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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8297
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 30 May 2014 02:58

Nope we want a plane in which at the very least we can put any avionics that we want to. And while we are at it manufacture them at home.

And yes we like our planes to be fast and sleek, because we have enough planes to take care of the Paki snipers. What we don't have are planes to take care of the numerically superior J-11, J-15, Su-35s, JF-17, J-20, J-35. And without the handicap of nationalistic feelings for any fighter, we think F-35s may not be up to the job.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4730
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 30 May 2014 03:55

Russians are struggling with Al-55 engine which was supposed to be just lighter and non-afterburning of AL-31 using same tech and design.

How realistic is it that they'll be able to produce an 117 better performing engine in next 6 years?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 30 May 2014 04:03

^^^^^

Technically, doable.

Finances, which I think is their real problem, will certainly slow them down.

(Political) Motivation, should be low, there is no real threat to them that requires them to *chase* such technologies. So, why spend internal funds?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20292 » 30 May 2014 15:54

indranilroy wrote:Nope we want a plane in which at the very least we can put any avionics that we want to. And while we are at it manufacture them at home.

And yes we like our planes to be fast and sleek, because we have enough planes to take care of the Paki snipers. What we don't have are planes to take care of the numerically superior J-11, J-15, Su-35s, JF-17, J-20, J-35. And without the handicap of nationalistic feelings for any fighter, we think F-35s may not be up to the job.


I think they'll do.

Look first shoot first aided by stealth. Genuine stealth, built on the backs of millions of man hours of work on stealth from the F117, to the B2, to F22 and now JSF.

When we talk about the specifics, let's look at the weight of the karma that is backing the entire genealogy too.

member_28586
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_28586 » 30 May 2014 17:26

NRao wrote:
If you are talking about a basic definition for a 5th generation aircraft, yes it should fly faster & must sustain a super-cruise without after-burners.


Is there a non-basic definition? Or a complex one?

Is there a definition by nation? Or Air Force?

One of the big challenges we have is that there are about 5/6 (depending on if you consider the FGFA to be different than the PAK-FA) efforts among 4 nations. Not much to go by there, on what a good definition is.

One data point we have is the difference between Indian and Russian "expectations" (for lack of a better word for the time being). Indians IDed 40 changes to the PAK-FA (they have made nearly as many to the MKI "to make it fly better"). So, what is that the Russians - who by their own admission "think" that the PAK-FA is equal to a "F-22" - consider a "5th Gen" to be that the Indians are not so happy with.

It certainly is not a super cruise issue. Nor does it stop at that.

Well you might be wondering what PAKFA's faster flight speed has got do with it's 5th Generation tag ?

Very concept of BVR engagements involves primarily high sustained flight speed & concept of LO tech.An aircraft which has high sustained flight speed covers more airspace against opponents low flight speed, hence chances are that PAKFA when engages a F-35A like aircraft, the no-escape zone for F-35 falls shorter against Russians R-77 AAM which are highly kinematic & has bulk seeker heads.


If there is a "no-escape zone for F-35".

Gen Bogged Down clearly stated there would none. So, where did it come from?


How am i suppose to know, what Gen Bogged says about F-35 ? Yes there is more to 5th generation definition & super cruise is on of the feature in 5th GEN.

member_28586
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_28586 » 30 May 2014 18:00

Viv S wrote:
VarunS wrote:Very concept of BVR engagements involves primarily high sustained flight speed & concept of LO tech.An aircraft which has high sustained flight speed covers more airspace against opponents low flight speed, hence chances are that PAKFA when engages a F-35A like aircraft, the no-escape zone for F-35 falls shorter against Russians R-77 AAM which are highly kinematic & has bulk seeker heads.


On the contrary, the most critical factor in air combat, BVR & WVR both, has always been situational awareness. In that context, the F-35A will see more and discern more.

Coming to a head-to-head engagement, the F-35A will retain its first-look-first-shoot advantage.

- Most recent info suggests that the APG-81 will out-range the Byelka, if not jam it outright.

- The ASQ-239 Barracuda over the PAK FA's Himalaya suite is an easy bet as well. The ASQ-239 is based on the ALR-94, the 'most complex piece of equipment' on the F-22, which was operational back when HAL was swapping out Russian kit on the Su-30MKI's with BEL supplied RWRs under Project Vetrivale.

- The F-35 will obviously have a lower RF and IR signature. Aside from making it harder to for enemy radars to detect and track, the R-77 shot will have a lower kill probability because of a reduced effective seeker range.

- The Aim-120D and Meteor will outrange the R-77. Will also have correspondingly large NEZs.

- WVR range; DAS, HMDS & Aim-9X is a dominating combination.


And that's without going into strike/SEAD missions.

__________________________________


I'm not familiar with 'bulk seeker heads'. Could you please explain?


I concur, situational awareness is very much important in WVR & BVR, but PAKFA also has equivalent or unmatched sensor fusion when compared against F-35A or its variants. PAKFA also has similar concept of 360 degree situational awareness.

I beg your pardon to have look at the sensor fusion of PAKFA vs. F-35


1) PAKFA:- Primary Nose Mounted :- Tikhomirov NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka X-BAND AESA, with 1526 T/R modules
VS
1) F-35:- Primary Nose Mounted :- AN/APG-81 X-BAND AESA With 1200+ T/R modules



2) PAKFA:-2 x Side mounted X-band N036B-1-01 AESA radars with 358 T/R modules.
VS
2) F-35:-Absence of side mounted X-band AESA on forward fuselage.


3)PAKFA:- 2 x Leading edge mounted N036L-1-01 L-band AESA for IFF & EW against LO UAV & Aircrafts. Both Active & Passive capability.
VS
3) F-35:-Absence of L-band AESA.



4)PAKFA:-L402 Himalayas ECM uses its own array & even N036-1-01 front mounted & rear mounted array between two engines.
VS
4)F-35:- 10 x AN/ASQ-239 (RF antennas) Barracuda EW.Functions-RWR, Multispectral countermeasures against missile & situational awareness.


5) PAKFA:- 2 x 101KS (OLS-50M) AIRST based on QWIP.101KS-V Front starboard side mounted.101KS-O Dorsal spine mounted with LASER based counter measures.
VS
5) F-35:- AAQ-40 EOTS



6) PAKFA:-101KS-U UV warning sensors.
VS
6) F-35:- 6 x AN/AAQ-37 DAS High res IR sensors.


AN/PG-81 vs. NIIP N036-1-01Byelka

It’s natural for PAKFA & F-35A to have 360 degree situational awareness sensor fusion because both are not all-aspect stealth fighter like F-22, but PAKFA still has got more prototypes to roll-out so its RCS may improve due to increased plan form alignments & structural changes. Your claims on AN/APG-81 & AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda being better than NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka & L402 Himalayas respectively is simply absurd & premature to tell which one is better, without knowing the operational parameters of N036 Byelka & L402 Himalayas.

In fact NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka will be better than AN/APG-81, simply because N036 has larger aperture size & more power aperture than AN/APG-81. N036 is also likely to field LPI. Moreover N036 will have greater FOV than AGP-81 because of larger aperture size & N036 will have 1526 T/R modules against 1200 to 1300 T/R modules in AN/APG-81.On contrary to what you have said it will be NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka that will be outranging AN/APG-81.

The very comparison of AN/APG-81 X-band AESA vs. NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka X-band AESA is flawed because F-35 & its variants are Medium class-Multi role combat 5th GEN aircrafts whereas PAKFA is a heavy class 5th GEN aircraft, hence it is obvious for PAKFA to field a larger power aperture X-band AESA with more T/R modules than F-35’s mid-sized power aperture of AN/APG-81.
The very comparison should be between F-22’s AN/APG-77 vs. PAKFA’s N036 Byelka.


AN/AAQ-37 DAS IR SENSORS vs. OLS-50M QWIP based AIRST

F-35 will definitely have lower RF signature, but not lower IR signature. F-35 bulky airframe will have more skin-friction than PAKFA, then absence of infrared signature management & its PW-F-135 exhaust will be detected by 101KS OLS-50M AIRST. It is possible to detect F-35 passively with PAKFA’s OLS-50M QWIP based AIRST. PAKFA QWIP based AIRST will have higher range of passive IR detection & tracking when compared against band gap AN/AAQ-37 DAS High Resolution IR sensors. PAKFA will have first look & first lock on F-35 in terms of passive IR detection & tracking. One must definitely concur to the fact that 101KS OLS-50M QWIP based AIRST will be a generation ahead of AN/AAQ-37 DAS IR SENSORS which are non-QWIP sensors.
QWIP IR sensors operate at very long wave 15 micron band to detect targets of very few degrees Celsius. QWIP IR sensors are capable of simultaneously imaging in two, three or four infrared bands & they can operate in both LW MW.

AIM-120 B/C/D vs. R-77 Variants.

In BVR combat, it is any ones game. AMRAAM vs.R77 & its variants performance & kill probability Pk depends on various parameters like
>Altitude.
> Size of the rocket motor & quantity of propellant.
>Performance of the seeker & seekers acquisition range on the target.
> Type of control surfaces used (Kinematic Performance of the missile).
> Target RCS.
>ECCM capability of the seeker.
It’s really difficult to predict who will have the upper hand in BVR combat & it would also be absurd to say that AIM-120C or AIM-120D is better than R-77 & its Variants. One must also look into the fact that, longer the missile travels the more kinetic energy it bleeds; hence the missile will lose speed rapidly when turning against highly manoeuvrable targets.
Moreover PAKFA while super-cruising at Mach-1.5 will add some 35% to 40% more range to R-77& its variants, hence the “NO ESCAPE ZONE” for F-35 gets expanded. Whereas, F-35 cannot afford this luxury due to the absence of super-cruise in F-35. PAKFA has a decisive advantage over F-35. Especially in a tail-on engagement, the PAKFA at Mach-1.5 will easily close down the gap between F-35 flying at Mach-0.6, at the rate of one-half or one-quarter of the maximum range, hence virtually F-35 cannot out-manoeuvre a R-77 in tail-on engagement. This is the very point which I was referring to in my previous comment.

Ohh BTW RUSSIAN BULK SEEKER i.e. i meant Multi-spectral seeker heads.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 30 May 2014 18:06

but PAKFA also has equivalent or unmatched sensor fusion


Any URL for that? That list have no relevance to "data fusion".

From open source the PAK-FA has very minimal - if at all - data fusion.

PAKFA also has similar concept of 360 degree situational awareness.


It does.

However, what type?

Even the IAF requested a change in "360" for the FGFA!!! The IAF wanted 360 AESA, which teh PAK-FA apparently does not have.

How am i suppose to know, what Gen Bogged says about F-35 ?


Read up. The article for that particular item was posted on BR (in the JSF thread).
Last edited by NRao on 30 May 2014 18:19, edited 1 time in total.

member_28586
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_28586 » 30 May 2014 18:17

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I am afraid much of the above is conjecture, there is very little in terms of pure data points to point out that the JSF will have better SA than a PAKFA esp considering that the latter has a much bigger radar with even better FOV. To surmise that the JSF will automatically have better sensors or EW is a leap of faith esp when based on dubious reasoning that the US invests a lot more (or arguably has more experience) so it automatically will have a better product. taking such reasoning to conclusions such as jsf > pakfa is fraught with errors, esp in a non American and Indian context.


That's based on the respective industries' actual record.

Russia has never delivered an operational fighter AESA to date compared to 1000+ for NG/Rayt. The Byelka's primary antenna reportedly has 1526 T/R modules compared to some 1650 on the AN/APG-81. While no EW functions have yet been advertised for the former, the latter has successfully jammed fourth gen AESAs during testing.

The fact that India opted to extensively modify the Su-30MKI's avionics with Israeli, French and domestic kit indicates its opinion of the swapped out Russian gear (from the EW suite to the HMS). It hasn't been that long since. And the 'near fifth generation' Su-35 features avionics inferior to US aircraft 'of the same type' according the Russian AF chief.

The PAK FA's propulsion is based on the relatively reliable AL-31. But where the AL-31 has an entire service life of just about 1,500 hours, P&W F100-229 will operate longer before its first depot inspection. The 117 will be the first in the Saturn family to feature FADEC (the technology was fielded by P&W back in 1981).

The problems with the PAK FA's VLO qualities have already been described and they're extensive. And it'll be a welcome change if the Russians can actually deliver western standards of maintainability and operational availability.

However, I WILL concede that the PAK FA has another three prototypes to go. As improbable as it may be, the PAK FA could still theoretically field F119-like LO exhausts, uber-sophisticated radar blockers, AESA tech that has leapfrogged ahead by a decade, a next gen EW system and corresponding sensor fusion, a recessed IRST, higher fit tolerances, durable RAM, a stealthy conformal fourth gen LDP, an SDB analogue, an improved HMDS, high reliability and an affordable life-cycle cost.

If they can deliver on that I'll be as supportive of a PAK FA acquisition (FGFA JV still remaining a farce) as anybody else. But lets have the IAF & MoD verify that before we start forking cash over.


More importantly,
What is established and assured, and far from conjecture is that the PAKFA will certainly outperform the JSF in terms of key flight performance parameters.

From what I gather, one KPP involving the 5gen fighter is that of sustained supercruise, something that the JSF does not have. No speculation here, purely factual.


Well.. carrying that further you could call a supercruising F-15SE, a fifth generation aircraft.


Also, the F-35 is only option if the Indian Navy would like to field a stealth fighter before 2025, since the IAC-2 could take upto 2030 to be combat ready. The F-35B can operate off the Vikramaditya & Vikrant, and possibly even from the IN's four MRSVs (Mistral/Juan Carlos/Dokdo). Can replace the MiG-29Ks entirely post-2030.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AN/APG-81 has 1650 T/R modules ?

AN/APG-81 power aperture is smaller when compared against Tikhomirov NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka X-BAND AESA. AN/APG-81 has around 1200 to 1300 T/R modules not more than that.

Image

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20292 » 30 May 2014 23:54

The difference between the american products and the russian ones, is the difference between apple iphone family and say a Micromax / Lava phone.

Both have similar specs.

But one is clearly more usable and effective, less prone to bugs due to huge volumes, with better user interface.

specs wise, hardware wise and customizability wise, the desi brands win.

usability - the americans win.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 31 May 2014 01:53

It is not an accident that the IAF has opted for french and Israeli "stuff" in the MKI.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 31 May 2014 04:01

Both iPhone and Micromax phone have their uses.

For a country like India, Micromax has brought a revolution in connectivity. iPhone still tops for chasing skirts kind folks though :lol:

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 31 May 2014 04:03

We should pull back from PAK-FA bullshit if Russia sells Su-35 to China.

This bear can either be vegetarian or non-vegetarian, pick a side Russians and stop messing around :x

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 31 May 2014 05:55

indranilroy wrote:But, I do understand aerodynamics a bit. And I can tell you with utmost guarantee that the F-35 is a compromise when it comes to aerodynamics. You can ask anybody else and he will tell you the same things. If the Marine Corps wanted the VTOL version, then LM shouldn't have tried to merge the F-35B version with the other two. It was a damn good attempt. They got it as close as one can possibly get. And for this they should be commended. But that is where the lesson ends.

By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time..


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&p=1664126#p1664126

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 31 May 2014 06:55

brar_w 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 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



Keyword in my point that has been quoted in response to VivS, is 'operational'. AFAIK, the first operational, and productionized ESA FCR was Zaslon. Btw, it is not as though the Russians are starting from scratch when it comes to electronically scanned arrays. It is not unimpressive that they were able to produce a 1st Gen AESA FCR (comparable to the Apg 63v2 by 2007) and this was despite the terrible underinvestment in this area. In recent years, they are producing some rather densely packed arrays.

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.


Didn't say that the US didn't have technical ability, in fact some suggest that the first HMS was a US experiment. My point again is that the Russians found some operational use for a concept that the Americans dismissed. Again, while fielding arguably less technologically cutting edge platforms, they were able to outmatch US designs in envisaged operational capabilities.

Another such capability was the use of IRSTs on fighters.

These are the kind of surprises that are often in store for advocates of US machinery as some kind of "silver bullet", and I am not suggesting that you are one of these, but like I said in an earlier post, this is not too unlike the F-16 vs. MiG-29 or flanker debate of old. Russki maal might not seem all that gee-whiz, but it very often did the job it was intended to do. This is of course, speaking purely in terms of performance.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 31 May 2014 07:10

brar_w wrote:
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.


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.


Or the Pakfa! For AFs that can neither afford the f-22 or the F-35 or for nations that want to follow a relatively independent foreign policy or for nations that have a very large threat scenarios.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 31 May 2014 07:47

Viv S wrote:We agree on something at least. :)


Yes, let us leave it at that - this back and forth will go on eternally otherwise. Btw, just fyi:

The ZSh-10 is just the helmet iirc, the HMDS has been on the cards since day 1. There was an image posted on keypubs by flateric which I cannot now find.

IIRC, the MiG-35 OLS (OLS-K) did have a ground targeting capability via a downward facing optical locator.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9649
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2014 09:38

Cain Marko wrote:
Or the Pak Fa! For AFs that can neither afford the f-22 or the F-35 or for nations that want to follow a relatively independent foreign policy or for nations that have a very large threat scenarios.


I cannot say whether the PAKFA will be good in that market. I do not know its cost, its capability and by when will it be available in substantial numbers with a full set of capability and new engines. Looking at fifth gen programs around the world, those that want yet another 5th gen are making it for themselves (China,Turkey, South Korea(?), Japan etc). Others simply do not have the pocket to buy 5th gen capability. The F-35 should corner a sizable majority of the 5th gen market. The PAKFA is a Russian specific program while the F-35 is designed with partner interoperability in mind with many partners with diverse needs and capabilities. UAI is also a game changer here especially with european designers picking it up for future weapon designs. Threat scenarios are also relative. The Japanese, South Koreans, USN, USAF, RAAF, Singapore all plan to acquire 5th gen to counter the higher variants of the flanker and 5th gen J-20 and J-31 as well as the Integrated Aerial defense platforms on the ground. A high capability, high cost program must have a lot of interoperability and varried vendor sources to choose from. The F-35 pretty much from the start (Block 3F for some features and block 4 for others) will have the Meteor, JSM/NSM and ASRAAM integration along with a host of other options ranging from long range data links to other things. Majority of the future european and US weapons developed by partnered nations (all of the US weapons) will be with the UAI interface, which would then mean just store separation tests for the F-35 Operational capability. Nothing else would be required to integrate new weapons. As a reference the Meteor integration onto the F-35 is probably a 5 year process for MBDA and lockheed. In fact if you count in early feasibility studies it probably took longer given that both the meteor and the F-35 are new systems and had their software in development at the same time.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/u/uai.htm
http://www.dsp.dla.mil/APP_UIL/content/ ... -07-05.pdf (Pg 21 onwards)
Last edited by brar_w on 31 May 2014 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 31 May 2014 10:01

Back in early 90's when Flanker was not exported they had the same question who needs such huge fighter other than SU and Warsaw , An Indian Air Chief once stated there was no role for Flanker in IAF.

Fast forward 20 years and we see world wide customer of Flanker , Many using SU-30 baseline model and many others using components made from HAL.

Western countries bounded by NATO alliance will buy F-35 they dont have any choice as West is not building a 5th gen Fighter but most Flanker customers today in next 20-25 years are potential FGFA/PAK-FA customers when exportable version of FGFA available it would be a unique chance for India-Russia to export a fighter jointly developed by them and not just key components as we do now.

Potentially even moving a part of production line in India to make it cost competitive the potential is very huge and market much bigger since 5th Gen fighter has few makers and many buyers in long run , Agurs well for both countries.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2014 10:14

VarunS wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AN/APG-81 has 1650 T/R modules ?

AN/APG-81 power aperture is smaller when compared against Tikhomirov NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka X-BAND AESA. AN/APG-81 has around 1200 to 1300 T/R modules not more than that.



You're starting out with a basic misconception. Larger antenna equates to greater power and more TR modules only when a similar level of tech is in play. Which isn't the case here - the US is at least a generation ahead of the Russians when it comes to AESA tech.

With regard to the exact number of the APG-81, no need to speculate. Just count.


Image

(High Resolution Pic)


^^ Approx 1650 modules.

Edit: 1676 TR modules from Bw's pic below.
Last edited by Viv S on 31 May 2014 10:28, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9649
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2014 10:16

3)PAKFA:- 2 x Leading edge mounted N036L-1-01 L-band AESA for IFF & EW against LO UAV & Aircrafts. Both Active & Passive capability.
VS
3) F-35:-Absence of L-band AESA.


IFF (Interrogate and transponder etc) functions with L band and other band arrays is pretty standard on both the F-22 and F-35. EW suite would be assisted by the L band arrays as is standard practice. The function of an EW suite is to emit (1) at a frequency in order to create so much "noise" as to overwhelm the detecting sensor. The detecting sensor for ALL fighters either 4th or 5th gen is in the X band, therefore the EW would have to heavily target that range. For other radars jamming the L band may be more beneficial (AEW, A2G etc) but for a Fighter-fighter jamming its not as important as the X band. The second function of the EW suite is to passively detect, track and target active emissions either from the ground or from the air (fighters and bombers). There is no indication that any western or chinese fighter will have an L band FCR. That the modern EW suites especially those that have followed since the -94 can cue a missile without the main radar. Try doing that with anything other than X band information. The L Band sensors are electronically scanning but they are not radars like the main FCR or the rear aspect X band radar for example which requires huge amount of power, cooling and processing while the latter wing embedded elements do not require as much and are there for IFF and other things which assists the Main radar and the computers in tracking and detecting aircraft (stealth or otherwise). This architecture is present on all 4.5 th and 5th gen fighters currently in produciton or operational.

This is a proper aerial L band sensor

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... s/mesa.pdf

Computer processing of the X- and L-band signals enable detection of critical targets such as hostile stealth aircraft. This advanced radar system may have a maximum detection range of 400 kilometers. Byelka also includes an advanced data-link to exchange radar information between aircraft formations.


This is exactly how the F-22, F-35 and other advanced 4.5 gen aircraft such as the rafale use their embedded antennas and the active sensors in combinations to achieve detection and targeting information.

The Lightning II antenna suite includes 15 configurations for the three F-35 variants operating at UHF Satcom and LOS, L-band, S-band, C-band and radar altimeter. The integrated body suite qualification was completed in June 2005 and intial production has begun.


http://www.ballaerospace.com/page.jsp?page=70

Ball Aerospace - communications, navigation and integration (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas in each aircraft)


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

The integrated nature of the architecture on the F-35 means that one cannot look at the CNI in isolation, or the EW suite in isolation from the CNI or the Apg-81, DAS etc. Its just not how its designed to operate. They are complementary systems with full integration

F-35 Electronic Warfare Suite: More Than Self-Protection

ntegration of EW sensors with the F-35's AN/APG 81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), communications and electro-optical distributed aperture systems puts offensive, defensive, coms and data-gathering sensors at the service of the pilot to process onboard and offboard data. The EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. The F-35's high-gain, electronically steered radar array provides jamming support under the control of the EW system. Because the AESA array provides very directional radio frequency (RF) output, the JSF could target a very small area and selectively jam it, which enhances survivability by reducing electronic emissions.
Integration of the EW system's elements is intended to reduce system volume and power requirements and increase affordability. But it also can aid survivability, compared with federated systems. Integrating the radar warning and countermeasures functions, for example, shortens response time. "The [systems'] handshake is intimate," Branyan says.


Although the RF-based EW system and infrared (IR) -based EODAS system are built to run separately in different frequency domains, they are tied together at the ICP level. Instead of having the pilot operate EW and IR displays separately to detect threats with the individual sensors, "the airplane can deploy the optimal countermeasures with or without pilot action," Branyan says. This level of automation and improved situational awareness shortens the timeline of detection and response.
The integrated core processor aggregates and correlates multisource data and formulates solutions for presentation to the pilot, mixing the best data from each sensor. This maximizes detection ranges and provides the pilot options to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.






Image


The Apg-81 is one of the larger western AESA radars. The F-16 had a limitation size and cooling abilities therefore both the RACR and the SABR were limited to about a 1000 elements in order to keep integration costs as low as possible (as opposed to completely gutting the current cooling solutions and adding cost). The Rafale has a 800-1000 element AESA with the Gripen having a 1000 element AESA. The typhoon most likely has the largest AESA out of the european fighters. Stepping out of the TR MODULE comparison exercise (which has limited value as Viv has correctly pointed out) there are so many other metrics to judge the capability of a radar. Metrics that are far more environment such as rates, down times, MTBF, cost, software capability and the hardware flexibility to accomodate it, multi mission capability, electronic warfare capability, LPI performance etc. We know that the -81 had quite a high standard of requirement in most of these metrics given what had been achieved by the Apg-77 baseline and through block increments. As any engineer working at high end production in aerospace, automobiles or other industries will tell you such capability depends upon the critical aspect of how a technology is taken out of the lab and industrialized. Not only do you have to design things into the hardware at the lab stage but you also have to be able to take it out, send it to your industry and mass produce it. The transition is very important and one reason why the Apg-81 MTBF and critical failure rates requirements were so tough (to a point where the entire nose assembly could be sealed as the radar was never required to have its TR modules replaced throughout the life of the airframe) was because massive efforts costing hundreds of millions of dollars had been succesfully made to industrialize the technology on a large scale. Same applies for stealth, where having the ability to design stealth in a lab or in a wind tunnel model is poles apart from having a proven capability to industrialize it with the same level of quality, capability and at a reasonable cost.

Judging sensor fusion by looking at the sensors is a rather poor way to acheive it. Sensor fusion is all about the system integration and software plans as well as the overall architecture choice incorporated to acheive the same. The Block 60 F-16 for example has an AESA, IRST, Active jamming in its electronic warfare package, has the latest FLIR and RWR's. Its architecture however is not nearly as impressive or ambitious as that of the F-35's. Same goes for the F-18E/F.

Keyword in my point that has been quoted in response to VivS, is 'operational'. AFAIK, the first operational, and productionized ESA FCR was Zaslon. Btw, it is not as though the Russians are starting from scratch when it comes to electronically scanned arrays. It is not unimpressive that they were able to produce a 1st Gen AESA FCR (comparable to the Apg 63v2 by 2007) and this was despite the terrible underinvestment in this area. In recent years, they are producing some rather densely packed arrays.


Electronics, their capability and performance can be gauged from the industrial strenght of the designers and makers of the systems. The first AESA for a fighter was flying in the mid to late 90s and the F-15 AESA was flying on operational birds around 1999. At the same time the Apg-77 was also flying in full production representative F-22's just a few years later. Generational shifts in AESA tech (various components) have taken place in the US due to a high degree of spending between programs. For example raytheon has gone through 2 or three design phases for their Gallium Arsenide TR modules, and are already on their second phase of the Gallium Nitride elements having won massive contracts to industrialize the technology for the mega programs that are in development in the Air and Missile defense radar and the Next generation jammer. Northrop gained the high end tech for AESA after acquiring Westinghouse which had the most level of research on ESA in the west. They have also gone in and industrialized AESA at a scale that is no where else to be seen outside of Raytheon. The Apg-81 represents the third generation of TR module technology and back end for Northrop. They are also in the gallium nitride world with contracts to produce the Gator radar. Technology, system integration and capability comes with expereince. Northrop has produced AESA for years and done so to the customers satisfaction. They have a very high amount of money being infused into their AESA projects which i do not see elsewhere. Not saying the russians are bad or trying to compare the two. My point was only to dismiss the claim that the US radar designers were caught sleeping and therefore required massive boosts in ESA funding or technology to catch up of sort. Their ESA development was for separate products and as mentioned highly complex and capable ESA solutions were delivered for various weapons throughout the 80's, 90's, and in the new millenium. Massive amount of spending on this technology did not stop post the cold war like it did in Soviet Union. As a matter of fact the spending actually increased with AESA being industrialized to a point where the entire fleet would be AESA enabled. The Super hornet fleet is 100% AESA, The F-22 fleet is 100% AESA, Their are 100 F-35's flying with AESA, Numerous F-15's are flying with AESA and contracts have been handed out for a few hundred F-16's to receive AESA. Just for reference, Raytheon a company that did not win any radar contract for a 5th gen fighter was in 2002 averaging around 10,000 T-R module production capacity for military AESA radars per month.Capability is a function of what you put in. No way around that.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... de-388984/
Last edited by brar_w on 31 May 2014 19:53, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2014 14:56

VarunS wrote:I concur, situational awareness is very much important in WVR & BVR, but PAKFA also has equivalent or unmatched sensor fusion when compared against F-35A or its variants. PAKFA also has similar concept of 360 degree situational awareness.

I beg your pardon to have look at the sensor fusion of PAKFA vs. F-35


What you've posted is the aircraft's sensor mix, NOT sensor fusion. Sensor fusion has to do with the 10 million lines of code on the F-35 (of which 4.5 million relate to 'mission systems') that are scheduled to take another four years to complete, and not with the number of sensors it fields.


1) PAKFA:- Primary Nose Mounted :- Tikhomirov NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka X-BAND AESA, with 1526 T/R modules
VS
1) F-35:- Primary Nose Mounted :- AN/APG-81 X-BAND AESA With 1200+ T/R modules


1650+ T/R modules on the APG-81.

2) PAKFA:-2 x Side mounted X-band N036B-1-01 AESA radars with 358 T/R modules.
VS
2) F-35:-Absence of side mounted X-band AESA on forward fuselage.


Accepted.

3)PAKFA:- 2 x Leading edge mounted N036L-1-01 L-band AESA for IFF & EW against LO UAV & Aircrafts. Both Active & Passive capability.
VS
3) F-35:-Absence of L-band AESA.


The F-35 HAS L-band antennas as did the F-22.

5) PAKFA:- 2 x 101KS (OLS-50M) AIRST based on QWIP.101KS-V Front starboard side mounted.101KS-O Dorsal spine mounted with LASER based counter measures.


DIRCM is available on the F-35 as well though it hasn't been ordered YET (likely with Block 5).

All the PAK FA's electro-optical sensors bulge out of the airframe, in contrast to the F-35 where there's been a focus on retaining the aircraft's VLO capability. For laser targeting the PAK FA will have to employ an entirely external LDP.

It’s natural for PAKFA & F-35A to have 360 degree situational awareness sensor fusion because both are not all-aspect stealth fighter like F-22, but PAKFA still has got more prototypes to roll-out so its RCS may improve due to increased plan form alignments & structural changes.


The future prototypes and production will continue to lack S-ducts and have EO bulbs all over the place. How much lower its RCS than say a clean Super Hornet, remains to be seen.

Your claims on AN/APG-81 & AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda being better than NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka & L402 Himalayas respectively is simply absurd & premature to tell which one is better, without knowing the operational parameters of N036 Byelka & L402 Himalayas.


Any claim of the PAK FA fielding a better avionics kit than the Tejas Mk2 is also absurd and premature. And yet...

(To remind folks again, it was just ten years back that we we began swapping out Russian gear on the Su-30MKI for DRDO components delivered by BEL.)

In fact NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka will be better than AN/APG-81, simply because N036 has larger aperture size & more power aperture than AN/APG-81. N036 is also likely to field LPI. Moreover N036 will have greater FOV than AGP-81 because of larger aperture size & N036 will have 1526 T/R modules against 1200 to 1300 T/R modules in AN/APG-81.On contrary to what you have said it will be NIIP N036-1-01 Byelka that will be outranging AN/APG-81.


Larger FoV yes. Longer range no.

F-35 will definitely have lower RF signature, but not lower IR signature. F-35 bulky airframe will have more skin-friction than PAKFA, then absence of infrared signature management & its PW-F-135 exhaust will be detected by 101KS OLS-50M AIRST.


I suggest you spend some time going through BRF's 'JSF thread'.

The F-35 has an active cooling system (employing fuel as the coolant) to counter skin friction. The F135 has (1) a far higher bypass ratio than the F119 (and the 117), (2) its embedded deep in the airframe thus insulating it and (3) the nozzle is evolution of the LOAN exhaust trialed on the F-16.

And that's just the commonly known aspects of the IR signature not including the impact of materials employed for thermal barrier coating, use of ceramic matrix composites, the efficacy of the airframe's IR topcoat and the F135's base internal design (intended for LO at conception).

It is possible to detect F-35 passively with PAKFA’s OLS-50M QWIP based AIRST. PAKFA QWIP based AIRST will have higher range of passive IR detection & tracking when compared against band gap AN/AAQ-37 DAS High Resolution IR sensors. PAKFA will have first look & first lock on F-35 in terms of passive IR detection & tracking. One must definitely concur to the fact that 101KS OLS-50M QWIP based AIRST will be a generation ahead of AN/AAQ-37 DAS IR SENSORS which are non-QWIP sensors.


The OLS-50M is an IRST employing a scanning array. Its absurd to compare it to a system employing a staring FPA. They both perform different functions.

QWIP IR sensors operate at very long wave 15 micron band to detect targets of very few degrees Celsius. QWIP IR sensors are capable of simultaneously imaging in two, three or four infrared bands & they can operate in both LW MW.


Would you care to guess where QWIP technology originated? (Hint: its not Russia) As of now QWIP is still emerging technology and production versions in the megapixel range resolution are not available. The EOTS has been designed to be modular and as and when the tech matures it'll be incorporated in later production blocks.

Given that Russian domestic LDPs are second generation (Sapsan) and that its license producing 3rd gen Damocles pod for the Su-30SM/Su-34, assuming its EO tech will somehow leapfrog the US & Israel (delivering 4th gen systems since 2005 & 2008 respectively) is... highly optimistic to put it mildly.

AIM-120 B/C/D vs. R-77 Variants.

In BVR combat, it is any ones game. AMRAAM vs.R77 & its variants performance & kill probability Pk depends on various parameters like


The Aim-120D has a significantly higher base range than the R-77. At all altitudes and ranges it'll retain a higher kill probability.

To add to which the F-35 can also be equipped with the MBDA Meteor and the Rafael Python-6. The latter is a hit-to-kill missile with dual IR/RF seeker with a multi-pulse motor, Mach 5.5 speed and range comparable to the Meteor (in excess of the Aim-120C).

It’s really difficult to predict who will have the upper hand in BVR combat


Its not really. The F-35 has a far lower RCS, superior EW suite and better radar.

Moreover PAKFA while super-cruising at Mach-1.5 will add some 35% to 40% more range to R-77& its variants, hence the “NO ESCAPE ZONE” for F-35 gets expanded. Whereas, F-35 cannot afford this luxury due to the absence of super-cruise in F-35. PAKFA has a decisive advantage over F-35. Especially in a tail-on engagement, the PAKFA at Mach-1.5 will easily close down the gap between F-35 flying at Mach-0.6, at the rate of one-half or one-quarter of the maximum range, hence virtually F-35 cannot out-manoeuvre a R-77 in tail-on engagement.


No fighter flies at Mach 0.6 with a hostile aircraft in pursuit though yes the launch platform will impart greater energy to the missile. On the flip-side the PAK FA cannot launch at the same range as the F-35 because the latter's lower RCS will result in a hugely reduced missile seeker range.

Ohh BTW RUSSIAN BULK SEEKER i.e. i meant Multi-spectral seeker heads.


In development at Rafael/Raytheon. And already fielded on the SDB-II.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2014 15:42

indranilroy wrote:Nope we want a plane in which at the very least we can put any avionics that we want to. And while we are at it manufacture them at home.


Agreed. But that aircraft is the AMCA.

And yes we like our planes to be fast and sleek, because we have enough planes to take care of the Paki snipers. What we don't have are planes to take care of the numerically superior J-11, J-15, Su-35s, JF-17, J-20, J-35. And without the handicap of nationalistic feelings for any fighter, we think F-35s may not be up to the job.


The US has shut down its F-22 assembly line after just 187 units being delivered thus banking on the F-35 to take on the Chinese. The F-35 will comfortably handle itself against J-20s and J-31s.

The more important question is what do we employ against the Chinese IADS or ground targets on either front? The F-35 still remains a tough customer at air-to-air but the PAK FA is genuinely hampered in the strike role.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2014 15:49

Cain Marko wrote:Didn't say that the US didn't have technical ability, in fact some suggest that the first HMS was a US experiment. My point again is that the Russians found some operational use for a concept that the Americans dismissed. Again, while fielding arguably less technologically cutting edge platforms, they were able to outmatch US designs in envisaged operational capabilities.

Another such capability was the use of IRSTs on fighters.


IRST was first fielded by the USAF in the early 60s IIRC. Also, on the F-14 a decade later.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 31 May 2014 16:41

The 140+ FGFAs aren't going to be used primarily as strike aircraft in the manner that the JSF is intended,replacing even the A-10 tank buster. They will be used to sanitise the skies of any enemy aircraft,beyond the country's air space and "knock down doors" of enemy ADs allowing lesser stealthy aircraft equipped with PGMs to take out key targets.The 270+ Flanker variants,including the Super Sukhois to come and the MMRCA/Rafale,plus the upgraded M-2000s,MIG-29s,Jags,will perform that role. The LCAs too will replace and expand the role that the MIG-21s earlier performed with their light multi-role capability.Therefore,there is no need for a JSF to perform close support unlike the US's requirement having retired its A-10s,Tejas will do the business.

The IAF is not putting all its eggs in just two baskets,FG-22 and JSF.I believe that ours is a safer option,with a few extra types,in the future the MMRCA and LCA assisting the FGFA and Flankers,with AMCA replacing the 4++ legacy upgraded aircraft.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Sumeet » 31 May 2014 17:08

Philip sanitizing of sky and knocking down most sophisticated Integrated Air Defence system with PGM strike is what F-22 is tasked with. F-22 can fire JDAM in strike role.

That is precisely what PAK-FA should have been designed for. I mean Russia has one of the most feared and sophisticated IADS in form of S-400 system, it should have been able to come up with an all aspect stealth design to penetrate deep enough to conduct a safe strike at these systems.

F-22 lacks EO-DAS and EOTs of JSF yet thanks to highly accurate all passive geo location capability of ALR-94 it can passively attack highly valued targets on land.


Rafale/MRCA, Su-30MKI, Super Sukhoi, LCA etc are not meant to penetrate into sophisticated IADS like S-400.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9649
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2014 17:45

F-22 lacks EO-DAS and EOTs of JSF yet thanks to highly accurate all passive geo location capability of ALR-94 it can passively attack highly valued targets on land.


The reason why these sensors are not required for the f-22 to fulfill the SEAD role is because it will be assisted by the F-35 with all its sensors and the two would eventually be able to share all the targeting and sensor information in real time through MADL. Passive geolocation and targeting deals with just one aspect of the Integrated Air defense threat, its not possible to destroy everything using such techniques or for that matter using weapons like JASSM or Storm shadow or 200km missiles. The number of passive and "silent" elements in an IADS have grown exponentially in the latest systems and net-centricity has opened up great resources to advanced air defense networks therefore air forces have to get to the battlefield with IR sensors to discriminate and target them. The F-35 is designed with these complexities in mind (so have been the later block F-16's, Rafales, Gripens, Typhoons etc), it could also hang around at 45K altitude and drop SDB's all day using its EW suite to pick emitting threats, but that would not solve the problem of an IAD in the modern context. The issues highlighting in SEAD in recent conflicts have as much to do with "getting to the fight" as with " how to pick your targets". Modern systems are mobile, stealthy, and networked. You cannot disable them by lobbing a 500 nm standoff weapon using satellite pictures and sat intelligence or having ELINT aircraft on the fringe feeding strike groups armed with stand off weapons

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 31 May 2014 18:39

Philip wrote:The 140+ FGFAs aren't going to be used primarily as strike aircraft in the manner that the JSF is intended,replacing even the A-10 tank buster.


The F-35 is intended to perform the same mission set as the F-16, with the addition of EW and deep strike.

If the current A-10 retirement proposal goes through, CAS will continue to be delivered by F-16C/Ds and F-15Es. And the F-35A will do so in same manner i.e PGMs from medium altitude.

They will be used to sanitise the skies of any enemy aircraft,beyond the country's air space and "knock down doors" of enemy ADs allowing lesser stealthy aircraft equipped with PGMs to take out key targets.


Yeah, that's what EVERY stealth fighter in development or service is designed to do, including the F-22. The difference is the F-35 can do both tasks well enough while the PAK FA can do only the former. Without genuine VLO characteristics and a correspondingly good EW suite, going after a high end IADS system is folly.

Especially against a system that the Russians advertise as 'anti-stealth' i.e. S-400, for an aircraft that's doesn't have a lot of stealth to begin with i.e. PAK FA.

The 270+ Flanker variants,including the Super Sukhois to come and the MMRCA/Rafale,plus the upgraded M-2000s,MIG-29s,Jags,will perform that role. The LCAs too will replace and expand the role that the MIG-21s earlier performed with their light multi-role capability.Therefore,there is no need for a JSF to perform close support unlike the US's requirement having retired its A-10s,Tejas will do the business.


Only as long as the CAS call doesn't come from a zone with an active SAM threat.

The IAF is not putting all its eggs in just two baskets,FG-22 and JSF.I believe that ours is a safer option,with a few extra types,in the future the MMRCA and LCA assisting the FGFA and Flankers,with AMCA replacing the 4++ legacy upgraded aircraft.


We heard the IAF's opinion of the PAK FA not too long ago. The F-35 is the only aircraft that can replace both the Rafale and PAK FA, both in terms of capability and cost (actually enhances capability).

Cuts the circus of fighters operational in 2030 to just three with the AMCA gearing up to replace the oldest Su-30MKIs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 31 May 2014 19:25

The 140+ FGFAs aren't going to be used primarily as strike aircraft


I have asked this question before: Do we *know* if teh the Russians are going to provide India with the threat libraries for the defensive systems they supply to the Chinese (SX00)?

The French have declined to do so for the Rafale sale.

Seems to me there is plenty of work for Indians to do *after* the $30 billion they spend on the FGFA or per Mr. P, the PAK-FA.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20317 » 31 May 2014 22:16

Who has promised the threat libraries to India for any of the weapons deployed around India.

If the Russians and French have denied or kept mum then is it possible that, that is normal?

On second thought Amerikhans can be expected to share threat libraries with Brits/Aussies/Israelis/Pakis.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9649
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2014 22:36

British, Aussie, Israelis probably, The Pakis are not going to get anything remotely cutting edge given their proximity to china. They won't get advanced SAM's, or the F-35 and they know it (hence you see retards drooling over the J-20 and J-31 fighters all over the internet).

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4338
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby kit » 31 May 2014 22:49

How would an unmanned LCA play out .like the unmanned F16 in SEAD ?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_26622 » 31 May 2014 22:51

Here is what I see on threat management

Pakistan - Russian Su-30 with LCA combo is more than sufficient to roll them over ten times. Pakis are anyways in a pile of sh*t so let's avoid joining them there. Obviously, they are working hard to make us jump in their sh*t pile.

China - Focus on Deterrence. Anything of Russian origin will be suspect given Rusi-Chini exchanges (example SU-35 and S-3XX systems). So buying PAKFA is kind of foolish. Buying dressed up old hag Rafale will not work either given Chinese stealth advances. Better to save the 6 billion and buy JSF which is available today, not 2020. We should give up day dreaming of entering Chinese territory unless we have 1000 LCA's to defend our turf.

If we ever enter in a conflict with China, Russia will take a neutral stand (and supply equipment to both sides for $$$). US is a better bet as they will help directly or in-directly. So buying JSF makes 100% sense. US will be ready to supplement us airframes and ordnance, anything to weaken their rival China. Reading up on WWII will help on figuring out alliances, based on interests not technology.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9649
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 31 May 2014 23:02

kit wrote:How would an unmanned LCA play out .like the unmanned F16 in SEAD ?


Who is planning on using an unmanned F-16 in SEAD?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby member_20317 » 31 May 2014 23:09

brar_w wrote:British, Aussie, Israelis probably, The Pakis are not going to get anything remotely cutting edge given their proximity to china. They won't get advanced SAM's, or the F-35 and they know it (hence you see retards drooling over the J-20 and J-31 fighters all over the internet).


Pakis aren't exactly retards. They are smart enough to convert their Harpoons for land attack. Not exactly as sophisticated library build up overtime, but still quite convenient.

But why 'probably' for the other three of the TFTA caste. One TFTA drools over F-35 and you don't want to sell it to them.

How come SDRE Indians become more eligible for an F-35 but not the only country that threatens India when protected by the 3.5 friends.

What changed while I was away? RM ji is beginning to sound real.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 31 May 2014 23:29

What changed while I was away? RM ji is beginning to sound real

Any party that comes at the center is smothered and slowly pushed in apparently most civilized manner to the left of center. This background stirring and shaking by interested parties of all types is to make betting away of strategic interests and creating power vacuum on one hand, and passing of extreme leftists and other interest groups as merely leftists and normal and civilized.

Modi was targeted immediately after coming to power in Gujarat and continuously. While same civilized pretenders seem to be extremely selective and partial on many issues.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 31 May 2014 23:34

ravi_g wrote:Who has promised the threat libraries to India for any of the weapons deployed around India.

If the Russians and French have denied or kept mum then is it possible that, that is normal?

On second thought Amerikhans can be expected to share threat libraries with Brits/Aussies/Israelis/Pakis.


What has any of this to do with the PAK-FA/FGFA vs. S-X00?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 31 May 2014 23:58

ravi_g wrote:Who has promised the threat libraries to India for any of the weapons deployed around India.

If the Russians and French have denied or kept mum then is it possible that, that is normal?

On second thought Amerikhans can be expected to share threat libraries with Brits/Aussies/Israelis/Pakis.

A lot of actual offensive weaponry of pakis during kargil war was sold/gifted/ by USA as also Europe. Not to mention political support of doing equal==equal and efforts to stop war which was actually cross border infiltration and barbarism within Indian borders by munna paki.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4704
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Jun 2014 01:50

NRao wrote:
The 140+ FGFAs aren't going to be used primarily as strike aircraft


I have asked this question before: Do we *know* if teh the Russians are going to provide India with the threat libraries for the defensive systems they supply to the Chinese (SX00)?

The French have declined to do so for the Rafale sale.

Seems to me there is plenty of work for Indians to do *after* the $30 billion they spend on the FGFA or per Mr. P, the PAK-FA.



Actually, is it even possible to "know" such things? Hardly think we are going to be privy to what would most certainly be considered classified infor. It would hardly serve anybody's interest (other than curious BRfites') for Russia to make such a thing public when it is selling the h/w to China.

I would however, venture a guess that such things are not out of the realm of possibility within the scope of Indo-Russian exchanges.

The best way to engage both the Russians and the US while balancing China and Japan is anybody's guess and certainly, the PMO and For. Ministry has their work cut out for them. Still, if one were to speculate, I'd like to see India engage Russia in terms of the Pakfa and some strategic goodies while working with US (possibly via Israel) on anti Russian/Chinese made h/w such as SAMs, BMD and assorted defense systems aimed at supersonic cruise/hybrid missiles and even Growler, Prowler types.

And to a large extent this is exactly what is happening, but it can be intensified a bit perhaps.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 01 Jun 2014 02:07, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16979
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 01 Jun 2014 04:01

Cain Marko wrote:Actually, is it even possible to "know" such things? Hardly think we are going to be privy to what would most certainly be considered classified infor. It would hardly serve anybody's interest (other than curious BRfites') for Russia to make such a thing public when it is selling the h/w to China.


The contents of a library are certainly classified, but obtaining one - why would that be classified? (India - Russia can always say they did exchange a library without informing what was in it. Possible.) (Of course if the Chinese S is ineffective then that cat would be out of the bag.)

I would however, venture a guess that such things are not out of the realm of possibility within the scope of Indo-Russian exchanges.


But, that is speculation. And, not good news to the Chinese.

The best way to engage both the Russians and the US while balancing China and Japan is anybody's guess and certainly, the PMO and For. Ministry has their work cut out for them. Still, if one were to speculate, I'd like to see India engage Russia in terms of the Pakfa and some strategic goodies while working with US (possibly via Israel) on anti Russian/Chinese made h/w such as SAMs, BMD and assorted defense systems aimed at supersonic cruise/hybrid missiles and even Growler, Prowler types.


??????

Philip claimed that the PAK-FA would be used to "knock down doors" - that door is either the S-300 or S-400 (perhaps a few other gizmos). Which is why i asked the question.

The library, in question, is between India and Russia or plain good old India. The US/Israel/japan have absolutely no impact on it unless they decide to share what they know about the S-300/400.

I for one do not expect anyone to share such libraries. And if Russia were to share such information I am not too sure what the consequences would be for them with Russia - not good for sure.

I would expect a chip in there to avoid Russian air crafts.

But from an Indian PoV I am fairly confident that India has built such a library for the treats they face all over - these threats are not country specific. One goes about collecting what all they can and place it in teh library.

And to a large extent this is exactly what is happening, but it can be intensified a bit perhaps.


?????? Do not think so, but not relevant to this discussion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 01 Jun 2014 05:29

If you read between the lines in the reams of JSF data available,including the latest posts,Israeli AF,etc.,increasingly,stealth is being nibbled away as new countermeasures appear.That's why there is such a great emphasis on EW in the US.Statements from the top US generals ("without the F-22,the JSF is irrelevant","needs Growlers",etc.).Packs of Growlers being recommended to accompany strike aircraft including the JSF.The Israelis have been so successful in their aerial missions because of their huge superiority in EW over their neighbours. It would be interesting to see what they add to the JSF and how they will deploy it in combat,most certainly along with other legacy aircraft .

In the Indian context,the IAF has both a qualitative and quantitative advantage over Pak,and we presume a better EW warfare advantage too,Israeli pods,etc. When it comes to China and the scenario of a "JV" between China and Pak,the situation changes.China has the superiority in numbers ,but qualitatively,in its Russian eqpt. and clones,inferior.This is why it is trying to obtain the SU-35,to increase capability against the US and its allies primarily and to match our MKIs. To deal with both,we need both numbers and quality.Affordable 4+,4++ and 5th-gen fighters ,with the IAF's strength raised by 20-25% at least. The JSF's cost factor,both acquisition and maintenance,still undeterminable,except that it has been rising and rising,makes it impossible for the IAF to consider acquiring,when there are much cheaper 4++ gen alternatives available for the strike role. If the LCA arrives in large numbers with ramped up production,the close-support role will have been plugged,at very low cost,if an LCA costs just $25M+ as opposed to the current $100-130+M tag for a JSF.As costs have been rising,the orders from allies have been drastically reduced too,which in effect will ultimately raise unit costs unless the US buys it in bulk.Here,the US def. budget has also been downsized considerably as it exits its unsuccessful expeditionary wars,reducing its inventory significantly.

As Adm. Greenert ,CNO of the USN has said,the time has come for "payload centric warfare ,not platform centric",with the advent of LR PGMs and NCW and the huge US demand for delivering ordnance on the battlefield,where in recent conflicts,more ordnance has been dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan than was dropped in WW2 and Vietnam.The massive salvoes of Tomahawk missiles in the Libyan campaign from just one US SSGN is a case in point. There are many ways to skin the cat.The FGFA's role in our context will primarily be to exterminate any enemy aircraft in the sky and dominate the airspace over any theatre of war that we are engaged in.We are not going to use it as tank busters,strafing enemy troops,etc.The bird has been planned to carry 400KM AAMs capable of shooting down enemy AWACS,and the like.

As far as its AD with Russian SAMs are concerned and their capability,one can only speculate.The S-300s/400s will be mainly used for ABM defence ,defending key N-command centres, etc.What level of capability the Russia have or will provide is another Q.However,in general,the Russians have always given India a level of capability above that given to China in similar weapon systems.Our desi improvements integrating western tech to Russian platforms has maintained the edge.One will know only after a conflict or clash.That Israel has thus far successfully lobbied Russia against transfers of such AD weapons to its enemies like Iran,etc.,is an indication as to how seriously the Israelis co0nsider Russian AD systems.Similarly,until stealth aircraft from the east and west face off in actual combat ,many of the performance characteristics which are classified by both sides ,any evaluation based upon current info may be significantly flawed,either way.

One has no doubt that the FGFA will contain an EW package that meets the requirements of its end users in addition to its stealth package.Perhaps even the development of Flanker "Growler" equivs. may appear to augment penetration capability for both stealth and non-stealth 4th-gen aircraft.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests