Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - 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.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 14:13

Gagan wrote:The F-35 represents one part of an ecosystem of smart weapons and communication tech.
The whole ecosystem will have to be brought in, subject to signing several treaties that for example India is not willing to do.

WRT Turkey: Very interesting going ons there. Erdogan is miffed that the culinary institute tried to do a coup on him, and has made a U turn and is in Col Pooty's umbrella. Inquiring minds would like to know, whatever happened to the 50 odd lotus petals of the B-61 denomination stored in Incirlik?


Turkey and UAE wont have a better agreement with US than India does , US has explicitly said no to sharing of data with S-400 for Turkey or Su-35 for UAE if they buy it.

Technically it is not a challenge to share data it is the desire not to share F-35 data with systems other than what US provides. May be US wants those data to remain classified for all purpose and intent and its their right

Any way it is a matter of academic value for us as F-35 is not competing in either the IAF or Naval programs

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 994
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 06 Dec 2017 14:40

The new engine is significantly shorter than the old engine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 15:52

Thakur_B wrote:The new engine is significantly shorter than the old engine.


Current 117 Engine: 3 LPC, 7 HPC, 1 HPT and 1 LPT
New Id 30 Engine: 3 -stage LPC; 5 -stage HPC (see pics) and single staged turbine. [ viewtopic.php?t=6811&start=320#p1754619 ]

Interview with Saturn GD on 2nd stage engine [ viewtopic.php?t=5450&start=2880#p1438040 ]

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 20:29

Austin wrote:There is no gurantee that US would allow integration of F-35 into any other assest , considering it is not allowing NATO allay Turkey to integrate with S-400 or close allay like UAE to allow it to integrate with Su-35 ......certainly US officials have mentioned that officially now so all bets are off as far as F-35 goes unless US officially mentions it other wise.

The F-35 is not supposed to integrate with the S-400. It'll link with the IACCS via the ODL (functioning in lieu of the Link 16) the same way as the F-16 would. Neither Turkey not UAE have an analogue to the AFNET, they use NATO C4I systems.

Austin wrote:F-35 is not in contention for any of IAF or IN program so it really does not matter either ways.

Maybe, maybe not. The FGFA was a sure thing until a year or two ago, now.. we have to wait and see. And there is an open SEF requirement for the IAF that may have several outcomes. As far BRF is concerned, we discuss what our available options are, in addition to discussing what outcomes are most likely. Hence all the discussion about the Tu-22/Tu-160 for the IN.

Gagan wrote:The F-35 represents one part of an ecosystem of smart weapons and communication tech.
The whole ecosystem will have to be brought in, subject to signing several treaties that for example India is not willing to do.

Not really. In terms of communication, there are four modes employed - Link 16 (long range), MADL (line-of-sight), radio & UHF Satcom. The Israelis are replacing all but the MADL on the F-35I with local analogues. The IAF meanwhile relies on the Operational Data Link developed by IAI, and Software Defined Radios delivered by Rockwell Collins & TATA-SED. Practically speaking, whatever agreements are needed to operationalize the F-16 will be, more or less, sufficient for the F-35 as well.

All of the other stuff that one reads about like integrating it with the USN's Aegis to guide SM-3 or SM-6 to shoot down ballistic missiles and other targets at long range, is all icing on the cake. Its not essential to the basic functioning of the aircraft.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 06 Dec 2017 20:45

The F-35 is not supposed to integrate with the S-400. It'll link with the IACCS via the ODL (functioning in lieu of the Link 16) the same way as the F-16 would. Neither Turkey not UAE have an analogue to the AFNET, they use NATO C4I systems.


That is what I have been saying they wont allow F-35 to integrate with ODL they dont intent to share F-35 data.

If UAE and Turkey wants they can have their own data link but that wont change the intent of US to share the data with 3rd party system.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6011
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2017 21:02

There is no protocol outside of link-16 when it comes to the standard and nature of the data that would be shared on the F-35. The possibilities are endless including the ones that the USAF has on its 10 year horizon that requires data-link capability that technologically isn't possible at the moment. Israel as been able to use the open channels on the F-35s CNI to add its command and control data-sharing but will rely on it and the Link-16 since it is a participant in that effort as well. Any decision to integrate ODL, or any other data link will first and foremost begin with a discussion on what the protocol and minimum standard of information is that will be shared back and forth. Only then can the program office and the GOTUS decide. No such request has yet been made because the F-35 has till today only has had customers that had a L-16 backbone.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 21:09

Austin wrote:That is what I have been saying they wont allow F-35 to integrate with ODL they dont intent to share F-35 data.

If UAE and Turkey wants they can have their own data link but that wont change the intent of US to share the data with 3rd party system.

The F-35 data is no different from the F-16 data as far as the IACCS is concerned. Employment of the ODL doesn't require sharing of proprietary networking protocols.

Unlike India, UAE & Turkey don't have their own network, data-link or IFF system - they both use Link 16 and other spec gear. They'd prefer to have the S-400 integrated into their NATO-spec C4I systems to operate seamlessly but that idea's obviously unlikely to gain traction within NATO.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 06 Dec 2017 21:12

brar_w wrote:There is no protocol outside of link-16 when it comes to the standard and nature of the data that would be shared on the F-35. The possibilities are endless including the ones that the USAF has on its 10 year horizon that requires data-link capability that technologically isn't possible at the moment. Israel as been able to use the open channels on the F-35s CNI to add its command and control data-sharing but will rely on it and the Link-16 since it is a participant in that effort as well. Any decision to integrate ODL, or any other data link will first and foremost begin with a discussion on what the protocol and minimum standard of information is that will be shared back and forth. Only then can the program office and the GOTUS decide. No such request has yet been made because the F-35 has till today only has had customers that had a L-16 backbone.

Any discussion on the F-16 (wrt SEF) will also begin with a similar discussion. On what the COMCASA is to consist of, to be precise.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3519
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Kartik » 07 Dec 2017 06:29

Video- Russia flies first Su-57 fitted with new production 'Product 30' engine

Can't get over just how gorgeous this airplane really is.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2833
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Dec 2017 07:58

^ true dat... It's got to be the prettiest of the 5 gen birds

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Dec 2017 10:03

It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Dec 2017 11:44

Karan M wrote:It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.


Maturity of an aircraft is more of a question of squadron service an MKI is more mature then it was a decade back even with all avionics/engines etc remain the same with minor upgrade on radar side.

There will always be things one will find out as it enters squadron service and it enter its daily grind , some things will be found out even after a decade or 2 of squadron service.

PAK-FA will be what it is from technical side what its designers have frozen on the technical side and if that is achieved which will happen only by FOC mid-end of next year once complete test phase gets completed with existing 10-12 PT and Pre-Production model the last 2 PPM.

Maturity will come with time as it enters squadron service , Tejas with its existing design and technical freeze will be a more mature aircraft a decade from now.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 994
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 07 Dec 2017 14:10

Only someone not in their right mind would say that airframe wise Pak-Fa is not a beast. Russians are second to none when it comes to it. The Izd 30 program also seems to be on track.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5896
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby nachiket » 09 Dec 2017 00:04

Have they released any specs on the new engine? Thrust, SFC, weight, compression ratio etc.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Dec 2017 01:01

No, that's not what I mean. I mean when an aircraft at least has the basics ready and unlike a lot of Russian gear we inducted it turns out a lot of the stuff promised is nowhere ready. Its what 2 decades since we started getting T-90s and yet its TI issue is yet to be resolved.

My take is best we induct the PAKFA only once VVS inducts it and a few years later, so the kinks are worked out.

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:It looks well, but the big question is how ready it really is. I guess one more decade to mature.


Maturity of an aircraft is more of a question of squadron service an MKI is more mature then it was a decade back even with all avionics/engines etc remain the same with minor upgrade on radar side.

There will always be things one will find out as it enters squadron service and it enter its daily grind , some things will be found out even after a decade or 2 of squadron service.

PAK-FA will be what it is from technical side what its designers have frozen on the technical side and if that is achieved which will happen only by FOC mid-end of next year once complete test phase gets completed with existing 10-12 PT and Pre-Production model the last 2 PPM.

Maturity will come with time as it enters squadron service , Tejas with its existing design and technical freeze will be a more mature aircraft a decade from now.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19940
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Dec 2017 11:49

First Analysis of Iz 30 engine by a Poster Iz 30 Engine

Indranil whats your take ?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5887
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 09 Dec 2017 13:48

I don't know much about engines apart from the 101 concepts like bypass ratio, pressure ratios, stages etc. Obviously this new engine is a significant step forward. It answers one of the critical requirements of IAF. The rest, I leave it to the more gyanis here.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2833
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 12 Dec 2017 06:48

WRT to all aspect stealth or the lack of it on the pakfa. Head on at least, the bird seems to be very tfta. it is only In terms oof the backend, that some questions are raised. However, how importannt is all aspect stealth keeping in mind the followinng:
1) Most SAMs wiill be hardpressed to get the bird in tailchase mode because of its high speed and relatively low rcs even in that quarter. In any case doesnt radar acquisition range seriously reduce in tailchase mode - like over 50%?
2) If the idea is to take out heavily defended areas with long ranged supersonic/hypersonic, stealthy cruise missiles such as the bmos ng, how likely is the pakfa to really encounter powerful Sams considering it will stay outside sam envelope, launch and scoot?
3) Is the likely increase in cost associated with all aspeect stealth worthwhile keeping in mind the above?

A2A at least there seems to be nothing lacking wrt the pakfa. Russki philosophy seems to be KISS and quite practical.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, Bart S, pattnayak, Yahoo [Bot] and 49 guests