PAK-FA and FGFA: News & Discussion - June 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby vishvak » 04 Apr 2015 23:55

There was a message about new engine that F-35 may have by 2020 or so?

viewtopic.php?p=1814842#p1814842

Not much hair splitting done in JSF thread -about separate contract even, since this is supposed to be TFTA engine only. It will be applauded whenever it happens and as it will be inducted.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 00:02

The JSF model called for a small RDT&E contribution by the partners and in return they received ofsets based on the Low Rate Initial orders irrespective of the customer of those LRIP. When the as.e industrial partners order their own jets that partnership is extended to the entire production process including the giant full rate plans.There is no bankrolling the development involved as the US industry was forced to trade industrial ownership of the production volume to get partners to committ to buy the fighter as there offer needed to be better from an industrial perspective than competing straight forward offsets. This happens because all the development partners produce components for an advanced fifth generation fighter whereas an industrial ofsets does not have to involve highly technical work. The Israelis make far more wing sets the their own aircraft, and similarly RR does the lift fan for at least five times the RAF's order.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 00:10

vishvak wrote:There was a message about new engine that F-35 may have by 2020 or so?

viewtopic.php?p=1814842#p1814842

Not much hair splitting done in JSF thread -about separate contract even, since this is supposed to be TFTA engine only. It will be applauded whenever it happens and as it will be inducted.


The F35 has a fully developed fifth generation clean sheet engine that traces it's heritage to the F119 which was not an upgraded version of any 4th engine. The report cited by me is of the 6th generation engine technology that may lead to a sixth generation engine for the F35. The 6 generation fighter and the associated propulsion investments are there to maintain the propulsion industrial base lead over near peer competitors and to provide much improved capability to all platforms that can carry it. The JSF carries a fifth generation engine from the start (even the tech demonstrators carried a fifth gen engine) and is required to acheive all program objectives with it. The engine was never and is not considered a stop gap.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 05 Apr 2015 00:19

vishvak wrote:There was a message about new engine that F-35 may have by 2020 or so?

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewt ... 2#p1814842

Not much hair splitting done in JSF thread -about separate contract even, since this is supposed to be TFTA engine only. It will be applauded whenever it happens and as it will be inducted.

The partner nations aren't being asked to contribute for the sixth gen engine under development (without any significant workshare to boot).

I'm more than happy to applaud the PAK FA's second stage engine, as and when it becomes available... as long the Indian taxpayer isn't asked to underwrite its development. As it is the Russians have piggybacked on Indian orders for the Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, Talwar class, among others. They even managed to keep a submarine building yard in business... by giving it a contract to refurbish the Gorshkov carrier (and sticking India with the bill).

They have the money to complete the development of the aircraft. India has no incentive to co-sign the bill.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby vishvak » 05 Apr 2015 01:27

Let me point out some data, for relatively very narrow scope of comparison:
PAK-FA: Can super-cruise, has 2x AL-41F engines (5th Gen, also called Izdeliye 117, has new core link-reference not clear).
F-22A : Can super-cruise, has 2x F119-PW-100 engines.
F-35 A : limited super-cruise, has 1x F135 engine (5th Gen), derived from F119.

PAK-FA/FGFA with new engine: 2x Izdeliye 30 (5th Gen?), that will have increased thrust and fuel efficiency as well as improved reliability and lower costs. (link).

Now whether this engine of PAK-FA/FGFA will be exact 5th Gen/5thGen++/6thGen will depend upon definition of 5th Gen, too, to an extent. There are many factors factors, such that engines will not run separately(trivial), or that 'limited' super-cruise of the single-engine F-35A is not exactly limited when it can fly without after-burners at 0.7-0.8 mach throughout, or that a lot of details will not come out for many of these engines/planes; however it is not as simple as it may appear. The new engine of PAK-FA/FGFA will pack a punch that is probably as good for the airframes.

For the record, earlier there was a discussion ( viewtopic.php?p=1669436#p1669436 ) about India getting 'Vanilla PAK-FA' - mind you, vanilla 5th Gen fighter - with engine that "was not planned for"; now that engine is tested with prototype and discussion has shifted to new engine only, not tested, yet again!

Another link: link1, link2 about AL-41. Seems that AL-41 is a 5th Gen engine.
Last edited by vishvak on 05 Apr 2015 02:05, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 01:49

Supercruise is there because of the requirement and not because of technology in the US fifth gen programs. The Pakfa's current engine is a modified current generation engine while the f119 is a brand new clean sheet engine which is not related to the f15 or f16 programs. The f-35 had a particular range and altitude requirement therefore required a different engine with a different bypass ratio to the f119..Even in Supercruise the engine is burning quite just not as much as it would have been had it been on burners. The F135 is not the reason why the f-35 doesn't Supercruise like the f22 but the requirements are. They are essentially trading speed for subsonic range and the propulsion choice as well as the outer mold line reflects that...you could hypothetically add a new engine with a bypass ratio similar to the f119 and get better supersonic performance but that would be at the risk of overall combat radius and payload. The f35 calls for an f-15 e like range at its strike cruise altitude of 30k feet and if you were to add fast (much 1.5 Supercruise at 50 k) and High performance to the mix you'd end up with a 30-40% larger vehicle with the added cost and issues as you'd need a different intake and most likely two engines with the added cargo capability to fly and maintain around the globe.

The last estimate I read (AFIOT/WPATT..) was a cost figure closer to 60 million per conventional airframe ( additional cost ) if the Supercruise requirement similar to the Atf were added to the f35. The "generation" of the engine had nothing to do with it...the requirements are different.

The AMCA is expected to Supercruise with the F414epe while the Gripen claims Supercruise with the Existing F414.

The point is that if you wish to design a supercruising fighter you need to design requirements around that. There were ATF competitors that promised advanced super cruise performance with modified 4th generation engines (see pic below of one such effort/proposal). They used this in their marketing material at the time to kind of give themselves an edge in the hope that they would get selected early on due to them requiring much lower propulsion investments. If you have high T2W engines optimized for supersonic flight you can get there. The Gripen does that, the AMCA aims to do that as well and its fairly safe to say that you could explore supersonic performance with the Eagle, Viper and Flanker families if you were to incorporate design changes in profile and upgrade the engines. That does not mean that a more modern clean sheet engine would not offer you even better capability and thats what the F-119 does compared to a hypothetical modified previous generation engine. The F-135 does the same and it even incorporates lessons learned from the F-119 which itself was a clean sheet. The next generation introduces some record breaking performance demonstrated in the lab by GE, and Pratts efforts (less publicized) in this department. Variable cycle/Adaptive technologies will open up the door and you do not get there easily. The performance will come in 10-15 years with a huge amount of money invested to keep GE, Pratt and Whitney and RR funded and actively pursuing cutting edge research through internal programs, ADVENT and the AETD program.

Image

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Apr 2015 04:33, edited 6 times in total.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby vishvak » 05 Apr 2015 02:25

OT here, but not sure if engine for AMCA is decided yet, though will not such an engine come under "fundamental" commandment clauses? At some point of time, it will definitely become an issue to 'inspect' stealth AMCA because of such clauses.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Apr 2015 03:10

Inspect because of the engines? I seriously doubt it.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Apr 2015 05:55

Not an Eff-Pantees thread gentlemen.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2015 05:41

X-Post...

Read the PAK-FA related news...
Sumeet wrote:India draws bottom line for Rafale

NEW DELHI: India will not ink the mega $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to acquire 126 fighters till France agrees to stick to its original pricing, which led its Rafale fighter to defeat the Eurofighter Typhoon in commercial evaluation over three years ago.

This is India's "bottom line" on which the outcome of long-drawn final negotiations with French aviation major Dassault now hinges, even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to leave for France on Thursday as part of his three-nation tour.

"Dassault has to adhere to its earlier commitments. No Indian government can finalize such a major project if the L-1 (lowest bidder) pricing is changed... it can be a deal-breaker despite political pressure from France," said a top source.


As first reported by TOI, the defence ministry is upset with Dassault's attempt to "change the price line" because it will substantially jack up the production cost of the 108 Rafales to be made by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) in India after the first 18 are imported.

As per Dassault's costing, there is now a "big jump in the man-hours needed" for each jet to be produced by HAL after transfer of technology. In effect, each jet will now cost much more than what was originally projected.

"Hypothetically, if the cost of each jet goes up by around Rs 30-40 crore, we will then be looking at a hike of Rs 3,240-Rs 4,320 crore for the 108 jets to be made here. Dassault should relent, become fully compliant to the RFP (request for proposal) and stand 100% by its original offer. It can live with a slightly lesser profit margin," said the source.


There is, however, progress on the other major stumbling block. A mechanism is being evolved to ensure there are no penalties or liquidity damages imposed on Dassault if HAL fails to deliver as per specified timelines, sources said.

The voluminous MMRCA contract was almost 90% done, with technology transfer, offsets and other issues as well as the inter-governmental agreement all ready, when pricing and guarantee issues stalled negotiations almost a year ago.

With continuing delay in finalization of the MMRCA project and IAF down to just 34 fighter squadrons (14 of them made of old MiG-21s and MiG-27s), India is also trying to fast-track the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft project with Russia, as reported by TOI earlier.

India has told Russia it wants deliveries of the FGFA to begin 36 months after the main contract is inked, instead of the 94 months envisaged earlier. For this, India is ready to switch from the original co-development and co-production plan to direct acquisition of an initial lot followed by co-production. India will spend around $25 billion on the FGFA project if eventually 127 such fighters as planned.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 07 Apr 2015 09:32

the fuel consumption during 75-100% band of dry thrust setting and whether at any point it goes supersonic and how much supersonic 1.1 or 1.5 or 1.7 on dry are good to know.

every car has 4 wheels but to be a useful combat capability, the fuel consumption in supercruise needs to be significantly lower than afterburner, permitting a significant time in that mode and the higher the speed the better.

fanboys are obsessed with the peak afterburner thrust value, but imo the fuel burn and thrust in the 75-100% dry are much more important...esp for LO airframes that might use high subsonic for ingress and egress to extend range and go supersonic only if attacked. shortfall in dry thrust seems to be what is dogging the kaveri, and that can only be rectified in current shape and size with better materials higher turbine temps, not any changes in combustor or compressors it is said.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4017
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 07 Apr 2015 10:25

^^^ IIRC, I think the critical thrust regime for cruise for any jet engine is around 82.5% to 84% but I speak from memory. May be Maitya sir or some one who knows aeroengines better could clarify.

If at this power range a jet could supercruise it would be an out of the world performance. IMO (humbly so), even 90% power regime would be good to have sustained supercruise and not at Mach 1.2 but at or greater than Mach 1.5

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21319
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2015 12:04

Assuming that the deal is signed this year,it would mean deliveries begin by 2018,and at the rate of 12-18 /yr.,with at least one sqd. in service before 2020.There is nothing mentioned about the first prototypes we are to get much earlier to familiarize ourselves with the aircraft before induction.If we are going to acquire the Russian T-50 Mk-1,then would the prototypes originally intended for us to "tweak" the design be forthcoming?

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby member_28990 » 07 Apr 2015 15:29

There is no way we should sign up for 120+ fighters when the russians themselves are taking a cautious approach to mass induction of these birds. We must do a first hand user evaluation of these prototypes under Indian controlled environment so that the T90 fiasco is not repeated.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Apr 2015 15:56

well an IAF eval team will certainly be deputed to moscow/russia for this

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 07 Apr 2015 15:58

Singha wrote:the fuel consumption during 75-100% band of dry thrust setting and whether at any point it goes supersonic and how much supersonic 1.1 or 1.5 or 1.7 on dry are good to know.

every car has 4 wheels but to be a useful combat capability, the fuel consumption in supercruise needs to be significantly lower than afterburner, permitting a significant time in that mode and the higher the speed the better. Thats also a standard way to test super cruise in an operational environment since there are range limitations in most cases. During the raptor testing they tried various scenarios on how best to employ and seek super cruise. For many scenarios they basically took off, after burner till mach 1.7 and then backed off and cruised on dry thrust. Of course there may be situations that you also need not hit the afterburner as well. Even a lot of testing is done in the AB acceleration and cruise mode due to range limitations.

fanboys are obsessed with the peak afterburner thrust value, but imo the fuel burn and thrust in the 75-100% dry are much more important...esp for LO airframes that might use high subsonic for ingress and egress to extend range and go supersonic only if attacked. shortfall in dry thrust seems to be what is dogging the kaveri, and that can only be rectified in current shape and size with better materials higher turbine temps, not any changes in combustor or compressors it is said.


While both are important, tactically it is more likely that the pilots will go afterburner, get the fast acceleration and then pull back and cruise supersonic for a long time. While you do go supersonic in dry setting it just takes longer. Tactically that may not be the best way to reach say mach 1.5.

well an IAF eval team will certainly be deputed to moscow/russia for this


Weren't they there when the fire incident occured?
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Apr 2015 16:38, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8491
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Pratyush » 07 Apr 2015 16:34

they were on location but were not allowed to inspect the damage.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21319
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2015 17:45

I agree.Our "heat and dust" would make life v. difficult for a stealth bird which requires 7* std. maintenance/accommodation.The aircraft has to be tested in our hostile environment and a few prototypes as promised would be well worth the acquisition.Given the size and scale of the Russian landmass,one is confident though that the aircraft has been designed for a variety of similar varied operational locations.

What is the most ridiculous state of affairs is the garbage still being dumped close to civil and mil airfields/bases.This may even be deliberate .There should be a distinct outer zone of sev. kms radius of no construction whatsoever and cordoned off patrolled by dogs,etc. to reduce the chances of bird hits. The MOD/IAF must take up the issue at the highest levels for implementation and prosecution.

tushar_m

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tushar_m » 07 Apr 2015 19:21

Russians have reduced their procurement numbers from 52 to just 12.(mostly economic reasons ???)

While a lot of people will say that there are huge problems with the plane etc etc.
Somehow i see the number 40 which we can get before 2020 (2-sqds).This without using any production on our side , which will only supplement the numbers of planes produced.

We has experience with Su30mk ----> Su30mki same can happen here with IAF retiring MiG27/MiG21(non-bison) in next 2 years we need a plane other than the Rafale which can support IAF's air dominance roles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 07 Apr 2015 19:40

There are many Unknowns with the program to begin to define when the weapons system can be incorporated into the IAF. There isn't very clear information as to what the status is and how many sorties have actually taken place in support of testing. Weapons testing and certification to the best of my knowledge has only involved carriage trials till date. You need to begin testing the entire weapons system (Systems and weapons) for the various configurations. That will take time and from what I gather will occur when the state trials are officially begun??. Then there is the question of overall program reduction. Have the RuAF only reduced or proposed to reduce their purchase in the FY15-FY20 period or have there been cuts to the overall program in proportion to the cuts in production. What is the production schedule for the FY15-FY20 timeframe etc is also an unknown.

The IAF has also yet to receive something for its own testing. Does the IAF operationally test this jet concurrently to the RuAF trials or do they do it after the RuAF trials are over? There is some clarity required in that as well. I think more would be known when the contract for the development is signed. No matter what the answers to the questions may be, in my opinion the Su-50, operational in the IAF looks extremely unlikely in the next 5 years, somewhat likely in the next 7 years and highly likely within the next 10 years.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Apr 2015 02:02, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 07 Apr 2015 23:46

They have done some work, but have they integrated any weapons, done any long term tests? Or we gonna do PRE-IOC, IOC and FOC for them?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Apr 2015 02:04

Cybaru wrote:They have done some work, but have they integrated any weapons, done any long term tests? Or we gonna do PRE-IOC, IOC and FOC for them?


The last we heard was about flights with weapons. No news of any formal launches having taken place from external stores let alone internal stores (I could be wrong on this but certainly I haven't come across any information). We also have not received much clarity on the fleet wide test sorties flown till date. You need a boat load of sorties and flight hours to fully develop and test a modern combat aircraft and the speed with which they raise the annual number of sorties will ultimately determine how quickly they go through test-points.

tushar_m

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tushar_m » 08 Apr 2015 07:31

The weapon Trails has been going on.(firing trials not sure )



Image


Image


Sorry don't know how to reduce size or pic from [img] tag itself

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby member_26622 » 08 Apr 2015 08:30

Looks like Russia is going to do a u-turn on PAK-FA - from idrw http://idrw.org/russian-next-generation-stealth-fighter-to-fall-victim-to-the-russian-financial-crisis/

Current pictures of PAK-FA show a lot to be desired - nowhere near F-35 or F-22, forget the innards. Looks like we have to bankroll another Russian jet :roll:

Instead of building upon hard won LCA design capabilities by sponsoring an 'experimental' program for next gen jets, we did our usual tamasha for Rafale+PAK-FA and what not. Someone in Delhi (maybe a lot of folks) need to see history channel on how Russia built their capabilities post world war 2 :oops:

Kudos to the Japs and Chinese for showing enduring persistance. Great nations are not built by short sighted 'import' drives

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby shiv » 08 Apr 2015 09:15

nik wrote:Looks like Russia is going to do a u-turn on PAK-FA - from idrw http://idrw.org/russian-next-generation-stealth-fighter-to-fall-victim-to-the-russian-financial-crisis/

Difficult to tell which side of the lifafa list that this article comes from.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 08 Apr 2015 09:40

Soko is also working hard on its new fighter, despite importing some JSF . same for Japan, they will buy JSF but working on own fighter.

the most worrisome points on Pakfa are
- what is the status of new internal carriage weapons, will they be ready by 2018. hanging them outside is no better than su30/rafale.
- what is the status of new engine. will it be certified by 2018.
- what is the status of the new distributed X and L band radar testing and MAWS spherical protection system , is it effective or still a long haul...the wing mounted distributed L aperture panels are a first on a fighter.
- unit cost . anything north of $150 mil will mean no buyers except Rus and Ind. cheen would like to import 2 for 'studies' though :D

meantime JSF with its 2000+ production and F-solah guaranteed replacement market will go from strength to strength in terms of gold plated sw and hw updates.

if Rus is financially weak, PAKFA will go the way of Eurofighter..a promising airframe that is dead as a dodo due to lack of funding the necessary capabilities to keep it updated. a late model F-16 is far more versatile.

so far the Rafale is kept updated (except the OSF IRST which is dead) with french govt support but i wonder how long. egypt order is too small.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21319
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Apr 2015 10:26

With Putin at the helm of defence affairs,you can be sure that the project will deliver,though there may be a slowdown in production until finances improve.The RuAF is quite healthy withy increased production across the board ,extra SU-34s/35s in the works.Read this report where the RuAF will receive "200 " new aircraft in 2015.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/the-russ ... s-in-2015/
The Russian Military Will Receive 200 New Aircraft in 2015
Despite a shrinking economy, Russia’s military budget continues to rise.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 06, 2015

During a conference call on February 3, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu announced that the Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation, the air branch of the Russian Navy, will receive more than 200 new aircraft in 2015. Already in 2014, the Russian military received 250 new planes and helicopters – including new Su-34 bombers, Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-28 helicopter gunships. This is all part of a massive military expansion and modernization plan which between 2011 and 2020 is budgeted to cost the Kremlin up to 20 trillion rubles.

“Under the framework of Defense Procurement and Acquisition program, the Air Force and Naval Aviation will receive 126 new military aircrafts and 88 helicopters. And long-range aviation serviceability rates will be set for 80 percent,” the Russian defense minister announced on Tuesday. He further underlined that the Russian Air Force’s “equipment with modern weapons will increase to 33 percent, while the serviceability status [will increase] up to 67 percent,” which means that two out three aircraft will be operational at any given time.

Back in December 2014, Russian military authorities were talking about receiving 150 new aircraft in the new year, citing the state defense order for 2015. This order has now apparently been updated. The 2015 state defense order includes Sukhoi Su-34 bombers, multipurpose Su-30SM Su-35S fighter jets, Yakovlev Yak-130 advanced trainers/light fighters and Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 transport planes. According to Sputnik News, the Russian military’s rotary wings will receive Kamov Ka-52 and Mil Mi-28N attack helicopters, Mi-8AMTSh assault-transport helicopters, Mi-35 combat helicopters, and Ka-226 utility choppers.

In addition, Shoigu broadcasted that the military will in all likelihood fly the twin-engine, single-seat SU-35D, a 4.5 generation fighter jet, this year, after a finishing additional quality assurance trials. “Currently, we’re testing a new multifunctional fighter jet Su-35S. This year the new aircraft should enter service (…) This is the main task for this year.” The export version of the Su-35S will be priced at $85 million, which makes it cheaper than its Western European counterparts, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. The Russian military will also continue to develop its fifth generation fighter jet, the Sukhoi T-50, of which the Russians are expecting to sell 1,000 worldwide as an alternative to the American F-35 Lightning II.

The Russian Air Force’s massive expansion appears to be in line with recent statements by Russian officials. “The task set by the president not to allow anyone to get a military advantage over Russia will be fulfilled no matter what,” the Russian defense minister said on a different occasion last week.


From studying various reports for some time now,apart from the above report on new aircraft for the RuAF and RuN,the main thrust of the Russian defence ministry is the beefing up of its strategic missile arsenal,especially development and accelerated construction of SSBNs and SSGNs. The melting of the Artic ice has seen a new race for space in the Artic Sea,with untapped mineral wealth ,maritime traffic through the sea,and the consequent military aspects of the same. Development of new ABM systems complement the strat. arsenal. The Russian navy appears to be the main gainer in the increase in the defence budget ,with the largest building programme seen of subs and warships since the USSR. The Black Sea and Meditt. fleet are going to be heavily beefed up with more assets and a greater Russian pol-mil involvement in the Meditt,countries like Syria,Cyprus,Greece,etc.

As such,NATO does not pose any great immediate mil threat to Russia and the movement of some NATO forces close to Russia's border in the wake of the UKR crisis appears to be mainly a defensive move,aimed at restoring morale in the tiny Baltic states,etc.,who fear further destabilization of their states as they possess significant numbers of ethnic Russians. Hungary,the Czech Republic are not alarmed in any way and are on the contrary expanding their ties with Russia. The UKR conflict now appears to be frozen,much like the Georgian spat a few years ago.

A concern however for the IAF must be whether the slower production rate for the RuAF will affect the timetable requested for the IAF's deliveries (36 months).There seems to be some way to go before the deal is sealed.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 11:09

,,,

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 11:10

brar_w wrote:
well an IAF eval team will certainly be deputed to moscow/russia for this


Weren't they there when the fire incident occured?


that was a visiting team IIRC. unfortunately, i dont think we have an eval team currently embedded with the program at this point, its all russian only. only HAL has started some work on it/FGFA and engineers are being trained/exchanged etc.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby karan_mc » 08 Apr 2015 15:16

,,,,

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 16:07

,,,

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby karan_mc » 08 Apr 2015 16:34

,,,,

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 16:38

,,,,
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Apr 2015 16:46, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 16:43

,.,,

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby karan_mc » 08 Apr 2015 16:55

further fighting will not be tolerated - admin

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Apr 2015 17:00

Singha wrote:Soko is also working hard on its new fighter, despite importing some JSF . same for Japan, they will buy JSF but working on own fighter.

the most worrisome points on Pakfa are
- what is the status of new internal carriage weapons, will they be ready by 2018. hanging them outside is no better than su30/rafale.
- what is the status of new engine. will it be certified by 2018.
- what is the status of the new distributed X and L band radar testing and MAWS spherical protection system , is it effective or still a long haul...the wing mounted distributed L aperture panels are a first on a fighter.
- unit cost . anything north of $150 mil will mean no buyers except Rus and Ind. cheen would like to import 2 for 'studies' though :D

meantime JSF with its 2000+ production and F-solah guaranteed replacement market will go from strength to strength in terms of gold plated sw and hw updates.

if Rus is financially weak, PAKFA will go the way of Eurofighter..a promising airframe that is dead as a dodo due to lack of funding the necessary capabilities to keep it updated. a late model F-16 is far more versatile.

so far the Rafale is kept updated (except the OSF IRST which is dead) with french govt support but i wonder how long. egypt order is too small.


Singhaji, the L Band AESA is a wing embedded IFF interrogator and not a radar.

To your points (my opinion) -

- As mentioned, there has been no testing reported on internal weapon trials. From what has been reported they have only conducted flight trials with external stores. Like I said, even if we do not know of the status of each test point if we can get some idea of the sorties flown over the last 12 months or so we can draw some reasonable conclusion about the pace of testing. You cant test an entire system with just a few hundred sorties till date that is why I take reports of trials completing soon with a large spoonful of salt unless they have somehow managed to ramp up the sorties considerably.

- The new engine will not be certified by 2018. Its testing is slated to begin at that point

- It is a bit premature to draw conclusions on the unit cost since they do not have a factory producing this bird yet. Once they do have a setup, they will add up the total investment cost then figure out how much it costs to build them. Given the size, weight of the fighter and the tight tolerances which they hopefully strive to produce it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that it would be considerably more expensive then the most expensive Russian 4th - 4.5 generation fighter.

Soko is also working hard on its new fighter, despite importing some JSF . same for Japan, they will buy JSF but working on own fighter.


SOKO was always expected to produce a successor tot he FA/T-50 family and it was also expected that such a successor would be more ambitious in capability. They built offset requirements into the RFP for the last FX fighter bid and made sure whoever won had to transfer materials to assist them.

Japan is only working on a scaled-technology demonstrator. They will take a call on whether to pursue and move ahead with a full fledged fighter development program towards the end of the decade.

if Rus is financially weak, PAKFA will go the way of Eurofighter..a promising airframe that is dead as a dodo due to lack of funding the necessary capabilities to keep it updated. a late model F-16 is far more versatile.

so far the Rafale is kept updated (except the OSF IRST which is dead) with french govt support but i wonder how long. egypt order is too small.


The Eurofigther is now finally getting the much needed multi-role capability and AESA radar. Its a matter of time before it has a weapons suite that is comparable to the rest of its competitors. The problem with both the Typhoon and the Rafale is that of production numbers and eventually cost. They are high cost platforms because in the case of the rafale the production run is at 11 a year at the moment. Its tough to compete on cost with other projects that are going to be going hard such as the JSF or even the Sukhoi jets (Su-35 etc). We have no idea on what the PAKFA production will look like but I seriously doubt that it would be a threat to the Typhoon or the Rafale because I really do not expect these to be in production when the PAKFA is in its full production mode in the 20's.
Last edited by brar_w on 08 Apr 2015 17:10, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 17:09

further fighting will not be tolerated - admin
Last edited by Karan M on 08 Apr 2015 17:23, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19956
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Apr 2015 17:16

Singha wrote:the most worrisome points on Pakfa are
- what is the status of new internal carriage weapons, will they be ready by 2018. hanging them outside is no better than su30/rafale.


Kh-58UShK is slated to be in trials. The long range AAM is also likewise. Modifying the new RVV variants (100+km ) for internal carriage is no biggie to be honest.

- what is the status of new engine. will it be certified by 2018.


The weak point. I don't see it coming anytime before 2020 & it'll be 2022-2025 by the time it enters series production is my guess.
On the plus side, current 117 engines are pretty powerful in their own right.

- what is the status of the new distributed X and L band radar testing and MAWS spherical protection system , is it effective or still a long haul...the wing mounted distributed L aperture panels are a first on a fighter.


All in tests. Given NIIPs long history with ESAs, it shouldn't be an impossible task for them & they should progress reasonably well. It'll be interesting to see what modes it has (LPI etc). IFF is done by the L band panels.
The X Band AESA is split across the cheek panels as well.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4874
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby srai » 08 Apr 2015 20:01

Philip wrote:...

http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/the-russ ... s-in-2015/
The Russian Military Will Receive 200 New Aircraft in 2015
Despite a shrinking economy, Russia’s military budget continues to rise.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 06, 2015

...

“Under the framework of Defense Procurement and Acquisition program, the Air Force and Naval Aviation will receive 126 new military aircrafts and 88 helicopters. And long-range aviation serviceability rates will be set for 80 percent,” the Russian defense minister announced on Tuesday. He further underlined that the Russian Air Force’s “equipment with modern weapons will increase to 33 percent, while the serviceability status [will increase] up to 67 percent,” which means that two out three aircraft will be operational at any given time.

...


...


I think that highlights low serviceability rates of Russian equipment in general regardless of whether it is in the IAF or RuAF.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby karan_mc » 08 Apr 2015 20:06

,,,,


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Rupesh and 30 guests