PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2014 02:12

Austin wrote:
Viv S wrote:India's internal security budget is roughly Rs 60,000 crore. About 3.5% of the Union Budget.
Yes yet we have 4.6 % Budget Deficit ... Hope you see the point .....the key is to get a balanced budget or as low as deficit as possible the rest is all on how you spend and earn.

India is hardly a model example of an efficient economy. Until about 2008, Russia saw GDP growth of between 5-8%, ran budget surpluses and invested the proceeds in a stabilization budget (to hedge against falls in commodity prices). Since 2008, growth has been negligible, the stabilization fund has been almost halved (and continues to fall), govt spending is soaring and has come to be dominated by defence & security expenditure. If you think this new trend is sustainable we must agree to disagree.

I think you understand economics less than Defence

Come now don't spare my understanding of defence.

India like China has still growth potential so we will grow irrespective how deep dirt we stand today ...Russian economy are already advanced and it will grow slower ......so as long as the Oil/Gas price remains high ( and thats really not Russian only problem but also the entire Gulf ,Norway etc ) they would sail through... the only factor that remains when we have the next 2008 till then enjoy.

If the each country retains its current growth, China will match Russia's per capita GDP within a decade. They're not as far as apart as one might assume.

As for oil/gas prices remaining high, Venezuelan production is stagnating, Libya isn't back online yet, Iraq is still scaling up production and Iran remains under sanctions for the time being. (Unlike the Nigerian insurgency none of these are chronic issues.) Yet oil prices have fallen below $100/bl. Why?

The primary reason is the shale revolution in the US (oil imports have already fallen by 50%). China has the world's largest shale reserves and are building an industry to rival the US. With rising Canadian production forming the third leg, the effects are reverberating throughout the industry and oil market.

As the OPEC stabilizes and ramps up production, its basically a poor gamble to rely on continuing high oil prices. (Taxes on oil exports contribute to half the Russian federal budget)

Never Mind my last post on this we covered all topics except the one the thread belongs to may be Admin can clear it.

Its an interesting topic though yes it ought be discussed on a different thread.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 11 May 2014 08:16

How is it in our self interest to learn how to kill civilians more efficiently? How does the capability of killing millions with TN warheads instead of killing millions with boosted-fission warheads make our country safer?

At the peak of the Cold War, the USSR had nearly 40,000 nuclear warheads compared to less than 25,000 for the US. So did that make the Soviet 'more powerful' than the Americans?

This is OT but I feel constrained to respond.

There is a fallacy here. The U.S. with 25000 and USSR with 40000 had parity because their arsenals (in numbers and megatonnage) could destroy one another many times over.

In India's case, 100 odd weapons with a proven yield of 20 kt are insufficient to cause unacceptable damage to China, if the latter is willing to sacrifice 1% of its population in return for subjugating India. Given that Chairman Mao's regime itself decimated 5% of China's population, we have to assume the worst and proceed under the assumption that China could, in the future, find such a bargain acceptable.

In addition, China too is developing ABMs and other means to minimize the impact of a retaliatory nuclear strike. Therefore, India needs warheads of medium yield (200-300 kt) in sufficient quantity (several hundred) with the means of delivery (long range BMs / many with MIRVs, both land and sub- based), if we have to have the ability to deter PRC.

Whether boosted fission or TN, such a warhead needs to be demonstrated. Hence, a Pokhran 3 is an absolute necessity in the coming years. Given that sanctions will happen in any case, we may as well go in for a series of tests to perfect a TN warhead.

Not doing so would force us into a position of strategic inferiority w.r.t TSP-PRC combine. That combine, with more resources at its disposal, will be conventionally superior to us for the foreseeable future. A 1962 like ``lesson" can only be deterred by a credible deterrent.

One final worry: with NoKo testing unabated, it is a matter of time b4 TSP gets TNs with 200-300 kt yields. If we do not have matching if not better warheads, our deterrent will lose credibility in TSP minds.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2014 08:26

Ramdas ji,

Appropriate thread:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1642617

If you were to go to the start of that thread you should find arguments for and against what you say.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2014 09:01

NRao wrote:On balancing the budgets, Russia is one a very, very few nations that traditionally has balanced her budget and kept her external debt low. But that is not an indicator of good economic health.

Yes darn those Disciplined Fiscal and Monetary Policy and living within your means those Russia dont under simple Economics

Living on Debt thats much higher than your GDP n keep rising and Printing Money is the right way Forward

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2014 10:04

The pilots of fifth-generation fighters to wear a new helmet

Tomilino-based Research, Development & Production Enterprise "Zvezda" (NPP Zvezda) is developing a new helmet for pilots of T-50 fifth-generation fighter (PAK FA). NPP Zvezda has vast experience in developing protective gear for military pilots, ITAR-TASS reports with reference to Chief Designer of Su-35 f Igor Demin.

He also said that it is important to join all the efforts in the network of development of the new helmet. "We cannot separate development of systems, including information display system, from development of the helmet itself", - Demin stated.

The Chief Designer also noted that France and USA have been developing helmets this way for a long time. However, in Russia the work in these two areas is separated. According to Demin, NPP Zvezda must use the latest technical solutions in the area of “built-in” technologies developed over the last 15 years by national companies.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2014 10:08

The US is the most indebted nation on the planet and is trying to teach the rest of the world "latrine economics",aka "quantitative easing".It is so bankrupt that thanks to just one military programme,the trillion $$$ JSF,25% of its defence budget is going down the drain,affecting many other vital programmes.1/3rd of its black population have criminal records-thanks to racist prejudice,and it also has the world's largest prison population! Well,that's thanks to the NRA which has made the US the world's most unsafe nation on the planet with claims to have more handguns per person than its population.In 2007,it was 90 guns/100 people.
No wonder the yanquis want to invade the globe and try out their latest weapons! What a bunch of SOBs.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... yard-reac/

However,this is the FGFA td.,so let's get back on track shall we?

This may not have been posted earlier.Should be read and analysed along with AWST's "T-50's Flight control innovations" posted earlier.

PAK FA stealth features patent published
Piotr Butowski, Poland - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
09 January 2014

his profile view of the PAK FA illustrates the extensive shaping that has been done in an effort to reduce the usual radar-returning traps around the air intakes. Source: Sukhoi

Details of the Sukhoi Design Bureau's work on the stealthy aspects of the T-50 PAK FA fighter aircraft emerged in late December 2013, when the company's patents were published.

According to the patent paperwork, taken together, all of the stealthy measures offer significant improvements over legacy fighter designs. The papers claim that the radar cross-section (RCS) of an Su-27 was in the order of 10-15 m 2 , with the intention being to reduce the size of the RCS in the T-50 to an "average figure of 0.1-1 m 2 ".

In common with other low observable aircraft designs, this reduction is achieved through the use of radar-absorbing and radar-shielding materials and coatings, panel shaping (especially around the air intakes) and in the design of the junctions between moving elements, such as flaps and hatches.

In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers. It adds that the inlet guide vanes of the engines' compressors generate "a significant portion [up to 60%] of the radar cross-section of the airframe-powerplant system in the forward hemisphere" and that this is reduced by using radar-blocking devices and radar-absorbing coatings in the walls of the air ducts.

The shape of the airframe reduces the number of directions that radar signals are reflected in with the angles of sweep of the wings and the tail plane's leading and trailing edges, the edges of the air intakes and hatch covers being reduced and deflected from the aircraft's axis. Viewing the aircraft from the flank, the fuselage sides, lateral edges of the air intakes and vertical empennage are all deflected at the same angle.

Some openings and slots on the airframe's surface - such as the boundary-layer bleeds on the sides of the air intakes and the openings on the upper fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit - are covered with a thick grid, featuring a mesh of less than one quarter of the wavelength of a search radar, which reduces the reflections from these uneven surfaces. Gaps between the airframe elements are filled with conducting sealants, while the glazing of the cockpit canopy is metallised.

The surfaces of the PAK FA's own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to 'deflect' enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies. Additionally, the array compartments are edged with radar-absorbing 'curtains' to reduce possible leaks of these amplified signals.

Antennas are recessed from the surface of the skin to reduce protuberances (the vertical empennage serves as a communications antenna), while the turret of the aircraft's nose-mounted infrared search-and-track (IRST) sight is rotated backwards into a cruise position, exposing its rear hemisphere, which is covered with a radar-absorbing coating.

The release of this list of patents follows the July 2013 release of documentation covering the configuration of the fighter's integrated avionics suite.

There are currently five T-50 prototypes - the latest, T-50-5, first flew on 27 October 2013 - supporting the development programme and they are believed to have undertaken over 300 sorties to date.

In the 'Schedule of Activity for the Russian Ministry of Defence for 2013 to 2020' published in mid-2013, the PAK FA's Initial Operational Capability and the launch of full-scale series production is scheduled for 31 December 2016. The Russian National Armament Programme stipulates that 60 production PAK FA fighters will be delivered between 2016 and 2020.

The assembly of aircraft T-50-6-1 is nearing completion and three further aircraft (T-50-6-2, T-50-7 and T-50-8) are in build. One of the T-50-6 aircraft is intended for static trials and the other one is intended for flight testing.

(Sukhoi)The PAK FA's designers have paid close attention to stealthy features, which include the use of radar-absorbent coatings on the reverse of the nose-mounted IRST, the widespread use of baffles and the use of absorbent coatings in the air intakes and at the junctions between moving surfaces. (Sukhoi)

PS:The last para counters the assumption by some that the IRST sensor reduces the aircraft's stealth profile.The Jane's article shows how extensive efforts have been made to reduce the aircraft's RCS using innovative techniques.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2014 11:15

ramdas wrote:This is OT but I feel constrained to respond.

There is a fallacy here. The U.S. with 25000 and USSR with 40000 had parity because their arsenals (in numbers and megatonnage) could destroy one another many times over.

In India's case, 100 odd weapons with a proven yield of 20 kt are insufficient to cause unacceptable damage to China, if the latter is willing to sacrifice 1% of its population in return for subjugating India.

Who capped our nuclear program at 100 odd weapons?

Given that Chairman Mao's regime itself decimated 5% of China's population, we have to assume the worst and proceed under the assumption that China could, in the future, find such a bargain acceptable.

The Great Leap Forward led to millions of deaths but it was hardly designed to cause famines. More importantly, does the current Chinese government strike you as fanatical? It doesn't to me.

In addition, China too is developing ABMs and other means to minimize the impact of a retaliatory nuclear strike. Therefore, India needs warheads of medium yield (200-300 kt) in sufficient quantity (several hundred) with the means of delivery (long range BMs / many with MIRVs, both land and sub- based), if we have to have the ability to deter PRC.

See the basic premise here ^ is that the Chinese leadership is not comprised of rational human beings. That unlike 'normal' people they'd simply shrug off the potential death of millions if not dozens of millions of their citizens, the risk to their capital cities and all the progress they've painstakingly achieved through decades over... Tawang? Aksai Chin? Gilgit-Baltistan?

Not doing so would force us into a position of strategic inferiority w.r.t TSP-PRC combine. That combine, with more resources at its disposal, will be conventionally superior to us for the foreseeable future. A 1962 like ``lesson" can only be deterred by a credible deterrent.

Would 'strategic' parity or dominance allow us to 'win' a nuclear conflict. Is the other side thinking in terms of 'winning' a nuclear conflict?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 May 2014 11:17

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Anger in clinton and their media + and that albrite lady was real. It'd still be there no matter who is in charge. Actually you're projecting your own faith upon me.
I have faith that the US will do what is in its best interest. But faith is grounded in logic.

What logic? Not a single proof you have provided that there is change is US way of functioning. If that was the case they would have voluntarily scrapped EULA-EUMA as fresh beginnings. No the proofs are there in what they've been doing from Buddha smiling to Shakti-I and upto now. But all you've is fantasies that in future it won't happen.

Here I make a statement:

"That I am 100% sure in case Bharatvarsh tests nuclear weapons no matter what administration or president ruling the US they'll certainly put crippling sanctions agains us."

Why can't you make such a statement in case you've so logically gamed US response? Doesn't your logic have that much substance?
Have said it in dozens of posts. The US will not sanction India in the event we test quite simply because it can't afford to. And yes we'll see - but can you arrange a series of nuclear tests to settle this debate? (I can't )

It's like saying "its stupid to believe that we'll have another war with china since we haven't had a declared war with them since '62. Or stopping expanding the armed forces capabilities since we've not had a single war with porkis in last 10 years. And I have faith steeped in solid logic that porkis and cheenis have changed they want peace with Bharat."

Anyway let's agree that being in Bharat and Bharat's side I'll try to arrange series of tests, while you being more in touch with US will use your influence with white house - langley - state department to not put sanctions.

However let me ask you a question now - if you were the US govt and were faced with a new series of Indian tests what would you do? (Assume that you have no affiliation to India)

Yes they'll put not only much bigger sanctions, but also make more efforts to paint Bharat as the escalator.

Yes but lighter - smaller and more tested warheads will be in Bharat's self interests. We don't just have to make it look credible in world's eyes, but they have to be thoroughly tested and actually working in all sorts of conditions. Good that you brought up "Israeli nuclear arsenal as credible", no matter whether one agrees or not Dr. Santhanan the test scientist has raised a doubt on the fizzle of TN and some future PM and cabinet should have the right to test again to make Bharat safer.
How is it in our self interest to learn how to kill civilians more efficiently? How does the capability of killing millions with TN warheads instead of killing millions with boosted-fission warheads make our country safer?

Thanks for coming out of closet Viv S, so much for the mask of being a shubh-chintak. So according to you we shouldn't learn to make nukes as they'll be used to kill millions of porki and cheeni civilians? Hmmm, it doesn't matter that when cheeni and porki nukes hit us millions here die. And either we don't respond by hitting their millions or even if we do they fizzle out so your US' boyfriend porkis are unharmed. Wah kya baat hai? Perhaps you can suggest another huminatarian way of Bharat fighting nuke war. Maybe when Cheen-pork combo take out Delhi-mumbai-bangalore-chennai-kolkatta + 30 other cities using their nukes in return Bharat has to just send one missile in Gobi desert with a fission warhead exploding to make the point that we can also hit back. While there innocent civilians come to no harm while Bharat wounded mortally falls prey to marauding porkis and bangladeshis. I'm disgusted to see a Bharatiya stooping so low to just sell some US platforms.

Perhaps if you stretch your logic a bit more you will see that Bhartiya armed forces also shouldn't have good training and efficient weaponery to fight porki and cheeni soldiers as they're innocent and just following orders of likes of musharraf and CCP, let's think of there families too shouldn't we. That Bharatiya lives will get lost is just an irrelevent fact and they don't matter much in your perception.

At the peak of the Cold War, the USSR had nearly 40,000 nuclear warheads compared to less than 25,000 for the US. So did that make the Soviet 'more powerful' than the Americans?

USSR would have been nuked in 50s or 60s itself if they didn't have the nukes. Nuclear armed USSR was also vetoing every resolution US brought on kashmir against Bharat. And US was not able to invade nations at will like it does now.

Vajpayee declared moratorium immediately after second series of tests as Clinton was making all sorts of efforts to crush Bharatvarsh with snake tony blair working against us behind the scene. Shri Vajpayee had even written a personal secret letter to clinton that "our tests are not pakistan but china centric", and what did clinton do? He publicised the letter to whole world, china was inflamed. I remember how the communists and especially congi natwar lal had humiliated Vajpayee over writing that ridiculous letter. So much for US needing Bharat's help against china's rise. All false! The moratorium was a majboori for the time being.
The text of the letter.

First, while it controversially named China, the letter did not say that the test is 'not pakistan but china centric'.

Second, they had phones in 1998. And an actually confidential message would have been verbally conveyed through the Indian Ambassador.

"who wrote that ridiculous letter regarding china being enemy to US president" K Natwar had asked Vajpayee in Loksabha. "I don't think I have to answer such questions..." Vajpayee had said to the chair.

Third, the prediction of 'China's rise' (which was a long way off) hadn't gained currency at the time, so yes the US didn't need India to help contain China.

In '99 itself clinton had agreed that china will be a bigger economy than US by 2025 and after China Bharat will be in 15 years." I remember reading in Asian Age newspaper, I was in Pune at that time.

Anyway if not misruled Bharat also will be a bigger economy then US by 2040, so what does US plans to do to put a stop to Bharatvarsh? How does it plans to stem the growth and power of Bharat if I may ask?

BTW, I note that despite a vehement statement vis a vis the US ('Why buy from such an enemy supporter?'), you've maintained a studious silence on the issue of Russian military exports and technical assistance to China and the French lobbying in the matter of lifting of the EU arms embargo on China.

I've repeatedly abused russians over there misdeeds, here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/search ... mit=Search

I was also the first one to point out that by the 2025-30 the PAK-FA deal may raise in price from 30 billion dollars to 60 billions; and we'd be better off buying them off the shelf like MKIs. But later stopped saying it as I saw how the momentum was being made for selling f-35 to us by khan salesmen here and also how both Rafale and PAK-FA were being condemned with ulterior motive to later make a backdoor entry for f-35.

Also thats why I'm so happy to see somebody knowledgeable and honourable like brar_w who inspite of having deep knowledge of f-35 has made the satement honestly that Bharat better stick to PAK-FA and Rafale as they are good jets.

While I'm angry with Putin to china amurs - S400 - Su 35s, there is lot of compulsion for us to deal with Russkies. As they do help up by leasing Shucka-B, Arihant technical support or had leased us Charlie class too. The pathetic T-90 or Gorshkov I see as payoff to them for their helps in other spheres. Also sorry to blame everything under sun to US but Russia'd also help with longer range Brahmos - nuke warheads etc. but don't due to US objections. In case US was leasing us Seawolf and helping with tech in Arihant it'd be difficult to oppose them too.

My answers in red

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2014 11:45

Philip wrote:The US is the most indebted nation on the planet and is trying to teach the rest of the world "latrine economics",aka "quantitative easing".

US govt debt equals is about 100% of the GDP. Which is close to the OECD average.

It is so bankrupt that thanks to just one military programme,the trillion $$$ JSF,25% of its defence budget is going down the drain,affecting many other vital programmes.

And just where did that figure come from? Please don't make stuff up Philip.

The most pessimistic estimates put the cost at $1 trillion over the next 50 years. Total US defence spending over that period however will be at least $25 trillion. F-35 cost: less than 4% of the defence budget.

1/3rd of its black population have criminal records-thanks to racist prejudice, and it also has the world's largest prison population! Well,that's thanks to the NRA which has made the US the world's most unsafe nation on the planet with claims to have more handguns per person than its population.In 2007,it was 90 guns/100 people.
No wonder the yanquis want to invade the globe and try out their latest weapons! What a bunch of SOBs.

Message to BRFites based in the US: Run! Run! Run for your lives!

This may not have been posted earlier.Should be read and analysed along with AWST's "T-50's Flight control innovations" posted earlier.

It has (as usual) been posted before.

PS:The last para counters the assumption by some that the IRST sensor reduces the aircraft's stealth profile.The Jane's article shows how extensive efforts have been made to reduce the aircraft's RCS using innovative techniques.

'Extensive efforts'? RAM paint! :groan:

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2014 11:52

Yes,it is the most expensive fighter programme in history.Becoming unaffordable in large numbers-read the latest post in the JSF td. about the USN cutting orders by almost 50% for 2015,36 instead of 69.A trillion indeed for the whole programme.Lovely use of a lot of money that could be spent more meaningfully distributed amongst several defence programmes instead of on just one,which needs Growlers and F-22s otherwise it would be "irrelevant" according to a top US general,head of the USAF's air combat command.

http://blog.technoledge.com.au/2014/04/ ... -question/

‘If we don’t keep the F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant.’
That’s what US AIr Force General Hostage told the Air Force Times, and added: ‘The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.’ However, the US Congress stopped funding the F22 Raptor program in 2011. No F22s have been made since. The US air force has a small number of F22s, but its allies – Canada and Australia among them – have none and won’t get any, ever.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/russias-new-s ... 1474692127
Nice new camouflage clothes.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2014 12:09

Philip wrote:Yes,it is the most expensive fighter programme in history.Becoming unaffordable in large numbers-read the latest post in the JSF td. about the USN cutting orders by almost 50% for 2015,36 instead of 69.A trillion indeed for the whole programme.Lovely use of a lot of money that could be spent more meaningfully distributed amongst several defence programmes instead of on just one,which needs Growlers and F-22s otherwise it would be "irrelevant" according to a top US general,head of the USAF's air combat command.

http://blog.technoledge.com.au/2014/04/ ... -question/

‘If we don’t keep the F-22 Raptor viable, the F-35 fleet will be irrelevant.’
That’s what US AIr Force General Hostage told the Air Force Times, and added: ‘The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.’ However, the US Congress stopped funding the F22 Raptor program in 2011. No F22s have been made since. The US air force has a small number of F22s, but its allies – Canada and Australia among them – have none and won’t get any, ever.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/russias-new-s ... 1474692127
Nice new camouflage clothes.

What is the cost to and maintain and operate 2000+ PAKFA's for 50 years? including an estimation of inflation both economic and within the defense industry?

Also try to find the lifetime operating cost for 5 decades the F-16, F-18, F-18E/F, A-10 and Harrier fleet. Its most of the US tactical fighter budget over the last 50 years. Try to dig it up retrospectively.

1 trillion over 50 years comes to 20 billion per annum. Thats for 80% of the US tactical fighter fleet and comes to around 5% of the US defense budget (in line with historic figures), if the budget does not adjust itself for inflation. Also this estimate is so darn absurd that its been reduced from 1.4 to 1.2 and to 1 trillion. They have no freaking idea of the variables at play, and everything is an estimate of an estimate that is itself built on questionable assumptions. These attempts are nothing but an exercise to keep auditors and bean counters employed and should deserve no hard look. Some of the assumptions: Cost of jet fuel in the next 50 years. Cost of basing and program work for 50 years etc etc

Now some things to ponder about:

A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.
The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

and this:

Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.

Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/mari ... -than-osd/

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013 ... en-to.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-2 ... mates.html

Armed with this information, we find the per year cost of to operate and run 2000+ fighters to be around 15 billion US dollars as per the latest estimates (STILL a guess since inflation is an unknown entity, fuel cost is an unknown entity, and historical trends point to operating costs coming down over time). Like I mentioned, thats close to 80% of the entire US fighter fleet (not just the air force, but the Navy, Marine core and Reserves as well). If we are to assume that the US will not adjust its Defense budget and funding will remain at the SEQUESTER level (even if it does not adjust upwards for inflation) we get an average per year cost that is 2.5 % of the total DOD budget. A small change to operate a 2000+ strong 5th gen fleet No?

Now if you provide me the following statistics, i would be greatful.

* Annual cost to maintain and operate (all costs but procurement) a fleet of 2000+ Su-30MKI
* Annual cost to maintain and operate (all costs but procurement) 2000+ PAKFA/FGFA

There is some advantage of actually analysing a situation objectively. Its a tried and tested procedure to gain knowledge on a particular thing. Blindly posting random links without any background and context will likely convince few people.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 May 2014 12:22

Dhananjay wrote:What logic? Not a single proof you have provided that there is change is US way of functioning. If that was the case they would have voluntarily scrapped EULA-EUMA as fresh beginnings. No the proofs are there in what they've been doing from Buddha smiling to Shakti-I and upto now. But all you've is fantasies that in future it won't happen.

What change in US way of functioning? It'll do what is in its best interest. Hardly a change.

It's like saying "its stupid to believe that we'll have another war with china since we haven't had a declared war with them since '62. Or stopping expanding the armed forces capabilities since we've not had a single war with porkis in last 10 years. And I have faith steeped in solid logic that porkis and cheenis have changed they want peace with Bharat."

Carrying forward that same logic, the Russians haven't placed any sanctions on us but 'its stupid to believe' that they will refrain in the future. (Since we've descended to pure rhetoric).

I can only urge you to read more about US policy and rely less on your gut.

Anyway let's agree that being in Bharat and Bharat's side I'll try to arrange series of tests, while you being more in touch with US will use your influence with white house - langley - state department to not put sanctions.

Ahh... right so now you'd like to imply that I'm not based in India and my loyalties are elsewhere? Classy.

However let me ask you a question now - if you were the US govt and were faced with a new series of Indian tests what would you do? (Assume that you have no affiliation to India)
Yes they'll put not only much bigger sanctions, but also make more efforts to paint Bharat as the escalator.

Did you the misread the question or are you deliberately ducking it?

Thanks for coming out of closet Viv S, so much for the mask of being a shubh-chintak.

So according to you we shouldn't learn to make nukes as they'll be used to kill millions of porki and cheeni civilians?

Really? Is that what you understood from that part of the post?

Believe what you will, I'm not going to sit and explain the principle of deterrence. If you want to believe that nuclear weapons are warfighting tools, so be it.

While there innocent civilians come to no harm while Bharat wounded mortally falls prey to marauding porkis and bangladeshis. I'm disgusted to see a Bharatiya stooping so low to just sell some US platforms.

Yes, because BRF is where LM and Boeing come to sell weapons.

USSR would have been nuked in 50s or 60s itself if they didn't have the nukes. Nuclear armed USSR was also vetoing every resolution US brought on kashmir against Bharat. And US was not able to invade nations at will like it does now.

The Allies didn't have to stop at Germany in 1945, they could have irradiated most of the Soviet military and continued to Moscow. Fortunately the world is not run by psychopaths and the lobbing of nukes doesn't start in response to vetos on UN resolutions.

"who wrote that ridiculous letter regarding china being enemy to US president" K Natwar had asked Vajpayee in Loksabha. "I don't think I have to answer such questions..." Vajpayee had said to the chair.

You know what... I don't know.. I guess the CIA wrote it. It was a false flag operation. My bad.

In '99 itself clinton had agreed that china will be a bigger economy than US by 2025 and after China Bharat will be in 15 years." I remember reading in Asian Age newspaper, I was in Pune at that time.

I'd ordinarily ask for a link but in this case.. whatever you say.

Anyway if not misruled Bharat also will be a bigger economy then US by 2040, so what does US plans to do to put a stop to Bharatvarsh? How does it plans to stem the growth and power of Bharat if I may ask?

Naturally it'll pay me to achieve its nefarious goals through my subversive activities on BRF.

I've repeatedly abused russians over there misdeeds, here

I guess then the Russian having been duly chastised shall refrain from being 'naughty'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2014 17:49

Yes darn those Disciplined Fiscal and Monetary Policy and living within your means those Russia dont under simple Economics

Are they?

Stats (above) do not indicate that.

However, in principle I agree.

Living on Debt thats much higher than your GDP n keep rising and Printing Money is the right way Forward

Up to the nation (or even an individual). When planned and executed properly it can work very well.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2014 17:50

Coming back to the topic of FGFA, will this plane be able to face what the Chinese will field?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 May 2014 18:32

The range of PAK FA is 5500 km:

Sukhoi PAK FA

Engine types
Saturn AL-31
Saturn AL-41
Turbofan

Top speed
2,135 km/h

Length
20 m

Wingspan
14 m

Range
5,500 km

Weight
18,500 kg

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Engine
Pratt & Whitney F119

Top speed
2,410 km/h

Length
19 m

Wingspan
14 m

Range
2,960 km

Manufacturer
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

Weight
19,700 kg

http://goo.gl/zMkn2T

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 May 2014 18:40

Dhananjay wrote:The range of PAK FA is 5500 km:

Sukhoi PAK FA

Engine types
Saturn AL-31
Saturn AL-41
Turbofan

Top speed
2,135 km/h

Length
20 m

Wingspan
14 m

Range
5,500 km

Weight
18,500 kg

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Engine
Pratt & Whitney F119

Top speed
2,410 km/h

Length
19 m

Wingspan
14 m

Range
2,960 km

Manufacturer
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

Weight
19,700 kg

http://goo.gl/zMkn2T

Actual range of the f22 is classified still. Range also is mission dependent so no apples for apples comparison can be drawn. Secondly, range is a factor of requirement and not head--head capability. The f-22's range is a reflection of the USAF needs, while the PAK FA"s range is that of Russian needs. The F-22's range increase uses drop tanks (2) that can be let go once they are empty and stealth restored (full pylon release along with the tanks) so the effective maximum range is a bit more.

The top speed of the F-22 is also classified, and is just stated to be in the mach 2 class. The supercruise requirement for the ATF program (where the f-22 won) was mach 1.5 with internal weapons load (full, air to air of 6 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles). Flight Test data released to the public indicates a significant betterment of the supercruise range which is mach 1.7+ (mach 1.72 i think).

Anyhow, the point was about PAKFA"s survivability vis-a-vis china's IAD setup, not its capability against the f-22 which is of little relevance to us.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2014 19:23

Austin wrote:The pilots of fifth-generation fighters to wear a new helmet
Tomilino-based Research, Development & Production Enterprise "Zvezda" (NPP Zvezda) is developing a new helmet for pilots of T-50 fifth-generation fighter (PAK FA). NPP Zvezda has vast experience in developing protective gear for military pilots, ITAR-TASS reports with reference to Chief Designer of Su-35 f Igor Demin.

He also said that it is important to join all the efforts in the network of development of the new helmet. "We cannot separate development of systems, including information display system, from development of the helmet itself", - Demin stated. { in 2014!!!!!}

The Chief Designer also noted that France and USA have been developing helmets this way for a long time. However, in Russia the work in these two areas is separated. According to Demin, NPP Zvezda must use the latest technical solutions in the area of “built-in” technologies developed over the last 15 years by national companies.

More on this topic when I have some time, but, this is a great indicator of where the Russian "5th gen" effort could be or is at.

In some respects the Russians are advanced, but in others they are way too behind.

Sadly we place too much emphasis on things that mattered in the previous generations.

So, the PAK-FA is thinking about a walkie talkie too. About time.

Also, yes, help in nuclear power, subs, etc, etc. Grateful and thankful. But, there are techs that India needs and Russia just does not have - the MKI was born of such a situation. the FGFA is no different, with one major exception, that some technologies cannot be made on the fly. And networks are such. And Russia does not have a comparable one.And by extension they have no ~~good~~ data fusion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2014 03:25

There is no doubt that the US/West have a lead in many critical areas of defence tech over Russia,esp. in electronics/avionics.However,as one analyst has said about the JSF,that it is so complex almost equiv. to fielding UCAV tech,which results in massive tech challenges,massive costs too,making the end product simply unaffordable to acquire in large numbers.the JSF's helmet might on paper appear to be like a Harry Potter wand,but it has problems,a new helmet in the works,all adding up to time and cost.Had the programme envisaged from the beginning a smaller number of enormously capable of boutique fighters,supporting thousands of legacy upgrades,one can understand the programme.This might actually as some speculate be the end result,but then the JSF will not be the "workhorse" that it was meant to be,replacing a host of legacy aircraft from the A-10 to SH,and resemble more a smaller version of "big brother" F-22.Not what was planned.

In this respect the IAF too should step back for a quick review of its entire force structure based upon future anticipated trends in air warfare,which is increasingly getting space oriented,NCW,sats,etc.,and estimate what is achievable technologically and affordable, which will give it a healthy inventory of mixed assets giving it both capability and numbers. The starting point of the MMRCA requirement,FGFA,AMCA,etc.,may have to be modified since much time has elapsed since those projections were made.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2014 04:22

People like Bob and David and Bill have to be very, very happy that the JSF is a classified program. Else it too would have been cleaned up like the now famous Obama Care (heathcare.gov) (which was turned around in record time). It is people like them that ought to behave like adults or at least be responsible.

Yes, the amount of funds spent on the JSF is a vulgar amount - but nothing can be done about that now. The rest will be overcome, perhaps not a 100%, but no matter what %age, it will be bleeding edge stuff. And, for taking the risk to be bleeding edge, one pays a price, especially when the product does not perform. That is part of the game. Nothing to be embarrassed about - a scare from the battle.

However, let us turn our attention to the PAK-FA. which in turn will impact the "FGFA".

A "definitive" engine is on its way - in 2020 to be more precise. We have heard how silly it was for the Indian Labs to start at least one air craft project without first taking into account an engine (which is not entirely true, but accepted). What now? Where is that hammer that was used to beat up the Indian Labs?

Is the radar for the PAK-FA a definitive one or is that up in the air too? No matter what, TR modules just are the start of a good radar. It is the millions of lines of code that goes behind it that is what really counts. Where does that stand?

And, now comes this news: helmet.

So, let us understand the standings here: US/France > Russia. Helmet wise. Again, just like the radar, the "helmet" is dependent on "millions of lines of code". Russia actually had a lead - as I recall - on slaving/cueing through the helmet. Therefore I do not doubt that they have leading edge technologies for "helmet". What I doubt they have is the "code" to make this helmet worth of being for a "5th Gen" machine. And, for that to happen, besides that silly thing called "code", they also need a very, very good "network", else that "code" is also useless. Yes, walkie talkie is the base for a "helmet". How silly.

This adds to the list of things that made the IAF assertion even more valid.

I estimate that Russia is at least 5 years away on this "helmet". Until then imagine the Rafale would have a better one.

Wonder if the Chinese, with their stolen mal, are making a deal with Russia, who in turn will take funds form India and pay of the Chinese, without trading in their engine technologies.

At least it should keep Rachel Maddow occupied for some time come. She will now have another bag to punch?

I *know* it is a very, very, difficult thing to do, but India needs to consider moving away from the FGFA. In fact India should move away.

Also, this is a great opportunity for India to start her own effort with a focus on the AMCA. I am fairly confident that the Indian Lans have been conducting some amount of research for the AMCA, on the side. Need to fully fund it and there is really no reason to doubt its success.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 04:24

Philip wrote:There is no doubt that the US/West have a lead in many critical areas of defence tech over Russia,esp. in electronics/avionics.

To date, they haven't fielded an operational AESA, a third gen LDP (forget Sniper XR/Litening G4), or even a Topsight class HMS (let alone something comparable to VSI's HMDS).

Even the humble Tejas enters service with a MAWS, something AFAIK absent from any Russian fighters, except for a Swedish system on the Su-30MKM. (Edit: Some sources claim the Su-35S has one but no specifics are given.)

You keep reposting the soundbite from Gen Hostage that doesn't actually compare US tech to Russian. Here's one from a Russian general that DOES.

The Su-35S avionics and integrated defence system is inferior to “American fighters of the same type” - Russian Air Force chief (link)

The Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft employing technologies of the fifth generation. - Sukhoi

And yet we hear that the PAK FA will not only match the F-22's 15 year old avionics but leap forward and catch up with the F-35's. Oh well...

However,as one analyst has said about the JSF,that it is so complex almost equiv. to fielding UCAV tech,which results in massive tech challenges,massive costs too,making the end product simply unaffordable to acquire in large numbers.

$75-85 million flyaway at full production. Unaffordable to some I guess.

the JSF's helmet might on paper appear to be like a Harry Potter wand,but it has problems,a new helmet in the works,all adding up to time and cost.

Alternate helmet was cancelled last year itself. '95%' of the issues have been fixed and the Gen 3 helmet will start flying this year (link).

Had the programme envisaged from the beginning a smaller number of enormously capable of boutique fighters,supporting thousands of legacy upgrades,one can understand the programme.This might actually as some speculate be the end result,but then the JSF will not be the "workhorse" that it was meant to be,replacing a host of legacy aircraft from the A-10 to SH,and resemble more a smaller version of "big brother" F-22.Not what was planned.

Once again.

Flyaway cost post SDD: $75-85 million. Not a lot more than an F-16E/F.

In this respect the IAF too should step back for a quick review of its entire force structure based upon future anticipated trends in air warfare,which is increasingly getting space oriented,NCW,sats,etc.,and estimate what is achievable technologically and affordable, which will give it a healthy inventory of mixed assets giving it both capability and numbers.

In other words, the IAF should scale down its technical requirements (so that the PAK FA can make the cut?).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2014 04:31

Oh I missed this gem:

which is increasingly getting space oriented,NCW,sats,etc.,

*That* BTW is part of a "network". That walkie talkie part?

IAF too should step back for a quick review of its entire force structure based upon future anticipated trends in air warfare

Based on what they and the Navy has, they have moved to a "network centric" thinking.

Step back - to see if a "FGFA" really fits into this thinking.

Seems to me that the PAK-FA will need a massive facelift to make it a "FGFA". This shared plane will not do.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2014 04:42

Russia offers PAKFA (T-50) to Brazil

Man, that is great.

Until:

Russia is offering Brazil joint development of PAKFA (T-50) if the Força Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Air Force) chose the Su-35 for F-X2 competition.

And then the punch line:

The proposal would help Brazil achieve aviation technology advancement and access to Russia’s stealth technology.

LoL.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 05:18

NRao wrote:Russia offers PAKFA (T-50) to Brazil

Russia is offering Brazil joint development of PAKFA (T-50)

I suspect this is only the second of many PAK FA 'joint ventures' to be offered by the Russians in the coming years.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 12 May 2014 08:16

Vis S sir, the US is still a very very reluctant and unreliable supplier and this i know from experience. They don't sell what you want but push down your throat what you already have.
Coming to the avionics, i always felt between avionics and the platform's dynamics, the dynamics always comes first. Avionics can always be retrofitted. The MiG-21 today is almost as capable as the F-16 blk30. Getting an AESA or MAWS is not as difficult as getting the aircraft to meet or exceed physical performance requirements. An F-35 can never attain a higher alpha and better STR or a higher mach than what it does at FOC(whenever that happens) but a PAK-FA(or even an F-22) can be retrofitted with an LPI AESA, EODAS,..... while still retaining a much better kinematic performance as compared to the F-35.
Cheers!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 May 2014 09:29

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2014 09:54

Exactly,as many analysts,US generals,etc. have clearly spelt out,the JSF has its limitations in aerial combat.It's aerodynamics have been "struck" and cannot be improved but marginally."It's slow,can't turn,can't run,etc,..irrelevant without the F-22....needs Growlers too....".It is too heavily dependent upon its software,whose definitive versions giving full combat capability will arrive only in the next decade!
Moral: You can't turn a tortoise into a racehorse!

The FGFA on the other hand has been designed as an air-dominance fighter with aerodynamics to give it the best dogfighting capabilities ,taking advantage of its later design than that of the F-22.The innovations,patents have been reported by AWST and Janes'. The Russians have embarked upon a programme with a lesser rate of failure and are improving their aircraft types with regular incremental upgrades,as has been seen with the Flankers.

PS:As of now we are still with the FGFA in a JV. Just as with BMos,if other friendly independent nations like Brazil join in,we would benefit from our % of investment. This is an excellent opportunity to be part of a cutting edge programme in its development phase-admittedly much ink has been spent and much water had flowed down the river when we joined,but it's an "opportunity that knocks but once.."

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 10:01

raghuk wrote:Vis S sir, the US is still a very very reluctant and unreliable supplier and this i know from experience. They don't sell what you want but push down your throat what you already have.

No 'sir' please! 'Viv' is good enough.

With regard to your statement - consider our experiences with the Russians from a business perspective.

Krasnopol, T-90, Gorshkov, AL-55I and now the Su-30MKI. (Only the Mi-17 & Talwars remain unscathed... so far.) Older IAF accounts of Russian support vis a vis the MiG-21s, MiG-29s, IL-76s etc too come over as a definite negative. Even on the supposedly successful BrahMos JV, the Russians continued Yakhont production in parallel cutting out the BrahMos. (The JV's defenders surprisingly argue that this sort of dealing is par for the course.)

Coming to the avionics, i always felt between avionics and the platform's dynamics, the dynamics always comes first. Avionics can always be retrofitted.

In general there is some merit to that. But in there are other issues to consider in this case:

1. Avionics; the Americans have consistently remained ahead-of-the-curve on avionics and pursued tech refreshes more rigorously than anybody. (Eg - the F-18E/F was upgraded with an AESA less than decade after induction.) Point is, an F-35 inducted in 2025 will also likely field better avionics than the PAK FA. Also this is hardware replacement we've discussed so far. Adding new hardware such as DAS or EOTS isn't as simple as it sounds when you're dealing with an LO airframe. And ensuring that it meshes well with the aircraft's existing avionics is even harder (assuming a high degree of sensor fusion is a requirement). Take a look at what the VSI helmet development entailed. Given their lower existing tech base it'll be at least a decade before anything similar can be offered on the PAK FA.

2. Stealth; while the aircraft's avionics can be upgraded quite thoroughly, its RF & IR signature cannot be significantly improved. And the F-35 in that respect will remain superior to all its potential adversaries. On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether the PAK FA is better than even the J-20 and J-31 in that respect, with its bulges, vents, grills, radar blocker, exposed engines, poor panel alignment & build quality and poor IR suppression.

3. Reliability & Maintenance; relevant details about the PAK FA haven't been released (nor will they likely ever be) so its proponents can argue that they're comparable, but history would suggest that F-35 will be far far more reliable. US engines for example have maintenance cycles and service lives that multiple times better than their best Russian equivalents (F100/110 v AL-31). Even if the 117 can match the TWR of the F119, it'll almost certainly never be as durable. The F-35 was designed from ground up to feature easier maintenance and incorporates lessons learned from the F-22 and B-2 programs. The PAK FA on the other hand is the first Russian attempt at developing a stealth aircraft and it would be.. optimistic to expect a 'breakthrough' on that count.

4. Weapons complement; the fact that the IAF acquired Paveway and Python-Vs in lieu of cheaper Russian munitions is instructive. Unfortunately, the standard fit with the PAK FA will remain Russian. The F-35 in contrast, will field the widest ever inventory of weapons on a fighter jet. Air to air: Aim-9X, ASRAAM, Python-5, Python-6 (Stunner), Aim-120D, Meteor. Air to surface: Paveway 2/3/4, JDAM, SDB, Brimstone, CBU-105 SFW, JSOW.

The MiG-21 today is almost as capable as the F-16 blk30.

Afraid not. Being able to score an 'upset' against the F-16 in WVR combat does not imply its anywhere as capable. Consider all aspects. Radar range. Combat persistence. Effective payload. Sortie generation. TWR. G-limit. STR. Integrated weapons.

Getting an AESA or MAWS is not as difficult as getting the aircraft to meet or exceed physical performance requirements. An F-35 can never attain a higher alpha and better STR or a higher mach than what it does at FOC(whenever that happens) but a PAK-FA(or even an F-22) can be retrofitted with an LPI AESA, EODAS,..... while still retaining a much better kinematic performance as compared to the F-35.

All other aspects aside, neither aircraft will undergo an MLU before 2035. So any retrofitting of an EODASki, EOTSki or DIRCM, or a re-engining will only take place at that stage.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2014 10:34

vivs, raghuk speaks from experience.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2014 10:38

I dont think the Mig21bison compares 50:50 to block30 F-16 in anything but the point defence mission.
the F-16 of any block has better payload, much better range/persistence and from about block30 became a multi-role bomb truck also.
it can fly and fight over a much better radius and range of roles than the Mig21 ever can. it also has access to much newer engine and avionics and hence better uptime.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 12 May 2014 14:59

The Russians may have charged us more but if I ask for something that they have, they will offer it at whatever cost but the Americans on the other hand will give you something inferior and try to convince you that it is the best for your needs or they would simply not respond. I prefer getting things at whatever cost than taught what is best for me or being rejected outright.
Cheers!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2014 15:58

With the FGFA,we will get the genuine article,or as close to it as much as the Russians will give without compromising on their "edge".There will be no 1st,2nd,or "turd" class compartments as the US has earmarked for its allies with the JSF,where even manuals for buyers were marked "for US only",or words to that equivalent.We know how the US strung us along reg. the AESA radar for the MMRCA,sanctions for the LCA,etc after P-2.
If as expected the] BJP/Modi combine comes to power,another P-3 cannot be ruled out,which will invite the inevitable sanctions."Once bitten ,twice shy."[/b

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2014 17:52

Vis S sir, the US is still a very very reluctant and unreliable supplier and this i know from experience. They don't sell what you want but push down your throat what you already have.

A few thoughts:

* Seems from your two posts this US vendor behavior is during a sales cycle. Is there not a mechanism to escalate the matter (to the "Carter" level). I would hope there is something to address such issues
* Secondly, a year or so ago, the US was saying the gates are open and India that nothing was flowing. So, somethings is flowing, but the process is not mature enough to make a good deal of difference - it seems. ?????

I am sure that there is a huge gap there. There is distrust, which needs to be overcome.

Again, "Carter".

But, India has to do what is in her best interests.

Coming to the avionics, i always felt between avionics and the platform's dynamics, the dynamics always comes first. Avionics can always be retrofitted. The MiG-21 today is almost as capable as the F-16 blk30. Getting an AESA or MAWS is not as difficult as getting the aircraft to meet or exceed physical performance requirements. An F-35 can never attain a higher alpha and better STR or a higher mach than what it does at FOC(whenever that happens) but a PAK-FA(or even an F-22) can be retrofitted with an LPI AESA, EODAS,..... while still retaining a much better kinematic performance as compared to the F-35.
Cheers!

So, what is an "5th Gen" plane? Has India got a definition of sorts?

A couple of observations on the point you have made:

* One can try and convert a donkey into a horse, but one can only go so far. You have a better feel for such matter (I would think), but a plane needs to be designed for certain features - so unless it is designed to accept a LPI AESA/EODAS , it will still retain some of its old donkey features. It will do better than what it was, but it will not compete with a plane that was designed ground up. (My layman logic for not attempting a LO LCA.)
* Secondly, as it relates to the F-35, the best I have come across (from LM) is that the F-35 is slightly better than a loaded 4/4.5 gen plane and will beat any plane. And, the latest from Gen. Bogdan states it very clearly (I find this very funny and strange that when he had so much -ve to state people were quoting him all the time and now that the tables have turned that he is no longer quotable) stated that others will be beat. Now, what it this makes this plane so good - I can only guess (beyond what both of us can read). But, one thing seems to be for sure, the F-35 was *not* designed using the "traditional" things in mind: TW ratios, turning stuff, etc. (Which is why I ask what is a 5th Gen plane and what is India thinking - what is publisable in open source)

I was reading up on the PAK_FA articals and all I could find is that the PAK-FA can fly faster, has a much shorter take-off, TW is great (even greater with a "definitive" engine), nimble as a butterfly (which is is).

But, is that what a "5th gen" plane is? Can I hang a LPI AESA/EODAS on a LCA and expect it to be in the class of a F-35? May be it can, I happen to think it cannot, but open to being educated.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2014 18:47

From todays interview with UAC chief Mikhail Pogosyan posting excerpts

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2014/05/12/286885.html

Tests are quite successful fighter of the fifth generation, or promising aviation complex tactical aviation. Can "Tupolev" benefit from the experience of "dry", working on the PAK FA?

Mikhail Pogosyan: Program the fifth generation fighter developed in accordance with the terms of which are provided by the state program. We have completed the bulk of the pre-test in 2013 and are now at a stage presentation to the customer for the aircraft already joint state tests.

It is very important that in general the characteristics that we have laid, confirmed the test results. This is true not only of performance, but also the characteristics of the main systems of avionics. So I think that laid a good foundation that will enable us to successfully develop not only the program PAK FA, but also to use the reserve for other promising programs.

"Tupolev" is the parent KB for the program PAK DA. And I think that will be the most used the best groundwork already accumulated other topics. Participation in the program PAK DA enterprises UAC will shorten and reduce the cost of the project.

Recently, the troops were put first Su-35s - they are closest to the fifth generation. How is their development?

Mikhail Pogosyan: Mastering these aircraft began in the Far East. Enter the Su-35 completed passes generally successful. And the questions that arose during the flight tests have been successfully resolved. To date, we expect that further commissioning of the Su-35 will proceed as efficiently as possible.

Along with the start of operation of these fighters, the Ministry of Defence, we are also working on expanding the capability of the aircraft, increasing the amount of mass production. This will in the near future, along with the aircraft of the 5th generation to ensure the emergence of a mass in the Russian Air Force modern aviation system, which according to its ability to exceed all existing analogues not only in our country but also in the world. This is achieved through features avionics of the Su-35, the possibility of further and close air combat, the use of a wide range of guided weapons against ground and air targets.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2014 19:26

^^^^^

That does not tell us much. He, and others, have been providing a rosy picture all along (which is OK, that is his job), but there are a few dots that are revealing.

It is not that the Russians are incapable. My impression is that they are running too fast, when there is really no need to do so. And this emphasis on speed stuff, they do not take care of details. But, time will tell.

The other aspect I wish they (all?) would stop is this constant comparison to other planes. Heck, just go ahead and design one for what your AF needs. Why even bother to compare? After all it is a combination of events that impact success/failure, not just a plane.

Also, there is a rather large diff between Russia and India. Again, that is my impression. So, I for one, really do not take what progress they make on the PAK-FA as grounded - not that it is a -ve, but it is not good enough (and over the internet that does not come across too well).

One thing I have found is that there is really no good Russian-2-English translator. That by itself is a problem.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2014 19:50

He is just responding to the reporters question since he was asked to compare.

Coming back it seems the PAK-FA program is running quite well so far , I am sure IAF must been regularly updated on its progress as well as Pogosyn was in India last month.

Now two more protoypes are being built which is closer to IOC and will be implementing LO ..lets see.

I am just more concerned what IAF wants in its FGFA and how soon we are done with PD phase on it , but I expect a lot of information will remain classified as we still have little info on MKI true capabilities and IAF will keep it that way , like past experience working with Russians and on MKI success things should move ahead in the right direction.

I think by MAKS 2015 we will have more information on FGFA and state test of PAK-FA completing state test.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 20:28

raghuk wrote:The Russians may have charged us more but if I ask for something that they have, they will offer it at whatever cost but the Americans on the other hand will give you something inferior and try to convince you that it is the best for your needs or they would simply not respond.
Cheers!

This was certainly true 10 years ago but there's been a sea of change since then. The China-Russia axis has emerged as a counter-pole to the US-led West and Asia-Pacific. The US and India rammed an exception for the latter through the IAEA and NSG. And the IN became the first and only export customer of the P-8MMA just a year after the USN received it. From working to constraint India's strategic programs, the US has moved to other end of the spectrum, becoming a major defence supplier and now offering to pursue JVs with India.

The best way to assess it is to keep the sentimentality out of it. Analyse its motivations dispassionately and see if they're likely to change over the next two or three decades. Also analyse what our strategic issues will be over the next two or three decades (hint: China will figure very strongly in both). If the US can pursue closer ties to the Vietnam because it suits its strategic objectives, well... our history is downright rosy in comparison.

And yes the US will not supply everything in their arsenal. But then neither will the French (see if the ASMP-A is for sale), which doesn't stop us from buying weapons from them. (Nor apparently does their support for lifting the EU arms embargo on China.)

The Russians will happily sell to both India and China. The fact that they sell India slightly better things is of little comfort to me (though it does make some others glad), seeing how big a leg up they've given the Chinese military & defence industry.

I prefer getting things at whatever cost than taught what is best for me or being rejected outright.

Unfortunately we can't afford 'whatever the cost' equipment anymore. Well.. we couldn't afford it earlier either, but we did carry on as if oblivious to that fact.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 12 May 2014 20:32

Austin wrote:He is just responding to the reporters question since he was asked to compare.

Coming back it seems the PAK-FA program is running quite well so far , I am sure IAF must been regularly updated on its progress as well as Pogosyn was in India last month.

Now two more protoypes are being built which is closer to IOC and will be implementing LO ..lets see.

I am just more concerned what IAF wants in its FGFA and how soon we are done with PD phase on it , but I expect a lot of information will remain classified as we still have little info on MKI true capabilities and IAF will keep it that way , like past experience working with Russians and on MKI success things should move ahead in the right direction.

I think by MAKS 2015 we will have more information on FGFA and state test of PAK-FA completing state test.

Ask them to release their problem punch list to the public. See what they say.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2014 20:51

TSJones wrote:Ask them to release their problem punch list to the public. See what they say.

They havent even released any official specs of PAK-FA so far why would they release any other information.

From previous information we know that there was problem with tail strengthening of PAK-FA ( leading to crack ) couple of years back which lead to strengthening of it.

I am though happy they havent release any offical specs so that people keep wondering and speculating which I am sure IAF will be aware of the same and would keep quite on that.....has it own fun

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 May 2014 21:29

Philip wrote:With the FGFA,we will get the genuine article,or as close to it as much as the Russians will give without compromising on their "edge".

'As much as the Russians will give without compromising their edge' - may I point out that Russia imports LDPs from France for its Su-35S and Su-30SM (and LHD for the navy and TIs for the army). The Su-30MKI extensively replaced Russian components with French, Israeli and Indian ones (which were then also employed on the Su-30SM IIRC). The Russians might be fielding a (somewhat) stealthy airframe but in terms of AESA tech, electro-optical technologies, sensor fusion, production tech and even engine tech, they're still behind Western Europe (let alone the US).

There will be no 1st,2nd,or "turd" class compartments as the US has earmarked for its allies with the JSF,where even manuals for buyers were marked "for US only",or words to that equivalent.We know how the US strung us along reg. the AESA radar for the MMRCA,sanctions for the LCA,etc after P-2.

New canard: downgraded F-35s.

FYI, it cost money to downgrade an aircraft like the F-35. Its one of the reasons the F-22 was never cleared for export (downgrading costs were deemed too high). Every F-35 model (of the same block) shares a common avionics fit. So software patches/updates can be applied cost-free across the fleet. The hardware is built to high volume production lines. Building separate hardware or developing 'limited' software for any customer means devoting exclusive resources to the endeavour throughout the aircraft's lifecycle.

For an aircraft bought through FMS, there is no way to pass on that cost to the customer, unless the company is prepared to sell at loss. (Unlike the Russians who can potentially get us to fund a downgraded monkey model through the FGFA JV idiocy.)

If as expected the] BJP/Modi combine comes to power,another P-3 cannot be ruled out,which will invite the inevitable sanctions."Once bitten ,twice shy."[/b

That's an ideological rather than logical statement. If the Russians were barely touched by 'inevitable sanctions' over the Crimean affair, the US will hardly dissemble their China strategy and commercial interests in India for a futile gesture over an incident that has no impact on the global status quo (with the only country actually affected being a US strategic rival i.e. China).

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 May 2014 23:22

Viv S wrote:New canard: downgraded F-35s.

FYI, it cost money to downgrade an aircraft like the F-35. Its one of the reasons the F-22 was never cleared for export (downgrading costs were deemed too high). Every F-35 model (of the same block) shares a common avionics fit. So software patches/updates can be applied cost-free across the fleet. The hardware is built to high volume production lines. Building separate hardware or developing 'limited' software for any customer means devoting exclusive resources to the endeavour throughout the aircraft's lifecycle.

Whoa there, not so fast!

A Nice Article from Australia

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

Not believable? Okay, let's hear it from the horse's mouth

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $134,188,724 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). This modification is to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD). The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible.