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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2017 09:08

TOI today has a prominent report on the large number of def. projects both big and small tkt. languishing despite being approved years ago tx to red-tapism,babudom,etc. Nothing appears moving despite the PM's make in India mantra 3 yrs on.NS trying to speed things up.I think that like a few recent approvals so that we could "fight a short but intense war",the CCS should place all these pending files on a "war footing" list.One example: torpedoes for the Scorpenes and SSBNs.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 31 Oct 2017 10:25

ShauryaT wrote:
Austin wrote:
You dont want to fund multiple program today only to find out that 80 % of IAF Capex Budget is spent on funding then while just 20 % is left for maintenance and other activity.
This is exactly where the LTIPP comes into play. It was done in 2012 to go up to 2027. The contours of the type of assets they will fund would be known under this plan but, but, but even the 5 year DAC plan plans are not funded let alone the 15-year plan. MoD's first task is to get these 5-year plans funded.


These Plans just exisits on Paper , if MOF is oversteping its budget deficit and it would simply ask MOD to stop procurement or just hand over as much money as left over back to budget ....more over there is a inertia in decision making process in MOD

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4166
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2017 05:44

India Could Have Doubts About Russian Fifth-gen Fighter Buy
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ighter-buy

The overall assessment of the IAF report is that the FGFA would never be an aircraft in the class of the U.S. Lockheed Martin F-35 and that the maintenance costs would be prohibitively high. One of the chief concerns with regard to maintenance is that the engine currently flown in the Su-57 is the Saturn 117S/AL-41F1 design. The Indian report criticizes the engine for being too expensive to operate as it is not a “modular design.”


“The main focus in creating the F-35 was made on the basis of two main requirements: short takeoff and landing, as well as the stealth technology. The first aspect makes the plane a single-engine aircraft that can actually take off and land vertically on a short air strip. The stealth technology degrades flight quality and provides for a number of other restrictions,” said Aleksei Leonkov, from the Russian military publication Arsenal of the Fatherland. “If we compare the performance and combat capabilities of the F-35 and Su-57, the Su-57 leaves the U.S. aircraft considerably behind,” he claimed.


“From the public perspective, people look at those numbers here in India and get the impression that the Russian offer is a real bargain: 130-plus aircraft for $2.3 billion less than the price of 36 Rafales. This is what they think,” he explained. “But what no one realizes is that the $6.7 billion pays only for the program set-up costs and the production of the initial four FGFA prototype aircraft. The 127 aircraft to then be license-built in India will be at least another $135 million apiece, which is another $17.1 billion on top of the initial $6.7 billion outlay.”

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2017 10:22

72 Rafale 4th-gen birds will cost us around $15B too.With the FGFA at least we get IP rights and profits from any exports and RU orders too.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 09 Nov 2017 12:17

Philip wrote:72 Rafale 4th-gen birds will cost us around $15B too.With the FGFA at least we get IP rights and profits from any exports and RU orders too.


Dream on... :P

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2017 20:35

Yes,looking a distant dream as days go by.Apart from other issues,there's going to be little moolah in an election yr. where both the Rafale and SE OEMs have Indian partners.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby VKumar » 09 Nov 2017 22:17

Philip wrote:72 Rafale 4th-gen birds will cost us around $15B too.With the FGFA at least we get IP rights and profits from any exports and RU orders too.


I beg to differ. A good portion of the cost for 36 Rafale on order, is expenditure to create fixed assets, logistics, training, maintenance equipment, and this will not need to be multiplied by 2, more particularly if the additional two squadrons are based on the same airfields as the ones on order.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6616
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Prasad » 09 Nov 2017 22:48

Meanwhile the AMCA project languishes.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 10 Nov 2017 01:02

What we get from PAKFA/FGFA is VERY questionable. Ejectors racks and some RAM coatings may be.

But I still prefer it over anything else. And this is just my opinion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 10:42

I agree,it being the best chance for us to get some stealth tech with IP rights We may have missed the bus in helping create the etch,but the purchase and future upgrade option is still there .The importance of possessing a stealth bird is evident from this German assessment.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados
Germany Says the F-35 is the "Preferred Choice" to Replace its Tornados
The country's air force says only a fifth generation design will do, but it's not clear if that's a realistic option.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICKNOVEMBER 8, 2017

Despite a plan to jointly develop its own fifth generation fighter jet with France, Germany is still very interested in joining the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, is looking hard at the American jet as it presses for purchases of an already in production or development design to replace its aging Panavia Tornado swing-wing combat aircraft.

The F-35 is the “preferred choice” on a shortlist of aircraft the Luftwaffe is looking at to replace its approximately 85 Tornados, a “senior service official” speaking anonymously under the Chatham House Rule, told Jane’s 360, according to a report on Oct. 8, 2017. In May 2017, Reuters revealed that Germany’s air arm had received a classified briefing on the Joint Strike Fighter as part of the plan.

GERMANY MIGHT JOIN THE F-35 PROGRAM
By Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
FRANCE AND GERMANY WANT TO BUILD THEIR OWN 5TH GENERATION FIGHTER JET
By Joseph Trevithick

By Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
“The Tornado replacement needs to be fifth-generation aircraft that can be detected as late as possible, if at all. It must be able to identify targets from a long way off and to target them as soon as possible,” the German official told Jane’s. “The German Ministry of Defense is looking at several aircraft today, including the F-35 – it is commercially available already, has been ordered by many nations and is being introduced into service today, and has most of the capabilities required.”

Based on these requirements, it’s hard to see any alternative to Lockheed Martin’s F-35. China and Russia are the only other countries with flying fifth generation designs, which are simply not realistic options for NATO member Germany.

LOCKHEED MARTIN
A US Air Force F-35A.
If the Germans were to join the Joint Strike Fighter Program now, given the advanced state of the project, they might be able to escape paying a significant amount for the aircraft’s continued development.

In addition, the Luftwaffe would be able to benefit from expanding infrastructure to support the jets in Europe. The Netherlands is working to build an engine test and maintenance depot, while the Italians already operate the only final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility on the continent, which is already delivering aircraft to that country’s military.

BUNDESWEHR
A pair of German Tornados during a training exercise.
These are important considerations as the German military seeks to modernize and otherwise improve its readiness across the board. The functional capabilities of the country’s armed forces had been in steady decline after the end of the Cold War seemed to transform the geopolitical landscape in Europe.

Russia’s revanchist foreign policy, which became fully visible when it took over Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014, has stood this calculus on its head. The Luftwaffe’s desire for a fifth generation Tornado replacement is likely at least in part based on concerns about the growing scale and range of the Kremlin’s integrated air defenses, which include long-range surface-to-air missiles and associated radars situated along its western borders, in its Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic Sea, and the occupied Crimean Peninsula.

In response, Germany has moved to revitalize its armed forces. The country upped its annual defense spending by 2 billion Euros in 2017 – just more than $2.32 billion at the rate of exchange at the time of writing – and expected that to rise to almost $40 billion Euros – nearly $4.65 billion – by 2020.

But this has to cover a wide array of new equipment and improvements to existing systems. And the Luftwaffe needs a replacement for the Cold War-era Tornados, an Anglo-German-Italian joint development, as soon as possible.

In 2014, Der Spiegal, citing a leaked government report, said only 66 of the aircraft were airworthy at all and that less than 40 were combat ready. A year after that, Deutsche Welle obtained another review that showed the fleet’s readiness has slipped even further, with only 29 available for actual operations.

The state of the jets has been on full display since the Luftwaffe started flying the aircraft on reconnaissance missions against ISIS terrorists in Iraq in January 2016. Germany initially deployed six of the planes to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, but a political spat forced it to move the contingent to Jordan in October 2017. By that point, the total number of Tornados on hand had dwindled to just four.


Previous reports have suggested that the Germans were looking to retire the old swing-wing jets no later than 2035, but the official stressed to Jane’s that this was the estimate for when the last aircraft would have to head to the bone yard and that the process would have to start much earlier.

“The timeframe suggests we need to start introducing successor in about 2025 to cover the Tornado retirement in 2030 – we need a five-year transition phase,” they explained. “That is only seven years away, and so it is very unlikely that industry could develop and introduce an entirely new aircraft type that fulfils the functionalities that we require.”

This assessment isn’t wrong, especially with regards to fifth generation fighter jets. As we at the War Zone have noted in the past, the development cycles for this type of aircraft have proven to be long, complex, and almost prohibitively costly for many countries.

Though the Germans announced they would be working with the French on a clean-sheet design in July 2017, this aircraft wouldn’t likely arrive until sometime between 2030 and 2040 at the earliest. This is when European consortium Airbus estimated it would be able to deliver on a fifth generation concept in response to an earlier German-Spanish requirement, which it dubbed Future Combat Air System (FCAS), according to a public presentation the company made in 2016.

AIRBUS
Airbus is now pushing ahead with FCAS in response to the new Franco-German plan. The proposal incorporates both manned and unmanned components, all linked together, sharing information back and forth, as well as draw additional information from separate platforms in the air, on the ground, or in space.


As such, the European aviation consortium says the proposed stealth fighter jet component will include powerful sensors and data links, easy to upgrade software that makes use of artificial intelligence to aid in decision making, the necessary cyber security protections to prevent hostile actors from breaking into the overarching network. There are even plans to add a directed energy weapon, though Airbus has not made clear if this would be an offensive or defensive system.

.@AirbusDefence New Fighter to be developed for Germany and France to be a "key element" of #FCAS. Will be stealthy and feature on-board laser. #InternationalFighter

Just getting the aircraft is only one part of the picture, though. The War Zone’s own Tyler Rogoway has repeatedly highlighted, the high costs associated with operating and maintaining fifth generation aircraft. The F-35 in particular has already shown itself to have particularly complicated maintenance and logistics chains.

This is in no small part due reliance on Lockheed Martin’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is both at the core of the Joint Strike Fighter’s internal computer brain and is the basis of the cloud-based network that supports the jets and their operations. In October 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on this sustainment infrastructure as it applies to American F-35s, having found that at any time, on average, more than 20 percent of the existing U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps jets were not flyable at all because of a lack of appropriate spare parts.

All of this begs the question of whether any F-35s the Luftwaffe might acquire would be truly combat ready by the time it needs them to take over for the Tornados. And with the parallel plans to replace its Eurofighter Typhoons with an Anglo-French fifth generation fighter jet, Germany could be looking at having to manage the combined costs of supporting two distinct types of highly advanced aircraft.

On top of that, unless France and Germany were to find additional partners, they would be stuck with the entire bill – almost certain to be in the 10s of billions of dollars for research and development alone – for the fifth generation Typhoon replacement, which could easily require most of, if not all of Berlin's planned defense budget growth. The F-35 program has been a supremely costly endeavor even with more than a dozen countries contributing already.

BUNDESWWEHR
A Luftwaffe Tornado during testing of the Taurus long-range cruise missile.
Though its hard to understand why Germany would need two fifth generational designs, Scrapping the Franco-German arrangement could be politically problematic, as well. France's decision to back out of the Typhoon project and pursue the Dassault Rafale, had long provoked the ire of the remaining parties.

By the time any new clean sheet design would be available, it's not even clear that a manned fighter jet would be the best option. Unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV) are advancing at a steady pace and might offer a more cost-effective alternative for various mission sets. As noted, Airbus' own concept, now known as the Next Generation Weapon System (NGWS), already included a significant pilotless component.

All of this could make the German Ministry of Defense hesitant to go with the F-35 as a replacement for its Tornados in the near term, despite any particular service preferences. An in production late fourth generation type, such as the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen E, Boeing's F-15 Advanced Eagle, or Lockheed Martin’s own Block 70 F-16 Viper, could be a more attractive option. With regards to the Tornados and their primary air interdiction mission, the F-15 with its heavy bomb load might be the best analogue. Boeing also says it is looking to offer limited low-observable features on its Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which might present another avenue to a more affordable stealthy capability.

And though less advanced than the F-35, these aircraft – likely also on the shortlist of options – would offer a significant increase in capability over the Tornados now and would be more than able to support Germany’s immediate domestic and overseas needs. It could even allow the country to expand its ability to take on NATO air policing duties, a job that only its Eurofighters are able to do at all credibly at present.

Combined with long-range stand-off weapons, a fourth generation multi-role combat aircraft could still provide an important service in a potential high intensity European conflict, in which Germany would unlikely be operating outside of a coalition of other NATO members, including the United States. German Tornados are already capable of carrying the German-Swedish KEPD 350 Taurus cruise missile.

The Germans will have to make a decision one way or another soon, since the Tornados are rapidly heading toward the end of their service lives whether a replacement is ready or not.

bahdada
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 19:50

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby bahdada » 10 Nov 2017 13:36

JayS wrote:
Philip wrote:72 Rafale 4th-gen birds will cost us around $15B too.With the FGFA at least we get IP rights and profits from any exports and RU orders too.


Dream on... :P


Exports. Get ready Ecuador! :rotfl:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 10 Nov 2017 14:19

We get nothing from our investment in FGFA. And the radar and engines are way behind western or indigenous alternatives (Uttam).

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1746
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 10 Nov 2017 14:58

Investment and return is one thing but the IAF don’t think the thing is worth it in the operational sense.

They’ve stated the thing is not stealthy, its maintenance on the engine untenable and its ability to carry weapons (as a stealth aircraft) sucks.

I would accept the IAF being forced to use an inferior product that is built indigeniously and which we have the rights to improve over time. But this program is looking like another MKI where “TOT” is nothing but subcontracting work and we have no rights to make use of the tech except in the narrow straitjacket of the contracted production run.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1746
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 10 Nov 2017 15:08

And how often is the IAF against firangi gear? That should tell us the obvious about this project.

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/indian-air-force-127-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-russia/1/1039202.html

IAF not in favour of acquiring Russian 5th gen jets, keen on DRDO Make in India project instead

AJIT KUMAR DUBEY | NEW DELHI | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2017

The maintenance cost of the Russian planes is expected to be very high and similar to that of the Sukhoi-30 planes whose maintenance has been quite demanding.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 714
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kvraghav » 10 Nov 2017 16:31

I am sure the above is the first step in acquiring the F-35 instead. Cancel existing one in favor of Indigenous program and then reject Indigenous program for the sake of another preferred foreign one.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2017 16:47

IAF chief stated that both the reports were classified so media leaking stories quoting unnamed sources is the same old trick of lifafa journalism.
Only HAL Chief made formal statement on this and he was positive about the program.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 10 Nov 2017 16:52

chola wrote:And how often is the IAF against firangi gear? That should tell us the obvious about this project.

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/indian-air-force-127-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-russia/1/1039202.html

IAF not in favour of acquiring Russian 5th gen jets, keen on DRDO Make in India project instead

AJIT KUMAR DUBEY | NEW DELHI | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2017

The maintenance cost of the Russian planes is expected to be very high and similar to that of the Sukhoi-30 planes whose maintenance has been quite demanding.


We basically read what we have already decide in our mind to be the correct thing. While I call this article as big a hit job as the one being talked about in LCA thread, i will still quote a passage from the article for all to read:

...
Air Marshal S Varthman committee has recommended that the IAF should go ahead to coproduce the planes with Russia and the Defence ministry has to decide on it taking into account both the viewpoints.


Now this is not the only thing that the article says but since it is what I find correct, I shall quote it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2017 17:03

Read the report on the German dilemma again.The "scathing" comments on aspects of the F-35 which is extremely complicated to operate not to mention its cost.If we're b*tching about maintaining our MKIs, dream on with the JSF! They 'll be fit for air shows only.

Even more bewildering is the thought that we can do a stealth machine on our own when others have taken 15 yrs , a trillion+ $$$, and have still not yet perfected it! From the report even the Germans of all forces have low availability of Tornado swing- wingers and want to team up with other nations to build a 5th- gen bird! They are also in a dilemma over buying the JSF. Extremely "courageous" of our gallant boffins who have yet to produce a single fighter engine after decades of trying are confident of surpassing the Europeans from whom we are ...ahem...buying Rafales becos the L in the LCA programme stands for " late".

The DPSUs are desperate that with the SE and extra Rafales almost certain to arrive tx to the pressure from their Desi pvt. industry partners, their perpetual motion " tech- demo" weapon system development of a parasitical nature will end. Hence the campaign to shoot down the JV with Ru over the FGFA.In such a JV results are the order of the day.Bullsh*t does not work with Putin while it is par for the course in India.We will be exposed in such a JV why we filibustered joining the programme until it arrived.We now have to take it or leave it with the SU-57.
Like the Arjun, we now ask for "X" improvements. Who cares about the desi LCA ( with a firang engine,radar and weaponry) as long as it can show off its tricks at air shows where we can fool the nation that we've done it ?

The lack of accountability as Adm.Arun Prakash , former navy chief put it about our DPSUs and it's lethargic scientists ,drives the services mad. Pvt. industry is now on the verge of a huge breakthrough in garnering a decent share of the Indian defence pie and the DPSU parasites are sh*thing bricks that their eternal world of comfort and whopping annual budgets is about to end.Therefore, full steam ahead with the Desi 5th-gen fighter! We're 'll leapfrog 4th gen. tech (and ditch the LCA MK-2 on the way) and bash on regardless all the way to the bank!

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 11 Nov 2017 04:00

Philip wrote:Read the report on the German dilemma again.The "scathing" comments on aspects of the F-35 which is extremely complicated to operate not to mention its cost.If we're b*tching about maintaining our MKIs, dream on with the JSF! They 'll be fit for air shows only.

Just FYI Commissar saab, the Su-30 is a Sukhoi/UAC product while the F-35 is produced by Lockheed Martin.

If the IAF is "b*tching" about maintaining its MKIs, the Su-57 is a maintenance/reliability nightmare in the waiting.

At least the MKI was a development of the (relatively) proven Su-30 series. The PAK FA is a clean sheet design that is still in the prototype stage, with a production unit at least two years away. Going by its experience with the Su-30, it'll probably be 2030 before an IAF FGFA can FOC with its all bugs worked out.

Even more bewildering is the thought that we can do a stealth machine on our own when others have taken 15 yrs , a trillion+ $$$, and have still not yet perfected it!

I'd ask you for a source of $1 trillion+ spent claim (as I have about half a dozen times before), but I think we both know the decision to deliberately substitute truth with propaganda isn't a hard one for you.

From the report even the Germans of all forces have low availability of Tornado swing- wingers and want to team up with other nations to build a 5th- gen bird! They are also in a dilemma over buying the JSF.

The Germans have no independent fighter jet design experience post-WWII. The Tornado & Typhoon were British-led programs while the FCAS will be a French-led effort.

And there's no 'dilemma' so far. The German Air Force has explicitly stated its preference for the F-35 as a Tornado replacement. The economic & industrial aspects are still to be worked out.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Nov 2017 04:35

Still to be worked out.The trillion $$$ figure for the JSF is mentioned ad nauseam in US sources.It has regularly been described as being the most expensive fighter programme in history.

Maintenance of any 5th- gen bird is going to bring with it enhanced maintenance/ support issues, even the Rafale.OEMs incl.Dassault have repeatedly questioned the capability of our mil-industrial complex to absorb high- tech , with the US refusing to guarantee quality of Desi built components,etc.read reports reg.TOT for the SE fighter.Russia has said the same about our inability on absorbing high tech .Are they all wrong?

Pl read again the German and many other reports are available on the JSF's glitches, ALIS ,etc.The aircraft was propelled into production without these faults being rectified and as earlier posted, the entire first batch of over 100 aircraft need expensive rectification for them to be combat capable, which will affect current production- no extra funds, so the entire lot may have to be trashed!

The JSF is still a v.expensive work in progress and the great reluctance on the part of the US to share its advanced tech even with its closest allies like Britain will make it virtually impossible for us to acquire it if we maintain our objective of acquiring stealth tech. as a fundamental for our FGFA programme.Right now we have a JV agreement with Russia.The GOI should think very hard on the issue of ditching the programme where according to prev. official reports this year all tech. issues were resolved.There are only 3 nations with 5th- gen aircraft flying.Europe and the Far- Eastern nations have not even begun their programmes and are looking for JV partners.The SU-57 , which is flying with first deliveries expected sometime late 2018,is the only route available to us now with a full TOT package.The cost of which is for the GOI to decide.In whatever capability it comes with, China post 2020 will surely induct its first stealth birds.
Any Desi equiv. will arrive post 2030.It is abundantly clear where we will be if we do not proceed with the FGFA.That is the opinion of the commission that sent its report to the MOD and the chairman of HAL!

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 11 Nov 2017 06:23

Philip wrote:Still to be worked out.The trillion $$$ figure for the JSF is mentioned ad nauseam in US sources.

And both Brar & I have told you umpteen times that that is the projected life-cycle cost for 2,500 aircraft over a 55 year period upto 2070.

To imply that that's the amount already spent developing either requires generous application of idiocy or a tendency towards lying.

It has regularly been described as being the most expensive fighter programme in history.

And why wouldn't a program to replace four fighter types across four services be the most expensive fighter program in history?

Maintenance of any 5th- gen bird is going to bring with it enhanced maintenance/ support issues, even the Rafale.OEMs incl.Dassault have repeatedly questioned the capability of our mil-industrial complex to absorb high- tech , with the US refusing to guarantee quality of Desi built components,etc.read reports reg.TOT for the SE fighter.Russia has said the same about our inability on absorbing high tech .Are they all wrong?

Operational maintenance of a 5th generation aircraft has nothing at all to do with the military-industrial complex's ability to absorb "high-tech". :roll:

Pl read again the German and many other reports are available on the JSF's glitches, ALIS ,etc.The aircraft was propelled into production without these faults being rectified and as earlier posted, the entire first batch of over 100 aircraft need expensive rectification for them to be combat capable, which will affect current production- no extra funds, so the entire lot may have to be trashed!

Just more BS that I've addressed in my previous posts. Unfortunately, you have this tendency of developing selective amnesia whenever faced with facts that you don't like, and then resorting to this wide eyed oblivious just-born-yesterday pretence.

As I've said in my previous posts, there are 90 odd aircraft in the Blk 2B configuration, some of which will be upgraded to 3F standards. Those that aren't will function as OCU/training units for an F-35 fleet that'll probably be 1000+ in less than 10 years time.

None of which has any bearing on units ordered by Germany or any other country.

The JSF is still a v.expensive work in progress and the great reluctance on the part of the US to share its advanced tech even with its closest allies like Britain will make it virtually impossible for us to acquire it if we maintain our objective of acquiring stealth tech. as a fundamental for our FGFA programme.

Save it. All the ToT agreements for the MiG-21, MiG-27 & Jaguar didn't help the LCA program take shortcuts. Technology is created through perseverance and a focus on developing core design competencies not through blueprints transferred from foreign OEMs.

Right now we have a JV agreement with Russia.The GOI should think very hard on the issue of ditching the programme where according to prev. official reports this year all tech. issues were resolved.

Lol. All technical issues resolved even before the first production unit is delivered, to say nothing of the new engine.

There are only 3 nations with 5th- gen aircraft flying.Europe and the Far- Eastern nations have not even begun their programmes and are looking for JV partners.The SU-57 , which is flying with first deliveries expected sometime late 2018,is the only route available to us now with a full TOT package.The cost of which is for the GOI to decide.In whatever capability it comes with, China post 2020 will surely induct its first stealth birds.

China FYI has already inducted the J-20 and has a full regiment in service and working up towards operational status. And the FGFA with its definitive Idz 30 engine and induction bugs worked out isn't coming until well after 2025.

Any Desi equiv. will arrive post 2030.It is abundantly clear where we will be if we do not proceed with the FGFA.That is the opinion of the commission that sent its report to the MOD and the chairman of HAL!

Equally clear that there is only one 5th gen type that's both in-service and available to the IAF in a reliable, operationally suitable configuration in the 2020 time-frame. A conclusion the IAF seems to have arrived at going by its opposition to the FGFA program.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 11 Nov 2017 06:41

To imply that that's the amount already spent developing either requires generous application of idiocy or a tendency towards lying.


The concept is so simple to understand and has so clearly communicated to him (and is available on a gazillion sources on the net) that it cannot be due to idiocy. Simply put, he continues to LIE when it comes to this but then he does so knowing that it's ok... Best to ignore and move on as I have learnt.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cybaru » 11 Nov 2017 08:41

brar_w wrote:
To imply that that's the amount already spent developing either requires generous application of idiocy or a tendency towards lying.


The concept is so simple to understand and has so clearly communicated to him (and is available on a gazillion sources on the net) that it cannot be due to idiocy. Simply put, he continues to LIE when it comes to this but then he does so knowing that it's ok... Best to ignore and move on as I have learnt.



Brar giving up?? :) Must have reached lowest of lowest bottom. He is extremely patient!

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 11 Nov 2017 13:47

Russia in RSA https://twitter.com/EmbassyofRussia/sta ... 4817620992
Verified account @EmbassyofRussia

#Russia's Sukhoi Su-57 new generation second stage engine codenamed #Product30 was unveiled to the public for the first time

Image

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 11 Nov 2017 13:47

Interview with Chief Test Pilot PAK-FA Sergey Bogdan

https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/392902-ro ... iy-v-mire/
What are the features of the fifth-generation fighter in comparison with the cars of previous generations? The best thing about this can be told by one who had the opportunity to make a comparison on personal experience, the honored test pilot of the Russian Federation, the hero of Russia Sergey Bogdan, the first who lifted the T-50 into the air and performed the bulk of the tests on this car.


What is the fundamental difference between the fifth and fourth generation fighters from the point of view of piloting?


Compared to the 4th generation aircraft, such as the Su-27 or the MiG-29, the T-50 has a noticeably light control. Earlier in the piloting of combat aircraft very much depended on the pilot. It was the pilot, working with the control knob, the engine control lever (ODR), had to withstand the flight modes: do not exceed the dangerous angle of attack, overload. In those days, the load on the controls and the amount of deviation of the handles were of fundamental importance. The pilot kinesthetically, literally the whole body could feel the limits for which he can not move in management. Now the integrated control system automatically maintains these modes, and there is no need to "tighten" the controls so much, because with the energetic maneuvering that can be performed by the 5th generation aircraft, piloting can turn into a very energy-intensive process. It should be noted that on the Russian fighters of the generation 4 ++ (Su-35) and 4+ (Su-30SM), efforts on the controls were already significantly reduced compared to the Su-27 and piloting became much more comfortable. Externally, the Su-35 is virtually indistinguishable from the Su-27. In fact, these are radically different planes, both for handling, for maneuverability, and for many other indicators. But when the pilots mastered the Su-35, they easily retrained and gave the car only enthusiastic evaluation. There is no reason to believe that the transition to the T-50 in terms of piloting will be more difficult. In fact, these are radically different planes, both for handling, for maneuverability, and for many other indicators. But when the pilots mastered the Su-35, they easily retrained and gave the car only enthusiastic evaluation. There is no reason to believe that the transition to the T-50 in terms of piloting will be more difficult. In fact, these are radically different planes, both for handling, for maneuverability, and for many other indicators. But when the pilots mastered the Su-35, they easily retrained and gave the car only enthusiastic evaluation. There is no reason to believe that the transition to the T-50 in terms of piloting will be more difficult.


And if we talk about the physical condition of the pilots - do we need additional training to switch to the T-50?


Yes, the requirements for physical training for pilots of cars of the 5th generation are higher. The fact is that the 4th generation aircraft could go into 9 g overload, but this peak regime lasted no more than 1-1.5 s. Further, with such an overload, the drag increased sharply, the speed of the aircraft fell, and with it the overload. However, the 4+ and 5 generation fighters have significantly more powerful engines, and as a result can withstand 9 g for a much longer time - for example, for one or two minutes. And all this time interval the pilot should be in a tonus and supervise a situation. Here, of course, physical training requires a very serious attitude.

The 5th generation is a new functionality, new weapons systems. Will it be more difficult for a pilot to manage all these systems?


Yes, the load on the pilot as an operator grows significantly. The nomenclature of armament of the 4th generation aircraft did not exceed the ten. The pilot was required to master three operations: work on land, work on air-guided weapons (several types of missiles) and work by air uncontrolled means (shooting from a cannon). The T-50 armament nomenclature is approaching half a hundred completely different means with different principles of guidance. Weapons with television guidance, radar sighting for sea and land targets ... Each type of weapon has its own information support, its indicators. And that's not all - the pilot can still manage a whole group of aircraft. While conducting his battle, he must distribute tasks for subordinate crews.

It was necessary to develop such algorithms for issuing information, so that the pilot read it unerringly and made competent decisions. Only the work of scientists from the Institute of Space Medicine together with designers, test pilots, military pilots led to the fact that the algorithms were optimized, the control field became non-conflicting. But still the load on the pilot lies colossal. Therefore, on the aircraft of new generations the task of piloting is generally secondary. While performing the aiming, the pilot can be distracted from piloting, throwing the control stick even with the autopilot off. The aircraft's automation "knows" that the car is not controlled, and if the fighter is, for example, in the roll and fall mode, the aircraft itself removes the roll and goes into a horizontal flight. The main thing is gun control.


Is it true that combat aircraft of future generations will be unmanned?


The pilot does not exist to heroize and receive rewards. Its main function is the performance of the combat mission. If this or that combat mission can be performed without human intervention, then the pilot will be replaced by the automatic system, especially since the manned aircraft is by definition more expensive than the drones, and it is impossible to risk the life of a highly qualified pilot without special need. Another thing is that the transition to unmanned combat aircraft will not happen simultaneously. The UAV will gradually transfer certain functions (reconnaissance, reconnaissance, strikes). At first, mixed groups will fight in the sky. The pilot in the manned aircraft will manage the UAV group, set them tasks. Recall that at first people hunted without help, drove the beast on their own, but then they tamed the dogs, and the dogs were given functions, associated with the greatest risk. This will also happen in combat aviation, until the artificial intelligence finally dislodges the person, and the pilot does not turn into a ground operator.

Sky. Human. Fighter


The operation of multifunctional fighters (MFIs) of the 5th generation puts a person in conditions of a prohibitive level of overloads - physical, psychological, information. No wonder they say that the MFI will be the last manned plane of this class. Then follow even more abrupt aircraft, in which the person will be unsafe, and simply contraindicated.

The 5th Generation MFI is conceived and implemented as a "network soldier" of the C4I system (Computers, Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence). In essence, C4I is a global system of coordinated group actions, but in it, despite intellectual computer technologies, the main decisive link remains a man: he has to understand the situation, make decisions and himself to execute them.

And this is in the conditions of not only outrageous information, but also physical, and psychological loads, too. Overloading at 10 g becomes the usual maneuvering mode. The plane sometimes takes unusual spatial positions: it is even capable of hovering in the sky. This also includes lateral overloads during lateral flat maneuvers, which they have not encountered before. All these new phenomena began to be observed in aviation after the aircraft received a system of all-vector control of the thrust vector of the engine - UHT, from which it acquired a new quality of the super maneuverable "wobbly", in English terminology (agility), aircraft. And on agility-planes only "agile" agility pilots can fly.

The solution is an effective interactive anthropocentric interface. It should provide the pilot with an opportunity to cope with the surrounding extreme when staying in a state of psychological stress and working with prohibitive amounts of information with a time deficit become commonplace for the person sitting in the cab.

The cabin of a fighter of generation 5 is a "glass cabin", similar to the cabins of many modern aircraft. But its information-control field (FTI) refers to a new type. Instead of a set of multifunctional indicators, it uses a single touch-screen interactive screen that occupies the entire front instrument panel of the cabin.

All the necessary information from the on-board avionics, as well as video information from the on-board sensors, supplemented with sighting and flight symbols, is displayed on the information windows of this screen. Working with the screen facilitates the presentation of information in color "picture" formats that are understandable and visible to the person and clearly perceived quickly. The large screen size, which is 500 x 200 mm in F-35 and 610 x 230 mm in Su-35S and T-50, is easily covered by a sight at a standard observation distance of 500-700 mm. Support for binocularity and high definition images contribute to the creation of a well-known on-home HD-TV presence in the event.

The latter is very important for the pilot as the head of the network task, and not just as an operator with on-board sensors. That is why all information is displayed on the screen in a pre-processed form and appears only at the right moments, which is convenient for a person and significantly increases the timely situational awareness. A special place in the IUP of the cabin is the helmeted target designation and indication system (NSCI), which also places the pilot inside the event.

All the necessary information in easy-to-use binocular forms is displayed on the helmet visor and always, despite the head turns, is in front of the pilot's eyes, for which the position of his head is constantly monitored. The helmet has a function of augmented reality, so the pilot can see through the cockpit and be more informed about what is happening around the aircraft.

Such helmets are already on the heads of the F-35 pilots - this is the HMDS Gen II "God's Eye" of the American company VSI. And soon they will be and at the European pilots: the helmet Striker II is made by the British company BAE Systems. Similar developments are being carried out for our Su-35S and T-50.


Features of the impact on the body of the pilot MFI 5-th generation


Slip and sharp acceleration and braking at large angles of attack cause new, previously unknown illusions, leading to disorientation, discomfort and nausea.

Maneuvering with an overload of 10 g leads to a loss of spatial orientation and the appearance of visual-vestibular illusions in the perception of the quarian space: the overload unconventionally affects the vestibular apparatus, and in response it forms sensations of the apparent vertical. The innate mechanism of spatial orientation ceases to work.

Flight with high congestion is aggravated by concomitant problems: impairment of visual functions, injuries to the muscles of the back, ligaments and vertebrae, physical discomfort and pain.

The shortage of time in high-speed battles with instantaneous transitions from one spatial state to another causes, as pilots say, a feeling when "you feel rather than understand what is happening", which is also a new psychological phenomenon.

The speediness of air combat can cause sensations of cognitive dissonance when working with high-dynamic formats of cabin displays up to loss of information contact with them.

Conducting combat in compressed airspace with sharp changes in the angular velocities of the line of sight of the target requires intense head turns in the helmet with an aiming system, from which there are additional illusions of diving, kicking and heeling depending on the movements of the head.

The added reality on the helmet shield, allowing to see "through the cabin", causes the illusion of an independent flight outside the aircraft, which makes it difficult to work with cabin controls.

Oleg Makarov Oleg Titkov

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 11 Nov 2017 16:06

A video on the Su 57. First 06 mins of semi interesting discussions, followed by 01 min of time pass and last 03 mins of rock star camera work and flying. I ogled all the way.


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby shiv » 11 Nov 2017 20:04

deejay wrote:A video on the Su 57. First 06 mins of semi interesting discussions, followed by 01 min of time pass and last 03 mins of rock star camera work and flying. I ogled all the way.


Thanks for the info. I watched only the last 4 minutes. That damn thing keeps its nosewheel up at landing for 14 sec :shock:

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 11 Nov 2017 20:51

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote:
The concept is so simple to understand and has so clearly communicated to him (and is available on a gazillion sources on the net) that it cannot be due to idiocy. Simply put, he continues to LIE when it comes to this but then he does so knowing that it's ok... Best to ignore and move on as I have learnt.



Brar giving up?? :) Must have reached lowest of lowest bottom. He is extremely patient!


If someone continues to push demonstrably false information and blatantly lie repeatedly, what else can one do? If he/she think its ok and the community is fine with it then who am I to question it.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3347
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 11 Nov 2017 21:07

chola wrote:And how often is the IAF against firangi gear? That should tell us the obvious about this project.

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/indian-air-force-127-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-russia/1/1039202.html

..


This article can't even get who's buying what from whom right :

"The Russians are asking us to make big investments in the programme. While we are planning to induct only 12 of these planes in their IAF, they are asking India to buy 127 of these aircraft," added the sources.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 12 Nov 2017 03:46

deejay wrote:A video on the Su 57. First 06 mins of semi interesting discussions, followed by 01 min of time pass and last 03 mins of rock star camera work and flying. I ogled all the way.


At 3:27, it does something that the Su-30 cannot.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2132
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 12 Nov 2017 04:14

deleted*
Last edited by kit on 12 Nov 2017 04:15, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2132
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 12 Nov 2017 04:15

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:A video on the Su 57. First 06 mins of semi interesting discussions, followed by 01 min of time pass and last 03 mins of rock star camera work and flying. I ogled all the way.


Thanks for the info. I watched only the last 4 minutes. That damn thing keeps its nosewheel up at landing for 14 sec :shock:


I think that manoeuvre some how acts as a "airbrake " reducing the touchdown speeds ., both by directing the exhaust downward and exposing the belly ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17868
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 12 Nov 2017 08:42

I think a manoeuvre for a snap-up cannon shot of an enemy aircraft using TVC .

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3628
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 12 Nov 2017 10:18

kit wrote:
shiv wrote:Thanks for the info. I watched only the last 4 minutes. That damn thing keeps its nosewheel up at landing for 14 sec :shock:


I think that manoeuvre some how acts as a "airbrake " reducing the touchdown speeds ., both by directing the exhaust downward and exposing the belly ?


Aerodynamic braking. Its done after touch down.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2720
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 12 Nov 2017 11:09

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:A video on the Su 57. First 06 mins of semi interesting discussions, followed by 01 min of time pass and last 03 mins of rock star camera work and flying. I ogled all the way.


Thanks for the info. I watched only the last 4 minutes. That damn thing keeps its nosewheel up at landing for 14 sec :shock:

To reduce landing roll by maintaining higher drag config longer. Many pilots do this on all types of Fighters, some fighters have is as SOP as well. F15 comes to my mind fir that. X31 had tried very aggressive short landing technique based on same principle.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1746
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 12 Nov 2017 17:37

Cosmo_R wrote:
chola wrote:And how often is the IAF against firangi gear? That should tell us the obvious about this project.

http://m.indiatoday.in/story/indian-air-force-127-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-russia/1/1039202.html

..


This article can't even get who's buying what from whom right :

"The Russians are asking us to make big investments in the programme. While we are planning to induct only 12 of these planes in their IAF, they are asking India to buy 127 of these aircraft," added the sources.


Typical DDM. But the persistent drum of the IAF’s unhappiness with the PAK FA is real.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2132
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 12 Nov 2017 19:55

Image
the PAKFA seems to have lost that particular air brake ubiquitous to the 30 .. anyone remember older sukhois used parachutes like the migs

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Nov 2017 20:33

PAK-FA Aerodynamics are entirely different compared to the Su-30 the only commonality is both are lifting body design but the control surface , all moving small Vertical stabaliser etc

Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 12 Nov 2017 22:01

kit wrote:Image
the PAKFA seems to have lost that particular air brake ubiquitous to the 30 .. anyone remember older sukhois used parachutes like the migs

The 30s do have parachutes. The 57 has lost the airbrakes

Austin wrote:PAK-FA Aerodynamics are entirely different compared to the Su-30 the only commonality is both are lifting body design but the control surface , all moving small Vertical stabaliser etc

Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

That would be wrong. They employ the same generic layout. The 57 makes some compromises for better RCS, but makes up for it through power. This is the same as in the F-22. F-22 makes the same kind of compromises, actually more than that of the Su-57. So in aerial capability, I would place it slightly over the F-22. The F-35 does not hold a candle to either of these 2 in aerial capability.

Where the F-35 gains is its avionics and mission computer which is a generation ahead of the F-22/Su-57. F-35 is the absolute leader in this aspect. Everybody else is playing catch up.

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

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 13 Nov 2017 05:55

Indranil wrote:Where the F-35 gains is its avionics and mission computer which is a generation ahead of the F-22/Su-57. F-35 is the absolute leader in this aspect. Everybody else is playing catch up.

Avionics are an expected edge (DAS-HMDS, multi-ship sensor fusion, etc). But, you really ought to add, if not emphasize, the stealth & maintainability aspect.

Disclosures made by USAF brass have revealed it to be stealthier than the F-22. And its been designed for resilience - the manufacturing precision is in a class of its own requiring no epoxy application. Its the Toyota-Honda factor (i.e. not the fastest or nimblest thing around, but combines good performance, superb production quality & reliability with large economies of scale) and an Amazon-style logistics system, that make it the best overall package.

According to LM, the Fibremat was the single biggest breakthrough on the JSF project. While its capability & production process is classified, its widely believed to be CNT-based providing broadband absorption (as opposed to the X-band coverage originally expected).

The F-35 is above all a product of decades of R&D into stealth, incorporating lessons learnt from three generations of stealth aircraft. That refinement is the difference b/w it and the competition, and why it'll be a complete war-fighting platform in another 6 months while the J-20 still has 10 years of continuing evolution lying head. Longer still for the Su-57, considering the slower pace & fewer resources for the PAK FA program.

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.

SLD: Would you explain the background of setting up the LO facility?

Bill Grant: We had the privilege of being able to work with complete access to data and experience of historic stealth programs, including the F-22. Our perspective was simply that LO was an afterthought from the standpoint of manufacturing, whereby stealth was added on to the aircraft. In our program, stealth is manufactured into the aircraft. The program recognized the LO repair needed to be focused on as an effort by itself. The repair development center was an early invention of the program and was given the resources to go out there and experiment with different material systems and to help refine them and then to incorporate them into a system level approach. We have developed repairs for each of the materials themselves and then as an entire system.

SLD: How would you describe the stealth LO capability of the F-35 compared to legacy systems?

Bill Grant: Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with.

SLD: In terms of the way you’re describing it, stealth goes from being a surface appliqué to becoming an integral part of the actual product being manufactured, is this correct?

Bill Grant: Exactly.
.
.
SLD: In entering the facility, I noticed you have a “door mat” of stealth that’s been there for some time. Can you comment on this “door mat?”

Bill Grant: Oh, the slab of stealth? That’s our welcome mat. Yes, we actually have one of the test panels that we use for assessing the stealth of the various materials. It represents a stack-up that’s consistent with the upper surface or the outer surface of the jet. It has the exact same structure and the primer and the topcoat system that you’ll find on the operational jets. And that gets walked upon every time somebody comes in or out of our lab area out there, the repair development center.

Occasionally, we take it up to test to see if there’s any electrical or mechanical degradation to the system and with around 25,000 steps across that system we have not seen any degradation whatsoever. So we have a great deal of confidence, however anecdotal that may be, that we have a very robust system.

The low-observable materials developed for the B-2 and F-22 kept RCS small, but their maintenance burdens proved heavy. Their durability disappointed, necessitating frequent replacements that ballooned support costs and time while restricting aircraft availability. RAM fillers tend to be spherical, a few to tens of micrometers in size and densely packed, which is good for absorptive qualities but bad for durability. Bonding them to aircraft surfaces also proved troublesome.

So, from the beginning of the F-35 program, Lockheed’s goal was to achieve acceptable stealth while reducing maintenance needs. Use of several RAM techniques continued, including S-curved, RAM-lined ducts, edge treatments and what appear to be picture frames abutting many gaps. Early reports also indicated the number of parts making up the skin would be minimized and laser-alignment would fit pieces so precisely “that 99% of maintenance requires no restoration of low-observable surfaces,” Lockheed says. The goal was likely to make the intensive gap-bridging procedures unnecessary.

Image

But during development, something happened. First, program officials began hinting the F-35 might be stealthier than the F-22; hard to believe, given its less-disciplined shape. Then officials started referring to a material secret, a “conductive layer . . . where the magic happens.” In May of 2010, Tom Burbage, then executive vice president for the F-35 program, disclosed the incorporation of “fiber mat” technology, describing it as the “biggest technical breakthrough we’ve had on this program.”

The fiber mat would replace many RAM appliques by being cured into the composite skin, making it durable. Burbage further specified the mat featured a “non-directional weave”— which would ensure EM properties do not vary with angle. Baked into the skin, this layer could vary in thickness as necessary. Lockheed declined to provide further details, citing classification. Without further evidence, fiber mat would imply use of fibers, rather than particles, which would make for stronger surfaces and the word “conductive” points to carbon-based RAM.

But only a month before Burbage’s disclosure, Lockheed filed a patent claiming the first method of producing a durable RAM panel. The patent details a method for growing carbon nanotubes (CNT) on any kind of fiber—glass, carbon, ceramic or metal—with unprecedented precision in control of length, density, number of walls, connectivity and even orientation. The CNT-infused fibers can absorb or reflect radar, and connectivity among the CNTs provides pathways for induced currents.

Significantly, the CNTs can be impregnated with iron or ferrite nanoparticles. Fibers can have differing CNT densities along their lengths and homogenous fibers can be layered or mixed. The embodiments described include front layers with impedance matching air, use of quarter-wavelength depths for cancellation, stepped or continuous CNT-density gradients and continuously varying densities at specific depths for broadband absorption. The fibers can be disposed with “random orientation” in materials including “a woven fabric, a non-woven fiber mat and a fiber ply.”

The patent claims composites with CNT-infused fibers are capable of absorbing EM waves from 0.1 MHz to 60 GHz, a bandwidth unheard of in commercial absorbers, with particular effectiveness in L- through K-band. The patent does not quantify the absorptivity, but does say the panels would be “nearly a black body across . . . various radar bands.” Also, interestingly, a layer can be composed so an attached computer can read the induced currents in the fibers, making the layer a radar receiver.

While the patent mentions stealth aircraft, it does not mention the F-35 specifically, and the manufacturing readiness level of the material at the time it was granted is not known. But the proximity in timing and technology of the filing to the “fiber mat” disclosure is hard to ignore. Asked to comment on whether CNT-infused fiber RAM is in use on the F-35 and whether it is the technology to which Burbage had referred, Lockheed Martin spokesman Mike Rein stated only, “We have nothing to add to what was outlined in the patent submittal.”


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, prasannasimha, Yahoo [Bot] and 52 guests