a strong denial capability. Stealthy F-35's that are deep inside enemy territory, will provide information on anti-carrier launch sites or launches using their passive sensors and data links (MADL and long range data links), the missile would be tracked from inland, all the way till the other nodes take over and the SM6 and its future offshoots would target the missile from way beyond the AEGIS's radar horizon. The F-35's ability to geolocate ground based emissions (radars), passively detect and target launch sites and missile launches is what the US Navy seems to value the most and in this context a hit to kill CUDA missile makes absolute sense. Its the perfect anti missile and UCAV weapon from a fighter but thats for another thread and topic.

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... ePaper.pdf
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore ... ology.aspx
Image
http://news.usni.org/2014/01/23/navys-next-air-war


An example of a potential scenario is that a few F-35's are sweeping the air to look for bogeys. The passive sensors on the F-35 locates ballistic missiles being launched from the ground. DAS tracks this automatically without any pilot input, characterizes the threat and shares it with MADL. The F-35 can use its EOTS and MADL to passively target the launch site for example with an F-22 carrying the SDB (F-22 does not have a FLIR). Similarly the EW picture that can be built up using MADL is much superior to what was possible before it. MADL by definition requires the platforms to have high degree of integration in architecture thats why it will likely never find its way into a 4 gen fleet and its integration on the B-2 follows an extensive avionics overhaul that is planned. Another advantage of MADL is that its data sharing is absolute and automatic. No longer do the pilots need to be the integrators and transfers of data across platforms. Just as our phone picks up a wifi signal when we are within range, the MADL automatically "signs in" a linked aircraft as it comes within range. This allows for stealthy ops. 2 F-35's for example may need to use their active sensors at 80% capability to get the required SA. Through MADL 4, 6 or more F-35's may only require to use 30% of their radar strenght to form the same picture thereby making them more survivable. The computer will automatically share the radar information and present it to the pilot. The picture presented through MADL about a ground track, air threat etc is simply presented (automatically) in a fashion as if the info has come out of the fighters own systems. The pilot need not worry about which sensor from which aircraft is doing the work. He just flies the aircraft and launches weapons. In time UCAV's would also come into the picture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno

So? The US never fielded an ESA before the Apg77 or an HMS before the 2000s, didn't stop them from delivering good products. This is even easier now that the open market makes all sorts of tech available to the Russians.


The First phased array Electronically scanned radar in the US that i can remember was the Brassboard radar which began testing in the 70's. It was a westinghouse product that is considered a 1st gen aerial ESA from a family that eventually created the L Band MESA radar on the 737 AEW which the maker regards as its fourth gen ESA product for aerial radars.

Image

The first AESA fielded on a US fighter was the AN/APG-63(V)2 which went active on the F-15C fleet in 2000 (IOC) while the F-22 with its Apg-77 only was operational in the 2004/05 time frame. In the lab the timeline for the Apg-77 family and its developer looks like this

Image

The radar makers obviously regard the timelines as when they develop a fully working radar to the program. The Apg-77 for example was fully developed and delivered in the mid to late 90's, yet the years spent between that and IOC was for systems development and integration. The Apg-81 for example is mature radar by now as has been tested for years and even has participated in exercises. The IOC is being held up for systems integration and testing not because the radar is still in development. More than a 100 Apg-81's have been delivered.

The B-1 bomber has had an ESA since 1984 in the LPI APQ-164 with more than 100 of these radars delivered. The E-8 JSTAR also has a phased array radar installed and operation since the mid 90's iirc. The main point about AESA in the US is the mass industrialization of the GaA products and the looming industrialization of the GaN products. I do not know if you came across the F-22 pilot DOZER on other forums before he deleted all his posts after he was reprimanded by the USAF for sharing a bit too much on the capability [ http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/3040 ]. His views was that the benefits of fielding ESA and AESA's so early and then industrializing it in such a fashion was that it gave the tacticians and the larger RESEARCH team a chance to develop tactics and write software that could really extract the benefits from such a system. In the lab he claimed you'd have at the most a few dozen electronics people working on a product. Then you'd get some officers that would test it. Fielding it years ago meant that your basic warfighter, maintainer and hundreds of software engineers working for various programs could know of its capability, where the technology is going and how to get the most out of it. When europe for example was laying down plans to test AESA for the rafale in the lab and field them at a rate of a few a year, the Apg-81 was participating in a electronic warfare exercise and jamming the apg-77. The GaA industrial base in the US defense circles extends to virtually every possible radar application one can imagine. From the army to the Navy, marines and the air force. You have AESA flying on 4th gen, on 5th gen, on the global hawk, possibly the Avenger, AESA on the P-8, On the USN AEW fleet, JSTARS. By 2020 more than 1200 AESA radars would have been delivered (just for fighters). You name the product category and an AESA is somewhere to be found. GaN industrialization would also occur through the immediate GATOR radar and the AEGIS radar replacement programs (AMDR). While GaN products are being offered by Sweden on their X band radar, GaN spectra is being offered for france's future upgrades, but no where is the scale of the effort so large that will not only make the tech affordable for large scale procurement but also open up the technology for other applications where by itself GaN would have been cost prohibitive and technology a challenge to integrate.

You can see the AESA timeline for Northrop (which bought westinghouse) here

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/nort ... ar-history

There was no "wake up call" which led to a massive effort to field AESA radars as is being claimed. The timeline of Phased array radars and early AESA radars is smooth, and so was the transition. The funding for both phased array radars and various function AESA was steady and so were the programs all the way from the 1970's till now when 6th gen radars are in the work (AMDR, Gator, 3dEELR etc). The investment in radar acquisition were made according to a threat perception which was much different than what the russians had in development. The emphasis was on networked NATO fighters (a requirement since NATO was not 1 country) and providing capability from the bottom up, as required phased array radars were introduced into the applications that required it or that were ripe for an upgrade. AESA radars were flying and undergoing testing for fighter applications as early as 1985, and by 1991 Northrop grumman had tested full scale version of the Apg-77 that began testing on the aerial testing platform. This was around the same time the russians began testing the Su-30M. The development, acquisition of advanced radars did not stop after the cold war, not did the massive R&D spending on maintaining a capability in electronics, avionics and sensor fusion. Yes the US did not JUMP in the air and began massive radar replacement programs that replaced perfectly capable radars on the F-15 and F-16's in the 80's or early 90's as the Flanker family became more dominant. But then tacticians rarely demand that. The factors such as the Soviet Flanker availability rate, availability strenght, down times ets had a far greater affect on the doctrine in the west. Moreover when you already have phased array programs doing the work you do not need to spend money specifically for fighters. Our MKI's which are the most advanced flankers in the world combining the best of russian, western and indigenous products were just a few years ahead of the F-22A which had full sensor fusion and AESA at the time of IOC.

HMS before the 2000s


The USAF's reluctance on HMS and HOBS was not because it lacked the technical capability, but because it spent a disproportionate amount of money on BVR, advanced radars, BVR missiles and concepts. This was born out of the expeditionary nature of their warfare. The JHMCS was developed only as a means to make the legacy 4th gen fighters more potent compared to advanced 4.5 th gen fighters being fielded by the russians and chinese. There was even a time when the Army was spending more on HM systems than the Air force and Navy put together. Even now the Navy spends more than the Air force for it knows it has a limited number of assets that it can bring to a fight hence you'll see the JHMCS being a navy effort along with the aim-9x block 3 which is a navy run program.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 May 2014 11:55, edited 13 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16961
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 28 May 2014 07:06

is build from the ground up to share absolutely everything


"share" can be defined too. Only some can "see" that info, others on the network cannot.

Also, it has unlimited, contention free IPs, so it does not matter how many want to "join".


BTW, not as exotic, yet, May 24, 2014:

The US Air Force's oldest bomber is now a flying network

It's effectively a network hub with wings. A wideband satellite link keeps the machine in touch with other Department of Defense systems, letting it receive new mission plans and redirect smart weapons after they've launched.


Point being that everything is "information" on a "network". Even that little "smart weapon" is - until impact - looking for "information" to act on.

One (very big) reason why the F-35 can replace an A-10. And, also, why the F-35 does not need to be as agile as one would like a "5th Gen" to be - just not needed.

And, of course, "improvements" in the future:

With CONECT the B-52 has the ability to change a mission, as well as change the target of a weapon while in-flight. The system provides increased situational awareness for B-52 crews by adding several communication data links and full-color LCD displays with real-time intelligence feeds overlaid on moving maps. CONECT also enables future B-52 improvements with its onboard, high-speed network. Other improvements include a state-of-the-art computing network with workstations at each crew position, and an integrated digital interphone with increased capacity for expanded voice and data communications.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 11:56

TSJones wrote:From what I see the Modi government is not going to put forth any effort for military cooperation with the US.


Off Topic but I see no reason why he would do that as he said in an interview its not personal and its very Gracious of him to say that inspite of wrongfully being on Banned List for long.

The US Government most certainly owes an apology to him and Nation for putting him in a list that had just one name in the world and that was of him and for very wrong reasons I would say.

Just apologize and move on no harm done.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 12:02

At a recent display


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 12:03

Modi will not change what is happening vis-a-vis military to military cooperation between the various countries and India. Those that think that he will seek revenge against the US and the EU know little of his style. That would be something the Congress and the gandhis would do, modi is much farsighted to see the same. In addition he is pro-business and most of the business interests between the US and india are aligned. The apprehension with US military equipment and the strings attached will remain as they were within military circles and in that sense the relationship will take a long time to become better (a more natural process than anything else)

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 12:15

Whats that got to do with Revenge , Unless blacklisting Modi was a sort of Revenge from US.

IMO he was wrongly blacklisted by US and hence certainly owes an apology from them, If he would not had been the PM they would have still kept him in that list.

Atleast a personal appology is expected even though now he is a PM. He has been gracious the US can be the same.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 12:25

Although an apology would be welcomed, its not a deal breaker.Neither individual leaders in the EU or the US will publicly apologise to him. Such indications are made in more subtle ways. Those that were heavily in favour of an anti-modi position (advocates of the ban) would receive a slap on the wrist, positions will be moved, shifted and people would be let go. Thats how this situation is going to be dealt with by the europeans and americans in the long run. I do not think Modi himself expects an apology, he has proved to be a much pragmatic politician and leader. A republican position would be much more favourable to Modi than Obama. If the republicans come back to power in the US executive than i think they will make an even bigger effort to move closer to Modi. Military-Military interactions would not change nor would the usual dialogues between the two nations.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 12:29

brar_w wrote:Although an apology would be welcomed, its not a deal breaker.Neither individual leaders in the EU or the US will publicly apologise to him. Such indications are made in more subtle ways. Those that were heavily in favour of an anti-modi position (advocates of the ban) would receive a slap on the wrist, positions will be moved, shifted and people would be let go.


Did the Europeans also banned him I am not sure.

If they put that banned list in Public dont you think it would be right and just to apologise publicly atleast let the state department put up on its website that they were wrong and say Sorry.

Is is so difficult ? Irrespect how things shape up in Bilateral ties.

If they have Ego and Pride Accepting their faults in Public , Why should we as Indians accept it ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 12:35

Even if not a ban, a boycott is no less humiliating a democratically elected leader.

German ambassador to India Michael Steiner said the decision to lift the diplomatic ban on the Gujarat chief minister was taken after the elections in the state.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... ycott.html

It was in 2008 that two European diplomats, Ole Poulsen of Denmark and Lars-Olof Lindgren of Sweden defied the EU visa ban to reach out to the then Gujarat chief minister.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 613030.cms

As of 2010:

EU travel ban on Modi justified says German delegation

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 12:36


Is is so difficult ? Irrespect how things shape up in Bilateral ties.


That is not being contested by me. I am all for a public apology. I am stating what i think is more likely to happen

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 28 May 2014 12:45

Both EU and US should tender an apology to him what a bunch moron these people are targeting an individual according to their wishes and fancies.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 28 May 2014 13:55

Austin wrote:Both EU and US should tender an apology to him what a bunch moron these people are targeting an individual according to their wishes and fancies.

Why this path of least resistance sir?

Is any apology going to stop frothing at mouth hate mongering by various 'independent' interest groups religion/leftists/human-rights/labelA/labelB-Z that surprisingly seem to have found common ground in abusing NaMo?
Obvious answer is no.

Is any apology going to turn USA and EU overnight into secular countries all?
Obvious answer again is no.

So why demand apology from pretenders?

OT here. Only.


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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2014 17:13

indranilroy wrote:Good point. But I don't agree with the considerable margin part. By the way, you are speaking to a big F-22 fan here :-). In my eyes, F-22 is still the plane to beat, not PAK-FA.


The v(1) AESA with EW functionality is outstanding. Its still got a very dense sensor coverage and I see no indications that its 'cutting edge' nature will recede within the next 10 years (by which time it will have been operational for over twenty years).

You think vanilla PAK-FA is bad? I would buy it over the F-35 any day!


Its not a question of it being bad or good. Its not a VLO design and features an uninspiring EW suite. However,unlike Russia, we face threats that require a VLO design and high end ESM capabilities.

Just as importantly, I'd bet on the F-35 being cheaper, more reliable and better supported.

And finally, its easier for HAL to develop a PAK FA analogue to complement the F-35, than it is to develop a F-35 analogue to complement the PAK FA.

Take a large LO airframe, off-the-shelf equipment including HMS, IRST, EO kit, ESM... whatever and power it with engines from the F119/135 family. No need to develop a 'space age' helmet, power-by-wire, or maintenance-friendly stealth features etc. Also avoids the weight issues that invariably plague the development of light-to-medium aircraft.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16961
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 28 May 2014 18:12

Viv S wrote:Its not a question of it being bad or good. Its not a VLO design and features an uninspiring EW suite. However,unlike Russia, we face threats that require a VLO design and high end ESM capabilities.


In fact I was researching what may have caused the IAF to state that the Russians cannot deliver, and I think this is *THE* issue.

The ASR for the AMCA - per reports - clearly states that the AMCA needs to be "fully stealth".

The PAK-FA is no where close to "fully stealth".

And, I suspect one of the goals of the FGFA was to take the PAK-FA and make it fully stealth (among the 40+ modifications, which included Indian avionics, more composites and 360 AESA).

With Pogasyan stating that IAF will get a PAK-FA with Russain avionics, that seems to have nixed any India hope of making substantial modifications to the PAK-FA to convert it to a FGFA. India lost out on their avionics and the rest.

I am betting this is the main hitch in the current delay.

India cannot afford a Russian plane - as good as it is it will not work in an Indian environment.




IF my theory is true, it explains most of the statements in the complain, including that the FGFA is too expensive - if indeed the IAF is getting a PAK-FA then why $6 billion for R&D?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 18:26

With Pogasyan stating that IAF will get a PAK-FA with Russian avionics, that seems to have nixed any India hope of making substantial modifications to the PAK-FA to convert it to a FGFA. India lost out on their avionics and the rest


If the eventual goal is to MKI'ze the PAKFA, then it just might be better to place an initial tranche order of Russian spec T-50's and take our time to develop the MKI version. Given the timelines, Russia won't have a 6th gen platform for decades so a bit of delay with the MKI version wouldn't hurt us much. My concern is more with the industrial production of a 5th gen jet and at which stage does russia begin a full system integration.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16961
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 28 May 2014 19:04

brar_w wrote:
With Pogasyan stating that IAF will get a PAK-FA with Russian avionics, that seems to have nixed any India hope of making substantial modifications to the PAK-FA to convert it to a FGFA. India lost out on their avionics and the rest


If the eventual goal is to MKI'ze the PAKFA, then it just might be better to place an initial tranche order of Russian spec T-50's and take our time to develop the MKI version. Given the timelines, Russia won't have a 6th gen platform for decades so a bit of delay with the MKI version wouldn't hurt us much. My concern is more with the industrial production of a 5th gen jet and at which stage does russia begin a full system integration.


The game plan was to sign the deal in 2012, originally estimated to be $5.5 billion in R&D, and have a prototype in 2015.


If one checks old articles, there are multiple issues that have arisen.

The one that confounds me the most is the engine. IF the engine is supposed to be out in 2020ish, then how can one expect induction in 2020? It should take another year+ to retest.

It would be neat to track both the FGFA and the AMCA. Looks like both will come around 5 years or so apart.


I would suggest to stop MKI production, get the PAK-FA from Russia - as is - to replace the loss of MKIs and move ahead with the AMCA (as the official 5th Gen).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 May 2014 19:13

I think other than 272 MKIs IAF is going to procure another 100+ super sukhois before starting the induction of PAK FA, I don't know think PAK FA will come before 2025.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 28 May 2014 20:14

Cain Marko wrote:So? The US never fielded an ESA before the Apg77 or an HMS before the 2000s, didn't stop them from delivering good products. This is even easier now that the open market makes all sorts of tech available to the Russians.


The Russians will deliver a 'good product'. Its the leaping forward to APG-81 standards that is highly unlikely.

- No EOTS. The PAK FA will use a external pod for PGM delivery. Even there, given that its importing (third gen) Damocles pods from France, how can you expect something in the Litening G4/Sniper XR class?
Fair enough, but they could always use a MIG-35 type OLS if really needed


OLS for air-to-ground delivery? That's not feasible. The PAK FA will use an external pod and the pod in question has been displayed in PAK FA related exhibitions.

- Maybe the PAK FA will feature an EW suite comparable SPECTRA class. Maybe. Comparable to the Barracuda... not likely.
Broad assumptions - Based on what data?


Based on its history. Russia has never fielded an ALR-94 class system to date. To expect a system that is a generation ahead of the 94, is simply not realistic.

- VSI HMDS analogue. Not advertised. Speculative.
AFAIK, an HMDS was in the offing based on a couple of images posted by flateric on keypubs


The PAK FA is to field the ZSh-10 helmet AFAIK.

Image


The VSI HMDS is in a different league.

Image

- MMI & sensor fusion? Lets see if it matches the Eurocanards for now.
again, how exactly do you compare the sensor fusion of the JSF vs. the Ecanards vs. the Su-35/pakfa?What exactly do we know that the JSF does in this aspect that the Pakfa can do/ cannot do, esp. at this point in time? Simplistically, the way I see it, this is a matter of integration and software - the ability to t seamlessly provide input from multiple sensors - is there a reason why russians/indians can't do this? Are they short of software expertise?


You mention Russian/Indians. What was the Russian response to Indian participation (actual work-share) in the PAKFA/FGFA? By and large... contempt (albeit voiced diplomatically). Mainly due to India not having the requisite experience and/or technical competencies. Not a permanent condition perhaps, but true nonetheless. That is the SAME thing that separates the US and Russia. The F-22 was fielding advanced sensor fusion back in 2001. The F-35 supposedly goes a generation ahead of that.

- High end VLO capability? Compromised by the IRST & MAWS 'bulbs', lack of S-ducts, exposed exhausts etc. Indian MoD 'sources' put the RCS at 0.5m2 while the recent Russian patents placed it at 0.1-1m2.
Pakfa has curved ducts, and blockers - as per their patent, the non faceted IRST housing might be temporary or might not create enough of a difference for the designers to create it. It would be rather illogical for SDB to go to great lengths in terms of chining, alignment, composite usage, surface shaping, angled radar mounting etc. and then throw it all away on such issues. There is no rule that every approach to stealth has to be as per the US


The Russian patent includes S-ducts. The aircraft does NOT. In its absence you can employ radar-blockers but they will never be as efficient at reducing the VLO (for the same reason that RAM can supplement but not substitute LO shaping). The IRST is external as are the other EO devices and they cannot simply be recessed into the airframe.

Radar 'angling', serration, composites, radar blockers and some degree of edge alignment is all there on the Super Hornet as well. Chines are not but they won't have been that hard to incorporate (at the design stage)... you'll find them on the HAL LCH.

# The munitions complement will be entirely Russian so 'could be more diverse' is an understatement really. (The SDB has become essential even for the F-22. No CBU-105 analogue either.) As far as integration of non-vendor items goes; does the PAK FA employ open architecture like the F-35? The Russians advertise it for the Su-30MK and MiG-35 (I even recall seeing it for the Mi-38), and yet nothing on the PAK FA.
SInce they have already used OA for other platforms, don't see why pakfa would be an issue. While Pakfa munitions are still being developed (and the JSF is ahead here), I don't see why we can't have analogues from Russia or India in years to come.


Open architecture cannot be integrated on the aircraft midway nor is particularly easy to delivered (case in point: F-22).

And with regard to munitions, with the Su-30MKI we had the option of integrating the Litening pod, Paveway, Python etc. The F-35 comes with options for American kit, European kit, Israeli kit... maybe even Japanese, Korean or Singaporean kit.

With the PAK FA, we buy Russian accessories... like it or lump it. And if they don't for example have an SDB analogue, we have no option but to wait while one is developed, certified and integrated.

Which 'uber capability' is lost with all those assets? Radar, DAS, ESM systems, stealth, sensor fusion et al... its all still there.
Aha, but isn't this what Nrao has talked about for a long while. The JSF's NCW capabilities? And I don't entirely disagree, this looks like a nice feature to have, and Brar has explained it well - NCW it seems allows it to create effective EMCON by seamlessly presenting inputs from a variety of assets. Problem is, I am not so sure it is entirely relevant to India


The F-35's NCW capability will enable synergy between other F-35s on the same mission. I don't think NRao or BW suggested that fusing feeds from JSTARS, F-22s, or Aegis type aircraft was ever a selling point in the Indian context.

None of which takes anything away from the actual 'uber capability' of the APG-81 or Barracuda, or from the deliverable VLO capability.

Some aircraft have it does not make it essential. Well.. maybe if you need to operate over the huge Russian hinterland or the Western Pacific.
But then, IIRC it was LM who noted that SC is integral to gen 5 when the Raptor was the only game in town. Now that the JSF can't do it, I suppose SC is not that essential. I think it makes a huge difference to combat persistence and economy - factors that cannot be ignored, esp, in the INdian context with such a huge airspace and designated zones ranging from Hormuz to Malacca.


True and that's an awkward thing for Lockheed Martin to explain. But the debate here is not the definition of fifth generation but what fits our scenario and our requirements. We share long land borders with both our primary adversaries where flight times to the enemy airspace can be less than five minutes. Given the lack of strategic depth to west and the heavy defences to east, supercruise would be good to have but is hardly a necessity.

Coming to the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean... between the A&N bases, P-8Is and IN's CBGs, we're pretty well covered.

And as far as combat persistence is concerned, the F-35 carries more fuel than even the F-22. Persistence is not an issue.

how much more do you want? Add to this, stealth and exceptional airframe performance in all regimes and the ecanards are nowhere in the picture.


An EOTS for starters. And I'd like VLO level stealth and a Barracuda level EW suite. Something that can go up against the Chinese IADS.

My point, in all this is that while much of what the JSF has in terms of sensors and electronics e.g. MADL or HMDS or conformal OLS can be progressively added to the Pakfa it if is deemed essential, you cannot however, suddenly or progressively make the JSF capable of supercruise or super maneuverability or make it accelerate dramatically faster or improve its STRs and ITRs etc.


HMDS you can upgrade. Radar you can upgrade. But a conformal OLS cannot be easily retrofitted to the airframe. Nor can the airframe be upgraded to VLO levels.

Supermaneuverability <> EODAS. You don't require Top Gun type maneuvering while packing a WVR missile that can pull 80Gs and be cued in any direction by the aircraft's sensors. The PAK FA is agile yes, but not compared to a Meteor missile.

Fact is, first-look-first-shoot nearly always wins the game.

This (JSF vs. Pakfa) issue can be argued about ad infinitum Viv, another thing to consider is that while there seem to be areas in which the JSF excels the Pakfa, we don't really know how much of a gap this translates to in actual scenarios. This is not too different from the old Mig-29/Su-27 vs. F-16/F-15 debates. While the "electric" jets offered a number of superior technological components, this did not necessarily translate into effective combat performances as seen from a number of DACT exercises.


CM, the Soviets had some degree of parity with the Americans. The Russians don't. The Su-30MKI entered service as the same time as the F-22 (the Su-35 eight years later). And when the PAK FA becomes operational, the F-22 will have been in service for about 15 years or so. On the face of it, the F-35 is not as agile or maneuverable as the F-22, but the one and a half decades that separate them have hardly been devoid of technological advancement.

At the same time, there is no argument about the Pakfa being well ahead of the JSF in terms of flight performance, and it seems hardly likely that the JSF could ever reverse this. Proponents, of course would argue that it is unnecessary, which brings me back to the earlier point of this capability being very essential in the IAF/non-US/NATO context.


****************

Five years ago, I never thought the F-35 could ever have been an option. The PAK FA was on its way and would equal the F-22. And the FGFA would be our very own Indianized and 'improved' version. Well and good, until the first prototype flew. While everyone seemed exhilarated, I couldn't swallow the idea that the aircraft was intended to the job of an F-117 (though come to think of it, the Soviets never developed an F-117 type aircraft).

But I reasoned that this was just an initial prototype and this would probably evolve hugely in the next few years. A soothing thought right upto the point when the picture of engine compressor face hit the internet. That's when any and all hope of a VLO aircraft evaporated.

All the same, the FGFA was to be a partially Indian aircraft which made it worth acquiring, cost and performance being secondary. And then the number spiraled down from 300 to 250 to 200 to 144 units, with the two crew design proposal being binned. And we found ourselves with a Russian aircraft that we're pretending to 'co-develop'.

Meanwhile the F-35's faults have been mostly rectified, the full extent of its capabilities are slowly being revealed and most importantly the price has tumbled from $200M+ to $110M with the (once laughable) $75M target now looking quite achievable. This at the same time as we're hit by a slowing economy and the importance of obtaining value-for-money sinks in.

And so I find myself on this side of the debate.

****************


We don't intend to fight our battles on the same lines as the NATO. But do we intend to fight like the Russians? Is our threat scenario similar? Do we need something that can supercruise long distances and launch cruise missiles or do we need something that can suppress and/or destroy (Russian origin) Chinese 'anti-stealth' SAM systems or conduct CAS or strike in highly contested zones?


About IAF (not HAL) complaining regarding the MKI - in about 15 years of frontline service - there are hardly any. This is not to say that there is not an issue with Russian supplied hardware - this seems to be their biggest drawback, but clearly there are aspects to it that are not entirely covered either. For example - IAF had issues with HAL built MKIs not too long ago, in fact a couple of crashes were attributed to HAL's role. This is a back and forth between the HAL and Sukhoi, the former complaining that supplies are delayed with increased costs and the latter that orders are not placed in a timely fashion to begin with (and this might have much to do with the MOD's rather slow going in such matters as well). And this is precisely why the FGFA SCM should be better - a) because of lessons learned and b) because it allows for more control over production.


How does anything HAL has done justify the Russians putting the deputation of specialists or delivery of supplies on hold (despite the contract expressly stipulating otherwise)?

Also we're not going to have any more control over the FGFA production than we do over the Su-30MKI. It has less non-vendor content than the Su-30 and built on a smaller scale.

At the very least it merits caution while negotiating agreements (how well they're respected is a different issue) and the current pay-first-examine-later model is the very worst way to do it.

It all depends upon what is in the contract... but I would agree that this merits a lot of caution.


We agree on something at least. :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 28 May 2014 21:45

But then, IIRC it was LM who noted that SC is integral to gen 5 when the Raptor was the only game in town. Now that the JSF can't do it, I suppose SC is not that essential.


Lockheed did not claim anything by themselves. Supercruise was written into the requirements of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program. Lockheed responded to the program requirements with the capability that exceeded the expectations (Mach 1.72 vs a mach 1.5 requirement). The JAST/JSF had no such requirements. Its idea of air superiority evolves around advancements made in sensor fusion (its the second 5th gen jet with some time between designs), weaponry and communications in order to dictate the terms on the battlefield. Supercruise was also in direct conflict to the Air to ground mission where the F-35 would have to be in the 25-30K altitude to use its targeting as opposed to 40+ K where the F-22 is going to be on the look out for fighters to intercept. That the supercruise requirement was not a part of JSF is not so much its shortcoming as it is was a challenge to design an aircraft with conflicting requirements and still make it potent enough to be survivable against an anti access denial threat that involves advanced integrated air defenses, advanced 4.5th gen and 5th gen fighters and an integrated net centric opposition. The F-35 advances stealth (compared to the F-22), advances the integration of the avionics, advances sensors and advances considerably the situational awareness and net-centricity of the team. The F-22 flies faster, has higher supersonic range and has better maneuverability but is a specialist aircraft limited in scope unless one takes a hit in LO (hang an external FLIR and hang 2000 lb bombs externally) or sacrifices other things (cost, maintainability, down times etc). The F-35 is designed around a requirement of a 5th gen F-16 Block 50 mission profile with the clear divergence that the sensors would be among the best in the a2a world. Just look at the Apg-81 radar for example, as a departure from the small nose of the F-16, the Apg-81 has 1600+ elements compared to 800-1000 of the rafale or the 1000 or so of the Apg 80 of the F-16 block 60. That it is more than capable to hold its own against 4.5th and 5th gen adversaries according to those with the knowledge of its classified capabilities (such as the RAAF boss) speaks volumes of where the technology has advanced since the F-22 and the ATF program. The F-35 is designed around cold hard requirements of warfighting, SEAD , DEAD, CAS, A2A , Electronic warfare, ISR etc. The F-22 does only a few of these missions. For air forces that cannot afford a super expensive HIGH - LOW mix of 5th gen aircraft (Most nations on the globe barring a few) the F-35 is a much better aircraft than the F-22.
Last edited by brar_w on 29 May 2014 07:26, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 28 May 2014 22:40

Still cannot understand why we are spending 6 billion $ on R&D in a foreign country on technology which will be in Chinese hands sooner than ours.

In perspective - DRDO's annual budget is 1.8 billion $.

India's Chutiy* (Congress) leadership still suck*ing up to go*ra chamadi. What an impot*nt organization.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 29 May 2014 09:14

Datapoint on the 117 Engine for PAK-FA

The 117 (AL-41F1) is a new 5th generation engine custom built for Russia’s fifth-generation stealth fighter jet PAK-FA according to Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosyan. Mikhail Pogosyan has clarified that claims that fifth-generation fighter allegedly has an old engine are wrong. Such claims are made by people with limited knowledge,he said. Though most parameters of the new 5th Gen Engine remains classified General Director Mikhail Pogosyan provided some information on the new engine, The engine thrust was enlarged by 2.5 tonnes when compared with the AL-31 engine, while the engine weight was cut by 150 kilograms. That allowed the new jet to supercruise i.e. move at a supersonic cruise speed without the use of after burner.

The Saturn Research and Production center made digitally controlled system (FADEC) of Project 117 Engine.The new engine produces 33,000 lbs (147 kN) of thrust in afterburner has a Dry weight of 1420 kilogram and T:W ratio of 10.5:1

Mikhail Pogosyan further mentioned that this engine (117) meets the client’s (Russian AirForce) requirements. This is not an intermediate product made particularly for test flights. The engine will be installed in production PAK-FA fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients."

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 29 May 2014 12:25

Good news there indeed. Surely we will need multiple competitive industries in our MIC to be able to produce multiple competitive products like in USA.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 29 May 2014 12:31

Huh? I am confused on the engine now :-?

This again raises the question - where will the $6Bn go?

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby alexis » 29 May 2014 15:15

Hopefully NDA will reverse the decision to invest 6 Bn USD in PAK-FA/ FGFA and buy it off the shelf with local mfg license

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby abhik » 29 May 2014 19:28

I thought the PAK FA was getting a 40,000 lbf engine?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 29 May 2014 19:37

The engine will be installed in production PAK-FA fighter which will be supplied to the Russian Air Force and prospective foreign clients.


So the 117 is what we'll be getting?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 29 May 2014 19:46

$6 billion? So how many PAK-Fas are they giving India for that? I hope that is not a state secret because I don't want you guys killing me if you tell me.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16961
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 29 May 2014 20:43

Some articles have always alluded to:

The T-50 prototype is powered by the 117S engine developed for the Su-35 4+ generation fighter aircraft but the production models are expected to be powered by the AL-41F1 which is basically a more powerful version of the 117S engine with some stealth characteristics. After 2020, the production T-50s will be powered by a new engine still being under development that will increase the aircraft's performance.


So, a 117S, a AL-41F1 (117) and a "new" or a "definitive" engine post 2020.


In past year we have heard from Mr. P that the FGFA = PAK-FA, but meets stringent IAF requirements (so he essentially tossed out the 40+ changes India wanted for the FGFA). And now this.

Is Sukhoi starved for funds due to a lack of Indian participation/funds and are compromising on goals for this plane? The FGFA has all but vanished.

More and more IAF's concerns are coming true.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20292 » 30 May 2014 00:27

My mind is made up, I'm rooting for the JSF to vend to the IAF.

Trouble is, that we have a PAKFA program, an AMCA program and the MMRCA program.

The only thing that can give , is the MMRCA program, which I think should be cancelled on the double and money plumped into the JSF program.

The JSF is the only game in town, which, like the F 16 was for a previous generation, going to be well funded with upgrades throughout its life cycle.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 30 May 2014 02:38

Let's see, $6 billion dollars would get you 50 or so JSF, probaly enough to equip two of your medium A/C carriers. A billion or two more would get you a real nice suite of weapons that would put the Paki's sniper pod to shame, all weather, night time, clouds, no clouds, just get the job done weapons.

Naw, you guys don't want that. You want a plane that will fight mano a mano with machine guns. Have it out at high noon. Long and sleek airframe. Look good, feel good, eh?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests