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.
Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1252
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 05 Sep 2018 18:28

Russians are struggling with 5G technology. At this rate by the time they perfect it and have the plane in numbers, US 6G prototypes would be flying.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22050
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 06 Sep 2018 09:37

If it refers to full thrust, the new Izdeliye 30 engine should provide 17 tons, compared to 14.5 tons for AL-41F-1. The engine’s dry weight is estimated at 1,450 kg (3,200 lb.), compared to 1,600 kg for AL-41F-1. Thanks to glass-fiber plastic inlet guide vanes, the new engine fan is planned to have much a smaller radar cross-section in the front view.


If what he says is true than Iz 30 should have a TW ratio of pretty close to 12:1 ...Compare that of AL-31FP on MKI with T:W ratio of 8:1 .

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22050
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 07 Sep 2018 11:31

Tests of combat aircraft "in the figure" will help to reduce the number of flights almost twice - UAC

http://militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=490126

09/07/2018 7:30:01 AM

Gelendzhik. 6 September. Interfax-AVN - Tests of combat aircraft, including the fifth generation, can be reduced by almost half due to digitalization, Interfax was told in the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC).

"The tests of a modern combat aircraft of 4+ or 5 generations can last from 5 to 10. If, during testing of third- or fourth-generation aircraft, 500-1000 flights were laid, modern aircraft, for example, of the fifth generation, should commit up to 5,000 sorties to polygons, before the product will be adopted, "- said the representative of the UAC.

He noted that modern digital technologies allow to shorten the time, as well as improve the quality and safety of aircraft testing.

"Today, the UAC has started using methods of testing aircraft systems, such as simulations and end-to-end test results, which can almost halve the number of flights for debugging weapons systems, almost a quarter - to assess aerodynamic characteristics," said the representative of the corporation.
According to him, this uses the capabilities of the newest "supercomputers" and takes into account the results of the previous stages of testing - a similar experience in the UAC has already been obtained by testing the designed "in-figure" civil aircraft SSJ-100 and МС-21.

Su-57 (a promising aviation complex of front-line aviation (PAK FA), T-50) is a Russian multi-role fighter of the fifth generation developed by Sukhoi Design Bureau. It is intended for the destruction of all types of air targets in long-range and near-battles, the destruction of enemy's ground, surface targets with the overcoming of enemy air defense systems, the monitoring of airspace at large distances from the base, the destruction of the control system of enemy aircraft operations. The first flight of PAK FA took place on January 29, 2010 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

From 6 to 9 September in Gelendzhik is the 12th International Exhibition and Scientific Conference on Hydroaviation - Gidroaviasalon-2018. The exhibition is located on the territory of the Gelendzhik airport and the experimental and experimental base of the Taganrog Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex (TANTK). Beriev. The organizer of the biannual aviation forum is the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the operator of the exhibition is Aviasalon OJSC.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 07 Sep 2018 16:01

Austin wrote:Tests of combat aircraft "in the figure" will help to reduce the number of flights almost twice - UAC

Computer simulation was to reduce JSF/F-35 testing effort. It didnt.
Computer simulation was to reduce Eurofighter testing effort. It didnt.
Computer simulation was to reduce LCA Tejas testing effort. It didnt.
Computer simulation will now reduce PAK-FA testing effort. Carry on Jeeves :rotfl:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 09 Sep 2018 23:01

There is a recent AWST feature on the challenges of rectifying JSF defects and the weight reduction exercise.
It is a revelation as to the immense tasks involved in perfecting the bird and the huge difficulties in designing and building the stealth bird, the huge engineering skills required ,which are still going on.A pic of the weapons bay shows such a chaotic mess of equipment, wiring, etc., remarked upon by the author, that it is remarkable that the bird is flying entering service.

This gives one an idea of what must be happening with our own LCA, trying to fit in eqpt. to turn the LCA into an M2K. I shudder to think of the time we're going to field the AMCA when global leaders who've built so many different aircraft in their thousands are taking so much time to do do with their latest stealth birds and at what huge cost.
In this context it is worth rememering the Rand study some years ago predicting a v.tough time for US F-22s in the Pacific against superior numbers of Chin Flanker clones, as they would run out of AAMs in dealing with the superior numbers of AAMs carried by the larger numbers of Flankers.

The IAF should operate in the future a balanced force of aircraft including stealth birds in affordable numbers supported by large numbers of heavy, med. and light birds, where the majority should be of the most affordable type that retains credible capability. In all our past wars with Pak, it was the humble Gnats, Hunters, HFs and MIGs
that did the biz. against supposedly superior Sabres, Starfighters and Mirages.Our numerical superiority plus superb training of our pilots enabled us to overcome Pak.

At Kargil we had equivalent - even superior birds in air combat to Pak's F-16s in the form of the MIG-29, why the PAF never dared to swing into action.However, we are losing that numerical superiority advantage today as legacy MIG types in their hundreds are retiring.Added to this is the joint PAF+ PLAAF factor in future conflicts as China starts to pursue a JV mil. strategy against us with the 2.5 front war scenario that we have to plan for, war in both eastern and western theatres and the maritime battle in the IOR.

We will need to possess at least 2 sqds. of FGFAs from 2022+ onwards as China will begin to field the same in Tibet and could even transfer some to Pak on lease if it couldn't afford outright purchase.Therefore , the planned acquisition of the SU-57 outright even if the JV route is abandoned for the current time should be pursued.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6806
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2018 23:36

There is a recent AWST feature on the challenges of rectifying JSF defects and the weight reduction exercise.


There is no weight reduction exercise ongoing. Weight reduction was done back when the program was put into probation by Robert Gates back in the 2010-211 timeframe. This only applied to the F-35B and the program successfully passed the design review for the weight reduction changes at the time . This allowed the next Secretary of Defense to lift the probation in the 2012/13 time-frame. All three F-35 variants currently have a favorable weight margin.

Graham Warwick's article covers all the challenges that they encountered and overcame over the last 15+ years. Remember that the F-35 is no longer in development.It passed that milestone earlier this year. No developmental testing is currently happening to support the SDD phase. They are preparing for follow on development phase now.

t is a revelation as to the immense tasks involved in perfecting the bird and the huge difficulties in designing and building the stealth bird, the huge engineering skills required, which are still going on


There is no "designing" happening at the moment. The F-35 has completed the SDD development test phase i.e. there is no design related issue that the program is working on. There may need to be some subtle design changes for block-4 capability but that is years into the future and will be performed as upgrades as new capability is fielded. Early November is when we will know about the details of Block 4.

A pic of the weapons bay shows such a chaotic mess of equipment, wiring, etc., remarked upon by the author, that it is remarkable that the bird is flying entering service.


What does this mean? There is no "chaotic" mess of equipment inside the weapons bay. The weapons bay, and everything in it has passed both the design reviews and is a frozen design. This is the way the designers intended it to be, and this is the way it will remain. There is some subtle change that will be incorporated on a few F-35Bs that were produced before some of these changes passed their design review but that will be done at the organic depots on those birds. The F-35s bay designs and requirements were strict. 4 BVRAAMs with growth for 2 more (total 6 AMRAAM class missiles), 2000 lb class PGM in both the bays and cruise missiles like the JSM as well. This from a single engine medium sized aircraft with all the sensors and antennas that it also had to house.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

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

Postby Trikaal » 10 Sep 2018 01:29

^Is that 6 BVR+2PGM+1cruise or 6 BVR/2 PGM/1 Cruise?
If it's the first case then holy shit!!!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6806
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2018 01:32

No 6 AMRAAM class BVRAAMs and nothing else internal. The mixed load is 2x Strike weapons + 2 x AMRAAMs. Those two strike weapons can be 2 x 2000 lb bombs, 2 x JSOW's, 2 x JSM stand off missiles, 2 x AARGM-ERs ARMs or up to 8 x SDBs.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36080
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 18 Nov 2018 05:44

Why did India leave the Su-57 programme?

After eleven years and development shares of 330 million euros – plus further billions of dollars requested by Russia – India was said to be fed up with Russia’s refusal to share both blueprints and source codes. Those elements are indispensable for the country’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. Without them, decision-makers did not want to invest funds into a still unfinished system. They would say India is better off developing their own stealth jet in the form of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Possibly. But when? After all, Indian development and procurement processes can certainly be called ‘byzantine’ – they can be measured in decades. Two examples: the recently launched LCA Tejas Mk.1A – whose carrier version was rejected as inadequate by the Indian Navy – has been an ongoing project for 30 years. Efforts to locally produce the BAE Hawk have also been a 22-year process.

Unfinished business

Over the years, the number of Indian jets has been halved from 214 to 144, and then to 127. Yet the two-seater repeatedly demanded by the IAF for complex missions has become – as one Indian Navy test pilot told DIB during an event in Bahrain – “more or less ignored by the Russians”. The latter are instead focusing on their concept of a PAK FA, intended to match the F-22 or F-35.

.....

On the Russian side, no one has officially confirmed the Indian withdrawal. Russian bloggers and forums posters are happy to “finally get rid of the annoying Indians”– but as the Su-57 now has to go it alone, they can provide no solution as to how the aircraft can continue.


The Indians are taking a similar view. For years, personnel at HAL and within the IAF have been obsessed with stealth. The Indians are must consider scenarios of offensive intrusion into well-defended enemy airspace (namely China or Pakistan) and of the destruction of key ground targets. Here at least a different approach to the basic orientation is notable in the FGFA / PMF plans.

Don’t bank on an Indian F-35
For decades, Russia was the main supplier of most weapon systems to the Indian Air Force and Naval Aviation. The 272 Indian Su-30MKI (with 220 since delivered) may have even saved the Russian fighter industry in the economic turmoil of the 1990s. But while it is obvious today that the Indians are increasingly ordering US-built inventory (C-17, P-8, AH-64, C-130J, etc), the FGFA project might have been an instance of ‘too little, too late’. The ‘hard’ stop for the FGFA does not automatically mean that the only alternative is an Indian 35 JSF.

For warplanes, the IAF and MoD want full-scale modernisation and adaptation-authority over the aircraft’s lifespan. That means access right down to the EW systems and their threat libraries. And they would probably get even less of that from the US government or Lockheed Martin than if they paid the Russians their $7bn asking price.


In addition, India would in this instance have to share its most sensitive data with the US, and still – as was reported from Dubai – US military leadership does not see a feasible option in basing or even linking F-35 technology alongside Russian systems. The same issues have arisen in the case of the S-400 sale to Turkey, which has 100 F-35 on its books. So far only Israel has been granted access to the F-35I ‘Adir’ architecture to adapt and modify onboard systems for national use.

Is there a future for the SU-57?
Russia’s T-50 / Su-57 project – launched in 2010 – has suffered a decisive setback.

https://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-mi ... he-su-57-1

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15744
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 18 Nov 2018 10:48

I was waiting for the usual plug to buy the Su-57 and getting worried when I didn't see it. Thank goodness, the last para didn't let us down. But why such a large post when all you could have said was "buy the FGFA or else....". :lol:
But to recap. The F-35 sux. The AMCA will not happen yada yada. We need number. Buy Su-57. Or else. :lol:
Goodness, some things never ever change.

Philip wrote:There is a recent AWST feature on the challenges of rectifying JSF defects and the weight reduction exercise.
It is a revelation as to the immense tasks involved in perfecting the bird and the huge difficulties in designing and building the stealth bird, the huge engineering skills required ,which are still going on.A pic of the weapons bay shows such a chaotic mess of equipment, wiring, etc., remarked upon by the author, that it is remarkable that the bird is flying entering service.

This gives one an idea of what must be happening with our own LCA, trying to fit in eqpt. to turn the LCA into an M2K. I shudder to think of the time we're going to field the AMCA when global leaders who've built so many different aircraft in their thousands are taking so much time to do do with their latest stealth birds and at what huge cost.
In this context it is worth rememering the Rand study some years ago predicting a v.tough time for US F-22s in the Pacific against superior numbers of Chin Flanker clones, as they would run out of AAMs in dealing with the superior numbers of AAMs carried by the larger numbers of Flankers.

The IAF should operate in the future a balanced force of aircraft including stealth birds in affordable numbers supported by large numbers of heavy, med. and light birds, where the majority should be of the most affordable type that retains credible capability. In all our past wars with Pak, it was the humble Gnats, Hunters, HFs and MIGs
that did the biz. against supposedly superior Sabres, Starfighters and Mirages.Our numerical superiority plus superb training of our pilots enabled us to overcome Pak.

At Kargil we had equivalent - even superior birds in air combat to Pak's F-16s in the form of the MIG-29, why the PAF never dared to swing into action.However, we are losing that numerical superiority advantage today as legacy MIG types in their hundreds are retiring.Added to this is the joint PAF+ PLAAF factor in future conflicts as China starts to pursue a JV mil. strategy against us with the 2.5 front war scenario that we have to plan for, war in both eastern and western theatres and the maritime battle in the IOR.

We will need to possess at least 2 sqds. of FGFAs from 2022+ onwards as China will begin to field the same in Tibet and could even transfer some to Pak on lease if it couldn't afford outright purchase.Therefore , the planned acquisition of the SU-57 outright even if the JV route is abandoned for the current time should be pursued.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Nitesh and 41 guests