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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 22:14

In this vein, I expect Russia to be working on HPR AESA equipped BVR missiles (reclaim the lock-on range vs VLO aircraft) and BVR weapons which are a follow-on to the R-27 TE, i.e. RVV-AE type missiles with IR seekers but with mid-course datalinks.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2019 22:15

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


That describes, to almost 100% detail/accuracy, the US approach on the ATF/F-22A minus the VLO non-optimization.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 22:18

Wow. The ATF/F-22A planned for L-Band arrays too? I thought the ECM functions for the APG-77 and the cheek arrays were dropped later (cost?).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2019 22:53

Karan M wrote:Wow. The ATF/F-22A planned for L-Band arrays too? I thought the ECM functions for the APG-77 and the cheek arrays were dropped later (cost?).


Low frequency arrays exist in the wings of both the F-22A and F-35 (all variants) and are part of the IFF, EW and CNI suite. How exactly these aircraft use these arrays in an offensive, and defensive setting is highly classified. But they are integral to how these aircraft detect, track, identify (CID), and counter threats and are among the most frequently upgraded systems on these aircraft. Similarly, ATF called for additional cheek mounted side arrays and wing mounted X band arrays as well. While there is space, weight and power provisioned for cheek mounted radar arrays the wing mounted X-band arrays were considered excessive and dropped as a design feature so never made it into the existing F-22A design.

Similarly, there is space for an IRST provisioned as well in addition to space and cooling provisioned for larger IR MAWS sensors not different to the EODAS on the F-35A. Both the F-22A and F-35's X-Band AESA are multi-functional arrays capable of both ECM/EA and traditional radar functions (IIRC F-22A got the capability around 2010-2012 time-frame while the F-35 has it from the start). For more than 15 years the F-22 has existed without any real competitor. The arrival of the J-20 has changed that as China has the means to produce a lot of those in short order. Therefore, depending upon the USAF's assessment of the J-20's capability they may accelerate F-22 modernization and add some of things that were originally planned like the side radars and IRST. There was an Airforcemagazine article from a couple of years ago that quoted someone as saying that cheek arrays were in consideration for beyond 3.2B modernization which is going to be contracted for next year as 3.2 B upgrades are nearly all done.

Image

Image

On the F-35, the need to stay within a size limit, keep costs low and produce it in the thousands, drove them towards a different direction - one of developing very high transfer-rate, high fidelity, LPI high frequency omni-directional apertures, capable of transferring large volumes of raw track data back and forth to multiple aircraft concurrently with simultaneous transmit and receive capability from the same aperture. This was later watered down to avoid excessive risk and the end result is the AESA based MADL (Ku band). However, the need to arrive at that networking "end-state" did not go away and they are chipping away at the technical challenges so a likely upgrade in the mid 2020's will get them to where the initially wanted to be in terms of moving very large volumes of data back and forth, seamlessly and in a discrete fashion to potentially dozens of aircraft at a time (directional data links and the need to control unmanned and loyal-wingman type crafts).

Image

Image

The major difference between the F-22A and the other stealth fighters is that the F-22A is very heavily biased (design) towards OCA mission. This is what the USAF needed and that is what they got. It is actually a pretty mediocre Defensive fighter (USAF prefers F-15 for that role) with many things that would have made it slightly better at that role dropped during the final stages of the ATF program to keep costs low and to ensure program survival post Soviet Union collapse.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Sep 2019 23:27

So the F-35 may go for a system of systems approach ( a multi-static radar in the sky) to counter stealth opponents.

From LM - the wing apertures seem passive ESM suites:

The EW apertures comprise six multi-element antenna array sets covering portions of the Band 3 and Band 4 frequency spectrum,along with both vertical and horizontal polarization. All the arrays have azimuth(AZ)-only designs that do not rely on the use of elevation (EL) arrays. The passive array assemblies use traveling wave-notch element approach designed to balance gain, polarization, field of view(FOV), and radar cross-section features. Each Band 3/4 aperture feeds an aperture electronics module that amplifies and passes the detected RF signals from the apertures. It does this through a switch matrix and tuners that distribute the RF to a set of wideband EW receivers (EWRs).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Sep 2019 23:39

That is what the official brochures have said over the years though LM let the cat out of the bag a few years ago when they proposed a comms solution between F-22 and F-35 using installed/existing L-band apertures in the wings. Lockheed even demo’d L band transmission through these channels as part of its proposal . Aviation Week documented that LM solution and I posted it here at the time. I’ll try to dig it up again . How exactly CID and detection/tracking is done in a discrete fashion on the US 5th gen aircraft is a big black hole and one of the few highly classified capabilities on these aircraft. But 3 decades of operational LO/VLO experience should give them a fairly decent idea on how to optimize the trade-space between the ability to stay discrete and hidden, and the need to detect, track, ID, and engage a wide swath of potential threats given that the F-22 is the primary OCA platform of the USAF. That much time, and resource allocation should have allowed them to develop and try out virtually every possible combination allowable by current state of the art technology. The US 5th gen. fighter community views 5th generation combat (vs 5th gen) as a game determined by who has better LPI, and EW capability. They would actually rate the EW system, and the data-sharing and sensor fusion above the raw radar capability. But when one switches to 5th vs. 4th, those radars come very handy and allow the aircraft to act as a force multiplier with the ability to pick and chose how often it wants to be seen. It is quite possible that in next generation aircraft the radar is replaced altogether with distributed Multi-Function RF apertures. Would be really interesting to see how active and passive RF apertures are incorporated on the B-21. That will give some indication to how far technology has advanced since ATF...

EDIT : Here's one article describing L band transmitters which had previously never been acknowledged to have existed -

Lockheed Martin, by contrast, has demonstrated the ability to use a new waveform developed by L-3 Communications called Chameleon for direct communications among F-22s and F-35s without the use of a gateway. Lockheed Martin demonstrated Chameleon during flight trials in December; officials say signal strength remained under the detection threshold for an anti-access environment and the waveform can be transmitted via L-band antennas already on both platforms and only used for operations now at test ranges. Lockheed Martin has spent its own internal research and development funding to develop the system, dubbed Project Missouri. What is unique about Project Missouri is its ability to allow for data to go back and forth using the Chameleon waveform without revealing the location of the stealthy aircraft, a plus for operations in highly defended airspace.
LINK


The EW/CNI and IFF suite on these aircraft are very highly integrated and software defined capability allows for very unique and bespoke solutions to be developed and deployed aimed at some very highly specific challenges such as CID, detection, EW etc. In fact, the USAF's official budget is literally littered with many smaller programs that mostly stay under the radar but are aimed almost exclusively at these areas in the A2A sphere.

On the Cheek Arrays, here's the text accompanying the illustration in my previous post. Source is the official USAF paper describing the APG-77 (which has now been upgraded for commonality with F-35's T/R modules) as published in IEEE.

The APG-77 functional capability is illustrated in figure
7. The design implements multiple modes of operation including
long range search (Range Search), long range cued search (Cued
Search), all aspect medium range search (Velocity Range Search),
track (Multiple Target Track), AMRAAM data link capability
(Missile Update), target identification (ID), target cluster breakout
(Raid Assessment), and weather detection (Weather),
Radar growth features include the incorporation of air-toground
synthetic aperture mapping, air-to-ground ranging,
enhanced identification capability, and expanded field of regard.
The increased field of regard growth feature involves the
incorporation of side “cheek” arrays. Growth provisions for space,
power, and cooling have been included in the design allowing for
minimal impact upon incorporation into the system.


The concept basically dates back to the 1980's and is a testament to how well the ATF requirement framers did their job (of course the current F-22A does not reflect what they wanted but has had capabilty traded or deferred for later to protect it from cancellation or to save money to buy more aircraft before production seized). We do not however know what CONOPS and capabilities the technology state of the 2010-2020 time-frame allows..we will only learn that in the coming years as initial next generation technology demonstrators take shape.

So the F-35 may go for a system of systems approach ( a multi-static radar in the sky) to counter stealth opponents.


The F-35 is approach is seamless RAW data sharing. This is a deviation from pre-processed data-linking and overlays where target information is piped via a data-link. Each aircraft linked via MADL gets raw data piped into it seamlessly and uses its own unique set of data attributes (onboard, EW, offboard etc) to generate track and for CID. The approach is highlighted in the sensor-fusion and data sharing paper published by the team that developed it and I've posted in the US thread. The F-22A is not there yet but with the OMS upgrade also addressing its data-links and mission computers, it too will get there eventually..
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Sep 2019 03:52, edited 4 times in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4304
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 07 Sep 2019 01:31

srin wrote:I'm actually fine with buying Su-57. I look at it as Su-30MKI++, and it'd be good to relieve ...


That's what I always thought too, it's an DIBBABUND improved version of su 30 although much more drastic changes than f16 to silent eagle, so we can replace MKIs from mid 30s with su-57.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20451
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 07 Sep 2019 05:01

As aircraft and other weapon systems get more technologically advanced, it shouldn't be merely for technology's sake.Tech. developments should make it easier to operate and maintain at affordable cost, not more difficult and beggaring the bank.The JSF is still the most expensive programme in history and yet to break free from its glitches. Fortunately for the US the massive inventory of upgraded 4th.- gen aircraft allows it to maintain its capability while leveraging the extra capability that the new stealth fighters bring.

Similarly, Russia also has a huge fleet of Flanker variants, Fulcrums, etc., plus a strong bomber fleet of Bears, Backfires and Blackjacks.It is inducting SU- 57s in a gradual phased manner preferring to walk before it runs.Sound logic.What the IAF needs is to have a stealth counter to the PLAAF when it starts fielding its stealth aircraft against us.Keeping a close watch on SU-57 developments and its performance in the RuAF would give us an option when the time comes.At this point in time fielding more numbers of affordable light and medium aircraft is required.If reports are true that LCAs will cost $40M ( fixed cost), then the 80+ 1As will cost us around $3+ B only.Far cheaper per bird than Rafales ( 36 for $8.5B) but still a little more expensive than MIG-35s and upgraded 29s (21) we're acquiring from Russia.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2019 21:31

Report on OKB Sukhoi...some interesting info on the Su-57 as well... ( via Cyberspec )



Starting at around 12:35 they talk about the method of "topological optimisation" where components are produced via computer and via 3D printer I guess

an example....the right hand part can withstand the same pressures as the one on the left (produced the old way) but is 30% lighter

Image

In the future, the whole body of the aircraft can be produced using the same method...


Image Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2019 21:34

LO Nozzle both the computer model and its 3d printed equivalent feature a low IR signature TVC nozzle - canted as in su-35 and pakfa - which transitions from  circular to rectangular cross section , this might replace the round serrated nozzle of izd. 30

Image Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2019 21:42

Some High Res Photos from some one who visited MAKS 2019.

Older Su-47 and Mig-1.44 was also on Static Display along with PAK-FA

MAKS 2019 High Res Picture

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3311
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 09 Sep 2019 00:15

DId you guys see the vertical turn/rotation by PAKFA..is that really feasible in actual combat environment?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2019 17:09

Great stuff Brar, will digest and then reply. :)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2019 17:11

Back to PAK FA, just a point, its AESA is over a decade into development! The first variant was displayed at MAKS 2009.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7444
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 09 Sep 2019 20:45

The catfish seems to have something akin to cheek arrays.
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2019 21:02

I don’t think the F-22 flying test bed was ever modified for Cheek array testing but I can check the ATF bible to see if that was the case. Adding cheek arrays is a fairly straight forward process as long as the operator considers the capability worth paying for compared to alternative investment priorities. Software development and testing is likely to be lengthier than developing the hardware itself. APG-77 came out of a partnership between what we now know as Northrop Grumman and Raytheon - companies that between them currently produce roughly 200 fighter AESAs a year with organic foundries Being US DOD certified for producing both GaAs and GaN for airborne radar applications..so it is not going to be a heavy lift for them. Of course alternatively, they may instead choose to invest in the DARPA MIDAS based next gen MMW LPI data links and gain SA and targeting data via off-board manned and unmanned assets. It will be a tougher and more technically challenging lift given the TRL/MRL/IRL levels for that program but things may well be happening in dark to support B-21 and other classified programs. I think a lot will be determined by what form of guidance and communication solution shows up on the AIM-260 JATM.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 10 Sep 2019 19:23


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 10 Sep 2019 19:24



Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 10 Sep 2019 19:30

First Production Serial plane


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 10 Sep 2019 19:38

New instrument panel

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


PS: Just a disclaimer here all these pic I posted from MAKS or other wise does not belong to me and I am not sure who is the rightful owner , So just posting here for informational purpose onleee nor am I aware of any technical data , if I find any pics with technical info will post it

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2019 18:48

At ARMY 2019 , design Bureau "Vympel" demonstrated its new development – a missile "air-air" which exceeds in its parameters the existing missiles of this class. "Product 180" is a new missile received index K-77M, which will be initially installed on su-57, and in the future may go for export abroad. https://vladimir-krm.livejournal.com/5950713.html

Key Features:

New Dual Pulse Motor
AESA Radar Seeker for Missile
Range of 190 km+ at High Altitude & High Altitude Manouvering Capability
New aerodynamic scheme with X-shaped wings that reduces drag and as a consequence increased range
Image

In the framework of military-technical forum "Army-2019" design Bureau "Vympel" demonstrated its new development – a missile "air-air" which exceeds in its parameters the existing missiles of this class.

"Product 180" is a new missile received index K-77M, which will be initially installed on su-57, and in the future may go for export abroad.

And though the rocket received index K-77M, but it has nothing to do with the missile K-77. The rocket is produced with a new aerodynamic scheme with X-shaped wings that reduces drag and as a consequence increased range.

Rocket in addition to the main wing (2 in diagram below) also added a stationary aerodynamic surface (4) before "driving" (3), which allowed to solve the main problem of all long-range missiles "air-air", namely the ability to maneuver at subsonic speeds. For example, the famous American missile AIM-120 and its recent modernization the AIM-120D have not been able to maneuver at speeds of less than 1200 km/h (while trying to maneuver increased angle of attack, and the rocket began to disintegrate.)

Image


Also the missile is equipped with a double-pulse solid-propellant engine, which allowes  high-altitude maneuvering and enables a range of up to 192 kilometers.

In addition, the missile is equipped with inertial navigation system and active radar homing head.

All these changes make the new missile K-77M a truly unique and a real formidable weapon.

Experts pay attention that apparently the Russian defense Ministry are very serious about the project su-57 and to develop this fighter is really unique weapons that have no analogues in the world. We already know that the su-57 would be installed a shorter version of hypersonic missile "Kinzhal" gliding cluster bomb "Drel", and now the missile K-77M. All of these types of weapons created recently and is unique in its characteristics.


Credit: RDF
Last edited by Austin on 22 Sep 2019 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2019 18:51

Active radar seeker with an active phased array antenna 9B-1103М2.

The illustrations show the layout of the GOS exhibited at the exhibition MAKS-2019 and the booklet given by "Agate".
Image
Image

The latest development of JSC "mnii Agat"

is Designed primarily for advanced missiles "air-air" medium-range missiles, in particular, for the R-77M.

Serial production of the missile already starts, in accordance with the contract signed, the Ministry of defense during the forum Army-2019.

According to the developers, the GOS is also suitable for rockets of class "air-surface".

Having an antenna diameter of only 100 mm, seeker can detect targets with

RCS of 0.003 sq. m at a distance of over 2 km
with RCS of 0.1 sq m (rocket "air-Air" or stealth fighter) - 5 km
with RCS of 5 sq m (conventional fighter) - more than 12 km  

Available frequency bands of operation - Ki and Ka.

Weight of GOS is noticeably smaller than its predecessor 9B-1103М (for missiles R-77-1 and RVV-SD) - weight 3.5 kg vs 5.7 kg, 230 mm length 300 mm and diameter 100 mm vs. 150 mm, with comparable characteristics.

However, the main feature of GOS is electronic beam steering antennas and, as a consequence, much more rapid scanning of the airspace in comparison to all predecessors that will be surely helpful for the tasks of missile defense of the carrier, and also in conditions of active electronic countermeasures by the enemy. In creating the AESA seeker for this was also attended by Fazotron-NIIR and NIIP Tikhomirov.


Text and photos: encyclopedia of Military Aircraft

Image
Image
Image

https://vk.com/pakfa?w=wall-14964099_49 ... 4099_49960

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2019 18:58

Photos : Production line of new R-74M ( export RVV-SD ) WVR Missile

Compared to R-73 missile , It offers New Dual Colour IR seeker , Larger Off-Bore Sight and Longer Range , Likely the one we ordered recently.

https://altyn73.livejournal.com/1392302.html

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4402
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 22 Sep 2019 20:07

^^^
Looks very manually intensive production line.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3976
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Sep 2019 23:36

Thanks for all the info Austin. The pics of the pakfa are delicious.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 23 Sep 2019 01:38

So fascinating to see a AESA seeker. No moving parts in the antenna.

Hope we get one out soon. This is one hell of capability against ECM on a BVR.

I wonder if there will be con-formal antennas for BVR. Would be useful for dual seeker BVR.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18892
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 23 Sep 2019 06:37

This "Active radar seeker with an active phased array antenna 9B-1103М2." does not seem to offer the real lock-on range enhancement expected of newer AESA seekers vis a vis LO targets. A 2km lock-on, basically translates to depending on the fire control radar of the firing aircraft to do all the heavy lifting. In the meantime, the fired upon aircraft will scram for dodge & the missile with this seeker will be defeated kinematically.
Net, this is likely NOT the seeker on the new K-77M, but a seeker offered as an alternative to the traditional IR seeker for short range AAMs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 23 Sep 2019 07:42

The battle between seeker power and detection range on one side, and a perpetual moving target of potential target RCS (fighters, stealthy flying wings, and UAV's) is a losing one for the traditional approach of an active RF seeker especially given that an RCS optimized fighter or bomber can leverage self-defense EW/EA to its advantage as those abilities get amplified when they are protecting a smaller RCS. The focus of sticking in multi-mode seekers and multiple forms of missile-missile and missile-blue-force communication capabilities will probably result in a more success.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3976
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Sep 2019 01:11

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


That describes, to almost 100% detail/accuracy, the US approach on the ATF/F-22A minus the VLO non-optimization.


I think one point where they differ in tactics from the f22 is the use of irst for silent kills. Maybe even at bvr distances with their newer missiles, esp. against non lo targets.

Their approach wrt targeting surface targets also seems different, with an emphasis on long range, fast missiles instead of vlo platforms. The Euros seem to follow a similar approach with the scalp.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2019 01:38

Cain Marko wrote:
I think one point where they differ in tactics from the f22 is the use of irst for silent kills. Maybe even at bvr distances with their newer missiles, esp. against non lo targets.


A combination of IRST, LPI high frequency data links and passive RF/ EW for passive targeting and IFF is exactly the ATF approach..The General Electric LWIR IRST was dropped from the F-22A for cost reasons and to preserve the program from cancellation so it is always on the table to be brought back. Tech developed for it is what is essentially inside the IRST-21 and Adv EOTS. On the Block 4 F-35 they are going one step further with Multi-Ship IRST which would allow a four ship to seamlessly and autonomously divy up airspace and targets and more efficiently use IRST to scan airspace before handing targets off to DAS for tracking.

Their approach wrt targeting surface targets also seems different, with an emphasis on long range, fast missiles instead of vlo platforms. The Euros seem to follow a similar approach with the scalp.


Perhaps in an alternate world where the JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR, AARGM, AARGM-ER,SIAW,JSOW-ER,LRASM, ARRW, HAWC, LRSO missiles/programs don’t exist in inventory or as short-medium term PORs. I probably missed quite a few.

The US approach is a mix of both penetrating platforms and supporting weapons, and stand off platforms, munitions and other supporting enablers ( Growler fleet size for example nearly the same as the entire French Rafael inventory atm).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3976
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Sep 2019 02:27

brar_w wrote:
Their approach wrt targeting surface targets also seems different, with an emphasis on long range, fast missiles instead of vlo platforms. The Euros seem to follow a similar approach with the scalp.


Perhaps in an alternate world where the JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR, AARGM, AARGM-ER,SIAW,JSOW-ER,LRASM, ARRW, HAWC, LRSO missiles/programs don’t exist in inventory or as short-medium term PORs. I probably missed a few.

The US approach is a mix of both penetrating platforms and supporting weapons, and stand off platforms, munitions and other supporting enablers ( Growler fleet size for example nearly the same as the entire French Rafael inventory atm).


There are of course similarities, but there are also traditional differences. For example, the russians emphasize supersonics for A2S work be it the kent, moskit or the Onyx. Even the sizzler has a supersonic terminal stage. Hypersonic programs will change this but at least in the pasts this has been a noticeable difference.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2019 02:56

Cain Marko wrote:
There are of course similarities, but there are also traditional differences. For example, the russians emphasize supersonics for A2S work be it the kent, moskit or the Onyx. Even the sizzler has a supersonic terminal stage. Hypersonic programs will change this but at least in the pasts this has been a noticeable difference.


I'm sorry, i got confused because you threw in Europeans and scalp which is obviously not a "fast" missile.

Not differences at all, just varying threats and need for certain types of weapons when factoring in big picture strategic capabilities and decisions. The USAF has more than 3 decades of experience with LO aircraft, and has by in large not failed or done poorly by any objective historic metric when it comes to penetrating adversary air-space, ensuring air-superiority, or force projection. This has allowed it to transform its legacy force into carriers of long range cruise missiles and PGM's both of which it has in overwhelming quantities. While it has conducted and performed constant and cutting edge science and technology / research and development on the fast and long range weapons it has not been able to justify to the powers at be when it comes to transitioning that into acquisition programs. Think of most ramjet technology, air-launched ballistic missiles, and basic scramjet research..all done and performed in phases over the last 4-5 decades. Capability demonstrated but not really fielded because in many cases the threat did not justify the expense. Again, you design your force to defeat or deter your main adversaries and the USAF has fielded credible force to do that. The USAF is not up against a USAF so it will naturally drive different investments given adversary capability and own expeditionary requirements. Ship killing is mostly left to the SSN fleet and most USN destroyers for example don't even carry anti-ship missiles any more.

This obviously does not mean that it hasn't worked on it, or doesn't see its advantages. After all, the AARGM is supersonic, and the AARGM-ER is rumored to be high-supersonic bordering hypersonic territory. Same is the SIAW which is AARGM-ER derived. And of course we have multiple efforts around hypersonic weapons both for long range strike bombers and strike fighters etc. What is obviously different now is that China appears to be heading towards 1000 LO aircraft fleet by the early to mid 2030's (if not earlier) and a Navy that will out number the USN in the region, and perhaps beyond . So there is a need driving decision making and investment which is different from the strategic vacuum that existed when the Soviet Union collapsed and many big ticket items like the B-2, F-22 etc were purchased just as an insurance policy...

Best comparison is to the state of the USAF RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) pre 9-11, and the state of the RPA force 5-8 years post 9-11 (the USAF had built up the largest RPA force in the world by then). Again no different from what the Russians and Europeans are doing. There will be qualitative differences of course because no two air-forces or militaries have exactly the same threat or strategic need..but by in large the USAF/USN's approach has been to invest in both penetrating LO-VLO aircraft, ISR aircraft, while also operating fairly sophisticated 4+ generation aircraft like the F-15E (modernized), F-18E/F and EA-18G and to equip both of those types with the weapons they need to execute their war plans or support COCOM needs. Keep in mind that capability requirement in the US system is COCOM generated so individual service chiefs are not really as empowered as in other nations. You provide, or design the force the COCOM's demands or project it needs and there is very little wiggle room in budgets to go off in directions that are not aligned with COCOM demand.

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 25 Sep 2019 09:57

Karan M wrote:This "Active radar seeker with an active phased array antenna 9B-1103М2." does not seem to offer the real lock-on range enhancement expected of newer AESA seekers vis a vis LO targets. A 2km lock-on, basically translates to depending on the fire control radar of the firing aircraft to do all the heavy lifting. In the meantime, the fired upon aircraft will scram for dodge & the missile with this seeker will be defeated kinematically.
Net, this is likely NOT the seeker on the new K-77M, but a seeker offered as an alternative to the traditional IR seeker for short range AAMs.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 273
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

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

Postby Bhaskar_T » 24 Dec 2019 12:46

Pilot is safe.

Russia’s 5th-gen Su-57 fighter jet crashes during factory trials, pilot ejects, 24th Dec 2019

https://www.rt.com/russia/476709-russia-su-57-fighter-jet-crash/

One of Russia’s cutting-edge Su-57 fighter jets has crashed during routine factory test flights near the Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft plant in the Far East. The pilot ejected safely and was picked up by a Mi-8 rescue helicopter.The aircraft involved in the incident belonged to the manufacturer and was undergoing a series of flight tests some 110 kilometers of Dzyomgi air base in Russia's Khabarovsk region.

There were no casualties or damage on the ground, the manufacturer confirmed in a brief statement. The crashed jet's black boxes are yet to be recovered.

The 5th-gen plane has been on trials since 2010, and finally entered serial production only this year. So far, Russia has only a handful of operational Su-57s that were manufactured during the pre-production period.

The aircraft, however, has already been tested in real combat conditions, briefly taking part in Russia’s anti-terrorism campaign in Syria. Due to their maneuverability and supersonic features, the twin-engine stealth Su-57s are set to become the backbone of Russian aerial superiority during warfare. The Su-57 is set to be fitted with ‘smart’ guided bombs and will reportedly get a highly maneuverable hypersonic missile, similar to Kinzhal.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 01 Jan 2020 00:29

Su-57 fighter jet went into downward spiral before crash in Russia’s Far East - source


MOSCOW, December 25. /TASS/. The Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jet that crashed on Tuesday in the Far Eastern Khabarovsk Region had entered a downward spiral at the altitude of 8 km and the pilot’s attempts to fly out of it failed, a source in the aircraft construction industry told TASS on Wednesday.

"The Su-57 was performing a test flight at the altitude of 8,000 meters. After the control system had failed, the fighter jet spontaneously entered a downward spiral and started descending and then crashing," the source said.

According to the source, the pilot tried to switch the aircraft to a horizontal flight in a manual mode, but his efforts failed. "At a critical altitude of 2,000 meters the pilot decided to eject," he said.

On Tuesday, a source in the defense industry told TASS that most likely the jet’s tail control failed.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation reported on December 24 that a Su-57 fighter aircraft had crashed during a test flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur 111 km from the home airfield. The aircraft’s emergency system responded in the normal mode and the pilot ejected to safety. A special commission will establish the causes of the crash, the corporation said.

A source in military medical circles told TASS that the doctors had examined the pilot and found no injuries. He has been discharged from hospital.

This is the first crash of Russia’s fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jet.

The Su-57 is a fifth-generation multirole fighter designed to destroy all types of air targets at long and short distances and hit enemy ground and naval targets, overcoming its air defense capabilities.

The Su-57 took to the skies for the first time on January 29, 2010. Compared to its predecessors, the Su-57 combines the functions of an attack plane and a fighter jet while the use of composite materials and innovation technologies and the fighter’s aerodynamic configuration ensure the low level of radar and infrared signature.

The plane’s armament will include, in particular, hypersonic missiles. The fifth-generation fighter jet has been successfully tested in combat conditions in Syria.





Kartik wrote:
And how many flight hours for the Su-57? This was the 11th Su-57 that was produced.

I know that crashes can happen, but let's not get into comparison mode with a program that is 10 times larger than the Su-57 will ever be.


The F-35 program produces just about as many aircraft per month as the entire Su-57 program till date despite the fact that the down-select of Lockheed Martin for the F-35's official EMD phase took place only 6 months prior to Sukhoi being selected for the engineering and development of the PAKFA ( October 2001 vs April 2002). They are not comparable from an industrial program perspective. One is designed to be mass produced with a decade+ of sustained production at 150+ aircraft per year, while the other is expected to field a silver bullet, sub-100 aircraft force for its primary user in its first decade of production.

About the crash - it is interesting to to see that preliminary reports are attributing the crash to flight control systems. One would imagine that they would not have introduced a change on the FCS for the first serial production aircraft unless that change had been thoroughly tested in the simulator and flight tested on one of the dozen or so test articles. I believe the next serial production aircraft is not expected to take to the air till mid 2020 so they have about 6 or so months to fix these or any other issues. If there are any other serious discoveries during this process, this may have consequences on how they ramp up production even though they have a fairly modest production target of around 70-80 aircraft over the next 7 years..

Based on my understanding of the production contracts, Sukhoi was to deliver 2 serial production aircraft based on the initial 2018 serial production contract. One of them crashed while the other is still being built and is expected to be delivered around the middle of next year. We may not see any other serial-production delivery (they may however produce additional prototypes)) for the rest of 2020 as the order for the 76 aircraft was only placed with UAC in 2019 for deliveries between 2021 and 2028 IIRC. That is a very very slow pace. Unless things drastically change, this program will remain in a “trickle” state” unless an export customer swoops in and bank rolls a production ramp.With India out this leaves China as one possible nation. Things to watch out for in 2020.

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 01 Jan 2020 12:24

If it was only a FCS failure, the pilot could've recovered by shutting & restarting the FCS. This could've been an FCS failure compounded by a hardware failure. Eg FCS mispointing the thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) and then the TVN remaining stuck in the same position due to hardware issues. This could've happened during one of those fancy flat spin turns, of which there was a recent video. It would be interesting to know at what angles the TVN are made to point during that flat spin turn. Recovery from that flat spin and continued forward movement must be a totally FCS controlled move, there is no way a pilot can manually do it. Perhaps some of the pilots here can correct me.

OT: I wonder whether the diagnostics tool of the LCA FCS allow engineers on ground to tweak the FCS while the LCA is in the air.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8346
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 20 Feb 2020 20:26

Back-and-forth on twitter between retired IAF pilots. I believe he is referring to Sqn Ldr Baldev Singh (retd). Posting the tweets in chronological order from top...

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/123 ... 71233?s=20 ----> Among the mysteries surrounding the FGFA, was the suicide of a HAL senior manager, a former IAF test pilot & a dear friend who I believe was anything but suicidal!

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12302 ... 46625?s=20 ---> I am the test pilot of HAL from the IAF who is, and has been the FGFA pilot from inception. There has been no other pilot even remotely engaged in this project. No mysteries sir. Careful where we go with this.

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/123 ... 52130?s=20 ----> Watch where you go with this! Read my tweet carefully! You are on an open platform and I will take you on.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12303 ... 75713?s=20 ---> No disrespect meant sir. Fullest regards!

https://twitter.com/MjaVinod/status/123 ... 73186?s=20 ---> Suicide that @vkthakur is referring to is a open secret and for personal reasons, perceived failures & aspirations nothing to do with any program AFAIK & WADR to you and the departed soul.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bijeet and 23 guests