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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 16:15

May be at some stage when USAF and IAF trains post 2020 we might see a duel between FGFA and F-35 , Depending if IAF thinks it worth the duel.

IIRC when with MKI duel with F-15/F-16 IAF had switched off the TVC .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 16:20

Who is talking about a Duel between the two fighters? Were we not talking about an outright sale?

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 18:19

Sale would happen if Russia or India is willing to sell from substantial downgrade version and NATO allies are willing to buy , There are some countries like Finland , Greece that operate modern Russian SAM and US has bought some old model Flanker and Mig-29 for aggressor role

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 18:21

Dhananjay wrote:Russia is stabbing Bharat in back by supplying RD-93, Mi-35 to porkis and S-300/400 to cheen!


Its not doing anything of the sort. The Russians don't owe us anything. If they want to sell to Pakistan or China, so be it. Its a free world.

The trouble begins when folks start advocating preferential treatment for Russian industries as a result of this mythical 'special relationship' between India and Russia.

Fact is, more often than not, politics impedes practicality when its comes to arms imports. When you have to pick between a Chevrolet, Honda or Renault, India's foreign relations with US, France or Japan don't come into play. As long as the equipment doesn't originate from a country that we're likely to go to war with, only its intrinsic merits should matter.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 18:35

Philip wrote:Keep the issues separate .Russian assistance to India ,both diplomatic and military far outweigh anything that the US has given us,or offered us (Nuke subs,N-sub tech,MKIs,diplomatic support during '71,etc.).


Anything that Russia has delivered to India is far outweighed by its support to the Chinese military.

The FGFA has not been offered to Pak, or China.There are a number of weapon systems that have been offered to India.


At the moment the FGFA doesn't exist. You probably mean that the PAK FA has not been offered to Pak or China. Should we be grateful to Russia for that? Is the AL-31 powered J-20 any less airborne?

We cannot buy everything in the shop window.Some suit us some don't.If we reject them,Russia is perfectly open to sell it to whomsoever it chooses.


So its our fault for not buying it (and thus preempting the Chinese)?

However,if one looks at Russian sales to China and Pak,they have always given China less capable aircraft,etc. to the same systems that we have.Pak have not been offered MIG-29s,SU-30s,etc.,but on the other hand,it is the US that is beefing up the PAF as I've posted recently,with upgrading and adding to its F-16 fleet,with a range of associated missiles,radars,etc..


S-300/400 is low grade stuff? How many Kilos does China operate? For the record the US also refuses to sell Pakistan top-of-the-line equipment. Big deal. :roll:

(And BTW you may have posted it recently but the article was OLD. The only update related to a sale of third hand F-16s from Jordan.)

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 18:42

Narayana Rao wrote:I am quite sure that Russian intelligence knows the extent of US penetration of Indian establishment. We have in fact became US cham chas under mafia rule.

Can we blame them if Russians want to sell things to Panda after that??? In fact I am surprised that Russia supported our SSN efforts and continue to do so in spite of all this. May be for money. But still selling to Panda is a serious threat to Russia itself quite soon.


Our defence market was opened up for US suppliers around 2005 or so. Russian tech and equipment has been pouring into China since the early 90s.

India can justify imports from the US as a response to Russian assistance to China (we needn't though). NOT the other way round.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 18:50

Austin wrote:Sale would happen if Russia or India is willing to sell from substantial downgrade version and NATO allies are willing to buy , There are some countries like Finland , Greece that operate modern Russian SAM and US has bought some old model Flanker and Mig-29 for aggressor role


Therein lies the problem with the argument that "
The fact that PAKFA is going to be made available to the world when the JSF is available only to Amerikhan bia_tches" which i took an exception to. I never said that some version of the PAKFA would never be sold to any nation close to the US or NATO. South Korea was offered something from the PAKFA but that is hardly a realistic scenario and the russians damn well knew that the ROKAF would never pick it. The point that that claim is making is that Russia would be willing to sell the PAKFA (in contrast to the americans) to even those nations and in those circumstances where it is NOT in its interest to do so. This is an absurd line of reasoning. Would we sell FGFA's to Pakistan? Just like we won't do so the US would not sell the F-35 to Russia, China or to any country where its in the US's strategic interest not to do so. We are talking about weapons of war here, not some sports car or a bullet train.

As far as Mig29's and flankers, the US acquired the Fulcrums from Moldova to avoid them from going to Iran and the Flankers were acquired from Ukraine through a deal between the two nations. Neither involved aircraft coming out of the Russian production line or any bilateral agreement between Russia and the US to get officially either aircraft for aggressor purposes. Therefore that example is not even remotely similar to the point I made about the US acquiring "full-system" enabled T-50s / FGFA's as they could had they been "available to the world"

https://www.armscontrol.org/print/267

BTW, can we sell the FGFA's that originate from our own production lines without the buyer having to go to Russia to seek clearances? That would pit the Russian Pakfa (t-50) with the IAF spec FGFA. Provided that the two planes are actually different this would give quite a bit of advantage to our industry since our requirements apparently require added capability and our costs even with the added capability should be lower. The reason I asked was because you said

Austin wrote: Every PAK-FA/FGFA that India-Russia would sell would be an export model


which could mean that India can sell the FGFA or that The PAKFA's sold by Russia would have parts produced or designed by India or that the sale of the PAKFA would be a joint India-Russia Sale. That would mean that at no point in its life would the PAKFA be a likely possibility (in any shape or form) for the PLAAF or the PLAN which would be awesome. This statement is also questionable given that Russia unilaterally offered brazil a " co-development" of a fighter we are being told is almost developed and has its state trials ongoing. Would brazil be getting an export version of the jets given that Russia offered them a position in the program that is at par with what india has.
Last edited by brar_w on 03 Jun 2014 22:01, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 19:06

brar_w wrote:BTW, can we sell the FGFA's that originate from our own production lines without the buyer having to go to Russia to seek clearances? That would pit the Russian Pakfa (t-50) with the IAF spec FGFA. Provided that the two planes are actually different this would give quite a bit of advantage to our industry since our requirements apparently require added capability and our costs even with the added capability should be lower.


Not a hope. We aren't going to be selling any FGFAs. Any customer wanting to buy a PAK FA variant will approach the Russians directly, who in turn negotiate with them exclusively. And that's borne out by Russian overtures to Brazil vis a vis a PAK FA-based 'joint venture'.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 03 Jun 2014 19:29

Why go that far?

Russia is trying to sell the PAK-FA to India.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 20:06

Selling of JV FGFA would be likely based on joint list by India and Russia like Brahmos , Though I doubt India would sell FGFA as Dr Pillai mentioned the Indian Government is not so far approving sale of Brahmos , FGFA would be a tall ask.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 20:14

Austin wrote:Selling of JV FGFA would be likely based on joint list by India and Russia like Brahmos , Though I doubt India would sell FGFA as Dr Pillai mentioned the Indian Government is not so far approving sale of Brahmos , FGFA would be a tall ask.


Thats what I thought as well. We are not marketing the Su-30MKI either and it would be highly unlikely that we begin marketing the FGFA. Even if this were a possibility the bilateral agreements required between us and the Russians would be complicated to say the least, given that we would be threatening the bottom line of the Russian defense industry. We probably also do not have any say in PAKFA program as far as partner addition or foreign sales made by Russia is concerned. If Russia offloads some of the construction or component assembly to India without having a duplicate line in Russia it may be possible for us to assert ourselves and have some say in who the aircraft is exported to. We may not be able to influence SALES but we could play hardball and negotiate the extent of the capability that is sold to say a china.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 20:27

Su-30MKI is not a JV but FGFA is a JV like Brahmos with both sides having equal stakes.

Although we did export MKI India compoments to Malaysian & Russian program and even trained former pilots.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 03 Jun 2014 20:31

Su-30MKI is not a JV but FGFA is a JV like Brahmos with both sides having equal stakes.


Not quite that equal-equal.

India did not want Russia to be able to sell any aspect of the FGFA - which was clearly *then* a very different plane than the PAK-FA. So, from that aspect India wanted total control.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 20:33

Austin wrote:Su-30MKI is not a JV but FGFA is a JV like Brahmos with both sides having equal stakes.


And yet its the Yakhont which has been exported rather than the BrahMos.

What incentive does Russia have for supporting exports of the FGFA at the expense of the PAK FA?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 03 Jun 2014 20:49

Austin wrote:Su-30MKI is not a JV but FGFA is a JV like Brahmos with both sides having equal stakes.

Although we did export MKI India compoments to Malaysian & Russian program and even trained former pilots.


Point taken, but that is hardly an assurance that since we are partners on the PAKFA that the extent of the partnerships allows us to directly compete with the russians with our FGFA. This also does not bring light to the arrangement we have vis-a-vis T-50 export. Sure if some nations want Indian "superior" components they can ask Russia to incorporate them on the T-50 with prior agreement with India. This however does not address the concern as to whether we have any say whatsoever in who buys the T-50 which one could interpret form your India-Russia would sell comment.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 03 Jun 2014 20:51

VivS If you see Dr Pillai Statement he said India Government is not approving export of Brahmos yet

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... vice=print

The BrahMos was generating a lot of demand abroad, Dr Pillai said. However, the government wanted the missile to be deployed in the armed forces before thinking of exporting it. “We haven’t ruled out exports and there has been lot of queries,” he added.


But more recently he stated http://www.aspillai.com/news.php?nid=49

You mean there are no negotiations with foreign countries are going on?

The Indian government has not done any negotiations with any country for BrahMos, neither has the Russian government. These two governments have left it to us and we have to do that but we are at the beginning stage. We have not finalised anything.

Does it mean that in the next one ortwo years, there will be no purchases of BrahMos by any foreign country?

No, not like that. Do not make wrong conclusions. We will give you a surprise. That is all. You understand, we will give you a surprise, we will not tell you now.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 03 Jun 2014 21:25

Austin wrote:VivS If you see Dr Pillai Statement he said India Government is not approving export of Brahmos yet

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... vice=print

But more recently he stated http://www.aspillai.com/news.php?nid=49


Well, I'm skeptical - if indeed BAPL has no surplus capacity why has it been after the Russians to place an order.

Besides, the basic point here is incentive. From the Russian PoV, there's little reason to support FGFA exports over the PAK FA.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 04 Jun 2014 05:16

Dec 13, 2013:

Mr. Sweetman Himself wrote:This is all interesting to say the least, because since Day One of stealth in the US a guiding principle has been that stealth gets you close enough to use precise, short-range, low-cost weapons. And here come the Russians, equipping their first stealth fighter -- already fast and high-flying -- with a 1,400-pound ARM that can run out to 245 km at up to Mach 4, and an 1,125-pound, 200-kilometer range AAM.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby TSJones » 04 Jun 2014 05:49

NRao wrote:Dec 13, 2013:

Mr. Sweetman Himself wrote:This is all interesting to say the least, because since Day One of stealth in the US a guiding principle has been that stealth gets you close enough to use precise, short-range, low-cost weapons. And here come the Russians, equipping their first stealth fighter -- already fast and high-flying -- with a 1,400-pound ARM that can run out to 245 km at up to Mach 4, and an 1,125-pound, 200-kilometer range AAM.


I guess if Sweetman wrote it then we're screwed. :?:

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 04 Jun 2014 05:57

Dunno.

My read is totally different.

This is another data point that indicates that the IAF statement - that Russia cannot deliver - is right.

India, IMHO, would like what the PAK-FA offers + would like "full stealth". A mix of the PAK-FA + the JSF. Both worlds.




And, again, IMHO, it makes sense for Russia to design a PAK-FA and for India to design a totally different plane in the FGFA. As I read, the Russian PAK-FA does not fit the IAF - much to the displeasure of Mr. P I am sure.

And, it is this lack of a "fit" that the IAF is grumbling about.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Viv S » 04 Jun 2014 06:38

NRao wrote:And, again, IMHO, it makes sense for Russia to design a PAK-FA and for India to design a totally different plane in the FGFA. As I read, the Russian PAK-FA does not fit the IAF - much to the displeasure of Mr. P I am sure.

And, it is this lack of a "fit" that the IAF is grumbling about.


Get an appropriate number of F-35s off-the-shelf to tide us over until 2025 at least. Merge the FGFA and AMCA programs into an 'Advanced Combat Aircraft' program. Have the ADA design and build an ACA demonstrator from ground up with Russian assistance, based on the IAF's GSQR.

Likely... something (slightly) smaller than the PAK FA, all-aspect stealth, open architecture, max COTS content and F135 derived engines. (Edit: Sounds like the F-22 come to thing of it.)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 04 Jun 2014 08:46

NRao wrote:Dec 13, 2013:

Mr. Sweetman Himself wrote:This is all interesting to say the least, because since Day One of stealth in the US a guiding principle has been that stealth gets you close enough to use precise, short-range, low-cost weapons. And here come the Russians, equipping their first stealth fighter -- already fast and high-flying -- with a 1,400-pound ARM that can run out to 245 km at up to Mach 4, and an 1,125-pound, 200-kilometer range AAM.


The US has plenty of Stand off weapons in their inventory and have plans to develop more. The PGM delivery from short ranges (which are not all that short) are as much driven by requirement as they are by the nature of the weapons. The problems occurred in actual combat and the solutions were developed after hard lessons learned. The US has conducted the most SEAD from any active air force in the world. The problem came with ARM targeting of integrated air defenses, which have non emitting elements. A lot of the ARM work is being assigned to PGM's and away from the HARM because of this very reason. There is also the question of IAD mobility, stealth and having dummy mockups of radars, sensors, and C2C units of the same. There is no substitute to actually putting sensors over the battlefield with discriminating power to pick targets. Then there is also the question of having enough munitions to see you through. This is when the french came running to the US because they had some inventory issues ;). Actual war fighters also have to worry about targets per sortie and cost of target, things where the JDAM, SDB have no other competitor interns of the capability.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 04 Jun 2014 15:09


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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 04 Jun 2014 17:14

New Air to Air Missile Under Development for PAK-FA ( via PiBu )

Image

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9833
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 04 Jun 2014 17:33

can you provide the details please.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 04 Jun 2014 18:13

Narayana Rao wrote:can you provide the details please.


Just off my head from what I recollect from PiBu Article on Air International and Yefim Gordon

K-74M --> Variant of RVV-MD for Internal carriage with folded wings
K-30 ---> New WVR A2A missile with FPA/IIR Seeker , two way Datalinks etc
K-77M ---> Upgraded variant of RVV-SD with fatter motor , AESA seeker , longer range ( ~ 145 km )
K-77ME ---> Ramjet Variant of R-77 MRAAM , Range ~ 250 km
K-37M ----> Variant of RVV-BD for Internal Carriage , Folded Wings etc
810 ------> New LRAAM under development for PAK-FA.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 04 Jun 2014 18:34

OT here - any rough estimate on how many long range AA missiles need to be stockpiled for long war against pakis.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 04 Jun 2014 18:47

vishvak wrote:OT here - any rough estimate on how many long range AA missiles need to be stockpiled for long war against pakis.


The things required to draw even a reasonable estimate are likely to be highly classified both at the developer level and at the operator level. Until and unless the IAF publishes its estimates of what a potential success rate of the various BVR weapons in its inventory will be in varying degree of complexity (Against a dumb 3rd gen fighter to a 4.5 gen fighter with jammers and DFRM etc) we cannot draw any conclusion. Needless to say the IAF won't ever publish that info (or any air force for that matter).

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby vishvak » 04 Jun 2014 19:03

OK however IAF should definitely have stores of indigenous long range missiles. Better to have the missile stocked as soon as possible than worry in wartime scenario when we possess BVR capabilities.

Again, OT here. Thanks.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 07 Jun 2014 04:38


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8186
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Indranil » 07 Jun 2014 06:07



Going through that was not a complete waste of time. The pictures were quite good actually. :D

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Jun 2014 07:21



It says F-35 is better as it can launch missiles at supersonic. Does that mean PK FA has to go subsonic before launching missiles? :shock:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2014 08:54

Poorly written article, best ignored.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20882
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Philip » 07 Jun 2014 08:57

Just read performance stats for the JSF,enough posted already.It is far slower,less agile,than the T-50,planned only about equal to F-16 std.Most 4th-gen aircraft outclass it in close combat,certainly the Rafale,Typhoon,MIG-29,etc. Even these performance stats have been deliberately and significantly reduced so that it can pass testing targets,way behind schedule. Wait and watch.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby NRao » 07 Jun 2014 09:07

Going through that was not a complete waste of time.


I know, I know.

Sorry, meant to post this turkey in the turkey thread.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jun 2014 09:16

From the F-35 article posted , it shows the F-35 design goals versus F-22 and that is where the PAK-FA advantage will come into as its along the lines of Air Superiority Fighter like F-22 albeit better in many parameters and not inferior in LO.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... -starts/3/

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”


So essentially he is saying in Aerial Combat F-22 has 2:8 advantage versus F-35

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2014 09:56

Austin wrote:From the F-35 article posted , it shows the F-35 design goals versus F-22 and that is where the PAK-FA advantage will come into as its along the lines of Air Superiority Fighter like F-22 albeit better in many parameters and not inferior in LO.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen- ... -starts/3/

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”


So essentially he is saying in Aerial Combat F-22 has 2:8 advantage versus F-35


Thats a stretch. The F-22 CONOPS for the CAP mission calls for super cruise at high altitude (higher than the F-35). Here it does Mach 1.72 and because it is designed with super cruise it has a SIGNIFICANT (very significant at that) advantage in supersonic range compared to the F-35. That advantage in supersonic range means greater area is covered with lesser fighters. It has a highly stealth all aspect VLO design (which the PAKFA currently does not) and has sensor fusion and all the bells and whistles to boot. With this one can clearly see that the F-35 which is going to be operating at the 30-35K altitude range is going to need more resources to achieve/cover the same air space CAP as the F-22. This is in no doubt and I mentioned it early on a few weeks ago when describing the advantages of the F22 over the F35.

This is the only mission where the F-22 enjoys a significant lead over the F-35 and its by design. Come closer and you will have to nullify the DAS and EOTS combo. The F-35 as a platform is open and can be upgraded to be kept cutting edge throughout its life. Even though it has not IOC'd its getting a computer system overhaul as we speak to put in more updated processors into the system. So in a way the sensor fusion and indeed the sensor package of the F-35 will always remain many steps ahead of the f-22. Even at a per dollar/ capability level.

CAP is one aspect of the Air to Air mission and by all means not ALL of the roles the aircraft will play. Escort B-2's or B-1s and you loose some of the advantages of the F-22 in the F-22 v F-35 debate. Go into an offensive mission supporting a strike package of a mixed F-35 ship and you again loose some of those as well. All in all, except CAP that utilizes altitude and speed the F-35 gets darn close to the F-22 in most missions and gets way ahead of the raptor in others. How many F-22's would be required to conduct a mixed mission of DEAD (including air to air) in a high clutter, discriminating, intermittent_emission IAD scenario? Air capability and performance is judged through a mixed set of missions. Unless one expects to just do one mission with one fighter. Super cruise is excellent if you can extract the maximum out of it, but then for a mixed mission your altitude is limited by the support you are providing and also is limited by mission demands. That the F-22 is way ahead of the F-35 in supersonic range and therefore does require less frames to cover a notional airspace does not mean that it is ahead of the f-35 by the same margin in all air to air or mixed scenarios. Similarly, because the F-35 can destroy an IAD with much more potent networked ability which may be many times that of the raptor, it does not mean that the f-35 is many times better than the F-22 in all aspects. Its a complementing capability. The F-35 has also been designed to be an air to air workhorse (as the F-16 was), and indeed the AEF (air expeditionary force) would use something like 400-500 F-35's for Air to Air work exclusively. The PAKFA by all indications is benchmarking itself against the f-22 in speed and kinematic performance. Thats an awesome capability. If it manages to achieve f-22 like goals in stealth, and sensor fusion remains to be seen. The current aircraft flying do not speak much from a stealth point of view even compared to the f-22 that had prototypes flying in 1990 let alone the F-35 which the general said has better stealth than the f-22.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jun 2014 10:57

Its just a Myth that PAK-FA does not have VLO , it does its Average RCS is very close to F-22 according to its Chief Designer .....The reason why you dont see the current Prototype because it yet to go its final VLO testing which is rumoured to be on 7th and 8th Prototype.

This is what Davydenko chief designer of PAK-FA said http://paralay.com/pakfa/pakfa.html

A.Davidenko reminded that the fourth-generation aircraft - the Russian Su-27 or F-15 American - have a surface reflection coefficient characterizing the radar signature of the aircraft, within 12 square meters.
"The plane F-22 (American fighter of the fifth generation - IF-AVN) - 0.3-0.4 sq.m. We have similar requirements for visibility," - said A.Davidenko.


Other than that PAK-FA has the same quality as F-22 high altitude supercruise ( reportdly in recent test it went to 21 km alt ) , Low RCS , Longer Range than F-22 and more weapon carrying capability.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8946
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby brar_w » 07 Jun 2014 11:04

Its just a Myth that PAK-FA does not have VLO , it does its Average RCS is very close to F-22 according to its Chief Designer


So you are telling me that the current aircraft have all aspect VLO? And from where did the Russians acquire RCS data on the F-22? The RCS and IR testing on the F-22 went into Months if not years starting all the way with the RCS testing of the two prototype YF22's and two prototype YF23's (in 1990 and 1991 respectively) and went through static and pole modeling post the ATF and then continued onto the F-22 early build versions where a dedicated RCS verification and IR verification program was specifically designed to test the RCS. This included dedicated IR sensors which required to be built or upgraded just so that air to air IR signature assessment and validation could take place. The report on the RCS is likely to run into hundreds of pages and isn't something that can be judged based on pictures or an assessment even by technocrats.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/21 ... ighter_ir/

F/A–22 IR Signature Flight Test Model Validation

The F/A–22 IR signature specification consists of four tables (2 Flight Conditions: M1.5/40kft and M0.9/ 30kft for 2 Wavebands: 3.5–5 and8–12 microns) with 26Az/El view angles that specify the maximum allowable IR signature (source non-contrast Watts/sr)


The reason why you dont see the current Prototype because it yet to go its final VLO testing which is rumoured to be on 7th and 8th Prototype.


I guess that question will only be answered when we see the full system enabled and "stealthified" prototypes actually start flying and begin RCS testing. Isn't the PAKFA supposed to be inducted into russian air force in 2016? Thats less than 2 years from now. What sort of induction will it be if the actual prototypes of an all aspect stealth design haven't even flown yet? As per reports our version of the jet will be even stealthier than the Russian version. When will that aircraft be in the air with all the added stealth?

Other than that PAK-FA has the same quality as F-22 high altitude supercruise


Agreed

Low RCS , Longer Range than F-22 and more weapon carrying capability


Low rcs remains to be seen and it would be interesting to see how the designers change to design to take care of the bulges we see in the IRST for example or to completely stealthily the rear end which is well anything but stealthy at the moment. I would also like to see how they set emcon goals given they wish to put emitting elements in all sides of the aircraft and some basic attempts at adding things like S ducts and IR suppression through a cooling loop or a equally effective solution . RCS means little if you get picked off by a Alq-94 like system (which is now more than 15 years old). And even in the best case scenario that the PAKFA somehow gets all this in the coming prototypes it would have an average RCS (which is different from best frontal RCS) of close to the F-22 that is inferior to the F-35. In stealth systems the LOWEST RCS also matters compared to the average RCS since the B-2, F-22 and the F-35 all have an RCS management capability in which they can present the best aspect RCS to the ground threat for example given the strong EW suites and integrated avionics. In a stealth on stealth engagement absolute low rcs is less relevant to absolute discipline in emcon. This is because the enemy's radar capability is limited both in terms of band/freq as well as power (its a fighter radar). The EW suite however has been claimed to do a lot within those constraints with the -94 on the f-22 claimed to be very effective even with passive targeting of an Aim-120. Against ground threats however your absolute RCS is critical, because the passive elements and the active elements of an IAD have access to very larger and powerful radars and passive sensors. They are not power-constraint as fighters are. So a semi-stealthy fighter would always be more effective in an air to air engagement as compared to flying over an IAD. We however don't have the luxury of the PAKDA so we must wait if we must and add as much stealth and Multi-role capability to the PAKFA as for us it is going to be the main "go to" offensive weapon for penetrative deep air to air and air to ground.

Image

Longer Range than F-22 and more weapon carrying capability.


Longer range hardly matters against a stealthy target. The F-22 carries 6 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Postby Austin » 07 Jun 2014 13:16

VLO is a broad term and how to achieve a specific value of VLO would depends on many factors like Engineering & Design , Structures/Materials , RAM , Active Measure etc.

So if US achieves VLO using x method the Russians do not have to follow the same identical method to achieve the same result , May be the Russians are better with structures/Materials or RAM , similarly the US would be better in some areas.

You really cant look at an aircraft and say this one has lower RCS compared to the other because to my eyes and open source information the RCS looks smaller or aircraft has more sheen , A B-2 has no sheen like F-22 but still has lower RCS.

I gave you a direct quote from the Chief Designer of PAK-FA and he stated the LO requirement of PAK-FA is similar to F-22 , so yes PAK-FA is in VLO category if F-22 is considered as VLO or VVLO types

Better access to Theoretical Research and consequently better mathematical equation means lesser and far more efficient effort to do the job and get same result .......there is no Standard Template to achieve stealth specially when you have lot of industry , R&D base and Theoritical Work in Physics and you can get better result.

I can also ask and say the US never had any acess to S-400 so how can they claim JSF can deal with it , how do one knows a Growler or JSF EW suite can jam S-400 radar and the ECCM system wont be able to defeat JSF EW suite.

No one knows its in the realms of claims and counter claims by one nation over the other.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests