Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Seetal

PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18443
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 02 Oct 2016 12:19

tsarker , we must look at capability offered rather then just technology , Even Eurofighter use Captor radar which is conventional PD type which are very capable , Mig-29UPG , M2K upgrade which will atleast be used for next 25 years using conventional PD type like captor ,Some of the peak & average power capability offered by BARS/IRBIS PESA would be good for range and burn through capability , None of those Conventional Radar or PESA will/have become obsolete specially when they have capability to integrate with AWACS or peer having an AESA with DL. Same goes with French with their PESA which is quite capable , that Indian demanded AESA for Rafale is based on its requirement.

Having sad that Russia are heavily invested into AESA quite a few GBR are already deployed with AESA , Ships has AESA on new FFG , AESA was demonstrated on Mig-35 which failed the MMRCA race and then AESA on PAK-FA has almost completed its flight testing as per NIIP.

There is a new AESA technology with Photonics https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... photonics/

I wont scoff at any development any where be it on Conventional Antenna , PESA , Hybrid PESA or AESA or AESA + as long as they understand what they are doing and capability they offer and work according to their own strengths.

We have tons of ADGES system on Conventional Antenna and with suitable upgrade that are under works or already implemented would be there for the next 20-25 years

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4952
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 02 Oct 2016 14:47

Dassault is no longer producing Rafale's with a PESA antenna. The french had contracted for the first 60 AESA sets back in 2009, with first AESA kitted Rafale delivery to the Armée de l'Air occurring in 2012. All subsequent deliveries have included AESA including the exported aircraft. The F-16, Typhoon and the Gripen are the only current in-production western aircraft that have not yet eliminated all non AESA options . For all practical purposes all future Typhoon exports will include an AESA, and the Gripen-C will continue to be offered without one as a low cost alternative to the larger E model. F-16 already offers an AESA depending on the model and price.

While the Su-35 AESA plans have not been revealed the first new Russian in service fighter to have an AESA will either be the PAKFA or the Mig-35 depending upon when the order for the latter is placed and when they switch to an AESA since they had declared recently that the first few lots will be equipped with PESA. There is no non-AESA option on the PAKFA.

Manish_Sharma wrote:
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?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=2052625#p2052625

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 02 Oct 2016 16:14

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


Exactly. With declining force levels, delayed acquisitions, the IAF does not want to fund the 'once and future' science projects when it desperately needs 4G a/c now. It can't afford to have capex tied tied up in thing down the road.


If we desperately want to keep Russians happy, let's ask them to make the same offer as LM/Boeing/SAAB have: we'll order 100 PAK/FAs if you make (progressively) in India, AND WHEN you deliver them, we'll pay you.

No R&D money should be sent overseas.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 02 Oct 2016 16:36

Manish_Sharma wrote:...
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?


It's important to not fight the last war. Immelmann turns, Heimlich maneuvers (:)) and other ACMs are an iffy proposition in an era when in all likelihood, some nerds at Raytheon are at this very moment embedding an OODA loop AI into a long range AAM.

Stealth is not just shapes and coatings. It is also about blinding the enemy. Maybe brar_w could educate us on how (if at all), the JSF's AESA (networked or otherwise) kicks down the enemy's electronic door on the first day of war to let the Orcs in.

Sword dances/knife-fights are eminently watchable in Ang Lee movies. I would venture that most pilots would rather ambush from afar and return home.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 786
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 02 Oct 2016 18:33

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


Quoting poles and Ukrainians over Russian programs is like asking pakis to comment on Indian programs.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 02 Oct 2016 19:00

Cosmo_R wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:...
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?


It's important to not fight the last war. Immelmann turns, Heimlich maneuvers (:)) and other ACMs are an iffy proposition in an era when in all likelihood, some nerds at Raytheon are at this very moment embedding an OODA loop AI into a long range AAM.

Stealth is not just shapes and coatings. It is also about blinding the enemy. Maybe brar_w could educate us on how (if at all), the JSF's AESA (networked or otherwise) kicks down the enemy's electronic door on the first day of war to let the Orcs in.

Sword dances/knife-fights are eminently watchable in Ang Lee movies. I would venture that most pilots would rather ambush from afar and return home.


So why make F-35 ang lee gymanst/dancer? That's why I ask the red part in my post as you quoted? Why not make F-35 a straight flyer like F-117?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 19:17

Cosmo_R wrote:It's important to not fight the last war. Immelmann turns, Heimlich maneuvers (:)) and other ACMs are an iffy proposition in an era when in all likelihood, some nerds at Raytheon are at this very moment embedding an OODA loop AI into a long range AAM.


Iffy proposition, which is why the jsf team has gone to great lengths to dwell on how their fighters are still very maneuverable etc.

Stealth is not just shapes and coatings. It is also about blinding the enemy. Maybe brar_w could educate us on how (if at all), the JSF's AESA (networked or otherwise) kicks down the enemy's electronic door on the first day of war to let the Orcs in.


Oh wonderful physics, which can let an x-band radar kick down x, s, l, vhf, uhf, ka/ku band radars.

Sword dances/knife-fights are eminently watchable in Ang Lee movies. I would venture that most pilots would rather ambush from afar and return home.


Only problem is those ambushes rely on long range missiles.. which are.. jammable.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 19:19

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

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


Quoting poles and Ukrainians over Russian programs is like asking pakis to comment on Indian programs.


:lol: :lol:

Seriously. Poles and Ukrainians seem to be caught in a very weird mental situation, simultaneously loving and hating Russia.

Reuben Johnson also has a horrible track record on the Russian weapons industry.

Still remember how he said Su-30 MKI would never be delivered to the IAF after the Paris air show crash, it was merely a demo etc.

About the only good ones he has done is the interviews with Agat.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 19:28

tsarkar wrote: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.


The first, have to completely agree and is definitely the case - a production standard reliable unit. But it will be iterative in Marks.

Regarding Elta 2052, hope there are series production units? Seems to be mature, but hasn't been deployed by IDF (not publicly at least). The fact that we are in talks with the Swedes regarding their proposed AESA + jammer combination, indicates to me that the IAF wants options apart from the 2052 to compare against.

MLU with EL/M-2052 on Su-30 MKI - sadly, won't ever happen, IMHO. I wish it could but the quantum of effort would be staggering, far more than we have ever done on the earlier MiG/SHARs.

The Bars - EL/L 8222 combination itself didn't work out. IAF/HAL were (correctly) wary of giving either OEM a detailed look into the other systems & by themselves the combination had issues. We have reverted to SAP-518 on (at least) the last 40 batch MKIs.

To put in the EL/M-2052 we will have to replace pretty much most of the avionics & give the Israelis a detailed look at the Flanker airframe, far more than we have done with even the other aircraft (they will have to conduct ECCM, blanking, EMI/EMC studies), weaponry compatibility tests plus come up with a new EW/ESM fit suitable for the EL-2052 and the Flanker airframe.

The radar MLU IMHO will be Russian & so will the jammer, the ESM/RWR fit probably too (unless DARE pulls a rabbit out of the hat, which they haven't been able to do so till date).

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


The big question is what is the performance of the current T-50/engine combo? Is it suitable for a Mk1 T-50 while the definitive FGFA gets ready..

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 02 Oct 2016 19:42

Regarding Su-35 AESA - IMHO, its a long way off, given Irbis exists (why waste the effort)

Given how challenging the Su-30 aiframe has been to add 3rd party capabilities too (the reality is mixed), we are stuck with Russia IMHO. We are still some 5 years away from a Russian AESA suitable for the Su-30 upgrade.

A "quicker" Su-30 upgrade would have to rely on an Irbis derivative PESA for the IAF. The IAF justifiably would want better, an AESA from day one, but its unlikely. I have more hope for an Indian AESA to get on a Flanker since we can do all the tests inhouse without having to share confidential data outside, rather than a non Russia unit.

The Flanker is an electric jet, and unlike the Tejas we don't have access to all the detailed EMI/EMC data which we will have to painstakingly recreate. Its the reason why putting Israeli gear on "dumber" MiG-27s, MiG-21s, Shars worked out.

Radar/EW/ESM coordination in terms of Tx/Rx is also critical. In MKI we tried to mix 3 different items from 3 sources. Didn't work out. The Bars had compatibility issues with EL/L-8222. The RWRs were ok with Bars (we had data for Bars & RWR guys were Indian), but blanking.

The huge issue for the Flanker is basically blanking. Those canards. We are still figuring out what to do. Our lack of infra, testbeds all came back to bite us. Things which were A-ok on ground testbeds and even other aiframes had real challenges dealing with Su-30 config.

If the SAP-518s are used as proxy RWRs that's a possible situation. Before we jump on Sukhoi or India for this, the Australian effort to develop a RWR for F/A-18 ran into issues too.

Take anything Phazatron says with a bucket of salt. They couldn't even implement proper A2G modes on Kopyo. Their Zhuk MSA radars are still maturing and can at best be compared to mid mark AN/APG-68s on the F-16, range apart. NIIP is the best game in town for Russia but since Putin made both Phaza and NIIP combine (ostensibly in terms of coordination) under KRET, the fratricidal (and stupid) misallocation of resources between NIIP and Phaza may reduce and both work together for an AESA.

Question is whether AESA is essential for Su-30 upgrade (say first 3 squadrons). Yes, logistics mess to have 2 radars in Upg, but an Irbis level Bars variant will be nothing to sneeze at.

It will be at the level of a F/A-18 sized AN/APG-79 if not a F-15C sized AN/APG-63 variant in some parameters like range, peak power etc.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 02 Oct 2016 21:37

"Only problem is those ambushes rely on long range missiles.. which are.. jammable."

I understand where you're coming from. But everything is jammable. It's a round robin arms race between missile advances, jammers and agile fighters. From a pilot's POV, I think they would prefer networking, sensors and reach vs. trying to escape no escape zones.

Not to belabor the point but with today's tech, unless you're the US, you just can't play defense.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 02 Oct 2016 21:41

"So why make F-35 ang lee gymanst/dancer? That's why I ask the red part in my post as you quoted? Why not make F-35 a straight flyer like F-117?"

Good question. I wasn't aware that the F-35 was a gymnast/dancer and one you should address directly to LM. All I've seen is barrel rolls. No TVC that I could see.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 03 Oct 2016 01:07

Cosmo_R wrote:"Only problem is those ambushes rely on long range missiles.. which are.. jammable."

I understand where you're coming from. But everything is jammable. It's a round robin arms race between missile advances, jammers and agile fighters. From a pilot's POV, I think they would prefer networking, sensors and reach vs. trying to escape no escape zones.


Cosmo, basic issue is battery power. The average missile simply does not have the ability to run a high power multi spectral seeker for a long time. Also, because of range, weather issues, most long range seekers are RF ones, even with all the systems out there - the end result is this even with arguably the best networking, sensors & reach in the business.

Not to belabor the point but with today's tech, unless you're the US, you just can't play defense.


which is the point. with speed, "dancing", you don't play defense, you play offense.

there is the famous example of the MiG-25s vs the USAF in Iraq war. Most obsolete avionics fit etc. What they had was speed & height.

now lets come back to the PAK-FA.

What do we know of it.

Airframe built on the Su-30/27 experience but with greater supersonic capability & proper frontal stealth.
Long range sensors, but with offnose x-band arrays - allows for guidance while banking, L-Band arrays initially surmised for IFF only but now thought to act as long range surveillance for platforms with x-band optimized LO
IRST - a gen ahead of the ones on Su-30 etc. Should help against high flying, fast LO targets. Heat is heat.
Weapons bays for long range, multi-spectral weapons (see RVV-BD, Kh31 PD etc) - again, approach, fire, run.
Not too bothered with aft quarter stealth (and if we see radar performance against receding targets - the russian approach begins to speak of optimization)
Full supermaneuverability - didn't have to, but have it. Why? Because if a close in fight supermaneuverability with HOBS/HMS > better than the one that doesn't have it. Get to it, even if using IRST + L band arrays if no AWACS assist. This is in the AD mission where if you are against a stealth platform, you use IRST & L Band arrays to detect it (if no ground support) and then get in close if you must.
Sensor fusion ("Pilot associate" included) - if they fuse this with the FCS, you have the EF style automated cues, flight, defense against specific threat
Networking (so AWACS, ground VHF radar feeds)
High TWR etc (even with 117S level engines) - helps everyplace
Full defensive aids suite - Optical (including if reports are correct, a first of its class IR missile jammer), RF jammers & expendable pods (a step ahead of towed decoys, as the aircraft performance isn't compromised).

The point I am making is this is a very serious design optimized by Russia for kick in the door ops & Air dominance including their view of how conflicts will shape up & technology evolves. Its not merely a hodge podge or science project.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 03 Oct 2016 04:05

@KaranM ^^^"Cosmo, basic issue is battery power. The average missile simply does not have the ability to run a high power multi spectral seeker for a long time. Also, because of range, weather issues, most long range seekers are RF ones, even with all the systems out there - the end result is this even with arguably the best networking, sensors & reach in the business."

Should we assume the limits of today's missiles to be immutable when batteries are going to be the next big thing? Sorry but this undue emphasis on agility when circumstances call for platforms that can carry intelligent AAMs is a linear assumption much 1980s cell phones

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/ ... 111631.jpg

The punditry back then only dreamed of modified carry-ons as an alternative and did not consider that cell phones would become palm sized.

AAMs are going to become so intelligent that no human pilot can evade them within the kill envelope.

As to "The point I am making is this is a very serious design optimized by Russia for kick in the door ops & Air dominance including their view of how conflicts will shape up & technology evolves."

The Russians have no experience upon which to base how conflicts shape up and tech evolves. Georgia and Crimea/Syria are not exactly proving grounds. I do remember their famous 100 gun concept for artillery which some in Indian defense circles got really enthused (for awhile).

The Russians are still designing for WWII. Their tech and MIC are a generation behind the US/Israel/France. I don't think these are the guys we follow.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3081
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 03 Oct 2016 04:24

@Karan< ^^^"The Flanker is an electric jet, and unlike the Tejas we don't have access to all the detailed EMI/EMC data which we will have to painstakingly recreate. Its the reason why putting Israeli gear on "dumber" MiG-27s, MiG-21s, Shars worked out."

You make an interesting point. Despite the deep license and 'ToT' we cannot really "upgrade" key components. We are as you say stuck with the Russians. Agreed, but let's not double down on the bet by lunging into a science project called PAK/FA and pay for 'ToT' . Buy them if we must but cash on delivery, don't pay extra for development.

There is no alternative to rolling your own: AMCA with Rafales/F-16s/F-18s/Gripens whatever filling in the gap. The 'ToT' for AMCA comes from the making in India of any of the foregoing with the ecosystem soaking in the knowledge.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4952
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 04 Oct 2016 15:16

Cosmo_R wrote:Should we assume the limits of today's missiles to be immutable when batteries are going to be the next big thing? Sorry but this undue emphasis on agility when circumstances call for platforms that can carry intelligent AAMs is a linear assumption much 1980s cell phones


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6922&p=2053475#p2053475

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Khalsa » 05 Oct 2016 00:11

Thakur_B wrote:Quoting poles and Ukrainians over Russian programs is like asking pakis to comment on Indian programs.


Well Said, the Western Eastern europeans are behaving like a child whose aunty and uncle just arrived for a long summer vacation and they are revolting against their parents and taking full advantage of while they are there in the house.

its Temporary..... Uncle and Aunty will return back to their home, SYria is proving to be that.
The population in Western democracies is not interested to reform the Arabs , Persians, North Africans or the Ukaranians or for that matter any of the Eastern Bloc countries.

And to be frank, I am glad the populations are finally driving the governments again. The lack of boots on ground (and I mean Divisions of Army Gents) in Syria is testament to the bending of the Govts in UK and USA to the will of the people.

After all what the eff was achieved in Iraq.

however said that... the only country that has walked itself out of the influence of ex-USSR is poland.
And that is mainly because they were sworn enemies of Russia well before World War 2 and both grabbed land of each other when they could.
Not to mention the betrayal of Poland by Russia with Hitler.

Lets see Ukrainians extract themselves out of this mess.
They are quite corrupt and complicated like the Russians, probably lazier than Russians.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 00:48

Cosmo_R wrote:Should we assume the limits of today's missiles to be immutable when batteries are going to be the next big thing? Sorry but this undue emphasis on agility when circumstances call for platforms that can carry intelligent AAMs is a linear assumption much 1980s cell phones

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/ ... 111631.jpg


Cosmo, FYI - milspec equipment tends to be far behind COTS items as found in fashionable womens handbags.

Military soldiers still carry weapons which are based off modified mechanisms thought of by a Russian in the '40's, an American in the 1960's.

Sulu "phasers on stun" - remains good on scifi reruns.

Sorry - but the Starship enterprise remains the "next big thing".

The punditry back then only dreamed of modified carry-ons as an alternative and did not consider that cell phones would become palm sized.


And many did.

The famous comment of the IBM head talking of the need for computers comes to mind.

As does the fact that many others have called out mil advances & been well within the ball-park.

AAMs are going to become so intelligent that no human pilot can evade them within the kill envelope.


Those "intelligent AAMs" need guidance, which is constrained by the laws of physics & volumes which is why fighters still carry radars & which is why those fighters are backed up by transports with even larger radars & transports carrying fuel so as to allow those fighters to fly & generate electricity to power even the avionics they do carry.

As to "The point I am making is this is a very serious design optimized by Russia for kick in the door ops & Air dominance including their view of how conflicts will shape up & technology evolves."

The Russians have no experience upon which to base how conflicts shape up and tech evolves. Georgia and Crimea/Syria are not exactly proving grounds.


If Georgia & Crimea/Syria are not proving grounds, what are? Grenada and Iraq?

The Russians & Americans BTW have long used third party conflicts to prove each others systems, weapons & items.

I do remember their famous 100 gun concept for artillery which some in Indian defense circles got really enthused (for awhile).


The Russians were leading in datalinks en masse before the concept got famous. They were making supersonic cruise missiles en masse. Automated flight control systems. Deploying IRSTs & HOBS missiles with HMS on fighters en masse (as versus being on 1-2 platforms)..

The Russians are still designing for WWII. Their tech and MIC are a generation behind the US/Israel/France.


The Russians remain world class in many areas - aerospace, naval & the actual "brains" behind the electronics - algorithms, that ensures that countries like India continue to buy Russian & will do so for many decades. Their systems often lack in institutionalized support, something which broke up after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which they are now fixing.. but the capabilities remain world class.

I don't think these are the guys we follow.


But we do. Many of the key concepts & technologies we derived for many of our own systems, including our nuke submarines come from Russia.

And it turns out that a properly drilled AF even flying "designed for WWII" Su-30Ks held their own & then some against USAF F-15Cs which were more upgraded than our fighters.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 01:08

Cosmo_R wrote:You make an interesting point. Despite the deep license and 'ToT' we cannot really "upgrade" key components. We are as you say stuck with the Russians. Agreed, but let's not double down on the bet by lunging into a science project called PAK/FA and pay for 'ToT' . Buy them if we must but cash on delivery, don't pay extra for development.


We pay for TOT to increase availability. With broken revenue budget & lackadaisical support from Rosonoborexport (which in turn is affected by the first), the Su-30 availability is at 60%. This is directly related to the fact that we can machine around 70% of the Su-30 components inhouse. The remaining 30%, and a 2000 Crore warehouse is to fix another 15-20% availability.

Also, upgrading key components is required when the original ones need upgrading. When the Su-30 MKI was conceived, the Russians didn't have their latest RWRs & DRFM based jammers ready, so we went around shopping for 3rd party gear to put in. The T-50 comes with an integrated AESA, EW, ESM fit from day one (which will be improved in Marks - but its a complete platform). The Russians have had a decade and a half of getting their MIC back up.

We don't need the ability to "upgrade" key components unless absolutely necessary - that is a) either unavailable or B) prohibitively expensive.

Ask the Israelis. Are they replacing the AN/APG-81 on the JSF anytime with their own EL/M-2052? Have they replaced the AN/APG-68 V(9) with their "better" EL/M-2032s?

Yet they are getting "deep access" to the JSF In the sense they can add their own weapons & specific additional items. That's what we should logically hope for with the T-50 as well.

If we are planning to put EL/M-2052 on the T-50, then we are better off with something else. Haven't read any report (thankfully) that suggests this.

Not replacing the T-50s radar with a French AESA, its RWR with an Indian one, its EW with that from a Growler & hence make it a super fighter. I see these sort of assumptions everywhere on the net - sometimes even on BRF. I am pointing out its not easy to do these sort of things & ends up being either cancelled or costing too much.

The Australians with their RWR program on the F/A-18 found that out too. There's a good reason why folks mostly rely on the original OEMs for most of the heavy lifting & which is why even the IAF/HAL/ADA are looking for integrated fits (they are talking of radars/EW together from vendors for the LCA Mk1A - having discovered the hard way how even with own design, the two are tightly linked together).

There is no alternative to rolling your own: AMCA with Rafales/F-16s/F-18s/Gripens whatever filling in the gap. The 'ToT' for AMCA comes from the making in India of any of the foregoing with the ecosystem soaking in the knowledge.


Yes - but the entire problem is what fills in the gap.

AMCA frankly will come in the 2025+ timeframe. The IAF/GOI will only commit to it & it will pick up as the last Mk1As, Mk2's etc roll out for the IAF. After then, add another 5-10 years for all the flight testing, production Marks etc. What do you have in hand, ready in 2025?

The JSF? From a country whose primary think tanks keep equating India & Pak together & are ready to fight PRC to the last Indian? Which will come with who knows how many software and other locks to ensure the Indian boffins never get their sweaty hands on some prized item. Even so, I'd still take 36-54 JSF over equivalent Rafales anyday, but I am not the decision maker. With a heavy spares pool (if the MOF babus can get their heads around such concepts), we can still use it as a kick in the door weapon. But if things don't work out for software driven systems, its a white elephant.

For the bulk, take the T-50 anyday, it will be a familiar enhancement for the Flanker trained crew & we just need to nail down some hard agreements that what's in it, does not go to the PRC & also, have the long term roadmap ready for a MLU that keeps it current, even if the PRC does manage to get its hands on a few older Su-35 variants with spin-off tech. Reliability and service agreements should be the key driver.

I see (thankfully), the IAF being hard about these issues upfront this time.

We are going for the S-400, which the PRC has already purchased. The F-16 Block 70 while PAF has Block 50/52, this will still be far ahead. We have to ensure it can carry deploy Indian made weapons and has a India specific avionics & EW suite.

I do hope though the AMCA is sped up and limit the # of T-50s, etc we procure. At the end of teh day, everything we purchase from abroad, is not ours.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:20

Reposting some interesting news which have got lost in the noise.

Karan M wrote:http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/maks-russias-t-50-radar-almost-ready-for-serial-production-416112/


MAKS: Russia’s T-50 radar almost ready for serial production
By: JAMES DREWMOSCOW Source: Flightglobal.com 20:11 26 Aug 2015
The Tikhomirov NIIP radar system built for Russia’s first fifth-generation combat jet, the Sukhoi T-50, is “99% ready” to enter serial production but must first complete a series of development tests.

The active phased array radar consists of one forward-looking X-band radar in the nose section and two side-scanning arrays as well as L-band antennas along the wing flaps.

The system has been put on display for the first time at the MAKS air show in Moscow, and deputy chief designer of NIIP radar systems Andrey Sukhanov says he doesn’t have a time line for when the testing will conclude, but he is confident the overall design is stable barring minor tweaks.

“A lot of different equipment and items are involved in this testing, because it’s not only the radar being tested but the avionics of the entire system,” he says. “This is similar to the [Lockheed Martin] F-22, and the F-35 testing that is taking place now. It does not depend on which country or manufacturer, because the problems encountered are always the same.

“If the testing finds some things that require finalization or adjustments then it will be done, but as for our estimate, the radar is 99% ready for serial production.”

He gave little detail regarding the radar’s capability, other than to say it comes with air, ground and maritime modes and is easily adaptable to new air-launched weapons.

Sukhanov was also hesitant to say the number of threats the radar can track and target simultaneously, except to say “no fewer than the Su-35”. State defence exporter Rostec claims that aircraft can track up to four ground or 30 airborne targets out to 400km, while simultaneously attacking up to eight airborne targets.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:21

New gen ARM

Austin wrote:MAKS 2015: KRTV adds IR seeker to Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile

Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV) company demonstrated for the first time at the MAKS 2015 air show its upgraded version of the Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile featuring an imaging infrared (IIR) channel.

This missile intended to be integrated into the internal weapons bays of Russia's new Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fighter aircraft.

According to KTRV's general director Boris Obnosov, equipping the Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile control system with a thermal imaging channel enables it to strike radars operating in pulse mode and turning off when the missile is in its terminal phase.

The Kh-58UShK and Kh-58UShK IIR missiles can be mounted externally on a range of aircraft (using an AKU-58-type pylon) such as the MiG-35, Su-30MK, Su-34 and Su-35, or as the UShK variants of the Kh-58 have folding wings they can be stored in an internal weapons bay (like on the PAK FA) using a UVKU-50-type launcher.

The missile is designed to both hit pre-programmed radar targets and targets detected by the target designation system of the aircraft. The new Kh-58UShK IIR missile has an innovative broadband passive radar seeker working in the 1.2-11 GHz frequency range to seek out enemy radars.

The upgraded antiradar missile weighs 650 kg, is 4.19 m long, has a wingspan of 0.8 m, and a body diameter of 0.38 m. With its wings folded the missile's cross section is 0.4x0.4 m. The missile has a range of up to 245 km, is designed to hit within a radius of 10 m of its target and has a 149 kg warhead.

The Kh-58UShK IIR missile was developed by the Raduga (Rainbow) state design bureau.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:21

Insight into PAKFA tech

Karan M wrote:MAKS: Is Russia developing an F-35-hunting UAV?
image: http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/attention.gif
Part of channel(s): Ukraine (current event)
Russia could be working on a low-observable, F-35-hunting unmanned air vehicle that uses deeply-integrated electronic warfare systems to stay hidden from radars. The tip-off comes from electronic systems producer KRET, which has a curious UAV model on display at the MAKS air show inMoscow.

According to the company’s first deputy chief executive officer Vladimir Mikheev, this aircraft model is more than just a sleek promotional display – it is an advanced military UAV being developed by the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC).

Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET) is a subcontractor on the project, he says, providing the fundamental communications, radar, electronic warfare and self-protection systems, as well as the ground control station.

Speaking via a translator, Mikheev tells Flightglobal that the company is involved with two military UAV projects – one in development and one in the concept phase – but both ventures of UAC.

He declines to name the project and does not say which UAC design bureau is in charge, but confirms some of its key capabilities.

Mikheev says the UAV has been designed to detect stealth aircraft in the same vein as China’s ambitious “Divine Eagle” project, which he claims is based on technology “borrowed” from Russia and the USA.

Such aircraft aim to detect low-observable US combat aircraft using X-band and UHF radars, specifically the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 and Northrop Grumman B-2. But airborne surveillance is just one of the UAV’s capabilities.

Mikheev says KRET is providing a deeply-integrated electronic warfare system that not only provides a protective electromagnetic sphere around the aircraft to counter air-to-air missiles, but also cloaks it from radars.

The unmanned aircraft closely resembles Northrop’s carrier-based X-47B demonstrator, but adds two lift fans on each wing and vertical stabilisers.

Mikheev says the UAV’s avionics, radar and electronic warfare systems are derived from those being produced for the Sukhoi Su-35 multirole fighter and the Kamov Ka-50 attack helicopter. KRET is also deeply involved in the Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA fighter project.

In an articlepublished on KRET’s website on 2 August, Mikheev says Russia has been competing with the USA in the realm of electronic warfare “for our entire lives”, and about five years ago the company decided it needed to bring in the next-era of electronic warfare systems.

“Today we are talking about 15% to 20% annual growth in the direction of electronic warfare systems,” he says.

It remains to be seen whether this UAV project is just marketing or a mature development programme with similar goals to China’s Divine Eagle UAV. It would come as the stealthy F-35 enters serve as the West’s primary “first-day-of-war” combat jet.


Image

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1440 ... sgRVbkz.99

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:24

Note the use of L-Band arrays. This is significant from the viewpoint of the FGFA or PAKFA & even the Su-35.

Karan M wrote:Its all relevant to the PAKFA, same as advances viz Neuron tie into the Rafale.

This is the new proposed UAV - the key takeaways are the radar arrays. A huge number, and which if sufficiently powerful and non X Band can present interesting possibilities. The key thing here, the reports the UAV will sport decimetric ie LBand arrays.

Note in particular the height finding arrays in the vertical fins.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5813/10 ... 9_orig.jpg
Image

Note this is not merely fanciful - while the lift fans in the wings can be considered unproven, even the forward facing radar is exactly the same shape as the Irbis/Bars and the display is from KRET which is now the avionics house for Russia.

Relevant to the PAKFA, which will have L Band arrays in the wing (and presumably in the fins) for height finding.

Carlo Kopp can take a bow. He had predicted this exact arrangement.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:25

Official confirmation that even an Irbis level upgrade for Bars is possible.

Karan M wrote:TL;DR India has apparently worked on the terms of reference for a Bars upgrade, upto 400km range if an Irbis level 5Kw transmitter is chosen. IAF delay on PAKFA has meant the joint R&D program on PAKFA AESA has mostly become NIIP driven so far.

Link

the general director of JSC "NIIP Tikhomirov" Yuriy White.

- Something special for the MAKS show?

- This time, we demonstrate for the first time fully antenna system for the fifth-generation fighter. First we set the single antenna, then another, now in the pavilion will demonstrate the KLA full configuration - front antenna and side wing. Another highlight - the active phased array of cylindrical type, we show for the first time in Hall Concern PVO "Almaz-Antey". Usually all of the lattice plane, and to give all-round visibility, it is necessary to put three or four house. Here the cylinder, and due to a special distribution system beam rotates 360 degrees. And already the layout began to give specified characteristics. We just "brushed", and get a prototype. And, of course, will be presented at the MAKS SAM "Buk-M2E" of our development. But with the addition. We are together with the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant exhibit is also a trainer for this SAM that will prepare professionals who are not chasing equipment and producing resource.

- And what about the "Leopard"? Or the potential of radar exhausted?

- Do not exhausted. "Bars" is the Su-30MKI and Su-30cm, have ordered our air force, we did, say, Russified version of "Leopard" with the new range of weapons, taking into account the increase in the detection range, the new mode of operation and so on. d.

- Up to 400 kilometers of the detection range on the "Bars" will make it?

- If you put as a "Irbis", 5-kilowatt transmitter. In the future, such a possibility is considered. However, an upgraded version of the "Leopard/Bars" we do not show, because the terms of reference were issued just yesterday, but the contract may be signed just on MAKS.


- How likely is the emergence of an export version of the radar AFAR?

- Subject to date. With India, we had a joint R & D, but they held out the time and we have all of the output. Now, most likely, they will have to buy. In general, the export version of the AESA will naturally be.

- If you are going to sell locators AFAR, therefore, for its air force stashed something more perfect.

- Now we are developing a new version of AFAR - more promising. It will be smarter, more reliable and less time-consuming to manufacture, which is more adapted to mass production.

- It depends on how much mass. One unit - that's not mass production. Now, if planes AFAR will be ordered to the same extent as in the US, a different matter.

- Apparently, the NIIP development for the PAK DA also did not fall at the MAKS-2015, it is too early?

- While we are doing preliminary design. Naturally, in a project to accumulate all our achievements of the PAK FA for more than 10 years, and all that we have to "Irbis", in a word, the quintessence. We have such a backlog, which few can present. AFAR full-size working in this frequency range, more today no one, not only in the aviation version, but in the ground complex. And our AFAR, which stands on the PAK FA, flying for two years. And locator works steadily, all the characteristics are confirmed, but most importantly, there was no catastrophic failures. Periodically, we remove the antenna from the board, put on the stand and compare the characteristics of which have been at the supplier and have now, -degradatsii were observed.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:26

Engine news.

deejay wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/329964-pak-jet-production-russia/

The final primary batch of PAK-FA fighter jets is almost complete and tests will be finished in 2016, top military officials told the media. The Russian Air Force hopes to start regular production of the new 5G jets soon, with the first planes coming in 2017.
The PAK-FA (Perspective Air Complex of Frontline Aviation) fighter jets are being manufactured by the KnAAPO (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association) in the Russian Far East. Part of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, the KnAAPO is the country’s largest aircraft-manufacturing company, producing both military aircrafts and civilian planes like the Sukhoi Super Jet.

Air Force Commander-in-Chief Viktor Bondarev, who recently visited the KnAAPO production facility, has told RIA Novosti he is extremely pleased with the pace of the PAK-FA’s (also known as the T-50) development.

Read more
Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA jet fighter (Reuters / Maxim Shemetov)'Better than US-made 5G': PAK-FA fighter to engage sea, air & ground targets

“The eleventh T-50 aircraft is on berth and is 60-70 percent ready. This aircraft is going to be the final one in the test series,” Bondarev said, adding he is 100 percent sure the jets will pass government testing by the end of 2016.

“Next year the aircraft goes into serial production,” he told RIA.

Bondarev said that the PAK-FA’s operational engine will be ready for testing next year and is likely to go into production in 2018. At the moment, the PAK-FA is powered with two AL-41F1 engines which enable it to fly at a supersonic cruise speed, have a 2,600 km/h top speed, and a range of 5,500 kilometers (with two drop tanks).

The next-stage engine, currently dubbed ‘Type 30,’ is expected to have better speed and fuel economy characteristics.

The Air Force commander recalled the incident in which a PAK-FA #5 caught fire at Zhukovsky Airfield near Moscow, where the 5G (fifth generation) fighters are being tested.

“The aircraft has been restored and it is flying. This serves as proof the aircraft is highly maintainable, we do need such machines,” Bondarev said.
...


Image
Image

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 04:28

Why FGFA is now on ACM Rahas doable list.

deejay wrote:More of the same but with a difference. FGFA followers should track this.

https://www.rt.com/business/330026-india-russia-fighter-aircraft/

Moscow and Delhi to invest $8 billion in 5th generation fighters

The Indian Air Force (IAF) and Russian aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi have agreed to develop an Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). Negotiators made a breakthrough last month deciding to lower investment cost to $4 billion for each country.

The deal opens the prospect of producing 250 FGFAs to replace the multirole Sukhoi-30MKI fighter, according to the source in India’s Ministry of Defence as quoted by Business Standard.

The 2008 deal is projected to cost each country $6 billion, adjusted for inflation. India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics and Russia’s Sukhoi have agreed to cut costs by 40 percent to $4 billion each over seven years.

READ MORE: Moscow won't abandon aircraft sales talks with Tehran - Russian aviation source

The countries will invest $1 billion in the first year and another $500 million in each of the following six years.

In the meantime, India is negotiating with France on buying 36 multirole Rafale fighters for a price yet to be negotiated. French President Francois Hollande arrives in Delhi on Monday to sort out the financial details.

....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_apO2y9cRWo&feature=youtu.be&a=

[youtube]_apO2y9cRWo&feature=youtu.be&a=[/youtube]

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15355
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2016 05:07

If the PAK-FA is close to serial production, why are the Russians interested in investing $4 billion - to jointly develop what, from their point of view?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 05:23

btw missile seekers are active for only brief spurts. despite gyaan on them not being a limiting factor , they most certainly are. the aversge fighter runs its sensors continuously, but even that is often constrained by thermal and cooling concerns.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 05:26

NRao wrote:If the PAK-FA is close to serial production, why are the Russians interested in investing $4 billion - to jointly develop what, from their point of view?


huge difference between prototypes and investment for serial manufacture. ask HAL about 8 LCA/annum to 16. then there are the fifty IAF specific changes. if a fraction of that cost us 1.07 bn euros from rafale, do the calculations..plus final engine devpt, plus TOT charges...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4952
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2016 05:39

Karan M wrote:btw missile seekers are active for only brief spurts. despite gyaan on them not being a limiting factor , they most certainly are. the aversge fighter runs its sensors continuously, but even that is often constrained by thermal and cooling concerns.


Missile seekers run for only brief spurts because of many limits, power being one (not the only limiting one), space, weight, and cooling being others. You don't need to run a seeker all the time if physics determines its engagement ranges and doing so would not really get you anything meaningful. The same would be the case for any multi-mode or multi-spectral weapon as is the case with multi-spectral weapons in service such as the Stunner and older RAM.

Many concepts for multi-spectral seekers that are publicly known (and there are 2-3 OEM developed prototypes with numerous other publications from smaller teams and academia) utilize a conformal RF array with terminal IR seeker.

This from 25+ years ago -

Because technological advances have made packages smaller and more afordable, it is now practical to put imaging sensors into misile sekers. IR imagery can be used for target detection, tracking and recognition of a particular shape of the target at the end of the flight, as well as for augmenting the RF sensor in the event of electronic countermeasures.

One possible way of incorporating IR and RF sensors into an air-to-air misile seeker is to use a body-fixed RF conformal array and a gimbaled IR detector array. The RF conformal array consists of a cylindricaly shaped, frequency scaned, conformal antenna system that conforms to the 7-inch diameter airframe of the missile.

The infrared sensor consists of a dual active/passiveimaging system , with heterodyne/direct double detector array employing simultaneous imaging, mounted on a gimbaled platform.


The DRM would have had the ability to switch between how the seekers were utilized depending upon engagement ranges. You aren't limited by power as in the lack of battery technology preventing you from exploring or even fielding these concepts since they are already being done, and as mentioned multiple AOA's were successfully cleared to a point where those that did the systems engineering on them didn't even bother down-selecting a conventional seeker as a backup if they ran into trouble with power.

With seeker technology much ahead of when the last established seekers were developed (AMRAAM, R-77, MICA etc) they will be significantly more advanced when eventually replaced. However the real leap would have to come with data-links and how one networks the weapon and the shooter since LO platforms are as it is optimized against high frequency radars and seekers. The capability that is probably the most challenging would be computing and networking. How you do that within the SWP&C limits will be an interesting thing to follow especially since against LO it will be the collective kill chain that you have to invest in and missile is just one element. A multi-spectral seeker on an air-air missile isn't going to help you find a VLO target but just better overcome ECM and have a higher probability of a successful intercept.

Image
Image

Except Multi-spectral seekers to be quite standard once the next crop of A2A seekers are development in Russia, Europe and the US. Miniaturization and power efficiency has already allowed them to cram everything from an active seeker, ARH, GPS/INS and Satellite T/R link into missiles and this was using late 90's technology.
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Oct 2016 15:35, edited 7 times in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13696
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Oct 2016 19:28

Appreciate your spirit, but do take a look at the basic point being made. Otherwise, a lengthy post which missed the original point completely..

That a missile seeker with its volume, power limitations, operating in spurts, cannot in the near future compensate for the onboard high power avionics set up on the launch platform & hence talk of "miniaturizing batteries" in line with mobile phones to allow "intelligent missiles" to hunt down opponents entirely on their own remains fanciful.

And the lack of space, weight, cooling etc is all again tied to power.. dissipating excess heat dumped by high power systems is no joke, hence the complicated cooling systems on AESAs to general purpose compute running in large systems.

End result, the actual launch platform ends up carrying the actual high power, high performance, long range systems which track, scan and target constantly and even they are very limited (the entire hose pipe effect), as a result of which they need to be backed up by even larger platforms carrying even larger sensors.

The more sensors you pack, including datalinks that compensate for the lack of sensor coverage - performance, scan areas, the more the power requirements. The compact power sources at best keep up with increasing demands. Overall volumes of the missile airframes can't increase constantly without tradeoffs. The PAK-FA per reports chose the 4 large missile loadout concept, its yet to be seen whether they can be reconfigured for larger #'s of smaller missiles. Fighters cannot become as large as 747s.

The near or achievable future lies in not "intelligent, autonomous drone missiles" which are way off but the USN approach of multiple layers of networked sensors & targeting, hand off platforms which can in turn guide the missiles in, which will compensate for the lack of AI operated semi-sentient missiles able to kill any target, as CosmoR was alluding to.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4952
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Oct 2016 19:45

That a missile seeker with its volume, power limitations, operating in spurts, cannot in the near future compensate for the onboard high power avionics set up on the launch platform & hence talk of "miniaturizing batteries" in line with mobile phones to allow "intelligent missiles" to hunt down opponents entirely on their own remains fanciful.


They don't even do that now and that won't really change so agreed! What autonomy is likely to change and influence is the way the missiles acheive their kills while still shrinking engagement times and reducing the need to rely on any one sensor-shooter to generate a required amount of SA to obtain a given probability of intercept.

I'm not so sure about compact power sources just keeping up with demand but I guess one would need context. Is it in the context of a missile? if so I'm pretty sure that we are seeing a fairly substantial increase in the ability in the processing, seeker performance and networking department and these are being handled and one would assume (unless there is evidence to the contrary) that growth margins would be at least as adequate as was in previous generation systems. Size for Size (on a relative basis) missiles are being packed with higher power sensors, more processing, higher-power and in some cases dual-band data-links in addition to things like Satelite based transmit and receive capability compared to their predecessors.

On aircraft you have a very significant increase in power and thermal demand that has not only been met but met with a growth margin in mind. NG system designs are being drawn up with a predicted multi-fold increase in power and thermal capacity and are also including a margin for anticipated growth.

And the lack of space, weight, cooling etc is all again tied to power.. dissipating excess heat dumped by high power systems is no joke, hence the complicated cooling systems on AESAs to general purpose compute running in large systems.


Power cannot create more space for larger seeker and or more thermal management to run it. Missile diameter, weight range, warhead, speed and performance essentially determines what space you allocate for the seeker and other electronics so if you have suffecient power to provide your electronics it may not be the limiting factor in increasing performance. Space on the other hand most definitely is hence the current operational concepts on how aerial engagements occur, how seekers perform and what is included along with them to complete the intercept.

The near or achievable future lies in not "intelligent, autonomous drone missiles" which are way off but the USN approach of multiple layers of networked sensors & targeting, hand off platforms which can in turn guide the missiles in, which will compensate for the lack of AI operated semi-sentient missiles able to kill any target, as CosmoR was alluding to


Distributed operations and networked attack is most definitely the current and future route to obtain high probability intercepts against challenging targets. Complete agreement there! My point was regarding the earlier comment that multi-spectral missile seekers are power limited, when that isnt really the challenge at the moment since it was practical to use that approach even a couple of decades ago. BVR missiles complete the intercept but their 'smart' comes into play only in the terminal phase - so as an operational concept a dual-spectral seeker only ensures higher probability of defeating ECM over and above earlier approaches..in between that and actual launch you will rely on your networks as is being done even now. The future will just see a very significant increase in the data one can use to execute an intercept provided the platforms can handle the volume and have the waveform bandwidth to handle that on a large scale.

Having very robust, survivable (wide-band) waveforms layered with multiple layers of software based data-links (Link-16, ADL, TTNT based self-healing networks) gives you the ability to distribute the Situational Awareness and allow the missile to seek multiple inputs on a challenging target. Current missiles are not prepared to do that because of latency and stove piped waveform issues. Computing is another area where you will have to improve to drive this operational concept. But this is something that is happening rather quickly.

I haven't come across official artwork or picture of the T-50 weapons bay but they should be having a 7 inch diameter R-77 replacement as the main BVR weapon against maneuvering threats. Longer ranged anti-AWACS etc weapons may be larger but those would naturally be complementary. The larger missile supporting bays probably have as much if not more to do with larger anti-surface weapons that Russia would no doubt want to modernize and offer along with the aircraft. Its been quite clear from day 1 that the T-50 is as much a penetrating strike aircraft as it is an air-dominance aircraft and the bays should reflect that (although its strange that they didn't integrate a targeting sensor as opposed to a pod).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35193
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 05 Oct 2016 21:07

Satellite based (say GAGAN here) tracking is possible if we can assure it doesn't reveal coordinates to enemy MAWS system. No? We are talking about about burst of data packets and routing everything to net-centric central system.

Another Q: Is there any need to course correction mid-way to target? like re-lock on after launch and time to play around. I think it may not be necessary as the target in question should either be less-mobile surface one or most likely pre-identified air target.

So, we need it only for awareness[both mission completion and possible failures, along with other sensor inputs], data results and performance metrics. Any foe (IFF sensor feed) on the radar or on the ops-network should automatically be locked [talking about live mission scenario - can be crazy if IFF fails/essentially abort mission updates needed only here].

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18443
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 11 Oct 2016 21:04

Russia's Newest Advanced Stealth Fighter. All about Sukhoi T-50. Documentary


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18443
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Oct 2016 10:00

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15998
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 12 Oct 2016 11:23

Let's hope that these deals will eb concluded during this visit of Pres. Putin.The S-400s will scare the Pakis sh*tless with their loose talk of attacking India with N-weapons.The N-subs are sorely needed and the FGFA for maintaining our air dominance over both Pak and China.

http://defencenews.in/article/S-400,-Nu ... unday-8643

S-400, Nuclear Subs, FGFA to be top agenda of Modi-Putin meet on Sunday
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
By: TNN

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to conclude "important bilateral agreements" when they meet on Saturday
The meeting between the two comes in the backdrop of the the first ever joint Russia-Pakistan military exercise recently
Cooperation in key areas of security, defence and trade will be discussed when Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold talks on Saturday after which the two sides are expected to conclude "important bilateral agreements".

Announcing Putin's four-day visit to Goa from October 14 to 17, external affairs ministry said besides attending BRICS Summit on Sunday, he would also hold 17th Indo-Russia Annual Summit where the leaders will review the entire gamut of bilateral ties including the progress made since their last Summit meeting in Moscow in December 2015.

"Important bilateral agreements are expected to be concluded and a joint statement released at the end of the Summit," the ministry said.

It also comes at a time when India is undertaking large-scale defence modernisation programme involving replacing old Russian equipment with modern ones from the country itself and from other nations.

Besides discussions to boost cooperation in crucial areas of defence, security and trade, the two leaders will exchange views on regional and international issues.

Some of the most important defence deals currently under discussion are purchase of 5 S-400 'Triumf' long-range air defence missile systems, Kamov-28 (Shouldn't it be the KA-226?) helicopters and upgradation of the Sukhoi 30-MKIs.

Another project under focus would be the long pending joint development of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).

India is also looking at leasing an Akula-class nuclear submarine from Russia.

The ministry said given that the year 2017 marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, a number of commemorative celebrations are planned.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15998
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 14 Oct 2016 13:29

Latest news on the FGFA,etc.,at the summit

Defence deals to top agenda at India-Russia annual meet
Defence deals will be the key topic of discussion during the forthcoming 17th edition of the India-Russia annual summit.
By: Huma Siddiqui | New Delhi | Published: October 13, 20167:36 AM
While Russia is helping India build indigenous nuclear submarine — though there has been no confirmation from either side — India is in talks to lease a second Akula-class nuclear-powered submarine from Russia. (Reuters)

Defence deals will be the key topic of discussion during the forthcoming 17th edition of the India-Russia annual summit. Besides upgrade of the Su-30 MKI and 28 Kamov helicopters, agreements related to the purchase of the S-400 Triumf advanced air defence missile system and an IL-78 multi-role tanker are on the list.
Also, both sides are likely to sign an agreement on the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project or the perspective multi-role fighter (PMF), the talks for which were restarted this year.
According to sources, joint development of Kamov Ka-226T light utility helicopters and the FGFA are also being pushed to be under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make In India’ initiative.
A new company is expected to be set up between the two countries for the Kamov Ka-226T helicopter, to be implemented under ‘Make In India’, where 140 helicopters will be made here under a contract estimated to be close to $1 billion.
Ready with a detailed work-share agreement, the FGFA project between the two countries that was put on hold over issues related to work-share, research and development, is expected to take off again. Russia has agreed to share state-of-the-art technology as part of the deal of producing at least 100 aircraft in India.
The Defence Acquisition Council under defence minister Manohar Parrikar had cleared the purchase of S-400 air defence systems from Russia in December 2015. However, no final go-ahead has been sent to Moscow from New Delhi. If the deal on S-400s is finalised during the summit, India will become the second country in the world to have this latest missile and this will also be the biggest deal between the two countries since 2011, when India had ordered 140 Su-30 MKI fighter planes.
PM Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin will be meeting for the annual summit during October 15-16, coinciding with the BRICS summit in Goa. This will be the third annual bilateral summit where Putin and Modi will meet.
Russia lately has not been able to meet India’s delivery schedule, and issues related to transfer of technology and poor quality of spares are some of the problems India faces. However, Russia has been India’s biggest arms supplier for decades, selling military hardware worth $45 billion since early 1960s. Compared to Russia, since 2007, the US has sold military hardware worth $15 billion to India.
While Russia is helping India build indigenous nuclear submarine — though there has been no confirmation from either side — India is in talks to lease a second Akula-class nuclear-powered submarine from Russia.
“The price negotiations for leasing the submarine is at an advanced stage and for about $1.5 billion,” said a source.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1346
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby wig » 01 Nov 2016 09:53

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation ... 17186.html
Need more time on 5th-gen fighter jet, India tells Russia
In the latest round of India-Russia military talks, New Delhi has told Moscow that it will need more time to examine the proposal to jointly develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).
The FGFA, which is under development, is very much a future requirement for the Indian Air Force (IAF) upgrade programme, the Russian side was conveyed last week at a meeting between Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and his Russian counterpart General Sergey Shoigu in New Delhi.
“We have asked for greater details with regards to the work India will be doing in manufacturing the plane and also technology transfer,” a top source in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said. India and Russia have been working to conclude a pending agreement to co-develop the FGFA.
New Delhi has told Moscow that it wants a new engine and the plane must have super cruise ability, a 360-degree radar ability, added stealth features among 40-odd other India-specific modifications over the existing prototype. A plane called the ‘T-50’ built by the Russians under the PAK-FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation) programme as FGFA is already being tested as prototype in Russia.
The two countries have to sign a research and development (R&D) contract for the FGFA, but before that the “wrinkles have to be ironed out”. The signing of a R&D contract has been pending since June 2013 when the preliminary design contract (PDC), which detailed out the fighter’s configuration, was completed. The PDC cost $295 million (Rs 1,500 crore approximately).
The IAF has said AL-41F1 engines being used on the existing T-50 were just upgraded versions of the Sukhoi-30MKI’s AL-31FP engines and it would need a new engine. Also, the MoD wants that the R&D contract should have an adequate share of work done in India, thus allowing Indian engineers to learn the art of designing and making a plane. The R&D contract is estimated to be for $4 billion (around Rs 26,000 crore). The R&D process and final development of the plane is expected to be spread across seven years.
An aircraft such as the FGFA would be ideal for missions deep into the enemy territory. The IAF is now operating at its lowest combat strength in more than a decade. It is down to 33 squadrons (some 16-18 planes in each) as against a mandated 42 squadrons needed for simultaneous and collusive two-front war scenario with Pakistan and China.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7459
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby rohitvats » 01 Nov 2016 09:56

^^^Sample of what happens when you've a Defense Minister who understands technology and who has a certain focus on what needs to be achieved through such contracts.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8223
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 01 Nov 2016 10:09

Yes, Guruji. If we get a significant portion of the R&D work at India, it will be a great thing for us.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Gurneesh and 18 guests