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.
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ragupta » 16 Sep 2016 17:51

Well it is overall cost of keeping enemy at bay.
Pakfa is not happening in a day or two, it is a long term plan, possibly induction in next 10 years.
F35 vs Pakfa, each has its own strength, personally Stealth is overrated, may be good against current generation of radars, what counts is network centric and situational awareness, no one is going to share it fully, so India has to develop its own, all the logistics and resources available, satellite, sensors, awacs, software coders, etc.

Engine tech, work is needed, for buying only second best is going to be available. Do we have the best, dont think so. so second best se kaam chala na padega.

Pakfa scores on long leg and manoeurability.
Rest India can pull together, If India can get design and right to make modification without going to Russia for every changes, worth it, Otherwise not sure.

Overall, the show must go on...

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Sep 2016 01:02

^^^"Well it is overall cost of keeping enemy at bay.
Pakfa is not happening in a day or two, it is a long term plan, possibly induction in next 10 years. "

The cash down comes in a day or two or three. The plane comes much later. The enemy comes in between.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Sep 2016 18:11




Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Christopher Sidor » 26 Sep 2016 01:01

F22 gets its edge from the sensor fusion and also from the stealth that it has. What will FGFA/PMF get its edge from. After all it will have to go head-to-head against the best that PLAAF will field.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19580
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 27 Sep 2016 16:45

PAK-FA Prototypes https://twitter.com/RSS_40

Image

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 27 Sep 2016 18:38

^ Just took the black PAK FA from the collage and inserted f22 for side by side comparison :

Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 27 Sep 2016 18:48

One IAF chief described the MiG-35's aerobatics as great for shows but of little use in combat. The whole idea of stealth is to not be seen. Dance moves don't fit into the scheme of things to come.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 27 Sep 2016 18:50

Christopher Sidor wrote:F22 gets its edge from the sensor fusion and also from the stealth that it has. What will FGFA/PMF get its edge from. After all it will have to go head-to-head against the best that PLAAF will field.


totally agree .. for hundreds of millions one would want more than dancing in the air !

But unfortunately for India its the only 5 gen game in town [ in name at least] .. the Raptor not for sale and F35 that comes with unprecedented sensor fusion is a flying super computer that can be switched off / dumbed down by the pentagon { literally} .. those countries that paid through their nose have their airforces subcontracted to America.. Israel is probably only one allowed to tweak a bit.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17212
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 27 Sep 2016 19:26

That's why the Israelis still prefer fielding guns/cannon on their fighters.Once one has evaded a BVR attack,it all comes down to WVR and dogfighting.Not that the MIG-35 does not possess BVR capability too.One can acquire 4 MIG-35s for the price of one Rafale.Which aircraft would you like to be flying in?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35340
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 27 Sep 2016 22:30

Those russkie girls on bikinis have attracted philip ji a lot! :D

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Christopher Sidor » 28 Sep 2016 13:50

kit wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:F22 gets its edge from the sensor fusion and also from the stealth that it has. What will FGFA/PMF get its edge from. After all it will have to go head-to-head against the best that PLAAF will field.


totally agree .. for hundreds of millions one would want more than dancing in the air !

But unfortunately for India its the only 5 gen game in town [ in name at least] .. the Raptor not for sale and F35 that comes with unprecedented sensor fusion is a flying super computer that can be switched off / dumbed down by the pentagon { literally} .. those countries that paid through their nose have their airforces subcontracted to America.. Israel is probably only one allowed to tweak a bit.

When F-15 was introduced it was a game changer and USA did not agree to export it. But that changed. They were exported. Not till the Su-27 came into production did the Soviets had anything comparable. The Migs were predominantly oriented towards an interceptor role and not air dominance role.
Give it a few more years and America will lift F-22 export ban too. And let us look at it objectively. Just like Israel and Japan were eventually the prime markets to F-15, these countries will once again be the top market targets for F-22 too.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9101
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 28 Sep 2016 14:06

But F-22 Production has been stopped. It was prohibitively expensive aircraft to build and maintain for the USAF costing more $300 million a piece to build, and forget its maintenance cost. Restarting production would cost a bomb, dont think even the Japanese or the US Govt (which pays for 75% cost of Israeli purchases) will back spendign that kind of Money.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 28 Sep 2016 14:45

Give it a few more years and America will lift F-22 export ban too. And let us look at it objectively. Just like Israel and Japan were eventually the prime markets to F-15, these countries will once again be the top market targets for F-22 too.


The USAF lobbied very hard to get the export ban lifted on the F-22A for the Japanese who would have kept production going for another 5 or so years but the was denied by the US Congress. The US congress asked the USAF to go back and calculate the cost to replace every sensitive piece of hardware on the aircraft with an exportable system and the end result of the analysis made it cost-prohibitive given the impact on total cost for the Japanese.

Subsequently, a resolution was introduced in the Senate supported by the then US defense Secretary, and the program was halted at 172+9 deliveries. Its entirely irrelevant if they allow its export now since the USAF will not part with its own aircraft and the assembly line no longer exists in Marietta.

But F-22 Production has been stopped. It was prohibitively expensive aircraft to build and maintain for the USAF costing more $300 million a piece to build, and forget its maintenance cost. Restarting production would cost a bomb, dont think even the Japanese or the US Govt (which pays for 75% cost of Israeli purchases) will back spendign that kind of Money.


The $300 Million + number is the PAUC, or the program acquisition unit cost that includes the entire cost of research and development (starting from the beginning of the ATF program), military construction in support of the F-22A, procurement of F-22A and the associated Engines, spare engines and other parts divided by the 181 aircraft that ended up being procured. Keep in mind that because the program was cut short, and assembly line for the engine and aircraft shut down, they ended up buying the entire 3-4 decade worth of engine spares during the program itself.

The APUC (just the acquisition cost divided by 181) is a little more than half of that. The last batch of 24 F-22A's procured in 2009 had a fly-away cost (minus the engines) of $97 Million and were the cheapest till date. PAUC is abnormally high because the RDT&E program was of a given size because of its pre-cold war / peace dividend start and the ultimate requirement for 500+ aircraft if not more to replace the F-15C's as was the requirement had the cold-war not ended. If that were the case the contribution of the RDTE to the PAUC would have been less as a percentage given a higher denominator.

The program had an abnormally high RDTE $ amount compared to the total program spend (R&D to Acquisition was nearly a 50/50 split) because of the truncated production and this would be the case of any high end program. If the JSF program was capped at 300 fighters and its development and construction cost divided by the 300 it too would have an abnormally high PAUC many times that is currently estimated given the current requirement in terms of numbers.

While the media tends to always look at the highest $ amount for reporting as far as procurement and decision making is concerned, APUC (Average per unit cost) and URF (Unit recurring fly-away cost) are far more important since that is what you pay to acquire an aircraft. One does not pay research and development cost by the unit but spends it upfront to develop and test a certain capability and therefore one only pays the incremental cost to acquire the aircraft and its associated systems upon deciding to buy more of it - These costs are captured best by the URF for that particular lot/order, and collectively as an average of the entire program by the APUC.

COST DATA

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 30 Sep 2016 22:05

http://www.janes.com/article/64236/russian-industry-faces-problems-fielding-aesa-radars

If china is fielding AESA ..why is Russia having problems developing AESA radar ???

Russia's airborne radar industry has "almost no possibilities" for developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the near term, industry specialists from Poland, Ukraine, and other East European nations have told IHS Jane's .

Russian military aircraft marketing representatives have repeatedly stated an AESA radar will be available when the PAK FA/T-50 next-generation fighter starts series production, yet Russia's radar industry faces several obstacles to achieving this.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's airborne radar sector has had two principal actors. Two design houses emerged from the radar and electronic systems conglomerate that had been responsible for aircraft onboard systems: NIIR Phazotron, located in central Moscow, and NIIP Tikhomirov, based just outside Moscow in Zhukovskiy.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 30 Sep 2016 22:09

http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=30&Itemid=42

X-band AESA is intended for radar systems of advanced multifunctional fighters. AESA is implemented on the domestic hardware components on the base of GaAs nanoheterostructures and advanced antenna system technologies with electronic beam scanning. AESA provides for high energy efficiency and a wide range of the beam shapes and operation mode controls. The unification of structural components and selected engineering solutions make it possible to develop antenna arrays for upgrading aircraft radars and AAD complexes on the base of the developed AESA.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14366
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 01 Oct 2016 08:48

Cosmo_R wrote:One IAF chief described the MiG-35's aerobatics as great for shows but of little use in combat. The whole idea of stealth is to not be seen. Dance moves don't fit into the scheme of things to come.


combine those "dance moves" with automated warning systems & you can suddenly have a "dancer" who can escape advanced weaponry. FYI - the EF has implemented those. stealth is ok insofar the primary sensor for A2A combat remains the single fighter based x-band radar coupled with Ka/Ku band seekers on missiles. the day, networked bistatic, multistatic systems become the norm, when directing multi-spectral seekers what then? multiple nations are working on these concepts. the US is leaning on euro firms part of NATO not to introduce these systems or hawk them, even for land based units leveraging COTS telecom transmitter. even then, not too successful as some are already out. EU is getting frisky, seeing the F-35 as decimating its inhouse capability. the french will not stand for it. the PRC, Russians - no control. and even countries like india are steadily increasing their knowledge.
yes, stealth has its cachet for the next 2 decades. but all it takes is one country, one firm to focus clearly on beating it - and then making it a priority. the russians are already fairly ahead with VHF radars & S-4XX combined C3I. it gives them an interim capability. this took them some decade and a half, and even know, fighting this radical development of an existing system will take a heck of an effort. and this is what the russians have publicly revealed.

but now, decades of underinvestment in microelectronics is being reversed by them. the PakFA having an x-band, 1500 unit, AESA is a perfect example.
they have managed to get to the level of most countries which started far ahead of them. if they can field the software necessary for a LPI system, then its a wake up call.

who knows what they will end up with a decade down the line. they are already advertising similar antistealth systems like the EU ones. they'll even find some ME nation to fund it, same way UAE funded Pantsir into a proper modern AD system & India funded the Su-30 MKI.

US is doing its best to stop russia, but can it. the natural resources pushing their economy will still be around for a while, even if its not raging but just moves along. customers like india still get what they cant from US from russia. interesting times.

it takes national will & less resources gobbled up in corruption, to see actual improvements. russia can do it, because even with everything wrong with a one man show, almez antei, KRET, Sukhoi etc exist and continue to come out with stuff the rest of the world admits is advanced, dancers or no.

lets see where they go.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Oct 2016 10:39

Cosmo_R wrote:The whole idea of stealth is to not be seen. Dance moves don't fit into the scheme of things to come.


Adbhut!
Then why they tried to make F 22 such a 2D gymnastic manuevering aircraft? They could have gone ahead with non dancing F-117 or B-2 type stealthy platform. Would have saved so much time in testing and money too.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Liu » 01 Oct 2016 12:38

kit wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/64236/russian-industry-faces-problems-fielding-aesa-radars

If china is fielding AESA ..why is Russia having problems developing AESA radar ???

Russia's airborne radar industry has "almost no possibilities" for developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the near term, industry specialists from Poland, Ukraine, and other East European nations have told IHS Jane's .

Russian military aircraft marketing representatives have repeatedly stated an AESA radar will be available when the PAK FA/T-50 next-generation fighter starts series production, yet Russia's radar industry faces several obstacles to achieving this.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's airborne radar sector has had two principal actors. Two design houses emerged from the radar and electronic systems conglomerate that had been responsible for aircraft onboard systems: NIIR Phazotron, located in central Moscow, and NIIP Tikhomirov, based just outside Moscow in Zhukovskiy.


China has set up a consolidated complete electric industry base,not Only for supercomputer/mobilephone,but for radar.


Soviet once had one,but It broke After collapsing,and russia now had No such complete electric industry base any more.

If russia wants to keep its AEsa on ,It now has to import some key components ,either from west countries or china.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby kit » 01 Oct 2016 13:12

Liu wrote:
kit wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/64236/russian-industry-faces-problems-fielding-aesa-radars

If china is fielding AESA ..why is Russia having problems developing AESA radar ???

Russia's airborne radar industry has "almost no possibilities" for developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the near term, industry specialists from Poland, Ukraine, and other East European nations have told IHS Jane's .

Russian military aircraft marketing representatives have repeatedly stated an AESA radar will be available when the PAK FA/T-50 next-generation fighter starts series production, yet Russia's radar industry faces several obstacles to achieving this.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's airborne radar sector has had two principal actors. Two design houses emerged from the radar and electronic systems conglomerate that had been responsible for aircraft onboard systems: NIIR Phazotron, located in central Moscow, and NIIP Tikhomirov, based just outside Moscow in Zhukovskiy.


China has set up a consolidated complete electric industry base,not Only for supercomputer/mobilephone,but for radar.


Soviet once had one,but It broke After collapsing,and russia now had No such complete electric industry base any more.

If russia wants to keep its AEsa on ,It now has to import some key components ,either from west countries or china.


thats for sure .. so how does this work



China sells Russia key electronic components , the Russia sells it to India :rotfl:

So in a war China will meet up with stuff sourced from itself :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17212
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 01 Oct 2016 14:01

I think a Phazatron AESA radar was shown 2 air shows ago when the MMRCA contest was on. Some Ru mags-old ones have pics and details too. I don't really think that the Russians have to depend upon the Chinese,though many intl. weapon systems have components from varied sources.What the FGFA brings with it remains to be seen.We've been shown though the various conformal radars supposed to give the bird 360 deg. coverage.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby abhik » 01 Oct 2016 15:46

How many fighters do the Russians have inservice equipped with ASEA radars?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 01 Oct 2016 15:51

None at the moment although at some time in the future they will transition the Mig-35's (that they are expected to sign up for shortly) to the AESA. The PAKFA's AESA is currently in testing and it will have it from the very start.

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Liu » 01 Oct 2016 16:44

kit wrote:
Liu wrote:
China has set up a consolidated complete electric industry base,not Only for supercomputer/mobilephone,but for radar.


Soviet once had one,but It broke After collapsing,and russia now had No such complete electric industry base any more.

If russia wants to keep its AEsa on ,It now has to import some key components ,either from west countries or china.


thats for sure .. so how does this work



China sells Russia key electronic components , the Russia sells it to India :rotfl:

So in a war China will meet up with stuff sourced from itself :mrgreen:



surprise? not at all!

I am sure that even USA can find mnay stuff in its armed force ,which are sourced from China.

in a word, miliray R&D and civilian R&D can share many common R&D infrastructures such as labs and tech teams.


in the past 3 decades ,China has set up global largest civilian industry base and world class civilian R&D infrastructures,which help "Made in CHina" conquer the world.


as a resulte, those massive and modern civilal industry base/R&D infrastructure can naturally help CHina's military moderniazation much.
for example, Huawei is so good at telecom facilitry and owns world best telecom labs,which surely can help PLA's telecom modernization.


that is why China's second round military-modernization tide (after china's embassy in Yugoslavia was bombed by yankees in 1998)has been advancing so smoothly and rapidly .

BTW, PLA's the first round moderniation tide was on during 1950s's with the help of the Soviets. During the 10 years, PLA rose from the pre-WWI poorly-equipped peasant militria to a modern force armed with soivet's lastest modern weapons , that is why Indian army was easily crushed by PLA in 1962,when PLA's had just finished its first round moderniation tide and was in its climax of strenth during 20th century.

if sino-india war had broken out in 1950 ( PLA were still poorly-equipped peasant militrias), the result would have been quite different.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 01 Oct 2016 18:20

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:The whole idea of stealth is to not be seen. Dance moves don't fit into the scheme of things to come.


Adbhut!
Then why they tried to make F 22 such a 2D gymnastic manuevering aircraft? They could have gone ahead with non dancing F-117 or B-2 type stealthy platform. Would have saved so much time in testing and money too.


The F-22 was designed for threats (1980s) that planners later saw as no longer extant. F-22 dance moves cost a lot and that's why the F-35 was brought in. No moon walker but still a force to be reckoned with.

It's okay to dance but every day it becomes harder to dodge those missiles. Stay out of sight, stay out of reach , first look first shot. Do the victory dance later.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 01 Oct 2016 19:35

Cosmo_R wrote:

Adbhut!
Then why they tried to make F 22 such a 2D gymnastic manuevering aircraft? They could have gone ahead with non dancing F-117 or B-2 type stealthy platform. Would have saved so much time in testing and money too.


The F-22 was designed for threats (1980s) that planners later saw as no longer extant. F-22 dance moves cost a lot and that's why the F-35 was brought in. No moon walker but still a force to be reckoned with.

It's okay to dance but every day it becomes harder to dodge those missiles. Stay out of sight, stay out of reach , first look first shot. Do the victory dance later.


Actually if one were to draw a line, mark the years (starting - say - in 1960 or so), have rows to rep diff nations and place various "stealth" techs on such a continuum, one can get a very good idea of what happened when and therefore the most likely tech drivers and therefore the shape/others of a plane. For certain techs have been the drivers, within a nation and otherwise.

The F-22, as you point out, is from the 80s and went through 10 years of development (10 various models too) (LM has a very, very nice article on this topic - out there on the net). People tend to forget this is a 80s platform and some are comparing their latest in mid 2010s to this plane.

On "dancing", I have found it to be a personal pref of the that nation's AF. The PAK-FA was designed with that in mind and in the process it gave up on certain aspects of "stealth". Now, is it because of a lack of techs or philosophy I cannot say. But, IMHO, one needs to respect the philosophical aspect and therefore refrain from direct one-to-one comparisons of features (that the vendors do is a diff matter, it is part of a sales cycle).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 01:13

^ The EMD contract for the ATF was awarded to lockheed Martin and its team in 1991, IOC occurred in 2005 with the EMD program concluding and a follow on development / modernization program taking over around then. Thats 15 years of official 'development' of a selected design and performance. Prior to that official ATF contracts leading directly to the 2 prototypes were awarded starting mid 1980's. Its actual development can be traced back to plenty of programs linked directly or indirectly to what eventually became the ATF.

In the US 'development phase' does not finish with IOC but with delivery of full capability (not to be confused with FOC which is different) contracted for in the initial contract..I think they went a year or two beyond F-22 IOC to conclude its EMD phase. On the F-35 they will go between 2-3 years beyond IOC for the A and B to formally conclude SDD phase and transition to follow-on-modernization phase (which is currently planned for 2018).

A lot longer than 10 years!.

Not sure if my post form a year or two ago detailing the vast number of programs that directly fed into the ATF is still up but that includes contracts awarded in the mid to late 70's to develop the capability to produce these advanced systems.

On the PAKFA, Sukhoi was selected as the development lead in 2002 (only a few months after Lockheed's team was selected to develop the JSF in Oct. 2001) and was awarded contracts to develop what we now know as the T-50 for the PAK-FA.
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Oct 2016 02:01, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17212
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 02 Oct 2016 01:49

Was it lack of money that culled MIG'S I-42 or a better Su design?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 01:56

I think it was a case of simply having to choose the superior design/proposal and Sukhoi got the contract to act as the lead design house on the program.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 02 Oct 2016 03:24

http://www.janes.com/article/64236/russ ... esa-radars
Russia's airborne radar industry has "almost no possibilities" for developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the near term, industry specialists from Poland, Ukraine, and other East European nations have told IHS Jane's .

Russian military aircraft marketing representatives have repeatedly stated an AESA radar will be available when the PAK FA/T-50 next-generation fighter starts series production, yet Russia's radar industry faces several obstacles to achieving this.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's airborne radar sector has had two principal actors. Two design houses emerged from the radar and electronic systems conglomerate that had been responsible for aircraft onboard systems: NIIR Phazotron, located in central Moscow, and NIIP Tikhomirov, based just outside Moscow in Zhukovskiy.

Reaffirms IAF apprehensions on PAKFA and why it believes Rafale to be a mature holistic system.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 03:30

It speaks of the relative lack of investment within the electronics industry that would require to take concepts and prototypes from the lab and R&D and put them into rate production with the yields and other efficiencies associated with technically mature products at high manufacturing readiness levels. Russia has been delaying fighter-AESA radar's with the Mig-29/35, and Su-35 programs and has opted for PESA for the latter and delayed AESA till last the first few production lots for the former.

Their competitors in the US and Europe have made the technical investments in creating industrial capacity and going through the learning curve associated with the change years ago and are therefore ahead when it comes to mass producing these advanced airborne radars. Nothing that Russia can't manage to do but it DOES require investment and will take time. With the Su-35 AESA now probably delayed till the 2020's and T-50 production rate remaining fairly modest till the end of the decade they have the breathing room to wait for the capacity if the report casts an accurate picture of the status of their industrial capacity vis-a-vis airborne AESA radars.

I don't know how robust the commercial side of the high tech electronics industry is but that can help a great deal. On the F-35 for example Northrop Grumman leaned on Cree for nearly 2/3 of the semiconductor needs for their share of the program (Radar and data-link components) , and Cree largely leveraged their commercial investments to create capacity in its existing production base. The GaN efforts have been largely the same.
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Oct 2016 03:43, edited 2 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 03:32

brar_w wrote:Not sure if my post form a year or two ago detailing the vast number of programs that directly fed into the ATF is still up but that includes contracts awarded in the mid to late 70's to develop the capability to produce these advanced systems.



Managed to dig it up from the JSF thread -

brar_w wrote:
The genesis of the systems traces back to prior to the ATF in the ATFT program. Remember, initially the plan was to make the ATF an air-ground fighter instead of an air-dominance fighter. Precursors to the technology that we find here include (not limited to):

- Pave Pillar
VHSIC (Very high speed integrated circuits
- Lesser known programs from the JIWAG (joint integrated avionics group)
- Integrated EW System (iNEWS)
- Seek Spartan
- DAIRS (precursor to EODAS)
- IRSTS (precursor to F-22 IRST (was dropped), JSF EOTS and IRST-21)
- Ultra Reliable Radar ( Precursor to all modern AESA radars in the US and USN Tactical vehicles ) - The concept of decoupling the aperture from the mission computers resulted because of this and the extreme advances made in order to increase the reliability of integrated T/R modules.
- ICNIA (Integrated CNI Avionics) - Precursor to all waveform management including the technologies that eventually led to the F-35 CNI
- GATB (Gallium Arsenide technology base) - Reason for the reliability expectations for the Apg-81 (fixed [sealed] radome) and later followed by the DARPA led follow-on to mature, lower the cost and increase the performance of Gallium Nitride based systems (now standard for EW and larger radar applications).


Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14366
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 04:56

Reuben Johnson is a habitual offender when it comes to stating Russian military capabilities. there are multiple AESA units on testbeds and Ryazan has started LRIP production of the modules. The software is now being finessed and the Tx/ Rx module cost and reliability is on a constant development. plus with KRET, Phaza and NIIP are now unfer the same house. A Russian AESA is just when, not if. land based AESA units have also started being deployed, so the technology is not completely esoteric to Russian developers.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14366
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 04:59

Whst IAF wants is a debugged, completely full spec system which per reports is more advanced than the baseline Russian one. that will take time.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14366
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 05:00

but even deploying the standard t-50 unit will be a huge step up.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2016 05:56

And, I would *think* the radar is the least of India's worries. It is IMHO, the engine for the FGFA that will pose a problem. I suspect India would be able to field a radar of her choice, borrowed perhaps, nonetheless one that is acceptable.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 02 Oct 2016 08:14

Cosmo_R wrote:F-22 dance moves cost a lot and that's why the F-35 was brought in. No moon walker but still a force to be reckoned with.


Look from your view that dance is unnecessary, stealth is all the yatra from F-22 to F-35 is moving in opposite, the F-35 rear round end is less stealthy then F-22 with its rectangular stealthy ends.

Also everytime F-35 has been reported to be 'fat-hippo' or 'bloated-frog' certain posters have dumped huge posts here trying to prove its not.

The thing is why even bother to make it a 'dancer' even if a clumsy one, if stealth is enough? For sure its advanced enough and will keep its lead in comparison to T-50 and j-20. Why not make it a straight flier like B-2, F-117 etc.? Save money on tests, no?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19580
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 02 Oct 2016 08:25

At the risk of repeating , Russia has multiple AESA program and Industrial base for all kind of AESA radar both Ga/A and Ga/N , May be the Janes author is not aware of it

Planar multichannel receiver modules X-band AESA based on LTCC-ceramics-Made in Russia
https://topwar.ru/101149-planarnye-prie ... ussia.html

Informed discussion at keypub http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... -15/page58

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 02 Oct 2016 10:00

The real proof will be when a production standard unit is ready.

Presently Elta 2052 is being considered during MLU around 2020 for replacing Bars that would have reached the end of its technical life in the earliest MKIs.

And yes, engine too. Engine and Avionics were the key IAF concerns.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 02 Oct 2016 11:58

wrt fat planes...one has to get in and out of distant fights - for this top speed, internal fuel fraction and acceleration do matter. its claimed the clean JSF (internal weapons) accelerates as fast as a late model F-16 which is no slouch at all. due to DSI its top speed is limited to mach1.8 but is it for a lot of fighters incl Tejas, Rafale and Bandar.
one the fight is reached maybe sustained vertical and horizontal turn rates matter in these the JSF probably lags pretty much the whole 4.5 set. the smallish wings and fat fuselage is not exactly a great config for that.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 866
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Gyan » 02 Oct 2016 12:10

If we are going to pay US$ 3 Billion to Russians for R&D then I hope we have sense to invest at least US$ 6 Billion in Capital Infrastructure for manufacturing PAKFA and its spare parts. Once committed we should go the whole hog to manufacture 300 PAKFA with 80%+ indigenisation of aircraft and its spare parts. We must have right of exports and upgradation without interference.

SU-30MKI has got us some metal beating technology but nothing special is radars, avionics, hydraulics, landing gear, ejection seats, pylons, actuators etc. With PAKFA We must have technology transfer across the board with right to source Raw Material from within India.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 32 guests