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.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 04 Sep 2019 12:11

Sumeet wrote:Su 57 is not a proper Stealth design due to these and other reasons (Gaps between panels, rivets, rear side stealth compromised by engines, engine blades visible via duct, not stealthy if someone is looking at it from below [not flat/smooth like F-22], it has spherical ball shape IRST above and below). Comparatively AMCA the way it is planned is much much better.


Who ever told you that Flat Surface is good for Stealth ? Try to bring a Flat Surface near a RF source at 90 degree and try to measure the RF returns and then try to move the Flat Surface in different direction , The least RF returns comes when your Flat Surface is pointing at the RF source at the edge of the diagional at 90*

But you cannot design a fighter aircraft without flat surface due to aerodynamic reason hence using RAS and RAM is the only option.

Flat under surface for aircraft is also bad for another reason because of its large Wet Surface area which is draggy.

The Y Duct is an old design approach , Y Duct takes too much internal space and during High Angle of Attack they would starve the engine of air which can lead to flame out, The Only reason Y Duct was adopted because its simpler to design.

A better approach is to design a Blocker which does not compromises the Air Intake at any angle of Attack and Hides the Engine Blade but that is a more sophisticated approach which PAK-FA has adopted.

The only western LO aircraft using Blocker Approach was Boeing X-32, Again its one thing to Design a Blocker and another thing to Design a Sophisticated one that does not Starve the Engine of Air at Any Angle of Attack, PAK-FA Blocker is a Dynamic one that adapts itself to AOA and there is a patent information available on the net if you search

The Rear Engine thing is taken care by Serated Nozzle , I have posted the picture above and another option is 2 D Nozzle , Both option are presented to RuAF and its upto them to decide which one they want , 3D Nozzle has the advantage that it will alllow the Nozzle Movement in any direction and give aircraft manouveribility while a 2 D engine can have just pitch and yaw movement and better for LO but compromised manouveribility.


Indranil had already dealt on Stealth Aspect of PAK-FA many times and even he came to conclusion LO of PAK-FA is no better or worse than F-35 or F-22.

With 11.5 Tons of Internal Fuel , 1500 km of Super Cruise Range ( Supersonic without AB ) and more than 3500 in subsonic range , With Supermanouverbility out classing even Su-35 , PAK-FA will be more than competitive to any flying aircraft.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 04 Sep 2019 12:12

The main customer of PAK-FA RuAF Deputy Chief said the following recently , Also confirmed PAK-FA can supercruise even with current 117 engine

http://redstar.ru/podyomnaya-sila-krylev-rossii/


- You have already mentioned in our conversation the aircraft of generation 4 ++ MiG-35 and 5th generation Su-57, which are now being tested. Tell us what opportunities do they have? How are the tests and when can they be expected in the army?

- The main difference between the MiG-35 and the multifunctional aircraft of the 4 ++ Su-30SM and Su-35S generations already in service is efficiency. The cost of its flight hour is about one and a half times lower than that of modern aircraft of the Sukhoi family.

The Su-57 is distinguished by multifunctionality, super maneuverability, a mode of long supersonic cruising flight, maximum automation of aircraft control processes and the use of weapons. In its capabilities, it surpasses the 5th generation aircraft of foreign air forces.

It is planned to complete state tests of the MiG-35 at the end of 2021, and the Su-57 this year. Upon completion, serial purchases are provided. I want to remind you: according to the results of the meetings in Sochi, the Supreme Commander was tasked with re-equipping three regiments on Su-57 aircraft.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 04 Sep 2019 12:14

Flight display of PAK-FA by Test Pilot Sergei Bogdan at MAKS 2019


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 04 Sep 2019 12:16

Group Flight at MAKS


ashvin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 05 Apr 2011 11:45

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

Postby ashvin » 04 Sep 2019 18:18

^^
Sergei Bogdan, is truly a superstar! I saw his demonstration in 2013 Paris Airshow and it was a show stopper! People did not move, they were glued in anticipation as he waited from clearance from the flight director. I remember that day, it was cloudy and the weather was turning and there was a vertical limit restriction for demonstrations. Once the demonstration started everyone was amazed. Even with the restriction he handled the bird with such finesse that everyone was aghast! It was the last demonstration of the day and it was the best! Back then I had no camera, it is shame that I have no pictures, only recollections etched deep in my mind.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1424
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 04 Sep 2019 19:12

Austin wrote:Flight display of PAK-FA by Test Pilot Sergei Bogdan at MAKS 2019



:shock:

That's the grace of a ballerina in air. This bird does not have a single bad angle to its beauty.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53209
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2019 21:34

So what were the real objections of IAF for dropping out of PAKFA development?

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

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

Postby Bart S » 04 Sep 2019 21:52

Would make a nice addition to the Surya Kirans team. Will be great for air show displays. :roll:

For frontline squadrons, hope we stick to proven aircraft with a cutting edge sensor suite, high serviceability and from a vendor who does not keep moving goalposts.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7617
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 04 Sep 2019 23:31

How do you guys eyeball the RCS?

And even if you know the RCS, how does one game out the cat and mouse game of detection vs stealth vs countermeasures vs weapon kinematics?

The Russians are at least 10 years behind in the refinement of avionics. I was talking to an LCA TP recently about the integration of all these sensors and presentation to a pilot. He said it is part artistry which comes with experience. Whatever looks good on a computer screen may not be the most intuitive when a pilot is under stress. e felt we will get there only if we co design with our pilots. Russia lost a decade in the reorganization. Now, it is up and running again. I will not be surprised if PAKFA becomes the best fighter by 2030.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3740
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Sep 2019 23:37

Indranil wrote: I will not be surprised if PAKFA becomes the best fighter by 2030.

And that is around when I expect an order of these birds from the IAF... Maybe a little earlier when the izd130 is complete.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3740
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Sep 2019 23:50

ramana wrote:So what were the real objections of IAF for dropping out of PAKFA development?

The 2 pilots and heavy maintenance requirements have been mentioned earlier. Strategic dependence on the russkis could be another. Variety in tactics possible with something like the rafale is also another reason. Lack of terprom modes on bars still another.
Not to mention the fact that the iaf clearly has hots for the rafale.
The rafale with meteor and passive bvr tactics via Spectra/mica iir is the iafs silver bullet for now.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3315
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 05 Sep 2019 00:01

ramana wrote:So what were the real objections of IAF for dropping out of PAKFA development?



if i remember right, the Russians were not quite open in sharing the technology and i think an IAF team came back empty-handed without having any access to the aircraft, the Indians were just relegated to money providers and there was no role for HAL/DRDO in its development as was supposed to.

Finally IAF and MOD just decided they will not spend money on "co-development" and might buy a mature product down the line if the RuAF buys the PAK-FA, and rightly so.. everyone involved had the feeling India was taken for a ride., India did lose more than 300 million USD sunk in its development costs that cannot be redeemed. keep in mind that even that piecemeal order by RuAF took years to get through, with them preferring upgraded Su 35s to the PAK-FA for large scale deployment citing costs !! ! . Even the Russians don't claim the PAKFA to compete against the F35, rather it is the "Russian 5th gen" . It seems them are comfortable with their Mig 31 s doing long-range interdiction coupled with the Su 35s air support., a significant nuclear arsenal helps in such a tactical approach. For India it's a different matter requiring more sophisticated tech for a purely tactical scenario more decoupled with its strategic arsenal. What suits the Russians may not suit India.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7617
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Sep 2019 00:09

Cain Marko wrote:
ramana wrote:So what were the real objections of IAF for dropping out of PAKFA development?

The 2 pilots and heavy maintenance requirements have been mentioned earlier. Strategic dependence on the russkis could be another. Variety in tactics possible with something like the rafale is also another reason. Lack of terprom modes on bars still another.
Not to mention the fact that the iaf clearly has hots for the rafale.
The rafale with meteor and passive bvr tactics via Spectra/mica iir is the iafs silver bullet for now.

Opacity to program development is the main reason.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3740
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2019 00:36

Indranil wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:The 2 pilots and heavy maintenance requirements have been mentioned earlier. Strategic dependence on the russkis could be another. Variety in tactics possible with something like the rafale is also another reason. Lack of terprom modes on bars still another.
Not to mention the fact that the iaf clearly has hots for the rafale.
The rafale with meteor and passive bvr tactics via Spectra/mica iir is the iafs silver bullet for now.

Opacity to program development is the main reason.

Do you mean opacity in terms of a Russian upgrade path or indigenous one? I'm assuming it would be the latter considering most countries would be unwilling to lose the lucrative possibility of program development.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7617
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Sep 2019 00:52

They were not forthcoming with their design experience and choices. They were guarded to let even IAF officers access to the bird. India was looking for a chance to codesign. There was no chance of that.

So, there is no point of us bankrolling its development if we don't get to learn from the process. We now have no option but learn through AMCA design experience. If it fails, we can buy the PAKFAs.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 05 Sep 2019 02:47

kit wrote:
ramana wrote:So what were the real objections of IAF for dropping out of PAKFA development?



if i remember right, the Russians were not quite open in sharing the technology and i think an IAF team came back empty-handed without having any access to the aircraft, the Indians were just relegated to money providers and there was no role for HAL/DRDO in its development as was supposed to.

Finally IAF and MOD just decided they will not spend money on "co-development" and might buy a mature product down the line if the RuAF buys the PAK-FA, and rightly so.. everyone involved had the feeling India was taken for a ride., India did lose more than 300 million USD sunk in its development costs that cannot be redeemed. keep in mind that even that piecemeal order by RuAF took years to get through, with them preferring upgraded Su 35s to the PAK-FA for large scale deployment citing costs !! ! . Even the Russians don't claim the PAKFA to compete against the F35, rather it is the "Russian 5th gen" . It seems them are comfortable with their Mig 31 s doing long-range interdiction coupled with the Su 35s air support., a significant nuclear arsenal helps in such a tactical approach. For India it's a different matter requiring more sophisticated tech for a purely tactical scenario more decoupled with its strategic arsenal. What suits the Russians may not suit India.


In addition, they were not committing on the date by which 'a new engine' was supposed to power the FGFA, any TOT under which it would be produced in India and did not give any firm replies on IAF queries on level of stealth and the super cruising abilities of the FGFA.
Last edited by Vips on 05 Sep 2019 02:53, edited 1 time in total.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 05 Sep 2019 02:52

Indranil wrote:They were not forthcoming with their design experience and choices. They were guarded to let even IAF officers access to the bird. India was looking for a chance to codesign. There was no chance of that.

So, there is no point of us bankrolling its development if we don't get to learn from the process. We now have no option but learn through AMCA design experience. If it fails, we can buy the PAKFAs.


For the development, testing/IOC/FOC stages for AMCA to complete and for the first squadron to come into service will take at least a decade to happen. In the interim it would be surprising if India does not order at least 36 PAKFA to take care of exigencies.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 05 Sep 2019 03:13

Vips wrote:For the development, testing/IOC/FOC stages for AMCA to complete and for the first squadron to come into service will take at least a decade to happen. In the interim it would be surprising if India does not order at least 36 PAKFA to take care of exigencies.


I say it would be surprising if India orders 36PAKFA in the next 10 years. Why would we want a half baked plane of another variety in limited quantity in the next 10 years? Makes absolutely no sense at all. If 36 planes of this caliber are needed, India is better served by more rafales or MKI's.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3315
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 05 Sep 2019 03:53

The Russians ( including Ru AF) consider the PAK-FA as a stepping stone to a 6th Gen Russian fighter bomber ( more close to American 5th Gen) and are not likely to commit to it in any significant way unless they have significant exports, read India., China will access that tech in some way but not in numbers. PAK-FA is like a dodo ahead of its times :mrgreen: , The Russians want to push it into exports though and here is the fun part, all those shows and marketing is precisely for that, but no matter a crow is cleaned it can never be a swan!..This is not deriding Russian tech in any way but it is far from being the 5th generation fighter India hoped it would be.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7047
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 05 Sep 2019 04:17

Looking at the panel gaps, fit and finish and shaping of the PAK-FA prototypes, and comparing it to the J-20, the Chinese seem to be well ahead of the Russians in those aspects. The Russian lead is in engines where the Chinese are still struggling to an extent. And perhaps in weapons and avionics, although looking at China's domestic electronics industry, it shouldn't take long for them to catch up if they haven't already.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 05 Sep 2019 06:00

It might be a good plane to fly, but IAF has missions to run, places to send out of orbit, not sure if this is integrated enough to achieve that. We took the MKI and toiled on it to make it what it is. We will continue to improve MKI program and platform, but it doesn't come pre kitted out like Rafales.

On choice between PAKFA or Rafales. Raffies any day.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20056
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 05 Sep 2019 08:19

The public unveiling of the SU-57 ready for export indicates that it is not " half-baked" at all.Take a look at the still plagued JSF to understand that phrase better!
Jokes aside, it is a far superior product than the Chin canary from available western sourced info. alone.The PRC fielding 7 canaries together and boasting of regional air superiority, indicates that if we want to maintain at least equality in quality, a buy of 2 sqds. of SU-57s even the Mk-1s are required.They can be upgraded later to our specs as we've done in similar fashion to the SU-30 acquisition.We've still got the offer of first refusal but the window is closing.Annual production for the RuAF alone will take the lion's share and numbers. left for exports will be limited. Like the S-400 exports of which both China and Turkey have already acquired the same may see us at the back of the queue if we don't seize the day. 4++ fighters aren't good enough even the Rafale which is arguably the rough equiv. of a non- BMos MKI and AMCA is still a paper dream which may or may not arrive around 2035/40.

LakshmanPST
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 05 Sep 2019 10:49

I think India need not buy Su57s now...
If at all we have to buy it, we should consider start of development of FGFA some 10 years down the line, after the main platform is fully mature and all critical technologies, like engines, are ready...
Then we may order some 5-6 squadrons of Su57MKIs as a replacement of some Su30MKIs starting 2035...
These heavyweight Su57MKIs can compliment Medium Weight AMCAs...
-
The above, assuming IAF would have the requirement of Heavy Fighters post 2035... If IAF's operating philosophy changes, I guess they can manage with AMCA and won't be needing this altogether...
-
For now, IAF should only buy Tejas variants & few Rafales and nothing else...

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5409
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Postby vishvak » 05 Sep 2019 12:00

Indranil wrote:They were not forthcoming with their design experience and choices. They were guarded to let even IAF officers access to the bird. India was looking for a chance to codesign. There was no chance of that.

So, there is no point of us bankrolling its development if we don't get to learn from the process. We now have no option but learn through AMCA design experience. If it fails, we can buy the PAKFAs.

From earlier post last page
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.

Add to USA not selling stealth warplanes to country with S-400 defence systems and so on, or "sharing data" part that is more important as stealth systems becoming more preferable due to China.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2019 12:45

Indranil wrote:They were not forthcoming with their design experience and choices. They were guarded to let even IAF officers access to the bird. India was looking for a chance to codesign. There was no chance of that.


The Main Reason why IAF did not go for FGFA was cost , The cost of Co-development , TOT , Lic Production etc was too high around $25 - 30 billion though not upfront but over period of time.

IAF already had shortage of fund to even buy 126 Rafale as part of MMRCA 1.0 plus it has many other commitments Tejas , MKI upgrade , Transport fleet etc IAF does not have that kind of budget to get into co-development of FGFA

The design of PAK-FA was frozen in 2004 so there was no chance India had a chance to co-design , The FSED was around 2005 and first flight around 2011.

India had proposed twin seater FGFA but that would have affected its LO capability , HAL and IAF Team lead by ACM Vardhaman was for FGFA route but the IAF hesititated.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
HAL Chairman and Managing Director T Suvarna Raju said the multi-billion dollar co-development project with Russia will be an opportunity as no country has ever offered such critical technology to India.

"We are still hopeful. It is an opportunity for the industry as well as for the country. This is an opportunity for us to go in for this kind of (high) technology which has not been offered to us by any other country (except Russia)," he said.


According to official sources, the IAF is not very keen to pursue the project in view of the high cost.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08 ... hter-deal/

“The internal committee, headed by retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman, after studying technical parameters, has recommended India to acquire the Indo-Russian FGFA,” the MoD official said, referring to the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.


Recently IAF Chief in July visit to Russia said that once RuAF inducted PAKFA they will look into buying it and now RuAF has signed order for 76 PAK-FA by 2027 there is 12 Prototypes flying

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/ ... rvice.html



“When it (Su-57) is already put into service with you, only then can we make a decision for ourselves. We are ready to consider it for acquisition after we see it in the case,” Dhanoa noted.




AMCA and PAK-FA are different class of fighters , AMCA is a medium weight category like Rafale and FGFA is in 35T class


There is a DRDO Strike Scenario Chart that shows the Strike Radius of AMCA and FGFA

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06 ... -fgfa.html

from a recent DRDO presentation and perhaps the first that depicts the LCA, AMCA and FGFA in an operational scenario.


Image


Considering FGFA can do a 1500 km Supercruise ............It can do a 600 Km Radius Strike in SuperCruise conservatively speaking

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2019 12:56

ashvin wrote:^^
Sergei Bogdan, is truly a superstar! I saw his demonstration in 2013 Paris Airshow and it was a show stopper! People did not move, they were glued in anticipation as he waited from clearance from the flight director. I remember that day, it was cloudy and the weather was turning and there was a vertical limit restriction for demonstrations. Once the demonstration started everyone was amazed. Even with the restriction he handled the bird with such finesse that everyone was aghast! It was the last demonstration of the day and it was the best! Back then I had no camera, it is shame that I have no pictures, only recollections etched deep in my mind.


I read he is now the Chief Test Pilot of Sukhoi .....Was the first to fly Su-35 and PAK-FA as Test Pilot and then then was fully involved in the program.
Last edited by Austin on 05 Sep 2019 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2019 13:01

Indranil wrote:How do you guys eyeball the RCS?

And even if you know the RCS, how does one game out the cat and mouse game of detection vs stealth vs countermeasures vs weapon kinematics?


Not to mention RCS is very dynamic thing in a combat environment and aircraft would be 3D object constantly changing its trajectory in flight and height. It would be sparsely if even possible to present your lowest RCS area to an oponent radar in a combat scenario involving many versus many in the air which we even saw recenty with 21 versus 16 and will be compounded further if a LO aircraft enters into a SAM and Radar rich environment.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3740
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Sep 2019 19:56

Austin wrote:
Indranil wrote:They were not forthcoming with their design experience and choices. They were guarded to let even IAF officers access to the bird. India was looking for a chance to codesign. There was no chance of that.


The Main Reason why IAF did not go for FGFA was cost , The cost of Co-development , TOT , Lic Production etc was too high around $25 - 30 billion though not upfront but over period of time.

IAF already had shortage of fund to even buy 126 Rafale as part of MMRCA 1.0 plus it has many other commitments Tejas , MKI upgrade , Transport fleet etc IAF does not have that kind of budget to get into co-development of FGFA

The design of PAK-FA was frozen in 2004 so there was no chance India had a chance to co-design , The FSED was around 2005 and first flight around 2011.

India had proposed twin seater FGFA but that would have affected its LO capability , HAL and IAF Team lead by ACM Vardhaman was for FGFA route but the IAF hesititated.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
HAL Chairman and Managing Director T Suvarna Raju said the multi-billion dollar co-development project with Russia will be an opportunity as no country has ever offered such critical technology to India.

"We are still hopeful. It is an opportunity for the industry as well as for the country. This is an opportunity for us to go in for this kind of (high) technology which has not been offered to us by any other country (except Russia)," he said.


According to official sources, the IAF is not very keen to pursue the project in view of the high cost.


https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08 ... hter-deal/

“The internal committee, headed by retired Indian Air Force Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman, after studying technical parameters, has recommended India to acquire the Indo-Russian FGFA,” the MoD official said, referring to the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.


Recently IAF Chief in July visit to Russia said that once RuAF inducted PAKFA they will look into buying it and now RuAF has signed order for 76 PAK-FA by 2027 there is 12 Prototypes flying

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/ ... rvice.html



“When it (Su-57) is already put into service with you, only then can we make a decision for ourselves. We are ready to consider it for acquisition after we see it in the case,” Dhanoa noted.




AMCA and PAK-FA are different class of fighters , AMCA is a medium weight category like Rafale and FGFA is in 35T class


There is a DRDO Strike Scenario Chart that shows the Strike Radius of AMCA and FGFA

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06 ... -fgfa.html

from a recent DRDO presentation and perhaps the first that depicts the LCA, AMCA and FGFA in an operational scenario.


Image


Considering FGFA can do a 1500 km Supercruise ............It can do a 600 Km Radius Strike in SuperCruise conservatively speaking

Thanks for the quick reminders based on official comments Austin, brings more balance to the conversation.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 05 Sep 2019 20:53

Philip wrote:The public unveiling of the SU-57 ready for export indicates that it is not " half-baked" at all.Take a look at the still plagued JSF to understand that phrase better!
Jokes aside, it is a far superior product than the Chin canary from available western sourced info. alone.The PRC fielding 7 canaries together and boasting of regional air superiority, indicates that if we want to maintain at least equality in quality, a buy of 2 sqds. of SU-57s even the Mk-1s are required.They can be upgraded later to our specs as we've done in similar fashion to the SU-30 acquisition.We've still got the offer of first refusal but the window is closing.Annual production for the RuAF alone will take the lion's share and numbers. left for exports will be limited. Like the S-400 exports of which both China and Turkey have already acquired the same may see us at the back of the queue if we don't seize the day. 4++ fighters aren't good enough even the Rafale which is arguably the rough equiv. of a non- BMos MKI and AMCA is still a paper dream which may or may not arrive around 2035/40.


You are right. Jokes aside, there is not even a comparison on the achievements of F35 program over SU57. This was "explained" to you multiple times on this forum by many members, so I will refrain from doing this. All I want is some of the good stuff you are smoking. For cheen canaries, Rafale would be sufficient to keep them at bay and that is what we need for the next 10 years. We do not need something hypothetical, that would dominate their fighting platforms, in a hypothetical battle, which may or may not happen(my money is on may not) in the next 10 years, and by doing that starve ourselves for the next 30 years. You may come from a different generation that does not have confidence in our domestic capabilities, but I have seen enough around to be inspired to believe that in a 10-20 year time scale, we will come out ahead, provided we back our efforts, and abilities. Let Russia get these planes first and then you and I can talk again. Until then, it remains a half baked product as against 400+ amreeki stuff.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3315
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 06 Sep 2019 00:28

This must be a joke :mrgreen:

https://zeenews.india.com/world/russia-offers-joint-development-of-submarines-with-india-2232291.html

Russia, however, did not offer fifth-generation fighter Su-57 that was showcased at MAKS airshow. A Russian government source said, "We are not offering it to anyone". :mrgreen:


https://www.janes.com/article/90772/maks-2019-russia-unveils-export-variant-of-su-57

A Rosoboronexport representative told Jane's that the Su-57E has state clearance for export and the latest aircraft is a priority in its business plans. Rosoboronexport is now hoping to begin initial discussions with undisclosed potential foreign customers. However, there are no formal requests to buy the aircraft from any countries so far, he added. He refused to comment further on programme status, aircraft weapon systems, specifications, and performance.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

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

Postby Bart S » 06 Sep 2019 01:20

"Joint Development" offer by Russians generally means that we pay for the development while they develop it while sharing little or nothing with us. The whole exercise is a joke.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7752
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2019 09:01

kit wrote:A Rosoboronexport representative told Jane's that the Su-57E has state clearance for export and the latest aircraft is a priority in its business plans. Rosoboronexport is now hoping to begin initial discussions with undisclosed potential foreign customers. However, there are no formal requests to buy the aircraft from any countries so far, he added. He refused to comment further on programme status, aircraft weapon systems, specifications, and performance.


Not a single serial production Su-57 is currently operational with the Russian Air Force. Plans announced this summer, point to a domestic procurement of just 76 aircraft that are to be delivered from 2019 through 2028 with more coming later. Such low numbers mean that obtaining an export customer is probably going to be important to get the production rate up from its current anemic planned production rate through late next decade. The problem is that very few customers out there would want to go all in for the aircraft until the Russian Air Force either backs it in a big way or establishes a sizable fleet and begins generating XX,XXX fleet hours per year. Short of an IAF order rather soon this probably leaves China or Turkey as possible parties who may be interested..

KUBINKA, June 27. /TASS/. The Russian Ministry of Defense will receive 76 multirole fighter jets Su-57 within the framework of a contract with Sukhoi Company, Minister of Industry Denis Manturov told reporters on Thursday at the Army 2019 Forum.

"76 aircraft," Manturov said.

Fighter jets will be supplied by 2028, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko told reporters.

https://tass.com/defense/1065905


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23380
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 06 Sep 2019 12:20

76 aircraft is 3 regiment from RuAF pov and if you add the 10 PT , That close to 4 Squadron.

That is good enough number to streamline their production base for PAK-FA and Sukhoi/RuAF is still producing & procuring Su-30SM,Su-35 and Su-34 and even for exports. Ofcourse export will be good for PAK-FA as for any other aircraft they can gradually reduce the per unit cost

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2410
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 06 Sep 2019 13:04

Tejas is more integrated and has bigger commitments than this thing! Probably low enough RCS too since we are eye balling RCS now :D

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 14:19

Austin wrote:
Indranil wrote:How do you guys eyeball the RCS?

And even if you know the RCS, how does one game out the cat and mouse game of detection vs stealth vs countermeasures vs weapon kinematics?


Not to mention RCS is very dynamic thing in a combat environment and aircraft would be 3D object constantly changing its trajectory in flight and height. It would be sparsely if even possible to present your lowest RCS area to an oponent radar in a combat scenario involving many versus many in the air which we even saw recenty with 21 versus 16 and will be compounded further if a LO aircraft enters into a SAM and Radar rich environment.


Which is precisely why the Su-57s so-so aft/rear RCS is an issue. Its maneuvering abilities + ECM may be ok for A2A, but as a deep penetrator against IADS with multiple radars, its seriously vulnerable.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3740
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Sep 2019 14:41

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:
Not to mention RCS is very dynamic thing in a combat environment and aircraft would be 3D object constantly changing its trajectory in flight and height. It would be sparsely if even possible to present your lowest RCS area to an oponent radar in a combat scenario involving many versus many in the air which we even saw recenty with 21 versus 16 and will be compounded further if a LO aircraft enters into a SAM and Radar rich environment.


Which is precisely why the Su-57s so-so aft/rear RCS is an issue. Its maneuvering abilities + ECM may be ok for A2A, but as a deep penetrator against IADS with multiple radars, its seriously vulnerable.

Maybe the russkis are counting on it's high speed to be able to make it difficult to bring down an already receding target?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7752
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2019 18:47

Austin wrote:76 aircraft is 3 regiment from RuAF pov and if you add the 10 PT , That close to 4 Squadron.


As I said the order and plan announced this June points to 76 serially produced aircraft over the next 9-10 years. I don't count prototypes as serially produced aircraft but I guess the number is still fairly small even if one wanted to boost it up by adding prototypes, test-beds, tech demonstrators or static testing aircraft etc.

Austin wrote:That is good enough number to streamline their production base for PAK-FA and Sukhoi/RuAF is still producing & procuring Su-30SM,Su-35 and Su-34 and even for exports. Ofcourse export will be good for PAK-FA as for any other aircraft they can gradually reduce the per unit cost


I don't think this is a "good enough" number for a fifth generation aircraft's first decade of production. But YMMV! This probably does not get them above a dozen or slightly more per year through 2028 unless there is an export customer to boost production rates. Importantly, from the perspective of a lot many export customers this means that it will take a while for the Russian Air Force to build a sizable inventory and begin cranking up their cumulative usage on these airframes which is important as reliability, software stability and production quality generally tracks to the cumulative fleet performance as production process, operator-developer feedback pays dividend when you have a sizable fleet operating it on a routine basis. As things stand the Russian Air Force is unlikely to have 50 operational serially produced Su-57's by 2025 so anyone expecting them to be putting 10's of thousands of fleet hours a year is going to have to wait. This leaves the larger customers who can afford the "risk" to be the path leaders in acquiring the aircraft when the host nation is doing so at a very slow rate. Hence I mentioned India, China, and perhaps Turkey.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 06 Sep 2019 20:01

I'm actually fine with buying Su-57. I look at it as Su-30MKI++, and it'd be good to relieve the pressure off AMCA for the next 10 years till the latter gets ready.
What I'm *not* fine would be paying the Russians the Rafale price for it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 20:54

Cain Marko wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Which is precisely why the Su-57s so-so aft/rear RCS is an issue. Its maneuvering abilities + ECM may be ok for A2A, but as a deep penetrator against IADS with multiple radars, its seriously vulnerable.

Maybe the russkis are counting on it's high speed to be able to make it difficult to bring down an already receding target?


Yes but it will be hard for SAMs because SAMs can be directly below you, launch at you from multiple angles. You can't always constantly run away from threats because your weapons may not be always fire and forget either.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 22:09

The PAK-FA may actually make sense for us as a J-20 counter. Its designed to hunt other stealth aircraft, not be a stealth aircraft itself.

It can use L-band arrays to detect VLO threats like the J-20 (optimized for S-Band and below) at range, use that to cue either its IRST & X-Band in high power narrow sector search, use that to either close in for WVR (where its maneuverability would count) or launch RF weapons when within their acquisition envelope. It can use its X-Band array as both a radar and ECM (per some reports thats part of the Himalaya suite too) and it can actually crank to an extreme degree, still maintaining radar update with its cheek AESA, and then swivel for escape using TVC if at subsonic.

The Russian approach to the whole game is radically different than the US's silent assassin method because of obvious cost & technology challenges in developing a full blown VLO solution.

They are using LO RCS + ECM to degrade the opponent FCR range, L-Band wing arrays to cue high power X band beams vs VLO threats, ECM + radical manouever to degrade the missile Pk, cheek arrays to crank optimally and guide their missiles in (this will work best against conventional threats, so pack of PAK-FAs could work together to detect and then guide in BVR missiles via cooperative targeting vs VLO threats).

The IAF should wait till it is in VVS service, matured and pick it up, provided the PLAAF does not acquire it.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests