PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

[Philip]

Here is another veiwpoint from Oz,from Air Power.One may not agree with "terminating" the JSF,the US needs it in numbers to replace legacy fighters from the next decade onwards,but the writing is on the wall.I simply can't understand how US generals views ,the best informed of all,about the JSF being "irrelevant" without support from the F-22 are simply dismissed out of hand. We noww have the excuse that the JSF is a "multi-role fighter",very true,but vastly inferior to its adversaries from the US general's own statements,where even the F-22 needs upgrading !The AWST report on the T-50 gives details of internal missiles carried,etc.,as well as how there are many design features superior to those on the F-22/35.

Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

T-50 design rationale unveiled
Aug 19, 2013 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

A highlight of the MAKS air show, which opens at Zhukovsky Airport near Moscow next week, is likely to be the demonstration of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii—Future Tactical Air System) fighter.

The T-50 appeared at MAKS two years ago, but is now flying with updated control laws that expand its flight envelope. (The program had flown fewer than 100 test sorties between its January 2010 maiden flight and its MAKS debut.) Recent videos show the aircraft performing what appear to be sustained-altitude flat rotation maneuvers and high-angle-of-attack turns similar to those demonstrated at the Paris air show by the Su-35S. Four T-50 prototypes have now flown and a fifth is expected to fly by the end of the year. The first state acceptance trials are due to start in 2014, United Aircraft Corporation President Mikhail Pogosyan said earlier this year, and production should start in 2015.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that production aircraft will enter service in 2016. However, since the aircraft has yet to fly with its definitive engine, this most likely indicates that the Russian air force is reverting to Soviet-era practice by equipping an operational test unit with interim-standard aircraft while development of the objective system is completed.
[Widely separated engines give the T-50 effective thrust-vectoring in three axes —pitch, roll and yaw—and small all-moving tails provide directional stability and control. (Credit: Sukhoi)]

Many details of the fighter's equipment and armament remain classified or unpublished. However, in recent months the Sukhoi design bureau has obtained several patents relating to the T-50, including the rationale behind the stealth fighter's configuration.

One Sukhoi patent opens by outlining a reference design similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22, but notes perceived shortcomings and areas where the Russian designers, starting a decade later after work on the Su-27 and its descendants, tried to do better. The F-22's thrust-vector control (TVC) system cannot provide roll or yaw control because the engines are too close together. The engine installation leaves no place for weapon bays in the same plane as the engines—they have to be installed around and below the inlet ducts. The serpentine inlet ducts add length and weight. Post-stall recovery is problematic if TVC fails, and the fixed fins and rudders are large.

The T-50 is a blended wing-body design, resembling the Su-27 in one key respect: the core of the structure is the “centroplane,” a long-chord, deep-section inner wing to which the rest of the airframe components—the forward fuselage and widely separated engine nacelles, wings and tail surfaces—are attached. Compared to the Su-27, however, the centroplane is deeper between the engines, to accommodate weapon bays.

The flight control system has 14 effectors—12 moving flight control surfaces and the engine nozzles. The wing leading-edge flaps are used symmetrically to maintain lift at high angles of attack and adjust the wing profile to the Mach number. The ailerons are used only at low speed and takeoff and landing, when the flaperons are used to increase lift. At higher speeds, roll control comes from the flaperons and horizontal tails.

The all-moving vertical tails sit on short fixed pylons that contain the actuators, and air intakes for engine compartment cooling and heat exchangers. One purpose of the pylons is to make room for a longer bearing arm for the vertical tail pivot, between the top of the pylon and the lower surface of the blended wing. This reduces loads and allows the bearings and structure to be lighter. At supersonic speeds, the T-50 is directionally unstable and uses active control via the vertical tails. That is why the all-moving surfaces can be much smaller than the F-22's fixed fins and movable rudders. The vertical tails replace the airbrake, moving symmetrically to increase drag with minimal pitch moment.

The large and unique moving leading edges on the centroplane help optimize the lift generated by that section in cruising flight, but their most important function is to recover the aircraft in the event of a TVC failure at post-stall angles of attack. They do this by deflecting sharply downward, reducing the plan-projected area of the wing-body section in front of the center of gravity.

The engines are widely separated, to make room for weapon bays and provide roll and yaw vector control. The engine centerlines are splayed outward to reduce effects of asymmetric thrust with one engine inoperative, placing the thrust vector of the good engine closer to the center of mass of the aircraft.

As on the TVC-equipped versions of the Su-27/30/35 family, the individual engine nozzles vector only in one plane, but the vector axes are rotated outward. Consequently, symmetrical movement of the nozzles creates a pitch force (each nozzle creates an equal and opposite yaw moment) and asymmetrical movement creates both roll and yaw moments. If yaw only is required (for example, in the Su-35's “bell” maneuver, a high-alpha deceleration followed by a 180-deg. change of direction) the roll moment can be counteracted by flaperons and ailerons.

The T-50's inlets are a compromise design. They are serpentine but the curvature is insufficient to obscure the entire engine face (as on the F-22, F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon), so they also feature a radial blocker similar in principal to that used on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Unlike the F-22 inlets, however, they feature a variable throat section and spill doors on the inboard, outboard and lower surfaces of the ducts. The result is a complex multiple-shock pattern at supersonic speed, which the Russians consider essential for efficient operation at Mach 2. The inlets also feature clamshell-like mesh screens and diverter slots to keep foreign objects out of the engine, as used on the Su-27 family.
[The T-50's sharply swept delta wings and high fineness ratio mean it will have no difficulty in cruising at supersonic speed without afterburning, up to the temperature limits of its engines. (Credit: Sukhoi)]

The main challenge in the structural design was to provide space for tandem weapon bays running the entire length of the center section. This ruled out the structural concept used on the Lockheed Martin F-35 and F-22, which have multiple full-depth bulkheads carrying the wing loads, because this forces all the weapon bays to be ahead of the wing. The centerline structure on the T-50 has to be quite shallow, so that designing it to resist peak wing bending loads will be a very difficult challenge. The solution on the T-50 is to design the “centroplane” section as a stiff, integrated structure with two sets of full-depth longitudinal booms, located at the outer edges of the nacelles and at the wing-to-centroplane junction. These are connected by multiple (the patent drawing shows eight) spanwise spars that also carry the wing attachment fittings. The result is a structure that spreads the bending loads over the centroplane and reduces the peak loads at the centerline.

It is believed that the target maximum speed of the T-50 is around Mach 2. The goal was originally Mach 2.35, but this was reduced to Mach 2.1 and then to the current figure, compared to Mach 2.25 for the Su-35S. The main reason for the difference is that the T-50 uses more composite materials in its primary structure than the Su-35S, which makes heavy use of titanium.

The T-50 aircraft flying today are equipped with the izdeliye (Type) 117 engine, described by its designer in a 2011 interview as being more advanced than the 117S used on the Su-35S. The 117S appears to be an evolution of the AL-31 engine series with some technology from the 117. The 117 is claimed to have a thrust/weight ratio of 10:1.

However, Saturn Managing Director Ilya Fyodorov confirmed at a press conference last month that the company is designing a follow-on engine (referred to by the 117 designer as izdeliye 30) for the T-50, which is expected to offer higher performance than the 117 from 2020 onward.

More details of the fighter's weapons may be revealed at MAKS, but it appears that the T-50 is designed to carry variants of in-service missiles initially. Tactical Missiles Corporation General Director Boris Obnosov identified several T-50 weapons in an interview early in 2012, including the existing Kh-35UE anti-ship missile, Kh-38ME air-to-surface weapon and the RVV-MD, an improved version of the R-73E short-range air-to-air missile with an enlarged seeker field of view and a claimed 30% range increase. A significant development is the new Kh-58UShKE, a long-range (up to 245 km), Mach 4-capable anti-radar missile originally produced for the MiG-25BM Foxbat-E, fitted with folding wings for internal carriage.

However, Obnosov identified these specifically as being weapons at service entry, which he projected in 2014. There is still no definitive information about the T-50's internal weapons capability, but it seems likely that there are four separate weapon bays. Two bays outboard of the inlets each accommodate a single RVV-MD. Tandem bays between the engines each hold two missiles, but it is likely that the forward bay is deeper to house weapons such as the Kh-58UShKE, with the aft bay dedicated to air-to-air missiles in the R-77 family.

(There are several pics of the T-50 able to carry 3 AAMs in each of the fuselage weapons bays,not in this AWST report)

Tap the icon in the digital edition of AW&ST to see the T-50 performing sustained-altitude, flat-rotation maneuvers and high-angle-of-attack turns, or go to AviationWeek.com/video

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/view_ar ... sp?ID=1556

A report by Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon from Air Power Australia, an independent adviser to the Australian military says that the new Russian fighter, the Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA, could hold the “future of tactical air power”.

In terms of its design, the report argues that the T-50 has a design that “has forward fuselage, inlet, upper fuselage, wing and tail surface airframe Very Low Observable (VLO/stealth) shaping, which is highly competitive against the US F-22A Raptor and YF-23 ATF designs. Aft and centre lower fuselage, and aft fuselage and nozzle shaping is inferior to the F-22A Raptor and YF-23 ATF designs, sharing the same deficiencies as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”

However, the report says that where the T-50 design potentially excels is in its “combined use of 3D thrust vector control of the engine nozzles, all moving tail surfaces, and refined aerodynamic design with relaxed directional static stability and careful mass distribution to control inertial effects”.

Dr Kopp and Goon also think that Russian radar design will be on a par with Western standards with X-band multi-mode primary Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. They consider that once in production, the T-50 will match the F-22A Raptor in most aspects and outperform it “aerodynamically and kinematically”.

In summing up, the report says that the T-50 will “render all legacy US fighter aircraft and the F-35 strategically irrelevant” once it enters service in 2015 and the only “viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter programme immediately” and direct funding to improve the F-22A Raptor.

[Philip]

Here is a 3-part report on why the F-35/JSF,"the Dog",as US experts describe it, is the wrong choice for Canada.Shortcomings highlighted."Outclassed by even earlier Russian and Chinese jets...".So much for comparing it with the T-50/FGFA! Nevertheless read on.

the F-35 is “an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.” It is a “dog… overweight and underpowered,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Governmental Oversight in Washington, D.C. It has “inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability [and] lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”



Why The F-35 Is The Wrong Choice for Canada – Part 1
February 19, 2014.

Editor’s note: Last year Defence Watch reader Kyle Meema wrote a two-part series arguing that Canada should purchase the Gripen fighter aircraft plus other aviation assets. In this three-part series he argues against the purchase of the F-35 as a replacement for the CF-18. In the coming weeks Defence Watch will be publishing another article from a reader arguing for the need to purchase the Rafale. If other readers want to take a supportive position on the F-35 let me know and I’ll review and edit that submission.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... t-2/[quote]
By Kyle Meema
Defence Watch Guest Writer

Intro:

The F-35 is the wrong choice for a sole-sourced replacement for Canada’s aging CF-18 fighters. It is also the wrong choice for any air force using a single plane for all its fighter needs. This is because of one simple fact: it was never designed to be used in such a way.

The F-35 was designed from the very start to be a strike aircraft; to drop bombs on enemy ground targets. It was never designed to be an air-to-air combat powerhouse. Its air-to-air combat abilities, as limited as they are, were designed for limited self-defence purposes. It was never meant to be a front-line air-to-air fighter taking Super Flankers and the T-50 head on; that was always meant to be the task of the vastly superior F-22. Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command and a staunch supporter of the F-35 programme, even admitted that “if I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, then the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant.”

History:

The US’s plan regarding the “stealth family” of aircraft was originally rather sensible, if expensive. The F-22 was to handle the air-to-air missions, F-35 was to handle the light air-to-ground strike missions, and the B-2 Spirit bomber was to handle the heavy air-to-ground missions.

However, this plan was dealt a serious, if not fatal, blow when the number of F-22s significantly scaled back to the point where there are simply not enough F-22s to meet America’s air-to-air needs. Originally, the USAF was to receive 750 F-22s. That number was scaled back to 381 and then later scaled back again due to its high costs. In total, a mere 186 were produced, of which only 123 are immediately available for deployment.

While the F-22 is certainly a very impressive and capable aircraft, the USAF lacks sufficient numbers to adequately meet its air superiority needs and, as a result, has had to bolster its numbers with the vastly inferior F-35.

With the death of the F-22 programme, the USAF was left with a serious problem. It had insufficient numbers of F-22s to meet its air superiority needs. Their solution, as inadequate as it was, was to hastily rebrand the F-35, their former air-to-ground strike aircraft, as an all-in-one air-superiority-capable fighter.

However, the F-35 was never designed with such a role in mind and is grossly inadequate for such use. USAF chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh stated that air superiority was “not the original intent of the F-35 development.” Rebranding the F-35 as being capable of air-superiority missions is like taking a mid-range SUV, painting flames on the sides, and rebranding it as a Formula 1 race car. That’s not to say that the F-35 will never adequately perform its original role as a strike aircraft dropping bombs on ground targets, but it will never adequately perform its new role as a front-line air-superiority fighter.

In a 2008 RAND simulation, the U.S. was tasked with defending Taiwan from a massive Chinese air and sea attack. While the F-22 performed well, it was not present in sufficient numbers to do anything other than forestall the Chinese assault. That left F-35s to continue the fight, but were “no match for Chinese warplanes” to which they were considered “double-inferior.” In this battle, hundreds of simulated American air crews perished and Taiwan fell to China.”

From a global perspective, the lack of American F-22s and other advanced air superiority aircraft in Western air forces, should widespread F-35 procurement occurs, will be compounded by the U.S. congress banning the F-22′s export and providing the F-35 a near-total monopoly on U.S. fighter exports and acquisitions.

Countries like Japan and South Korea would jump on the chance to buy the F-22, providing additional F-22 fighters to the global “Western Community” against mutual threats such as Russia and China. Instead, such countries are left with only the F-35 if they wish to have a “stealth” fighter in their arsenal. The Western Community’s practically sole-sourced F-35 collective air force presents a global security threat as it means such nations will lack effective air-to-air combat aircraft capable of taking on present and future Russian and Chinese fighters.

However, countries like Japan and South Korea operate mixed fleets, do not intend to rely solely on the F-35, and are also developing their own state-of-the-art fighters. This approach means that such countries will have other fighters to compensate for the F-35′s serious air-to-air deficiencies. Countries like Canada, that insist on operating a single-fighter fleet, do not have that option and are left with no options when the F-35 fails to get the job done.

“The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” said Gen. Hostage. “It needs the F-22″ or other air-superiority fighter to deal with airborne threats; the F-35 cannot perform such missions alone.

F-35 Fails Requirements for Air-to-Air Missions:

Air-to-air combat can largely be divided into two types; air-superiority and interceptors. Both are fast and capable of flying at high altitudes, although interceptors tend to favour additional speed over the tight-turning manoeuvrability of traditional air-superiority fighters. In the Western world, dedicated interceptors seem to have fallen out of favour and their mission overlaps with air-superiority and multi-role fighters.

Thus, in Western air forces, a plane used for air-superiority missions must be fast, highly manoeuvrable, capable of flying at high altitudes, and carry a fierce arsenal of air-to-air weaponry; these are the four requirements for an effective air-superiority fighter. The F-35 fails three of these requirements outright with the forth being under question due to testing restrictions.

In this regard, the F-35 is “an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.” It is a “dog… overweight and underpowered,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Governmental Oversight in Washington, D.C. It has “inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability [and] lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”

Speed:

It is not fast. This is the chief failing of the F-35; it is slow by fighter jet standards. With a top speed of a mere Mach 1.6. it is inferior to air-superiority fighters and even the fourth generation strike and multi-role fighters it is meant to replace. To make matters worse, the F-35B and F-35C models require complex manoeuvres to accelerate to top speed which burns nearly all of its internally stored fuel, thus making even this meager speed useless.

By comparison, true air-superiority fighters can reach above Mach 2. In a world where speed is life, the F-35 is on life-support.

For example: Top speeds of air superiority fighters
- the F-22 can reach Mach 2.25

-the F-15 can reach over Mach 2.5

-the Eurofighter Typhoon can reach Mach 2

The F-35 is even slow by multi-role and strike fighter standards; the very fighters it is meant to replace.

For example: Top speeds of multi-role and strike fighters

-the F-16 can reach Mach 2

-the F-18 C/D can reach Mach 1.8

-the F-18 E/F can reach Mach 1.8

-the Dassault Rafale can reach Mach 1.8

-the Saab Gripen can reach Mach 2

The F-35 also compares very poorly to the fighters trying to shoot it down. For example:

Top Speeds of Russian and Chinese fighters

-the Su-27 and its derivatives between Mach 2 and 2.35 depending on the variant

-the T-50 PAK-FA can reach Mach 2

-the MiG-31 can reach Mach 2.83

-the J-15 can reach Mach 2.4

-J-20 and J-31 top speeds unknown

Acceleration:

Coupled with poor top speeds is the F-35′s downgraded acceleration.

According to the new relaxed requirements, it now takes the F-35A eight additional seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. The F-35B and F-35C’s acceleration rates were also reduced, adding sixteen seconds and forty-three seconds respectively.

“Every second counts” and “the longer it takes [to accelerate to supersonic speeds] the more compressed the battle space gets… that is not a good thing.”

Importance of Supercruise:

The F-35 lacks supercruise; the ability to achieve and sustain supersonic flight for long periods of time without using the fuel-consuming afterburner.

This feature is standard in current generation fighters such as the F-22, the Typhoon, the Rafale, and the Gripen. Legacy fighters, such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are not supercruise enabled. The F-16XL was able to achieve supercruise, but this particular variant never entered production.

To make matters worse, this feature has been standard on Russia’s fourth generation fighters for some time, such as the MiG-31 and Su-35, as well as its fearsome fifth generation fighter, the T-50 PAK-FA.

The F-35′s lack of supercruise, coupled with its poor top speed, make it inadequate for air-to-air combat. Lockeed Martin claims that the F-35 can supercruise for 150 miles at Mach 1.2.

However, this is not supercruise; this is limited supercruise. 150 miles is nothing by fighter jet standards, particularly when racing to intercept an incoming target or flee from enemy fighters. Supercruise must be sustainable for long periods of time in order to be effective and this something that the F-35 simply cannot do. It has no supercruise capability for practical purposes.

Importance of Speed:

The F-35′s low top speed also puts it at a disadvantage when using Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missiles. This is because fighter jets rely on high speeds to give their missiles additional energy. Flying at high speeds means that the missile, when fired, is already travelling at the same high speed as the aircraft, therefore requiring less fuel and time to achieve its maximum speed.

The faster the missile is travelling, the less time the enemy has to evade, and the greater the likelihood of a successful kill. Unfortunately, BVR combat is the only area where the F-35 has any chance to successfully engage enemy fighters and even here its capability is limited.

There are only two realistic ways in which the F-35 could be effective in an air-to-air engagement. The first is to detect and fire on the enemy using BVR missiles while the enemy is still beyond visual range before fleeing. However, even this tactic is extremely risky.

Due to its slow top speed, all current and future enemy fighters could easily catch up to and shoot down the an F-35, which would be largely defenceless due to a lack of any internally stored Within-Visual-Range (WVR) missiles. The F-35 would have to rely solely on its internal gun to defend itself, but its poor manoeuvrability, discussed later, puts it at a severe, if not fatal, disadvantage.

The second tactic is for the F-35 to pick off enemy fighters who have decided to flee the battle. An enemy fighter that has spent its missile ordinance is largely defenceless, save for its gun. In such a situation, the F-35 could risk getting closer. But even here the F-35 has three key failings compounded by the fact that enemy fighters carry significantly more missiles. The first failing is that the F-35 cannot carry enough missiles to take on enemy fighters as it has only four internal hardpoints.

By contrast, the Super Flanker has fourteen hardpoints. Such a fighter, brimming with missiles, would not run out of ammunition quickly and could even fire volleys of missiles. The F-35, by contrast, cannot afford to miss its first shot. The second failing is that the F-35 cannot carry any WVR missiles in its internal weapons bay.

Even if the F-35 was in range and had a lock on an enemy fighter, it would not be equipped with any WVR missiles capable of shooting it down and would, again, have to rely solely on its gun, which would be less effective given the F-35′s poor manoeuvrability. The third failing is that all current and future enemy aircraft can simply outrun the F-35 thanks to their superior speed and escape to fight another day

In both these strategies, the F-35′s lack of speed, along with its other failings, which are discussed later, cripples its effectiveness. The significance of this limitation can be illustrated by an incident during the First Gulf War.

A pair of Iraqi MiG25s attacked a group of F-15Cs, but failed to score a kill. The F-15Cs pursued the MiG-25s, but were unable to shoot them down. The MiG-25s, due to their superior speed, simply outran the F-15Cs and the ten missiles they fired.

This illustrates the importance of top speed in terms of survivability. Being able to successfully flee the enemy is just as important as being able to successfully kill the enemy. The F-35 lacks the teeth to kill and lacks the legs to run. This also illustrates the importance of basic performance. Even though the Iraqi MiG-25s were considered technologically inferior, they still survived because of raw speed.

All the technological advantages in the world won’t help a fighter that simply doesn’t perform well at a basic level. Even if the F-35′s sensor arrays, data fusion, helmet mounted display, and other technological tools actually perform as intended, which they have yet to, it lacks this basic performance of high speed, making it, its pilot, and soldiers on the ground extremely vulnerable. It would be like taking laptop into battle against a Colt 45; the Colt 45 will always win.
[/quote]

Part-2:

Altitude:

A fighter’s maximum altitude is an important capability. The higher an aircraft can fly, the faster it can go due to less air resistance. It also means that the aircraft can achieve faster speeds when going into a dive. When engaging enemy fighters, a higher-flying aircraft can trade altitude for speed. Likewise, a fast-flying aircraft can trade speed for altitude.

Spec-wise, altitude is the only basic requirement that the F-35 does not fail miserably. It should be able to fly up to 60, 000ft, but this has yet to be achieved due to flight-testing restrictions. Thus far, it has been tested up to 43, 000ft. To put this in perspective, the Gripen can fly at 50, 000ft and the Typhoon and F-22 can fly at 65,000ft.

However, while the F-35 should be able to fly at sufficient altitudes, this has yet to be achieved even though it was supposed to be fully operational and combat ready by now. There is no guarantee that the 60, 000ft ceiling will ever be reached. Even if it is reached, altitude alone does not sufficiently compensate for its other deficiencies, such as low top speed, lack of supercruise, and limited payload capacity/compatibility.

Manoeuvrability:

Like the F-35′s other flaws, its lack of manoeuvrability lies in its inherent design and compounded by its lack of thrust. Its small wings results in poor wing-loading and therefore poor manoeuvrability comparable to the level of a 1960s F-105. (! Remember the "lead-sled" F-105 description?)

Its wide, high-drag design means that it is incapable of generating the excess thrust in order to compensate. Wing loading refers to the weight of the aircraft divided by the area of its wings. The lower the wing loading ratio, the greater manoeuvrability the aircraft possesses

Wing Loading

-F-22: 313.5kg per square metre

-F-35A: 428kg per square metre

-Gripen E: 317kg per square metre

-Typhoon: 311kg per square metre

-Rafale C: 328kg per square metre

-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: 620kg per square metre

From these numbers, it is apparent that dedicated air-superiority fighters and air-superiority-capable multi-role fighters should have a wing loading just over 300kg per square metre.

However, the F-35 and the Super Hornet are not designed for air-superiority as their primary mission and thus have very high wing loading numbers. They are, at heart, strike fighters. Strike fighters are designed to carry bombs, not pull tight, fast, high G turns. The aircraft with wing loading numbers of air-superiority fighters such as the Typhoon can manoeuvre significantly better than aircraft with high wing loading numbers, such as strike fighters like the F-35.

Thrust-to-weight ratios also is the amount of thrust divided by the weight of the aircraft. A high thrust to weight ratio means that the aircraft produces a large amount of thrust compared to its weight.

A low thrust to weight ratio means that the aircraft produces little thrust compared to its weights. Air-superiority fighters have high thrust to weight ratios because it means they have extra thrust to maintain speed when making tight manoeuvres.

Thrust-to-weight ratios

-F22: 1,2

-F-35A: 0.83

-Gripen 0.94,

-Typhoon: 1,18

-Rafale: 1,13

-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: 0,93

Again, a pattern emerges. Air-superiority fighters such as the F-22 and Typhoon have high thrust-to-weight ratios whereas strike fighters, such as the F-35A and Super Hornet, have low thrust-to-weight ratios. Air-superiority fighters require large amounts of thrust in order to stay nimble in the air.

The F-35, however, lacks such thrust. The F-35′s deficiencies all compound one another, thus making a fighter that is worse than the sum of its parts.

The F-35 design also lacks the features that other fighters employ. Fighters such as the F-22, Su-35, and T-50 use vectored thrust in order to produce enhanced manoeuvrability. Fighters such as the Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon all use canards coupled with tail-heavy and inherently unstable designs that greatly increase manoeuvrability and are managed by flight-control computers.

Three-dimensional thrust vectoring as been rumoured to be a feature that will be added to Tranche Three Typhoons, adding to its already impressive manoeuvrability.

Such features can add to the nimbleness of a fighter in the air and can also help compensate for poor wing-loading or thrust-to-weight numbers. The only variant of the F-35 to employ any such features is the F-35B with its thrust vectoring. However, the F-35B uses limited thrust vectoring in order to facilitate its short-take-off-vertical-landing (STOVL) ability and provides no use in combat manoeuvres because thrust can only be vectored 90 degrees straight down.

This need for STOVL in the F-35B also means the F-35 does not and cannot use an inherently unstable design to increase manoeuvrability. Because the F-35 seeks to maintain commonality, all three F-35 models have had their manoeuvrability crippled by the severe design compromises that have been made in order to make the F-35B model achieve STOVL. In terms of its ability to manoeuvre, the F-35 is the worst fighter Canada could opt for. One Typhoon test pilot said there is “no way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat.”

If poor wing-loading and thrust-to-weight numbers were not bad enough, the U.S. Department of Defence has had to consistently lower the F-35′s performance requirements in order to meet the significant limitations of the aircraft. For example, the F-35A’s sustained g’s rating was reduced from 5.3 sustained Gs to 4.6 sustained Gs. (!!!)

The F-35B was lowered from 5 sustained Gs to 4.5 sustained Gs and the F-35C was reduced from 5.1 sustained Gs to 5 sustained Gs. To put this in perspective, the F-35′s sustained G performance is “the equivalent of an F-4 or F-5… [it is] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth generation aircraft.”

This limitation has been described as “an embarrassment” with “obvious tactical implications.” At high altitudes, the inability to sustain high Gs reduces survivability of high altitude surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and at low altitude makes the aircraft more vulnerable to short-range SAMS and anti-aircraft fire.

Weapons:

The F-35 lacks the teeth to meet the air-to-air threats or today and tomorrow. The menu of armaments for non-stealth aircraft is quite broad. Virtually anything can be loaded under the wings or on the body provided the aircraft has enough thrust to get it off the ground, including air-launched cruise missiles. However, stealth aircraft suffer from severe size restrictions due to the limited space available in their internal weapons bays.

This limits the size and number of weapons that can be carried internally. While weapons can be mounted externally, this defeats the purpose of having a stealth fighter in the first place. In the world of air-superiority, a pilot needs every edge possible. F-35 pilots will have to sacrifice additional weapons in order to maximise what dubious stealth they have.

There are three significant failings suffered by the F-35 that cripple its air-to-air capability from a weapons standpoint. The first is the limited number of weapons it can carry in its internal weapons bay. The F-35 can only carry four missiles internally. That is a laughably small payload, particularly when compared to the F-22 with its eight internal pylons and the T-50′s ten internal pylons.

Proponents claim that the F-35′s limited internal weapons capacity is redressed by an increase in speed and stealth due to “flying clean;” not carrying weapons under the wings. However, the extra thrust generated by its competitors compensates for the extra drag, making the “flying clean” speed gains minimal; capped by an already inadequate top speed and poor acceleration as discussed above.

The second failing is the limited size of weapons it can carry in its internal weapons bay. For example, it cannot carry the MBDA Meteor BVR missile, the most advanced BVR missile in the Western world, as it simply does not fit in the F-35′s internal weapons bay. Given how heavily the F-35 will have to rely on BVR combat in order to stand a chance against modern and future airborne threats, it will need the best BVR weapons available.

Modifying the Meteor’s tail fins has been proposed, but no action has thus far been taken. As such, the F-35 is only equipped to carry the AMRAAM BVR missile. The Meteor is the best BVR missile on the market and if the F-35 has to do without it will further lower its already small chances of surviving an encounter with fourth or fifth generation enemy fighters.

The third failing is that it cannot carry any WVR missiles internally, such as the Sidewinder stocked by Canada; its standard air-to-air load out being four internal AMRAAM BVR missiles. This means that its only hope so scoring a missile kill against an enemy fighter would be using a BVR weapon. Within visual range, the F-35′s only offensive capability is its gun, but the likelihood of a successful kill using the gun is limited by the F-35′s poor manoeuvrability. Going into a situation without WVR weapons where enemy fighters are present is practically suicidal.

Of particular importance is the IRIS-T infrared WVR missile which is capable of intercepting incoming missiles from all directions, even from behind. The IRIS-T will become essential for modern Western air forces in the future, particularly as a countermeasure for Russia’s new AESA radar-guided missile which cannot be avoided, like most missiles before it, by making a sudden sharp turn at the last second. As such, a fourth generation fighter equipped with the IRIS-T would have a significantly higher rate of survivability due to this missile-interception ability.

The only WVR missile the F-35 is planned to be able to carry internally is the ASRAAM IR.

However, like the Meteor, it has yet to be integrated or tested. Particularly troubling is that only the British RAF are likely to use the ASRAAM IR. Given the F-35′s many unresolved issues, it will likely be a long time, if ever, before the ASRAAM or Meteor are fully compatible with the F-35′s systems. While this may slightly assuage the fears of the unfortunate RAF pilots who are to fly the F-35, it is of little comfort to other pilots and air forces worldwide. Coupled with their better base performance and greater missile compatibility and capacity, the very fourth generation fighters the F-35 is meant to replace would have a better chance against current and future threats than the F-35.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-3/
Part-3:

Limitations of Stealth:

However, even its stealth advantage is highly questionable and would likely offer little advantage. Stealth offers reduced detection, not invisibility. Even the F-22, an air-to-air fighter so superior to the F-35 that it defies comparison, has been shot down in exercises by non-stealthy aircraft, such as the Typhoon, Rafale, and F-18G “Growler” Electronic Warfare fighter. The F-117 Nighthawk was shot down over Serbia by a Soviet era SAM system as its stealth did not hide it from RADAR scanning in longer wavelengths. The F-35 itself is not even particularly stealthy by stealth standards, receiving a Low Observable designation instead of the Very Low Observable Designation of its superior cousin , the F-22.

The F-35′s limited stealth is further compromised by advances in detection technology. Infrared and RADAR detection is advancing all the time. In particular, the F-35, as with most stealth aircraft, are designed to be stealthy in X-band RADAR. However, as the Serbians discovered, stealth aircraft are much more easily detected when scanning in other wavelengths. Russia has already integrated this into the T-50, which comes equipped with L-band and X-band radar.

Thus, the F-35′s already questionable stealth advantage is constantly being eroded. As stealth becomes more common, so too will the advances in counter-stealth detection systems specifically designed to hunt them down, such as SMART-L Radar. The F-35 is also incredibly loud, much more so than the F-15. This sharp increase in noise makes the F-35 more susceptible to detection through auditory means. To make matters worse, passive radar threatens to render stealth aircraft entirely obsolete.

Sensors and Data Fusion:

Like altitude, the F-35′s specs are impressive in terms of sensors and data fusion. With Active-Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, helmet mounted display Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOST), and Distributed Aperture System (DAS). However, there are two large caveats that come with this impressive sensor suite. The first is that it assumes that this sensor suite works probably.

Given the F-35′s list of technical troubles this is a very legitimate concern. For example, the software problems with the U.S. Marines F-35B have raised the possibility of a thirteen-month delay of the Block 2B software. The second is that similar, though admittedly not as advanced, systems are standard on other aircraft already in production and have been proven to work properly. The Gripen and Rafale both boast AESA radar and the Typhoon will receive AESA radar in Tranche 3. All three have helmet mounted display systems and Electro-Optical Targeting Systems (EOTS).

While proponents of the F-35 would praise the F-35′s sensor suite, it is not so significant an improvement over existing and working sensor systems already deployed on other fighters to make a serious difference on the battle field. This is of little comfort since these technological improvements do not nearly compensate enough for the F-35′s other glaring deficiencies

Testing Limitations and Problems:

The F-35 operates under a protective testing bubble specifically designed not to push the aircraft to its limits. While the F-35 has flown a good many hours, it is not being pushed to its limits and has failed its original operational requirements. Instead of designing the fighter to operational requirement, the USAF’s solution to this problem is to lower the operational requirements according to the F-35′s limitations.

Despite being seven years overdue, the F-35, as of March 6, 2013, had yet to

-Descend at rates more than 6,000ft per minute

-achieve airspeed above Mach 0.9 (supposed to achieve Mach 1.6)

-Angle-of-attack beyond -5 and +18 degrees (supposed to achieve +50)

-Fly at night

-Fly in weather

-Use simulated weapons

-Use real weapons

-Use rapid stick or rudder movements

-Perform air-to-air tracking manoeuvres

-Perform air-to-ground tracking manoeuvres

-Perform mid-air refuelling

-Fly within 25 miles of lightening

-Use electronic countermeasures

-Use anti-jamming systems

-Use secure communication systems

-Use datalink systems

-Use electro-optical targeting system

-Use distributed aperture system to detect targets or threats

-Use Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system

-Use helmet mounted display as pilot’s primary reference

-Use air-to-air or air-to-ground radar for Electronic Attack Mode, Sea Search Mode, Ground Moving Targets Mode, or Close-In Air Combat Mode

Cost:

The cost of a fighter is a vital piece of information. Regardless of a fighter’s capability, it is useless if it is too expensive to fly. This is a lesson the USAF learned with the F-22 due to its high initial procurement and operating costs, which was the reason for the programme’s untimely demise. RAND has reported that the F-35′s costs are so high that it would have been less expensive to build three separate planes; each tailored to the user’s specific needs.

That would have been highly desirable as it would have meant that a capable and effective fighter could have been produced at all, let alone at a lower price tag. The saddest part of this finding is that it defeats the reason why the F-35 was developed to begin with; to have a low-cost and effective fighter. To make matters worse, the goal of 80% commonality between the three variants was never achieved, with 2008 estimates showing between 27% and 43% commonality.

Initial “Flyaway” Cost

-F22: $218 million per plane

-F-35: as of 2014, $188.5 million per plane (conflicting unit costs have been touted,from around $100m to the $188M fig.No idea what the eventual cost will be)

-Gripen E: approximately $50 million per plane

-Typhoon: $199 million per plane

-Rafale C: $94.5 million per plane

-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: $65 million per plane

The sticker price of a fighter is the obvious figure to place importance on. However, when it comes to fighter jets, the operating costs are, in fact, far more important.

Operating Costs Per-Flight Hour:

-F22: $61, 000

-F-35A: $21, 000 (latest figs from AWST posted show an increased fig as high as $40,000/hr)

-Gripen E: below $5000

-Typhoon: $18, 000

-Rafale C: $16, 500

-F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: $11, 000

The Saab Gripen E is the clear winner in terms of costs. About three Gripen Es could be bought for less than one F-35A. Air forces could also operate four Gripen Es for every one F-35A.

F-35′s Fatal Flaw:

The F-35′s fatal flaw lies in the shoehorning of STOVL capability into the F-35B model for the U.S. Marines. The original X-35 design had serious potential to be the fighter the F-35 claims yet completely fails to be. The F-35B is to take off on short runways and land vertically (STOVL). While building a “universal” fighter to meet all needs is incredibly difficult, the addition of the STOVL requirement added even more unreasonable expectations of one design and crippled the F-35.

In order to incorporate STOVL capability onto the F-35 design while still maintaining stealth, internal weapons bays, and supersonic flight, severe design compromises had to be made.

The area behind the pilot was reserved for a lift-fan to work in conjunction with a downward-swivelling rear thrust nozzle. In order to incorporate this system, the airframe had to be very wide; much wider than the “area rule,” which dictates that a narrow fuselage delivers the best aerodynamics, would deem desirable.

This unusual width makes the F-35 experience higher than normal drag which negatively impacts, acceleration, speed, fuel efficiency, and range. To make matters worse, the lift-fan means that the pilot is unable to see behind the aircraft, a severe disadvantage when engaging enemy aircraft and a fatal flaw that can and will get pilots killed.

The F-35 attempts to compensate for this lack of visibility by incorporating a helmet mounted display system that allows the pilot see a virtual image of what is around the aircraft. However, this is inadequate as it is much lower resolution than the human eye and generally inadequate for detecting distant or low-contrast objects. To make matters worse, this helmet mounted display system, as inadequate as it is, is far from being ready for testing, let alone being fully functional and combat-ready.

The lift-fan area takes up so much space that it meant that the plane could only have a single engine, decreasing maximum thrust and therefore speed and payload capacity, which would not necessarily cripple the plane were the F-35 not so overly heavy.

The STOVL requirement also necessitated the F-35 have smaller wings that provide less lift and negatively impact the performance of the aircraft. Worse yet, these elements of the F-35 cannot be altered because it would decrease the commonality among the three variants and thus drive costs even higher.

The F-35A and F-35C cannot make use of the lift-fan space for more/bigger internal weapons bays or another engine; it is used simply as a fuel tank.

However, further compromises had to be made in order to incorporate the STOVL ability desired so much by the U.S. Marines. To keep the aircraft light enough to achieve STOVL, safety equipment was removed and parts of the fuselage were made thinner and less durable, making all three variants much more dangerous to fly. According to the Pentagon, “elimination of 11 pounds’ worth of valves and fuses made the [F-35] 25-percent more likely to be destroyed when struck by enemy fire.”

(latest dev. AWST reports posted "Fix it or Else" indicate an increased breakage rate of airframe components than estimated,new failures,etc.)

The decreased durability of the airframe also means that the lifespan of the aircraft will likely be much shorter than its predecessors and contemporaries, which, in the end, may turn out to be ironically desirable.

Conclusion: Failure-35

Any one of the F-35′s failings by itself would not necessarily, by itself, render the aircraft utterly unfit for air-to-air combat. It is the combination of problems that make it unfit; each compounding the limits of the others to the point of total ineffectualness.

If it were significantly faster and had supercruise, then the payload and manoeuvrability limitations would be mitigated. However, the F-35′s deficiencies keep adding up until one incredibly expensive and remarkably un remarkable mess remains. It has “inferior acceleration, inferior climb[rate], inferior sustained turn capacity…[and] lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” said a leaked war game summary by RAND, a think tank with close ties to the USAF.

The only thing 5th Generation about the F-35 is its price tag. Any government purchasing the F-35 as a sole sourced fighter is reckless with its sovereignty and the safety of its soldiers, citizens, and allies and is wilfully blind to its deficiencies.

For such countries, purchasing the F-35 is nothing short of negligent. The F-35 is seven years behind schedule and fifty years behind the rest of the fighter world. It doesn’t matter how much production issues improve or flight testing progresses or costs go down. The F-35 was simply never designed to fill the air-superiority role, the U.S. Air Force said as much. It tries to do too much and consequently fails at just about everything.

References

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... r-aircraft

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/08/f35-fi ... -baby.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/canadas- ... 12-12?op=1

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -uss-wasp/

Ayton, Mark. “F-22 Raptor”. Air Forces Monthly, August 2008, p. 75. Retrieved: 19 July 2008.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Di ... alcon.aspx

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f18.htm

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su27.htm

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... 013-7?op=1

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/03/pak-fa-close/

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... raft_id=65

http://www.aviatia.net/other/jet-aircra ... ing-shark/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-381683/

Ayton, Mark. “F-22 Raptor”. Air Forces Monthly, August 2008, p. 75. Retrieved: 19 July 2008.
Ayton, Mark. “Kings of Swing”. Air Forces Monthly, Key Publishing, September 2008, pp. 58–67. Retrieved: 3 July 2011.
Desclaux, Jacques; Serre, Jacques, ed. (14 – 17 July 2003). “M88 – 2 E4: Advanced New Generation Engine for Rafale Multirole Fighter”. AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Years. Dayton, Ohio: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/air/gripen- ... n-fighter/

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/general_f-16xl.php

http://www.webcitation.org/6J6bmGwYF

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Gordon, Yefim (1999). Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker: Air Superiority Fighter. London, UK: Airlife Publishing. ISBN 1-84037-029-7. pp. 175–176.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... raft_id=64

Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993. ISBN 978-0-395-71083-8. pp. 230-231

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.ca/2013/ ... itude.html

http://defensetech.org/2012/02/23/f-35-test-update/

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... raft_id=67

http://www.australianherald.com/index.p ... 4cec417021

http://webaviation.webs.com/f22raptor.htm

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/003232.shtml

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012 ... -aircraft/

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... k-thereof/

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... -analysis/

http://www.armedforces-int.com/projects ... phoon.html

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... r/f18.html

http://www.defencetalk.com/comparison-o ... aft-17086/

http://www.defesanet.com.br/gripen/noti ... he-future/

http://www.aviatia.net/versus/eurofight ... er-hornet/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-333501/

http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/

http://www.f22fighter.com/weapons.htm

http://deadlyweapons-army.blogspot.ca/2 ... ak-fa.html

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.ca/2012/ ... fense.html

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fi ... M55mKUTtz8

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f- ... by-rafale/

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ts-f-.html

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/03/pak-fa-close/

http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte506.en.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... h-aircraft

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon ... ram-2014-1

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... ESA-radar/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-387296/

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... y-Mid-2014

http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_ ... x712g890_4

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fra ... ime-05991/

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/ ... geid=37457

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen- ... r-sensors/

http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighte ... 79002.aspx

http://www.airforce-technology.com/feat ... 631-8.html

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35-highlights.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02 ... jet-specs/

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/03/201303 ... ombat.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-1 ... finds.html

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012 ... aft-costs/

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... -analysis/

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/F-18 ... ornet.html

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^
Simple question: the above was an attempt to discredit F-35 . Fine . No issues.
But how did it serve the cause of PAK FA in terms of stealth / electronics/ Engine vis-a-vis F-22.
I see a lot of circus maneuvers done by PAK-FA done by F-22 too with 2-D TV engine, but the basic point is that F-22 will rarely need to
do all those stuff because it can handle its target in most cases from BVR.
If F-35 is bad then why benchmark PAK FA with it, why not with F-22 which flew in 1990 while the PAK-FA around 20 years later but still finding
hard to catch up

[NRao]

Here is a 3-part report on why the F-35/JSF,"the Dog",as US experts describe it, is the wrong choice for Canada.Shortcomings highlighted."Outclassed by even earlier Russian and Chinese jets...".So much for comparing it with the T-50/FGFA! Nevertheless read on.

the F-35 is “an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.” It is a “dog… overweight and underpowered,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Governmental Oversight in Washington, D.C. It has “inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability [and] lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”

Yawn.

Wheeler, Sprey, Axe, Sweetman. Have been saying the same thing since eons. This is so stale.

What else is new Philip?

BTW, Kyle Meema, is a Canadian prof as far as I know. IIRC he actually beat Sweetman to propose the Canadians buy the Grip!!!!

IF these are your sources, then so be it. These horses bray. As far as I am concerned, for whatever reasons, they have not bothered to catch up. Most were experts. None are today.


BTW:

Editor’s note: Last year Defence Watch reader Kyle Meema wrote a two-part series arguing that Canada should purchase the Gripen fighter aircraft plus other aviation assets. In this three-part series he argues against the purchase of the F-35 as a replacement for the CF-18. In the coming weeks Defence Watch will be publishing another article from a reader arguing for the need to purchase the Rafale. If other readers want to take a supportive position on the F-35 let me know and I’ll review and edit that submission.

All of us should join the Canadian party. Heck why not the LCA? and the AMCA? MiG-35 anyone? MiG-29 is the safest bet I would think.

[Viv S]

Here is another veiwpoint from Oz,from Air Power.One may not agree with "terminating" the JSF,the US needs it in numbers to replace legacy fighters from the next decade onwards,but the writing is on the wall.I simply can't understand how US generals views ,the best informed of all,about the JSF being "irrelevant" without support from the F-22 are simply dismissed out of hand.

Come now Philip, don't pretend to be naive. The F-35 is walled off from sequestration, at least over the short term, while the F-22 upgrade program is NOT.

Lets say you are Philip Beancounter, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee of the US Congress. Two scenarios -

A. Gen. Gung Ho comes along and states that the F-22 is the lynchpin of US defence. Without upgrades to it, the F-35 will be rendered irrelevant and the American defences will simply fall apart. It is therefore absolutely critical that the funding for the same be authorized despite the ongoing sequestration.

B. Gen. Be Cool comes along and states that the F-22 is a pretty nifty aircraft and the air force has developed a mild fondness for it. The F-35 can get the job done, but if isn't too much trouble could they still please get some new gadgets for the F-22. Raptors pilots don't have much to do, so would welcome an opportunity to pimp out their rides.

Now you being a patriotic Congressman answering to a patriotic albeit budget conscious public, which general leaves the room with a commitment for billions in funding and which one gets unceremoniously ushered out?

We noww have the excuse that the JSF is a "multi-role fighter",very true,but vastly inferior to its adversaries from the US general's own statements,where even the F-22 needs upgrading !

I don't recall the general stating that the F-35 was 'vastly inferior to its adversaries'.

The AWST report on the T-50 gives details of internal missiles carried,etc.,as well as how there are many design features superior to those on the F-22/35.

Sadly those design features don't include a shielded compressor face forcing the aircraft to rely on radar blockers (more Super Hornet, less F-22). Or a rear end with LO features (more Su-27, less F-35).

'There is still no definitive information about the T-50's internal weapons capability' - but it might hold two more SRAAMs than the F-35. (Though no one can explain how the sidebays work. Where is the space for an ejection mechanism? Does it use compressed gas or something?)

http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/view_ar ... sp?ID=1556
A report by Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon from Air Power Australia, an independent adviser to the Australian military says that the new Russian fighter, the Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA, could hold the “future of tactical air power”.

Carlo Kopp thinks the F-35 is rubbish and adores the PAK FA. What else is new?

Here is a 3-part report on why the F-35/JSF,"the Dog",as US experts describe it, is the wrong choice for Canada.Shortcomings highlighted."Outclassed by even earlier Russian and Chinese jets...".So much for comparing it with the T-50/FGFA! Nevertheless read on.

'3-part report'. Sounds weighty... maybe not.

Last year Defence Watch reader Kyle Meema wrote a two-part series arguing that Canada should purchase the Gripen fighter aircraft plus other aviation assets. In this three-part series he argues against the purchase of the F-35 as a replacement for the CF-18. In the coming weeks Defence Watch will be publishing another article from a reader arguing for the need to purchase the Rafale. If other readers want to take a supportive position on the F-35 let me know and I’ll review and edit that submission.

Defence Watch reader Kyle Meema (apparently a law professor at an Alberta college) included 'Altitude', 'Maneuverability', 'Wing Loading' & 'Thrust to Weight Ratio' in his analysis, but for some reason 'Avionics' was not an important enough aspect to merit a mention. Enough said.

[Philip]

Those who tout the JSF so much might lobby the USAF's own generals ,including the head of AiR Combat Command,Gen.Hostage,who think otherwise. I suppose our BR advocates are better informed than US generals.

NR,So what's new? Nothing,most informed people know that the JSF is a disaster,other that being dropped from a bird,from turkey status to that of "a Dog",US general!

Dhiraj,as requested.A comparison of the Pak-FA/FGFA with US fighters,including the F-22.The PAK-FA /T-50 was meant from the outset to counter the F-22.How it compares with it is open to Q.No claim is being made out for any overwhelming superiority over the F-22,but having been developed after the F-22,its designers have tried to improve upon F-22 performance,if you read through the various details posted in above posts,especially in the development of longer ranged AAMs and ASMs,which in the future will also include BMos/Bmos-M.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... or-america
Xcpts:

The PAK FA Compared to U.S. Fighters

According to information in the public domain, the PAK FA could be superior to the F-35, equal or nearly equal to the F-22, and superior to fourth-generation fighters. This section compares these fighters across a range of capabilities and discusses nascent and unfolding security implications.

Stealth. The PAK FA will likely incorporate several advanced stealth features. According to the Sukhoi firm, the fighter’s “use of composite materials and advanced technologies, improved aerodynamics, and reduced engine heat signature minimizes its radio-frequency, optical and infrared visibility.”[40] Like the F-22, the PAK FA was designed according to the principle of planform alignment,[41] which means that surfaces and edges—such as the leading edges and horizontal control surfaces of the wings and the vertical sides of the engines’ air intakes—are aligned to share the same angles. The pilot’s canopy is also angled to deflect incoming radar waves away from the radar source.[42]

An additional stealth feature that could be incorporated is curved S-ducts to mask the engine compressor blades from radar.[43] The T-50 prototype tested earlier this year was not fitted with stealthy engine nozzles, but the operational version of the PAK FA will likely have stealthy thrust-vector-control nozzles, like those on the F-22. A stealthy engine nozzle has been fitted on one of Russia’s Su-27 test aircraft.[44] (TVC fitted to latest prototypes)

The PAK FA is expected to be built with radar-absorbing material.[45] About 30 percent of the aircraft fuselage will be made of composite materials.[46] It could also be fitted with a “stealthogenic” system, an advanced technology reportedly developed by Soviet scientists. This stealthogenic technology is a form of anti-radar cloaking device using “wisps of plasma formed by pencils of electromagnetic rays from special generators installed on the aircraft; the plasma absorbs radio waves, reducing the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) approximately 100 times,”[47] making it almost invisible to radar. The U.S. Air Force is reportedly interested in using a similar, cold plasma cloaking device “as the next generation of stealth technology” for its fighter aircraft.[48]

The Indian version of the PAK FA is said to have a radar cross section of 0.5 square meter, the equivalent of a missile’s RCS. By comparison, older tactical jets have RCSs between 5 and 100 square meters. For example, the fourth-generation Su-30MKI has a RCS of approximately 20 square meters.[49]

Russia is likely to reserve the more advanced stealth capabilities for its own aircraft. The stealthogenic cloaking device under development could reduce the PAK FA’s radar cross section even further, making it potentially as stealthy as the F-22, which has the RCS of a small bird or a bumblebee at between 0.001 and 0.01 square meter.[50] The stealthogenic system may even enable the fighter to carry a full load of missiles, bombs, and/or drop tanks externally and still remain stealthy. It is possible Russia may have already tested the technology successfully; if so, one could reasonably assume Russia would then be readying it for deployment on the operational version of the PAK FA.

The F-35 normally carries two beyond-visual-range AMRAAM[51] missiles and two JDAM-guided[52] bombs in its two internal weapon bays. It could carry two additional AMRAAMs or AIM-9X Sidewinders under its wings, but this would make it less stealthy.[53] Based on the current capabilities of Russian airborne fire-control radars, the PAK FA’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar can simultaneously detect, track, and target six to eight F-35s with impaired stealth, offsetting the advantage of the additional weapons.[54]

The PAK FA and F-22 differ from the F-35 in that both can carry two short-range air-to-air missiles in internal side compartments, which significantly reduces their RCS and enables them to maintain their stealth outlines, even when carrying additional weapons. The F-35’s engine nozzle may give it a stealth disadvantage versus the PAK FA. This means a PAK FA flying high above an F-35 could potentially detect and track the F-35’s nozzle. In a battle against an F-35 formation, the PAK FA’s stealth and radar would likely be significant force multipliers.

Radar. Although the T-50 prototype probably used a modified Irbis-E radar (the passive electronically scanned array technology used on the Su-35 fighter),[55] the Russians are developing more advanced radar systems for the PAK FA. Approximately 30 companies are developing the PAK FA’s integrated avionics suite.[56]

Ultimately, the PAK FA is expected to have an AESA radar system with 1,500 individual transmitter/receiver (T/R) modules. A prototype is being tested, and development should be completed in mid-2010.[57] In comparison, the F-22’s AESA radar system has about 2,000 T/R modules.[58]

In addition to AESA radar, the PAK FA will have a side-looking radar and a rear-facing radar.[59] The sting fairing in the tail, located between the engine’s exhaust nozzles, may harbor a small fire-control radar[60] for detecting airborne targets and attacking missiles and to provide fire-control solutions for its air-to-air missiles. With AESA radars in the nose and tail, the PAK FA could cover 120 degrees of both the plane’s front hemisphere and its rear hemisphere.[61] In addition, the aircraft will have an L-band AESA radar in conformal arrays on the wings’ leading edges. According to some reports, L-band arrays can detect stealth aircraft the size of the F-35.[62]

The PAK FA’s design may also allow placement of additional AESA conformal arrays on the fighter’s surfaces that could provide radar coverage of its starboard and port sides,[63] allowing all-round radar surveillance. Perhaps with this in mind V. K. Naik, the Indian Air Force Chief of Staff, said that the FGFA’s “highly advanced avionics…[would be] giving 360-deg. situational awareness.”[64] In addition, the PAK FA’s AESA radar will have electronic countermeasures that can jam enemy radar. The F-35 has a similar system. Like the F-35’s radar, the PAK FA’s radar can use radio waves to burn the electronic systems of enemy radar, the command-and-control computer of a surface-to-air missile (SAM) battery,[65] and perhaps even the flight computer of an enemy fighter. The L-band AESA radars on the aircraft’s wings could potentially track, locate, and jam the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), and Link-16 communications links and emitters.[66]

(Austin posted earlier pics of the conformal side arrays on the T-50)

The PAK FA’s optoelectronic system may incorporate a LADAR (laser radar) to identify targets, including other stealth fighters, by providing an image of a contact in three dimensions.[67] The PAK FA may also incorporate a more advanced, fifth-generation version of the infrared search and track/ laser rangefinder (IRST/LR) optoelectronic system that was used in earlier Russian fighter aircraft. The T-50 prototype has already been fitted with a newer version. The system has a sensor in the cockpit and uses infrared and television channels for day and night operations; a laser rangefinder for accurate targeting; and a “look down/shoot down” capability for detecting, tracking, and engaging targets over land, sea, and air. The system can detect approaching fighters at 40 kilometers (km) and departing enemy fighters at 100 km.[68]

According to some reports, a Russian-made IRST/ LR may have already proven effective in downing U.S. stealth aircraft. Although the U.S. Air Force officially determined that the F-117A stealth fighter downed during the Kosovo crisis of 1999 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile launched by the Serbs, some military analysts believe that it was shot down by a Russian-made MiG-29 operated by the Yugoslav air force. According to that account, the Serbian MiG-29 fired its infrared-guided missiles at the F-117A and destroyed it with the first missile launched. Some accounts say that the Serb pilot used the MiG-29’s IRST/LR system to stealthily detect, track, and engage the F-117A,[69] even though the U.S. plane was designed to mask its engines’ exhaust infrared signature. According to sources interviewed by Jane’s Defense Weekly, the Serbs may have intercepted the F-117A using the fighter’s mission flight plan, which was allegedly stolen by a spy working for Russian military intelligence who had infiltrated NATO.[70]

(F-117 shot down by a MIG-29! Comes very cheap too-IN MIG-29Ks.Surely a most affordable option to boost IAF numbers in the med. category of the inventory)

The F-22 does not have a built-in IRST/LR system, but such a system could be added. The F-35’s electro-optical sensor system (EOSS), which includes the optronic distributed aperture system (DAS) and the electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), will give the fighter 360 degrees of infrared coverage for searching and tracking enemy surface and air targets. Using DAS, the F-35 could fire a short-range air-to-air missile at an enemy fighter in a lock-on mode and then escape from the fight.[71] Ultimately, it is unclear exactly how the PAK FA’s radar systems will compare in power and sensitivity with the radar systems in the F-22 and the F-35.

Range. The PAK FA’s combat range will be roughly equivalent to the F-22’s range, but possibly greater than the ranges of some F-35 variants. According to Russian sources, the PAK FA will have a maximum range of 5,500 km.[72] Realistically, this is probably its maximum range with at least one air refueling. Similarly, the Russian fourth-generation Su-30MK multirole fighter reportedly has a top combat range of 5,200 km with one in-flight refueling. With internal fuel tanks, the PAK FA—like the Su-30M—will likely have a range of about 3,000 km.[73] By comparison, the F-22 has a reported combat range of more than 2,963 km with two external fuel tanks.[74] According to Russian sources, the PAK FA will be capable of repeated air refueling for extended operations.[75]

In contrast, the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A and the U.S. Navy’s carrier-based F-35C will have a range of about 2,222 km with internal fuel tanks, but the U.S. Marine Corps’s F-35B will have a range of about 1,667 km.[76]

Weapons. With a maximum length of about 22 meters and a wingspan of 14.8 meters, the PAK FA will be similar in size to the Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter.[77] Both aircraft are larger than the F-22, which has an overall length of 18.9 meters and a wingspan of around 13.6 meters.[78] Because of its larger size, the PAK FA will be able to carry more fuel, more missiles, and heavier bombs internally.[79] It will also be able to carry numerous kinds of weapons, enabling it to simultaneously attack multiple surface and air targets in all weather conditions[80]— hence, its classification as a multirole fighter.

The PAK FA could carry a deadly mix of weapons.[81] Russia’s Vympel State Machine-Building Design Bureau is reportedly developing very long-range beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and short-range air-to-air missiles designed to fit inside the PAK FA’s weapon bays.[82] Development of the new R-77M BVR missile is due to be completed in 2010. The PAK FA could carry eight of these missiles in its two main weapon compartments.[83] Like the F-35,[84] the PAK FA may also be able to carry an additional BVR missile attached to the inner side of each weapon compartment door, enabling it to carry four R-77M missiles while reserving internal space for two bombs or two very long range air-to-air missiles. Another weapon under development for the PAK FA is the ramjet-powered R-77M-PD,[85] which has a reported range of 160 km, twice that of the R-77M.[86] The PAK FA could carry four of them internally.

The original R-37 air-to-air missile (maximum range of 300 km) was designed to shoot down valuable air targets, such as airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (J-STARS) aircraft, air tankers, reconnaissance planes, electronic warfare aircraft, transport aircraft, Airborne Laser aircraft, and bombers. Improved versions of the R-37 missile are under development, including the R-37M very long-range air-to-air missile (range of 300 km to 400 km) and the Izdelie 810 (range of 375 km to 450 km). They will also be able to engage targets at extremely high altitudes. Both of these next-generation missiles will have active and passive radar guidance systems designed to seek enemy radar and electronic countermeasures emissions. In passive mode, an R-77M missile could conceivably target an F-35 at up to 240 km if the F-35 is using its AESA radar in a jamming operation.[87]

In addition to the larger weapons compartments, the PAK FA has two smaller compartments located in the rear, which could each carry one short-range air-to-air missile.[88] This design feature was borrowed from the F-22, which has two smaller side compartments, which could each hold one AIM-9M or AIM-9X .[89]

The PAK FA’s smaller compartments could accommodate several types of short-range air-to-air missiles. One possibility is an improved Vympel R-73M short-range air-to-air missile with a high off-boresight capability, which enables it to turn 160 degrees to engage enemy targets in the plane’s rear hemisphere using infrared guided-missile technology. It could lock on before or after launch, and the rear AESA radar could provide the necessary targeting information. This new missile, the Izdelie 760 or R-74, may have a range of around 40 km. It is due to enter production this year. Alternatively, the PAK FA could carry the Vympel K-30, a new compact short-range air-to-air missile, or the K-MD short-range air-to-air missile, a new weapon for close combat and for shooting down enemy missiles, which could be developed by 2013.[90]

In its larger weapon compartments, the PAK FA could accommodate two precision-guided 1,500 kilogram (kg) bombs,[91] such as the new KAB-1500LG family of laser-guided bombs. The PAK FA could also carry two satellite-guided KAB-500S-E bombs, which weigh 500 kg, or new versions that could weigh 1,500 kg. These bombs are dubbed “Russia’s JDAM” after the highly effective U.S. bomb guidance package.[92]

The U.S. Phantom Ray unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), which has been proposed as the basis for a future bomber, could carry two 1,000 kg JDAM bombs, or a payload of up to 2,000 kg, on a long-range strike mission of 3,704 km.[93] The stealthy UCAV can also carry eight Small Diameter Bombs and refuel in the air independently and repeatedly to enable it to conduct global strike operations.[94] The PAK FA, by contrast, could have an internal bomb payload exceeding 3,000 kg. In addition, the PAK FA might be able to carry two subsonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles (range of 130 km) internally.[95] The PAK FA may also be able to carry two Kh-35UE GLONASS satellite-guided missiles, which can strike land targets at a range of 260 km.[96]

The PAK FA may also have up to eight external hardpoints to which additional missiles and bombs could be mounted.[97] The Indian FGFA and the PAK FA may be armed externally with “BrahMos supersonic missiles,”[98] which were jointly developed by Russia and India, or the 3M55 Oniks anti-ship missile, which has a maximum speed of Mach 2.6 at altitude and a range of at least 300 km.[99]

Speed. The PAK FA and F-22 are expected to have roughly equivalent top speeds and altitudes, but the F-35 is potentially less capable in both areas. The F-22 has demonstrated supercruise speeds above Mach 1.5 and is designed for sustained supersonic operation without using afterburners. Reportedly, it has a maximum supercruise speed of Mach 1.82 at 30,000 feet (9,000 meters) altitude.[100] Russian sources claim that the PAK FA is slightly faster (Mach 1.83) at 30,000 feet.[101] High supercruise speeds enable these aircraft to control wide expanses of territory. The F-35 will not have supercruise capability.

Using afterburners, the F-22 has a maximum speed of about Mach 2.5,[102] likely faster than the PAK FA. Although the Russian air force initially established the PAK FA’s maximum speed at Mach 2.5, it revised its operational requirement downward to Mach 2 in December 2004.[103] Nevertheless, the PAK FA will probably be able to reach Mach 2.45 with afterburners. The T-50 and F-22 will likely have the same service ceiling of about 20,000 meters.[104] By contrast, the F-35’s maximum speed at altitude is about Mach 1.6 or more than Mach 1.8 with afterburners, and its maximum altitude is estimated to be 15,000 meters.[105]

Maneuverability. The F-22’s engine nozzles have thrust vector control for superior maneuverability, which can be essential in close air combat and for successfully evading attacking missiles. The PAK FA will incorporate the same capability.[106] However, the F-35 is not planned to be fitted with thrust vector control technology.

Both F-22 and F-35 fighters will likely have shorter takeoff distances than the PAK FA. In air interception mode, the F-22 may be able to take off from an airstrip of only 274 meters.[107] On land, the Marine Corps vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) F-35B is capable of taking off in just 167 meters.[108] By contrast, the PAK FA requires an airstrip of 300 meters to 400 meters.[109] The F-22 also has a slightly higher maximum takeoff weight of 38 tons,[110] compared to the PAK FA’s reported 37 tons.[111]

Engine. The PAK FA will be fitted with a new “engine of the second stage,” which is set to begin development in 2010 or 2011.[112] The engines are being developed by the United Engine Building Corporation in cooperation with NPO Saturn and Salyut, Russia’s two largest producers of aircraft engines. The engine in the T-50 prototype is the NPO Saturn 117M, an improved, modernized version of the 117S engine in Russia’s Su-35 fourth-generation-plus aircraft, which already incorporates fifth-generation technologies, including a full-authority digital engine control system and three dimensional thrust vectoring control nozzles.[113] The first operational PAK FAs would use the 117M engines. Later PAK FAs would use the new second-stage engine when it enters into service.[114]

According to Russian sources, the new PAK FA engine could provide 17,500 kg of thrust.[115] Realistically, the engine may only achieve a lower thrust. It is still being developed, and Pogosyan stresses that the engine will not be ready before 2015 and could take up to 12 additional years to develop fully.[116]

Communications.

One feature of fifth-generation fighters is the ability to communicate vast amounts of tactical information in real time within a formation of fighters. The F-22 has an advanced communications, navigation, and identification system called the TRW AN/ASQ-220.[117] It has multifunction antennas distributed in conformal arrays along the leading edges of the wings and vertical control surfaces, which enable radar track warning, missile launch detection, threat identification, and communication of this information between aircraft.[118]

It is unclear whether the PAK FA will have a comparable system, but it will likely have communication equipment that allows real-time data exchange within flight groups and with ground-based control systems.[119] For example, the Indian FGFA will reportedly have a “very high degree of network centricity” and “multi-spectral reconnaissance and surveillance systems.”[120] Like the F-22 and the F-35, the PAK FA and the Indian FGFA will presumably have sensor data fusion, which will organize the information into a unified tactical picture and feed it to the pilot in easily usable form.[121]

The PAK FA may possibly be one step ahead of the F-22 and F-35 in computer processing functions. The PAK FA’s computer will not only process data from various sensors and sources and provide it to the pilot, but also function as a battle management system. Instead of the system serving as the pilot’s pocket combat information center, it could serve as a combat direction center by analyzing the information and offering the pilot combat decisions from which to choose. The head of Avionika, Russia’s leading avionics manufacturer, described the PAK FA as having “advanced avionics that act as an electronic pilot.” Avionika representatives claim that “[t]he fighter itself analyses the situation and offers options to the pilot,” which “greatly reduces the mental load on the pilot and allows him to focus on tactical tasks.”[122]

Whereas the F-22’s sensor fusion technology is touted as allowing the pilot to spend “less time monitoring basic systems and more time making combat decisions,”[123] the PAK FA’s battle management system could allow Russian pilots to spend less time making combat decisions if these were already made by the fighter’s artificial intelligence.[124] In this case, the pilot would then simply choose the best tactical decision offered by the plane’s “electronic pilot” and press a button, which could give the pilot a decisive time advantage in combat. General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, describes the PAK FA’s computer system as so powerful that it practically has “human intelligence.”[125] The PAK FA’s electronic pilot can also fly the plane autonomously in many situations, in much the same way that a UCAV is controlled. In other situations, the human pilot could use his discretion to fly the fighter manually, particularly to perform evasive maneuvers.

The T-50’s instrument panel is dominated by two large color multifunction displays, similar to the Su-35’s instrument panel. The screen arrangement may have been influenced by the cockpit design of the F-35 with two large multifunction displays integrated to form one large display. It is widely thought to be a simpler, easier-to-read arrangement than the four-multifunction-display design in the F-22 cockpit. The T-50’s displays are surrounded by control buttons, in contrast to the F-35’s touch screen technology. Touch screen technology may be incorporated into later versions of the PAK FA, depending on how the systems perform in testing.[126]

Like the F-22, the T-50 currently has a heads-up display (HUD), a transparent display that presents data without requiring a pilot to look away from the view through the windshield.[127] In future versions of the PAK FA, pilots may have helmet-mounted displays (HMD), like those planned for the F-35 and upgraded F-22.[128] HMDs are similar to HUDs, but project the information onto the pilot’s visor, allowing the pilot to obtain situational awareness and cue weapons systems based on the direction the pilot’s head is facing.

Interesting final recommendation,an xcpt:

Strengthen economic and military-to-military cooperation with India. India’s involvement in the PAK FA program could be potentially helpful. A large fighter fleet in the hands of the world’s largest democracy and a key American partner could counterbalance China’s growing air power capabilities and other powers in the region. Given the historical rivalry between India and China, New Delhi will likely seek to convince Moscow to restrict exports of advanced weapons technology, such as the PAK FA fighter, to China. Indeed, India may make its participation in the project contingent on such restrictions. India is increasingly relying on U.S. weapons technology and equipment to fulfill its military modernization requirements, while still maintaining a strong defense relationship with Russia, its long-standing friend. The U.S. should continue to strengthen economic and security cooperation with India. The U.S. Air Force and Indian Air Force should continue to conduct joint wargaming exercises, such as Red Flag in 2008.[132] Just as Lockheed Martin reportedly offered the F-35C to the Indian Navy to deploy on its future aircraft carriers,[133] the Administration should encourage the Indian Air Force to acquire the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing it to operate alongside the FGFA.

Alongside the FGFA,not as an alternative.But we plan to develop the medium sized AMCA to operate alongside the FGFA which will serve the stealth strike role in in similar fashion to the JSF! With the JSF's much publicised developmental problems and delays and reduced performance criteria,it is increasingly looking like a "dog" as described by a US general,much less than a "turkey"!

New advanced Russian ASM for T-50.One yr. old report.
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/1/18/1463/
Russian air forces have put the advanced X-38 air-to-surface missile into service

Russian air forces have put the advanced short-range X-38 air-to-surface missile into service in late December. The missile is intended for T-50 fighter, Izvestiya reports.

«The missile was being tested in great secrecy during the whole 2012. The first batch of missiles will be delivered soon. First of all Su-34 bombers and MiG-29SMT fighters will be equipped with these missiles. After that Su-35S and Su-30 fighters will also be armed with X-38s», - a source from the Supreme Command said.

X-38 was developed by Tactical Missiles Corporation headquartered in Korolev (Moscow Region). Themissile’sdevelopmentwasstartedin1990s. It has some features, which afford ground for calling it the next-generation weapon.

Firstly, this missile has great flexibility – it may be equipped with different homing heads and warheads. Secondly, it has folding wings, which allow placing it inside the internal compartments.

One of the X-38’s modifications will be able to orientate itself in flight using GLONASS system. GPS/GLONASS systems are also used for guidance of American JDAM and Russian KAB-E bombs. Now Russia has the missile with satellite homing, the source noted.

Another source close to the military-industrial sector added that besides GLONASS, versions of X-38 are equipped with radar homing seeker, laser homing head and imaging infrared seeker.

X-38 is able to hit maneuvering armored vehicles and hideouts at the distance from 3 to 40 km. Its warhead weight is 250 kg.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... es-by-2014

The Russian Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV) has said that the development of advanced tactical air-launched missile systems for the Sukhoi T-50 fifth-generation fighter will be completed by 2014.

RIA Novosti quoted KTRV head, Boris Obnosov, saying: "The development of Kh-35UE (AS-20 Kayak), Kh-38ME, Kh-58UShKE (AS-11 Kilter), and RVV-MD (AA-11 Archer) class missiles will be completed in 2012-2013."

The Kh-35UE tactical anti-ship missile has a maximum range of 260km while the Kh-31PD anti-radiation missile can fly up to 250km and is used to strike against air defence systems.

Aimed to destroy pulse radars, the Kh-58UShKE missile can hit targets within 245km, and the short-range RVV-MD air-to-air missile has a maximum range of 40km.

Russia has already tested Kh-31PD (AS-17 Mod 2) class missiles intended for the fighters using fourth-generation Sukhoi Su-34 strike aircraft, Obnosov added.

The T-50 fighter missile systems will be fully operational by the time the aircraft enters service with the Russian Air Force in 2014.

The Sukhoi T-50, developed under the Future Aviation System for Tactical Air Force (PAK FA) programme, will replace the Russian Air Force's MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters and serve as the basis of the Sukhoi / HAL FGFA project being developed with India.

Equipped with radar-evading stealth technology, the multirole stealth fighter aircraft weighs around 18,500kg with a maximum speed of 600km/h, endurance of three hours, and a take-off weight of 37,000kg while hitting the targets within a 400km range.

The first and second prototypes of the jet performed their maiden sorties in January and February 2011 and have since been undergoing flight tests. The aircraft is expected to enter operational service in 2015 as the country's first new warplane since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Some recent Pentagon reports on the JSF.Am posting full details in the JSF td.:

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014 ... ther-load/
CDI: Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter Drops Another Load
2 weeks ago

This week some Pentagon officials morphed into street cleaners as the Defense Department’s F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” left yet another load of unpleasantness on the street for all to see. It came in the form of major new revelations from Jason Sherman at InsideDefense.com with an article titled “DOD Warns Congress JSF Costs Could Skyrocket To $388 Billion.” The new, higher cost estimate intensified the sticker shock for the already unaffordable F-35.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/ ... ID20140124
Exclusive: Pentagon report faults F-35 on software, reliability
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Fri Jan 24, 2014

[Viv S]

Those who tout the JSF so much might lobby the USAF's own generals ,including the head of AiR Combat Command,Gen.Hostage,who think otherwise. I suppose our BR advocates are better informed than US generals.

No lobbying required. The US DoD is formally committed to buying 2443 aircraft and has not altered or considered altering that position. Meanwhile, Singapore, Japan, South Korea & Israel have signed on as new customers.

Dhiraj,as requested.A comparison of the Pak-FA/FGFA with US fighters,including the F-22.The PAK-FA /T-50 was meant from the outset to counter the F-22.How it compares with it is open to Q.No claim is being made out for any overwhelming superiority over the F-22,but having been developed after the F-22,its designers have tried to improve upon F-22 performance,if you read through the various details posted in above posts,especially in the development of longer ranged AAMs and ASMs,which in the future will also include BMos/Bmos-M.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... or-america
Xcpts:

The PAK FA Compared to U.S. Fighters

According to information in the public domain, the PAK FA could be superior to the F-35, equal or nearly equal to the F-22, and superior to fourth-generation fighters. This section compares these fighters across a range of capabilities and discusses nascent and unfolding security implications.

Stealth. The PAK FA will likely incorporate several advanced stealth features. According to the Sukhoi firm, the fighter’s “use of composite materials and advanced technologies, improved aerodynamics, and reduced engine heat signature minimizes its radio-frequency, optical and infrared visibility.”[40] Like the F-22, the PAK FA was designed according to the principle of planform alignment,[41] which means that surfaces and edges—such as the leading edges and horizontal control surfaces of the wings and the vertical sides of the engines’ air intakes—are aligned to share the same angles. The pilot’s canopy is also angled to deflect incoming radar waves away from the radar source.[42]

An additional stealth feature that could be incorporated is curved S-ducts to mask the engine compressor blades from radar.[43] The T-50 prototype tested earlier this year was not fitted with stealthy engine nozzles, but the operational version of the PAK FA will likely have stealthy thrust-vector-control nozzles, like those on the F-22. A stealthy engine nozzle has been fitted on one of Russia’s Su-27 test aircraft.[44] (TVC fitted to latest prototypes)

The PAK FA is expected to be built with radar-absorbing material.[45] About 30 percent of the aircraft fuselage will be made of composite materials.[46] It could also be fitted with a “stealthogenic” system, an advanced technology reportedly developed by Soviet scientists. This stealthogenic technology is a form of anti-radar cloaking device using “wisps of plasma formed by pencils of electromagnetic rays from special generators installed on the aircraft; the plasma absorbs radio waves, reducing the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS) approximately 100 times,”[47] making it almost invisible to radar. The U.S. Air Force is reportedly interested in using a similar, cold plasma cloaking device “as the next generation of stealth technology” for its fighter aircraft.[48]

^^

Apparently the PAK FA -

1. Has S-ducts. No visible compressor faces.

2. Is VLO in the IR spectrum

3. Has a stealthy nozzle.

4. Incorporates 'plasma stealth'.

:sigh:

Some recent Pentagon reports on the JSF.Am posting full details in the JSF td.:

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014 ... ther-load/
CDI: Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter Drops Another Load
2 weeks ago

This week some Pentagon officials morphed into street cleaners as the Defense Department’s F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” left yet another load of unpleasantness on the street for all to see. It came in the form of major new revelations from Jason Sherman at InsideDefense.com with an article titled “DOD Warns Congress JSF Costs Could Skyrocket To $388 Billion.” The new, higher cost estimate intensified the sticker shock for the already unaffordable F-35.

Cost could skyrocket to $388 billion. Gosh! That's like... $160 million per unit. Unaffordable.

BTW how much is France paying for the Rafale? €46 billion for 286 aircraft. $180 million per unit minus VAT. (More now that the order has been downsized.)

How much is UK paying for the Eurofighter? £23 billion for 232 aircraft. $170 million per unit. VAT status unknown. (Could be more with Saudi negotiations still mired in opacity.)

No idea what the Gripen's total program cost is, but the Brazilians are paying $4.5 billion for 36 aircraft. $125 million per unit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/ ... ID20140124
Exclusive: Pentagon report faults F-35 on software, reliability
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Fri Jan 24, 2014

A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015.

F-35 could be delayed. Okay.

[NRao]

ser Philip,

The IAF has said that the Russians cannot deliver the FGFA, etc.

Indian labs are on record that the FGFA will be lighter than the PAK-FA because India would introduce more composites.

And your experts in the US are wonder struck by the PAK-FA? Is that the best you can do?

There is a feature in google that allows you to customize the date ............................ it is a very helpful feature. Else a fool needs help.





Yar, that article is *old* - 2010.




Like I said the *IAF* (as in Indian Air Force) has said that the Russians cannot deliver the FGFA.

May be I should convince the *IAF*.

Nah, IAF is right in this case.

[NRao]

The same expert/s, Mackenzie Eaglen and Lajos F. Szaszdi:

2011 :: Russia Debuts Stealth Fighter—with Implications for the U.S.

The *Expert* - right from *the* horse's mouth:

The chief of Russia’s air force announced this week that the PAK FA, Russia’s fifth-generation stealth fighter, will enter service in 2015. This would be close to the time when two U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter variants for the U.S. Air Force (F-35A) and the Navy (F-35C) are expected to attain initial operational capability in 2016. This display means the U.S. must keep its own Joint Strike Fighter program on schedule for production.

The public flight of a PAK FA’s T-50 prototype before the world, at the MAKS–2011 International Aviation and Space Salon, is a demonstration of Russia’s firm commitment to develop this aircraft for its own use and to sell it around the world.

And, I thought by then India had actually signed some sort of an agreement. No?

Expert horse for you.

And, then, not to be out done by Mr. Bond himself, *this* "expert":

It may be that when they referred to a reduced “optical…visibility,” the Russians were referring to the use—probably in later versions of the PAK FA—of metamaterials and “electronic camouflage,” or “e-camouflage.” With this technology, micro-cameras covering the surface of the aircraft would capture real-time images of the fighter’s environment. Through advanced computers and the use of metamaterials, the cameras would project those images onto the plane’s surface to make it look like the sky or the terrain around it. This would mean virtual invisibility for the PAK FA. This “e-camouflage” technology appears in the James Bond movie “Die Another Day,” in which 007’s Aston Martin car has it to remain invisible to the naked eye.

Is this a technology that Russia is making India pay with a developmental cost of $6 billion and not giving it to India?




God! I need to start a blog. I can certainly do better than that. Experts!!!!

[NRao]

Indian Air Force not happy with Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA/FGFA

The item in red I speculated.

Indian Air Force (IAF) has now announced that it would not linger its association with Russia over the PAK-FA. This news came in as shock as the collaboration had aimed to develop a futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). IAF has decided to pull the chords down due to the loop holes that are now perceptible in the niche. Statements made by the Indian Air Force officials said that Russians would not be able to fulfill their deal with regard to the performance and the operations of the Sukhoi FGFA.

Besides the performance issues that may arise in future, the Sukhoi made stealth jet is of an exorbitant price and the architecture itself is poor and below the acceptable mark. The jet is powered by old and poor quality engines making it an unreliable and irrational weapon in the parade of the Indian Air Force.

India entered into the deal with Russia so as to strengthen India’s armory with the fifth generation stealth fighter and some other technology exchanges but magnified complaints, unacceptable engineering and greasy development of the stealth jet has brought the IAF to conclude the deal though New Delhi and Moscow has finalized a $6 billion bill to jointly develop the FGFA customized to suit the requirements of IAF.



The sketch of the warplane on a white sheet seem to be an easy task compared to welding the different parts of the engine to build one and then get it working as per the specifications put forward by the Indian Air Force. The collaboration with Russia for the Sukhoi /HAL FGFA was considered to suffice to IAF’s future and therefore Defence Minister A. K Anthony had rejected the purchase of the American Fifth Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Indian scientists had also stated that this collaboration will provide the required push for the development of the all-Indian fifth generation fighter, titled the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

However all the above said facts and figures do not seem to be applicable at the moment for the Indian Air Force has withdrawn the MoD with a complaint that the collaboration may not live up to the expected norms put forth at the time of proposal.

Sukhoi is working on T-50 versions one for Russian use and the other for Indian use, the whole plan of the development of the T-50 is solely dependent on India’s investment without which there would not be a T-50 in the picture at all. The Russian version of the T-50 is simpler than the Indian version. The Russian version comprises of the Indian Avionics along with an assorted range of compatible weapons. The Indian model on the other hand is still being sketched on paper. This is not the only cause of the disappointment as reported by Business Standard. The short falls with the FGFA has been observed at different sectors like performance, quality of the materials used, poor engineering of the engines and the technical features.

IAF’s has several reasons to close down the MoD with the Russian FGFA, but the top three reasons as recorded in the minutes of the meeting were as follows:

1) Russians’ reluctance to share the design information with India and Indian Air Force
2) The engines of the fighter AL-41F1 are not as appealing as they just the upgraded versions of Sukhoi’s 30 MKI AL-31’s engines.
3) The exorbitant expenses involved in the project, a whopping $6 billion is what India is shelling out to co-develop the project, which would mean that a large part of IAF capital would remain locked up.

The Russian officials did have their counter arguments where they mentioned that the radar and the Al-41F engine is temporary and they would be developed eventually.

There were more short falls put forward by the IAF like the problems encountered with the quality control, the unpatched wings that may fall apart in cases of stressed maneuvers and the delay in the commencement of the architecture. When all these points are put together, the entire amount of the $6 Billion is relatively huge to pay up.

The reports have just summed up that PAK-FA MoD may be let down by the IAF. New Delhi is now looking forward for the new Rafale fighters from France and better prospects of the Indian Air Force.

[Cosmo_R]

As I said, many moons ago: PAK/FA = FAk/AP.

The AMCA + F-136. GE buys a lot in terms of influence

http://www.hindustantimes.com/business- ... 14505.aspx

"The Indian embassy lined up as many US corporations as it could find to lobby with the US Congress and White House in favour of India. This initially was defence and aerospace firms, but eventually drug-makers like Abbott Labs were roped in to publicly declare their support for India’s patent regime.

LM/Boeing/GE rule

[Karan M]

Thanks but no thanks.

Sanction proof a/c please.

[Cain Marko]

Can folks drop this pakfa vs jsf thing please. At least drop the hyperbole.

That the russkis have, can and will produce a very competitive 5 gen bird, with all due respect to the raptor and lightning, is hardly disputable. They have produced western beaters numerous times in the past.

That India doesnt yet trust the US on critical hardware is also amply clear, simply no interest in jsf (despite Shukla and Rao sahabs insistence) or even MRCA.

That the Indo-russki relationship is considerably rocky now as compared to the past which includes a lot of bait/switching by the roosies also is quite obvious (despite Philip guru's inordinate love for vodka)

Equally obvious is that the future for India is indigenous products.

So shall we just give the acrimony a rest, it is hard to read your fine comments when one has to filter so much sarcasm

[Philip]

I rarely drink vodka! Therefore can't be seduced like the Kiev chickens. I'm all for "Scottish" independence though! By the way the West End in BLR has a fine bottle of Amrut's Fusion single malt in the bar (it's evaporating fast).Our very own desi world-beater.

Let's see what the new dispensation makes of the FGFA JV deal.If the IAF is unhappy ("may be looking for alternatives") with aspects ,it should seek to resolve the issues first ,having gone down the road thus far. There is a huge Rafale lobby (fine aircraft,exorbitant price) at work,where Reliance is reportedly Dassault's partner in India.The Q is if we dump the T-50/FGFA we are left with nothing in the basket as far as stealth aircraft are concerned. Pl. don't suggest the JSF,which has no room left in the design for any Indian specific requirements,already rejected by the MOD/IAF. Given that the Chinese will field their stealth bird by the end of the decade,we will be at a considerable disadvantage,with the AMCA as of now existing only on paper.Plus the unknown quantity,the "engine factor" for that bird.Where will it arrive from and at what cost ,when firang manufacturers know that we are up the creek without any alternative stealth paddle?

Coming back to the FGFA/T-50.It is true that the initial version expected in Russian service 2016 will fly with an improved engine that is used by the MKIs.If the engine is such a clanker ("not all that appealing"),why has there been silence all these years about its performance ? The definitive version will appear so the Russian say before the end of the decade,well in time for our definitive version to be pefected.One would wish that specific parameters/details like TtoW ratio,etc.,were mentioned,so that comparisons could be made with other western engines.The Russians appear to be working upon a strategy which ensures max success,least failure to meet deadlines,instead of trying to reach "a bridge/bird too far".The initial avatar while not possessing the "full Monty" or rather "full Muscovy", will in stages be improved just as has been done with the Flanker variants leading to the "Super Sukhoi" avatar.Several components of the T-50 have already been tested on the SU-35.This has cut down testing time on the first prototypes.The Russian birds also use more titanium for strength,while we apparently want more composites,part of the 40+ improvements/requirements on our version.The experience of the JSF where weight problems were "fixed" by cutting down on composite specs and strength has backfired,with more components failing in tests.The trade-off is a very fine one.How we will be able to achieve it with our limited testing labs (poor engine testing facilities too) is a moot Q.The AWST Sweetman MAKS report on the design philosophy of the T-50 is worth reading again.How it differs from the F-22,etc.

Let's wait for a definitive official statement before the FGFA deal is either resolved or scuttled.Either way,it is not going to happen immediately and will have to wait for the new dispensation to settle in and the new DM to review the entire issues pending in the MOD from the era of AKA and establish the priority decisions to be taken.

The two issues,5th-gen stealth acquisition/dev and the MMRCA requirement should be viewed separately for solutions.A 4++ aircraft however sophisticated will suffer when pitted against far less observable stealth birds.The Rafale cannot replace a 5th-gen bird either from east or west.Plus,the Rafale's costs are also prohibitive.The IAF should look/be forced to look for Plan B options even with the MMRCA if the Raffy's costs remain on an upward spiral.

[Cain Marko]

I rarely drink vodka! Therefore can't be seduced like the Kiev chickens. I'm all for "Scottish" independence though! By the way the West End in BLR has a fine bottle of Amrut's Fusion single malt in the bar (it's evaporating fast).Our very own desi world-beater.

Pity, now you can only be called a Russophile - a demotion from the earlier forum status of covert Putin agent

Let's see what the new dispensation makes of the FGFA JV deal.If the IAF is unhappy ("may be looking for alternatives") with aspects ,it should seek to resolve the issues first ,having gone down the road thus far. There is a huge Rafale lobby (fine aircraft,exorbitant price) at work,where Reliance is reportedly Dassault's partner in India.The Q is if we dump the T-50/FGFA we are left with nothing in the basket as far as stealth aircraft are concerned. Pl. don't suggest the JSF,which has no room left in the design for any Indian specific requirements,already rejected by the MOD/IAF. Given that the Chinese will field their stealth bird by the end of the decade,we will be at a considerable disadvantage,with the AMCA as of now existing only on paper.Plus the unknown quantity,the "engine factor" for that bird.Where will it arrive from and at what cost ,when firang manufacturers know that we are up the creek without any alternative stealth paddle?

Coming back to the FGFA/T-50.It is true that the initial version expected in Russian service 2016 will fly with an improved engine that is used by the MKIs.If the engine is such a clanker ("not all that appealing"),why has there been silence all these years about its performance ? The definitive version will appear so the Russian say before the end of the decade,well in time for our definitive version to be pefected.One would wish that specific parameters/details like TtoW ratio,etc.,were mentioned,so that comparisons could be made with other western engines.The Russians appear to be working upon a strategy which ensures max success,least failure to meet deadlines,instead of trying to reach "a bridge/bird too far".The initial avatar while not possessing the "full Monty" or rather "full Muscovy", will in stages be improved just as has been done with the Flanker variants leading to the "Super Sukhoi" avatar.Several components of the T-50 have already been tested on the SU-35.This has cut down testing time on the first prototypes.The Russian birds also use more titanium for strength,while we apparently want more composites,part of the 40+ improvements/requirements on our version.The experience of the JSF where weight problems were "fixed" by cutting down on composite specs and strength has backfired,with more components failing in tests.The trade-off is a very fine one.How we will be able to achieve it with our limited testing labs (poor engine testing facilities too) is a moot Q.The AWST Sweetman MAKS report on the design philosophy of the T-50 is worth reading again.How it differs from the F-22,etc.

Let's wait for a definitive official statement before the FGFA deal is either resolved or scuttled.Either way,it is not going to happen immediately and will have to wait for the new dispensation to settle in and the new DM to review the entire issues pending in the MOD from the era of AKA and establish the priority decisions to be taken.

The two issues,5th-gen stealth acquisition/dev and the MMRCA requirement should be viewed separately for solutions.A 4++ aircraft however sophisticated will suffer when pitted against far less observable stealth birds.The Rafale cannot replace a 5th-gen bird either from east or west.Plus,the Rafale's costs are also prohibitive.The IAF should look/be forced to look for Plan B options even with the MMRCA if the Raffy's costs remain on an upward spiral.

One doubts the Pakfa will be dropped (one also wonders at the wisdom of such a decision). Naah, if they could salvage the Gorshkov, I doubt they'll let the Pakfa drop, least of all with a more hawkish GOI on the cards, what with all the promises of being more security conscious and all. We'll probably wind up seeing a few direct purchases of the russian version though - and I don't think this would be an entirely bad thing. FGFA will be more like an MKI, which we are producing up to 70% of as of today, however, with a greater input in various aspects. 5 gen birds don't come cheap after all. The powers that be are probably well aware that they will have a much bigger say with the Roosies than anybody else (read JSF). Not as much as we'd like, but some nevertheless.

The road ahead lies with the AMCA and the Kaveri. The pakfa/fgfa will come - little to doubt that, but may India not buy a single fighter from abroad thereafter, TOT-JV shenanigans notwithstanding!

[Karan M]

I rarely drink vodka! Therefore can't be seduced like the Kiev chickens. I'm all for "Scottish" independence though! By the way the West End in BLR has a fine bottle of Amrut's Fusion single malt in the bar (it's evaporating fast).Our very own desi world-beater..

Ah, thanks for the tip. Been hunting around for that a long time.

[Cosmo_R]

Thanks but no thanks.

Sanction proof a/c please.

Sanctions on one hand and non-delivery on the other. AMCA is the way to go but the real hurdle will be the engine.

Of course, the F-136 is not gonna happen. But if we are going to put GE414s in several hundred LCAs, I don't see how that is sanction proof. What am I missing?

[vishvak]

What am I missing?

The missing part is how independent "leftist" orgs in western countries are silent when entire fighter jets, are bought by terrorist state of pakis probably bankrolled by Saudis.

Entire outrage routine, quick considerations by government authorities, international propaganda and brouhaha as well as eventual ban of sales to terrorist pakis is missing as well.

[member_23694]

That the russkis have, can and will produce a very competitive 5 gen bird, with all due respect to the raptor and lightning, is hardly disputable. They have produced western beaters numerous times in the past.

and then they went bankrupt. And so now they have started the term joint design and development with India where India pays billions of $, Russia does all the design and development and keep the IPR and finally HAL does the so called complete aircraft manufacturing with the
critical raw materials and kits sourced from Russia.
Brahmos, they are not going to induct even for tokenism sake. 270+ Su 30 MKI from India ultimately led to the development of Su-35 which Russia is very much ready to sell to China even though they want only 48 in number which will ultimately help the Chinese in their own fighter development program.
This time my request would be to let Russia develop the final variant of PAK-FA with no fund's from India. Once the final version with all the mentioned 5th gen system in place, then if IAF likes the product then we purchase off the shelf / local assembly the required number of MKIsed version.
Till then Rafale and Su-30 takes care of our requirement.

Equally obvious is that the future for India is indigenous products.

I will be really convinced about the AMCA and its future if DRDO flies the AURA UCAV by 2018 with performance comparable to the nEURON and others. The available Kaveri engine is sufficient for it and this will also provide DRDO to showcase its capability in terms of Stealth design and other 5th gen stuff. Till then talking about AMCA and other 5th gen stuff in the very near future is like someone saying that Pakistan will launch a GSLV kind of rocket by 2020.

Thanks but no thanks.

Sanction proof a/c please.

A lot has been said about having 200-400 LCA's for IAF all with GE engine. Will it not get affected if US decides to impose sanction or it activates some kind of mystery stuff which could impact the performance of the engine

[NRao]

OMG:

despite Shukla and Rao sahabs insistence

Elevated? In such august company?

However, here is my view:

* The F-35 is the best out there, bar none
* The F-35 is not well understood: a normal feature in quantum leaps, nothing surprising
* However, a great part of the problem is "people" do not conduct basic research and the internet does not lean towards good stewardship

* *not* a good fit for India (IMVHO). But up to India

That the russkis have, can and will produce a very competitive 5 gen bird, with all due respect to the raptor and lightning, is hardly disputable. They have produced western beaters numerous times in the past.

I used to subscribe to that thinking too, but since viewing the 18 or so UT vids on Soviet efforts I am not sure any more.

However, based on what is out there, I am fairly confident that the Russians will not match the F-35 for some time - if they do.

I would also take what the IAF has to say very, very seriously. I do not think it has anything to do with moving the funds to the Rafale.

IMHO of course. And, not my intent to burst a few arteries. Peace.

Now back to my Bihag {Bandish: Mohe Jane de, pyari}

[Philip]

Karan,Amrut have 5 expressions of their world-beater.I was invited to a pvt. tasting by them,but unfortunately couldn't make it as was travelling abroad.More's the pity.If I get my hands on some will let you know.

I think enough "basic research" whatever has been done to show the facts of the matter-problems with the programme and true capabilities of the aircraft,views expressed by those at the top in the US military about the JSF."Irrelevant without the F-22".Never meant to be an air-superiority fighter ,inferior to current 4th-gen adversaries,performance standards lowered so that it can limp through the testing regime,new component failures,cracks,etc.,faster than anticipated.Puny missile armament carried,etc."

It sums it up nicely.If only the Americans who have the best information on the bird,oops! Now called a "Dog",what an insult to the canine race,have as much confidence as some of our optimists,all will be well.

[Viv S]

That India doesnt yet trust the US on critical hardware is also amply clear, simply no interest in jsf (despite Shukla and Rao sahabs insistence) or even MRCA.

I would argue that the P-8I purchase was just as critical.

To add to which not only the Tejas, but the P-17/P-17A class frigates and the INS Vikrant are being/to be powered by GE engines. For all means and purposes, the Indian establishment doesn't not appear to be worried about sanctions. I would think it highly unlikely that anyone in the US govt has contemplated the possibility of sanctions in the near or even distant future.

That the Indo-russki relationship is considerably rocky now as compared to the past which includes a lot of bait/switching by the roosies also is quite obvious (despite Philip guru's inordinate love for vodka)

The trouble here is not the PAK FA its the so-called FGFA. Its increasingly becoming obvious that there's no viable 'joint venture' here and we're talking only of a repackaged PAK FA (and damn expensive packaging at that).

The IAF needs a fifth generation fighter and that's fine. The normal way to negotiate a good deal would be to run a competition, or at minimum have an open channel with at least two parties. Its taking Russophilia to astonishing levels that a good deal is defined as one where we first fork over a huge pile of cash and then wait for the vendor to quote a price.

[Viv S]

Let's see what the new dispensation makes of the FGFA JV deal.If the IAF is unhappy ("may be looking for alternatives") with aspects ,it should seek to resolve the issues first ,having gone down the road thus far.

The FGFA is PAK FA with a HAL label. How do you 'resolve' that issue?

There is a huge Rafale lobby (fine aircraft,exorbitant price) at work,where Reliance is reportedly Dassault's partner in India.The Q is if we dump the T-50/FGFA we are left with nothing in the basket as far as stealth aircraft are concerned. Pl. don't suggest the JSF,which has no room left in the design for any Indian specific requirements,already rejected by the MOD/IAF.

What are these 'India specific requirements' and how are they catered to in the PAK FA/FGFA?

The definitive version will appear so the Russian say before the end of the decade,well in time for our definitive version to be pefected.One would wish that specific parameters/details like TtoW ratio,etc.,were mentioned,so that comparisons could be made with other western engines.The Russian birds also use more titanium for strength,while we apparently want more composites,part of the 40+ improvements/requirements on our version.

Philip, the 40+ improvements were recommended by the IAF after a analysis of a PAK FA prototype. Its has nothing to with a distinctive FGFA. Think about it. If an 'improvement' is developed for the aircraft, why would the Russians not incorporate it on their own (plain vanilla) PAK FA? And having incorporated it, what is the difference that remains between the two variants?

The experience of the JSF where weight problems were "fixed" by cutting down on composite specs and strength has backfired,with more components failing in tests.The trade-off is a very fine one.How we will be able to achieve it with our limited testing labs (poor engine testing facilities too) is a moot Q.The AWST Sweetman MAKS report on the design philosophy of the T-50 is worth reading again.How it differs from the F-22,etc.

That's almost entirely wrong. The weight problems relate mostly to STOVL variant, which were fixed by a range of optimizations. Also, composites on the F-35 are employed mostly for the surface and NOT for internal load bearing components. See here and here.

The two issues,5th-gen stealth acquisition/dev and the MMRCA requirement should be viewed separately for solutions.A 4++ aircraft however sophisticated will suffer when pitted against far less observable stealth birds.The Rafale cannot replace a 5th-gen bird either from east or west.Plus,the Rafale's costs are also prohibitive.The IAF should look/be forced to look for Plan B options even with the MMRCA if the Raffy's costs remain on an upward spiral.

On a similar note, one would also like to know where the PAK FA's costs currently stand.

[abhik]

The IAF needs a fifth generation fighter and that's fine. ..

Why does the IAF need a fifth generation fighter? What purpose or role will it serve? The PAK-FA and the JSF are two different types of fighters, one is designed to maximize Air to Air performance and the other is meant for Strike. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But one cannot replace the other. THough IMO the real threat to the PAK-FA/FGFA is the Rafale not the JSF, at the end of the day we will not be able to afford 2 atrociously expensive fighters at the same time.

[Viv S]

Why does the IAF need a fifth generation fighter? What purpose or role will it serve?

Purpose: Force multiplier, Strike/Sweep in contested airspace, SEAD, DEAD, EW support, Deep strike, Anti-AWACS, Deep SIGINT/IMINT.

The PAK-FA and the JSF are two different types of fighters, one is designed to maximize Air to Air performance and the other is meant for Strike. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But one cannot replace the other. THough IMO the real threat to the PAK-FA/FGFA is the Rafale not the JSF, at the end of the day we will not be able to afford 2 atrociously expensive fighters at the same time.

That implies either the RuAF will not be able to carry out strike or USN/NATO/Israel will not be able to establish air superiority.

Fact is, they're both multi-role aircraft capable of carrying out the entire spectrum of air operations. One is larger & faster while the other is stealthier & more sophisticated. One relies on lower domestic prices to keep costs low while the other relies on ordering in bulk.

I'm betting on the latter, but let the IAF & MoD evaluate both and then make an informed choice. The MMRCA & FGFA JV deserve to be cancelled in either case.

[NRao]

That India doesnt yet trust the US on critical hardware is also amply clear, simply no interest in jsf (despite Shukla and Rao sahabs insistence) or even MRCA.

My understanding was that the Russians were told to keep out of the MMRCA competition. No?

On sanctions:

* IF there is a pro-India "lobby" in the US, it is the Pentagon. And, IF there is an anti-India "lobby" in the US it is the State
* I would think a simple travel advisory would be easier to implement (post it on a web site) and far more effective than to impose a full-fledged set of sanctions


However, coming back to the FGFA topic. Where do matters stand - as of today? Any idea/s? Is India going to sanction the $6 billion? And, if so, what will it accomplish?

[NRao]

The Q is if we dump the T-50/FGFA we are left with nothing in the basket as far as stealth aircraft are concerned.

I am beginning to wonder what exactly is a 5th Gen plane as far as the Russians are concerned and then what is that India expects out of it. Is it just the normal super cruise, low observable, etc, etc, etc?

Pl. don't suggest the JSF,which has no room left in the design for any Indian specific requirements,already rejected by the MOD/IAF.

Did IAF make a statement on this? MoD did - they said we are involved with one and therefore have no need for another. So, if that "one" evaporates then would the MoD consider the other?






I think, as far as the PAK-FA is concerned, India should get rid of this "5th Gen" mentality, stop any more MKI production and replace the remaining MKI expected to be inducted with a plain, simple PAK-FA. Now, if the PAK-FA has some "5th Gen" features, so be it - bonus. Else the IAF at least has a plane that is a better than a MKI on hand.

Thoughts?

[abhik]

Why does the IAF need a fifth generation fighter? What purpose or role will it serve?

Purpose: Force multiplier, Strike/Sweep in contested airspace, SEAD, DEAD, EW support, Deep strike, Anti-AWACS, Deep SIGINT/IMINT.

How do you know? Any sources?

The PAK-FA and the JSF are two different types of fighters, one is designed to maximize Air to Air performance and the other is meant for Strike. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But one cannot replace the other. THough IMO the real threat to the PAK-FA/FGFA is the Rafale not the JSF, at the end of the day we will not be able to afford 2 atrociously expensive fighters at the same time.

That implies either the RuAF will not be able to carry out strike or USN/NATO/Israel will not be able to establish air superiority.

They are both capable of Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground missions, but that doesn't mean that they are both optimised for those roles.

Fact is, they're both multi-role aircraft capable of carrying out the entire spectrum of air operations. One is larger & faster while the other is stealthier & more sophisticated.

Would you say the F-35 would beat the F-22 in Air to Air combat?

One relies on lower domestic prices to keep costs low while the other relies on ordering in bulk.

BTW I don't think the Russian stuff is significantly cheaper than Western, they usually cost less because of their lower quality.

[member_23694]

Viv S wrote:
abhik wrote:
Why does the IAF need a fifth generation fighter? What purpose or role will it serve?

Purpose: Force multiplier, Strike/Sweep in contested airspace, SEAD, DEAD, EW support, Deep strike, Anti-AWACS, Deep SIGINT/IMINT.
How do you know? Any sources?

I really like such questions but this time isn't it taking too far ? What else a 5th gen fighter is expected to do with Its stealth, advanced EW suite, internal weapon load etc.

[NRao]

BTW I don't think the Russian stuff is significantly cheaper than Western, they usually cost less because of their lower quality.

MKI is sitting at a cool $70 million.

And the FGFA was around $100 million, the last time I checked. I bet it will come in around $120-130 million, when all is said an done.

[Viv S]

Purpose: Force multiplier, Strike/Sweep in contested airspace, SEAD, DEAD, EW support, Deep strike, Anti-AWACS, Deep SIGINT/IMINT.

How do you know? Any sources?

Force Multiplier/Sweep: From records/reports from training exercises. Mixing in just a few F-22s with F-15/16 equipped 'Blue Forces' enabled very lopsided results against numerically superior 'Red Forces'. Can loiter in the area like a VLO AEW&C cum ELINT aircraft even after expending its missile load. Strong force multiplier effect.

SEAD/DEAD, Deep Strike etc: High threat missions unsuitable for older gen aircraft.

Overall what you need is a hybrid of the F-22 and an updated F-117.

Whether its the F-35 or PAK FA, it'll be operated the same way by the IAF, as it would by the Russian or Israeli air forces. The Chinese and Americans operate two types of aircraft so can afford to dedicate aircraft independently to air dominance & strike roles (though the US is limited by a rather small F-22 fleet). In India, it'll be a while before the AMCA enters the picture so the aircraft acquired will have to shoulder both loads.

That implies either the RuAF will not be able to carry out strike or USN/NATO/Israel will not be able to establish air superiority.

They are both capable of Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground missions, but that doesn't mean that they are both optimised for those roles.

Well, keep in mind the fact that the F-35A is first and foremost an F-16 replacement. Now, was the F-16 primarily a strike or air superiority aircraft? Ans: both or neither, depending on whether you're a glass half-full or glass half-empty person.

The Greeks used the F-16 for strike while Mirages flew top cover. Similarly, Israeli F-16s when employed in a strike role had F-15s flying top cover (eg. Osirak strike). On the other hand, the South Koreans employed the F-16s for top cover while the F-4Es flew strike. Same for Italian Air Force albeit briefly (F-16/Tornado).

Others like the Dutch, Norwegians, Belgian, Turks etc used the F-16 for both.

(Also, what of the F-15C. Air superiority design? But then the F-15E Strike Eagle shares the same platform.)

Fact is, they're both multi-role aircraft capable of carrying out the entire spectrum of air operations. One is larger & faster while the other is stealthier & more sophisticated.

Would you say the F-35 would beat the F-22 in Air to Air combat?

WVR yes. BVR no. Overall no. (Won't rule out the F-35 entirely - it too is a VLO design but also fields the EOTS, DAS and likely a newer EW suite. Also cheaper to buy & fly and easier to maintain.)

And if the PAK FA were a true equivalent to the F-22, I'd have said the same thing about the result against the PAK FA as well.

BTW I don't think the Russian stuff is significantly cheaper than Western, they usually cost less because of their lower quality.

There's that and the tendency to treat the terms of a contract as 'suggestions' rather than binding directives.

[abhik]

Viv S wrote:
abhik wrote:
Why does the IAF need a fifth generation fighter? What purpose or role will it serve?

Purpose: Force multiplier, Strike/Sweep in contested airspace, SEAD, DEAD, EW support, Deep strike, Anti-AWACS, Deep SIGINT/IMINT.
How do you know? Any sources?

I really like such questions but this time isn't it taking too far ? What else a 5th gen fighter is expected to do with Its stealth, advanced EW suite, internal weapon load etc.

Its a valid question. No one 5th gen fighter does all those jobs optimally. If the IAF was looking for something to spearhead it Air-to-Air operations than the F-35 would be a poor choice(or replacement for the FGFA/PAK-FA). On the other hand if it is looking for a medium strike fighter then the F-35 would be the better choice. The notion that any one fighter will fulfill *all* the roles optimally is simply wrong. The F-35 and PAK-FA are disparate designs and I don't see how one is a replacement for another, unless it just some fad.

[NRao]

China is changing?

Problems with China's J-20 stealth fighter admitted

Now, why is it that the Chinese face issues that even the LCA did not seem to face?

[abhik]

How do you know? Any sources?

Force Multiplier/Sweep: From records/reports from training exercises. Mixing in just a few F-22s with F-15/16 equipped 'Blue Forces' enabled very lopsided results against numerically superior 'Red Forces'. Can loiter in the area like a VLO AEW&C cum ELINT aircraft even after expending its missile load. Strong force multiplier effect.

SEAD/DEAD, Deep Strike etc: High threat missions unsuitable for older gen aircraft.

Overall what you need is a hybrid of the F-22 and an updated F-117.

Sorry, I meant that is the above you sepeculation/inference/view or the IAF's? The F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA have all made compramises along the way. So exactly on which areas is the IAF ready to compromise on which areas is it not going to?

Whether its the F-35 or PAK FA, it'll be operated the same way by the IAF, as it would by the Russian or Israeli air forces. The Chinese and Americans operate two types of aircraft so can afford to dedicate aircraft independently to air dominance & strike roles (though the US is limited by a rather small F-22 fleet). In India, it'll be a while before the AMCA enters the picture so the aircraft acquired will have to shoulder both loads.

That is just not true. While most countries can afford only one kind of fighter and the Chinese and the americans two, we on the other hand will be procuring 3 different fighters (LCA, Rafale, FGFA) at the same time. While some western countries will have to buy the f-35 because they have no other choise, but we do.

Well, keep in mind the fact that the F-35A is first and foremost an F-16 replacement. Now, was the F-16 primarily a strike or air superiority aircraft? Ans: both or neither, depending on whether you're a glass half-full or glass half-empty person.

The F-35 being a replacemet for the F-16 does not nessesaryly mean that it it simply a next generation F-16. the JSF was consived at a time when the USA had no real conventional threats

(Also, what of the F-15C. Air superiority design? But then the F-15E Strike Eagle shares the same platform.)

The F-15E was a replacement for the F-111, and required a heavier and larger airframe than the F-16.

Would you say the F-35 would beat the F-22 in Air to Air combat?

WVR yes. BVR no. Overall no. (Won't rule out the F-35 entirely - it too is a VLO design but also fields the EOTS, DAS and likely a newer EW suite. Also cheaper to buy & fly and easier to maintain.)

And if the PAK FA were a true equivalent to the F-22, I'd have said the same thing about the result against the PAK FA as well.

If it is an overall no then I do not see how one is a replacement for the other. Any choice would completely depend on what roles the user wants to fulfill.

[NRao]

http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighte ... 33001.aspx says cost of a unit PAK-FA is $30 million.

Wiki says PAK-FA $50 million.

Wiki says FGFA will be $100 million



And, the MKI - today - is at $70 million.


So, if the PAK-FA is as good as a F-22 and may be even better than a F-35, then why is India spending funds on a silly MKI? Get the PAK-FA, even at $50 mil it is a far better deal.

The FGFA seems to not worth it at that cost.

[Cain Marko]

and then they went bankrupt. And so now they have started the term joint design and development with India where India pays billions of $, Russia does all the design and development and keep the IPR and finally HAL does the so called complete aircraft manufacturing with the critical raw materials and kits sourced from Russia.

Indian decision makers (and this includes everybody from the MOD babus, scientists to IAF personnel) must be totally clueless (which I doubt they are) to not be able to catch such a lopsided deal - either that or they are actually getting something from it. Take your pick.

Brahmos, they are not going to induct even for tokenism sake.

Why should they? Simply because they signed a JV does not mean that they buy something they don't need. It is ridiculous to expect them to do so. Look at it purely from India's pov - they get a worldclass weapon and insights into its design/development as well. If it is a matter of reducing costs, Russia will have to buy far more than a token number, which they simply don't need.

Su 30 MKI from India ultimately led to the development of Su-35 which Russia is very much ready to sell to China even though they want only 48 in number which will ultimately help the Chinese in their own fighter development program.

So? How is this unfair? India gets a superb aircraft that is superior to all other possible candidates (read Mirage 2000) at a fraction of the cost, with lots of control over its development. But it aggravates folks if Russia if Russia gains something from it?

This time my request would be to let Russia develop the final variant of PAK-FA with no fund's from India. Once the final version with all the mentioned 5th gen system in place, then if IAF likes the product then we purchase off the shelf / local assembly the required number of MKIsed version. Till then Rafale and Su-30 takes care of our requirement.

I don't entirely disagree here, only will mention that the advantages of the JV might be more hidden and not easily apparent. E.g. while the aero design on the Pakfa is complete, the avionics and weapons/sensor integration can involve India in a big way. In a 5gen bird, this is often the most complicated piece, and could help India in terms of the AMCA

I will be really convinced about the AMCA and its future if DRDO flies the AURA UCAV by 2018 with performance comparable to the nEURON and others. The available Kaveri engine is sufficient for it and this will also provide DRDO to showcase its capability in terms of Stealth design and other 5th gen stuff. Till then talking about AMCA and other 5th gen stuff in the very near future is like someone saying that Pakistan will launch a GSLV kind of rocket by 2020.

Where is the connection between a UCAV and a 5gen fighter? I don't see china flying UCAVs but has 2 5Gen designs already, ditto with Russia, ditto with America before it got all the reapers it was flying the F22. Wherefrom this rule that requires a UCAV before a 5gen fighter?

This will probably be my last reply to an argument(s) that are needless and quite besides the point.

[Cain Marko]

OMG:
Elevated? In such august company?

However, here is my view:

* The F-35 is the best out there, bar none
* The F-35 is not well understood: a normal feature in quantum leaps, nothing surprising
* However, a great part of the problem is "people" do not conduct basic research and the internet does not lean towards good stewardship

* *not* a good fit for India (IMVHO). But up to India

any data points as to how the F-35 is such a world beater (bar none) incorporating "quantum leaps" that other designs do not/could not incorporate. When it comes to basic flight characteristics at least, the bird is quite handsomely beaten by 4.5 gen birds, let alone a Pakfa.

I would also take what the IAF has to say very, very seriously. I do not think it has anything to do with moving the funds to the Rafale.

Oh but we do take the IAF seriously; one report here and there, and that too by the JSF's grand proponent (Shukla) hardly makes a sound case. In fact, we should take the IN seriously too - especially when one former CNS was decidedly pissed at the Russians and was all about going it alone wrt SSN/BNs not too long ago. Same person after the Sindhurakshak disaster suggests we lease a few kilos from the Russians! And of course, there remains the distinct possibility of another Akula.

There is a very strong factor that is associated with the Russians, which is singularly their domain, and makes them too attractive to pass up - their hardware is cheap and effective, and they are willing to sell technology which others will not. Of course, between the merry conception and actual delivery are plenty of twists and turns. But still, the above USP is hard to look away from.

[Viv S]

Sorry, I meant that is the above you sepeculation/inference/view or the IAF's? The F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA have all made compramises along the way. So exactly on which areas is the IAF ready to compromise on which areas is it not going to?

Whichever aircraft the IAF goes for, it'll HAVE to perform an entire range of missions from air superiority to deep strike. That's a fact, hardly speculative.

Whether its the F-35 or PAK FA, it'll be operated the same way by the IAF, as it would by the Russian or Israeli air forces. The Chinese and Americans operate two types of aircraft so can afford to dedicate aircraft independently to air dominance & strike roles (though the US is limited by a rather small F-22 fleet). In India, it'll be a while before the AMCA enters the picture so the aircraft acquired will have to shoulder both loads.

That is just not true. While most countries can afford only one kind of fighter and the Chinese and the americans two, we on the other hand will be procuring 3 different fighters (LCA, Rafale, FGFA) at the same time. While some western countries will have to buy the f-35 because they have no other choise, but we do.

The LCA, Rafale or Su-30MKI do not incorporate any significant degree of stealth. You can't expect any of them to dominate air combat or carry out SEAD/Strike missions the same way as a VLO aircraft would. More so against an opposition fielding significant numbers of stealthy aircraft.

The F-15E was a replacement for the F-111, and required a heavier and larger airframe than the F-16.

Exactly. The F-15C provided air cover to strike role F-16s, while the F-15E based on the same platform is being employed for strike. Similarly, an F-35A will perform whatever role is required of it.

If it is an overall no then I do not see how one is a replacement for the other. Any choice would completely depend on what roles the user wants to fulfill.

Again, there is this myth going around that since the Russians are calling it an F-22 analogue, its equal to the F-22.

Instead of looking at the label, lets instead examine the capability by examining every role. SEAD/DEAD, Strike, CAS, EW & Recon is a cinch for the F-35. EOTS, DAS, EWS & SDB.

Lets come over to the Air Superiority, Escort & Interception.

As far as air superiority is concerned, the F-35 has an RCS that's lower by a magnitude. It features a better EW/ESM suite and a comparable payload but likely composed of superior munitions (Meteor, Aim-120D, Aim-9X, CUDA), though some sources claim that the PAK FA will carry two extra SRAAMs in sidebays. And while at one time I assumed that the PAK FA's radar would easily out-range the APG-81, recent news appears to contradict that (well over 1600 TRMs on the APG-81). The PAK FA's advantage is that it'll enter combat in a superior energy state and recover it faster. Nevertheless, the F-35 will retain the first-look-first-shoot capability against the PAK FA in nearly all situations.

Within visual range, the DAS-HMDS-Aim-9X combination will dominate any adversary including the F-22.

Similar conditions for escort. The F-35 pilot will always have better situational awareness and the first shot advantage.

Now a interception is certainly one mission that I'll admit the PAK FA will do better. It'll take off faster, climb faster and enter the combat/interception zone quicker. Particularly useful in an anti-cruise missile role.

The PAK FA makes sense if the interceptor role dominates every other mission performed by an air force. It was, for example extremely important to the NATO during the middle phase of the Cold War where Soviet bombers were seen as the primary threat to western land bases & carrier groups. However, I expect I'd expect the IAF to have a broader range of concerns.

[Cain Marko]

I would argue that the P-8I purchase was just as critical.To add to which not only the Tejas, but the P-17/P-17A class frigates and the INS Vikrant are being/to be powered by GE engines. For all means and purposes, the Indian establishment doesn't not appear to be worried about sanctions. I would think it highly unlikely that anyone in the US govt has contemplated the possibility of sanctions in the near or even distant future.

Here is a thought: You will notice that the above purchases are quite carefully thought through - the P8i is based on possibly the most sold (easily available spares - hardly sanctionable) airliner in the world, the 737-800. As far as ship engines are concerned, iirc, the MTBO figure is pretty high to begin with - 20-30K hours? In any case, it takes one atomic test for US law to go into effect, and all the EULA clauses/fine print do make Indians a bit weary. Nevertheless, one has to realize that things have warmed up since POKII although recent issues suggest that they are not as cozy as once thought.

The trouble here is not the PAK FA its the so-called FGFA. Its increasingly becoming obvious that there's no viable 'joint venture' here and we're talking only of a repackaged PAK FA (and damn expensive packaging at that).

And how expensive is that altogether? Any ideas? 200 odd birds with some control and input included (much more than say a JSF or even a Rafale/Typhoon) for estimated $ 30 billion (last I checked). Not too much considering the costs of the Rafale, Tiffy or a JSF. I'd say that it is still too early to write off the FGFA, wait another 25 painful years before truly judging it.

The IAF needs a fifth generation fighter and that's fine. The normal way to negotiate a good deal would be to run a competition, or at minimum have an open channel with at least two parties. Its taking Russophilia to astonishing levels that a good deal is defined as one where we first fork over a huge pile of cash and then wait for the vendor to quote a price.

Yes, but this is not completely a commercial deal, and there is no "normal" way to run it. The only other option is the JSF, and that hardly seemed/seems like an option at all. As in the past, and presently, the establishment is very cagey about the US. And the price would not be anything to sneeze at either, Lawd knows even the Super Hornet might be too expensive for India.

In case of Pakfa/FGFA, India will at least get a whiff of design/development as per what HAL bosses have said, small as the share might be. Yes it will be painfully done, but there will be much to learn, and of course, this will be in addition to getting very effective flying machines. If this was not the case, and Russian purchases were as lopsided as some suggest, why even bother with developing further products with them? Why for example, do we need to develop a hypersonic brahmos? or a Brahmos M?

The Indo-Russki relationship is such that there will be always some wrangling, hairpulling, arm twisting etc., but overall, despite complaints, India will continue new product development with them, more so than most other nations. Why? a) Because despite everything, they are still the most affordable, and b) because they tend to offer technology that others simply don't have (Israel) or are unwilling to sell.

[NRao]

that other designs do not/could not incorporate

AL-55I?

Or the 40 improvements HAL made to the MKI to make it fly more efficiently?