Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Aug 2015 12:56

Russia to provide Irbis-E radar to China for Su-35 fighters

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Aug 2015 13:13

Meeh, let them sign the contract first, they have been saying this and that for ages. In any case, Doubt Russians will sell anything to china unless they have something better for sure.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 14:24

>>SOURCE: WANTCHINA TIMES
>>Russia is likely provide
>>Russia is negotiating with China

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Aug 2015 16:40

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subc ... 0813000080

PLA must pay double Russian Air Force's price for Su-35 fighter

Staff Reporter 2015-08-13 11:42 (GMT+8)
A Su-35 fighter of the Russian Air Force in flight. (Internet photo)

China's People's Liberation Army Air Force must pay double what the Russian Air Force pays to purchase the country's Su-35 fighter, a source from Russia's aviation industry told the Moscow-based Vedomosti in a report published Aug. 11.

A contract for a new batch of Su-35 multirole air superiority fighters for the Russian Air Force will be signed between the Moscow-based United Aircraft Corporation and Russia's defense ministry at the opening ceremony of the Russian Worldwide Air Show, or MAKS 2015, on Aug. 25. Under the contract, UAC will supply 48 Su-35 fighters to the Russian Air Force before 2020. Sergey Shoigu, the country's defense minister, ordered that all tests and trials for the plane must be completed before the end of this year.

The total price for the 48 fighters will be US$1.58 billion, sources told the newspaper. Konstantin Makiyenko, an analyst from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, said this is the largest deal between UAC and the defense ministry this year, since the air force may not purchase additional Su-30SM fighters and Su-34 tactical bombers in near future.

Russia has also approved the sale of 24 Su-35 fighters to China for a reported price of US$1.5 billion. With China apparently made to pay double what the Russian government pays per unit, this may be one of the reasons the two sides have yet to reach an agreement on the terms of the sale.

These are incredible prices.Just around $60M per bird for China and $30M for Russia! When compared with just one Rafale for $200M,from which planet do the IAF top brass come from?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Aug 2015 17:01

they can and will pay triple to copy it!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Aug 2015 17:49

This Super Su-30 MKI upgrade they are talking about, does is apply to only a few of the MKIs or can it be applied to the entire fleet? TIA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2015 18:50

$60 mil will be without the engines, radar , ejection seat and weapons. all extra.

when the baseline Su30SM likely costs more, there is no way such a small production run as the Su35 will be cheaper. its radar is more expensive, its engines are again small production run. nothing in that plane is amortized across a production run of 100s like su30 and su27

su35 is the "russian rafale"

- too few orders to be cost effective. on paper great specs though...matching the redoubtable EF specs.

arthuro · Post by **arthuro** » 14 Aug 2015 18:53

IAF Downplays Sukhoi-30MKI Vs. RAF Eurofighter Competition in Indo-UK Air Exercises

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has down-played claims of 'victory' over the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the recent Indo-UK air exercise held in Lincolnshire, UK even as RAF.

“There are no classic wins and losses as no weapons are fired as per their actual capability,” an IAF release said Monday ending speculation that IAF Su-30MKI fighter jets outsmarted RAF’s Eurofighter typhoon at the recently held Indo-UK bilateral exercise, ‘Indradhanush’.

Amid speculation by major Indian media reports claiming IAF pilots flying SU-30MKI had a resounding 12-0 victory scoreline in within visual range (WVR) dogfighting operations, the RAF has rebutted saying that “it’s not cricket”.

“The Group Captain Ashu Srivastav's claim was comical and aimed to please a domestic audience. The headlines of the Indian Press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form,” LincolnshireEcho quoted an unnamed RAF officer as saying.

The RAF said: "RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise with and against the Indian Air Force.

"Both forces learnt a great deal from the exercise and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF."

"These cricket-style scores claimed by the IAF look impressive but should be treated with caution and certainly not as a realistic gauge of combat capability,” Tony Osborne, the London bureau chief of Aviation Week was quoted as saying to the Times by the daily.

We have to view these scores through the haze of pilot bravado, national pride and also some political correctness,” Osborne said.

"Nonetheless, the Su-30MKI is one of the aircraft that the Typhoon was designed to tackle and defeat, and no doubt in the right hands would present a potent challenge,” he said.

The IAF reaction came in response to some reports that IAF pilots flying Su-30 Mki had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favor against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13708/ ... _Exercises

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Aug 2015 19:27

As versus denies.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2015 19:32

most likely china is looking to license make the most powerful version of the AL31 family FM2/117S or whatever its called now powering the Su35/Pakfa for the earliest tranches of the J35 and J20. in exchange for 100s of engines and their lifecycle support profits , russia might be willing to share bits and pieces of engine tech figuring getting something is better than nothing.

the J20 is a big plane...even as a heavy naval strike platform, it will have to perform well in ACM to stand a chance against late model hornets, raptors, eagles and JSFs logged into khan's superior sensor network.

ideally they would import the JSF engine which offers better dry thrust and fuel economy vs the 117S but no can do.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Aug 2015 19:33

Of course its not cricket. Since when have the british been any good at cricket? May be the british should first invent a game they are good at. Then claim its not fish-in-chip-upon-tymes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Aug 2015 20:09

Singha wrote:most likely china is looking to license make the most powerful version of the AL31 family FM2/117S or whatever its called now powering the Su35/Pakfa for the earliest tranches of the J35 and J20. in exchange for 100s of engines and their lifecycle support profits , russia might be willing to share bits and pieces of engine tech figuring getting something is better than nothing.

the J20 is a big plane...even as a heavy naval strike platform, it will have to perform well in ACM to stand a chance against late model hornets, raptors, eagles and JSFs logged into khan's superior sensor network.

ideally they would import the JSF engine which offers better dry thrust and fuel economy vs the 117S but no can do.

Singha, Googal tells me 117S has thrust of 147 kN and F135 has max thrust 196 kN.

Planes are designed around an engine. You know from our YellSeeYay experience that you cannot simply take out one engine and fit in another of a totally different class/size. That would change everything, from intake to exhaust to engine fitment, subsystems placement to stresses on the body and airframe. The Chinese won't be able to do that without a total redesign even if they got the engines.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2015 20:28

they have the funds and political backing to get whatever engine they can and build planes around it...call it J20+ if J21 if one must.

people who have a lot of engines (america) tend to build planes around engines. hot rods are loved. bulky internal bay VLO airframes have made powerful engines mandatory.

euros tend to design a plane and then look around to fit a suitable engine...usually euro planes are not overpowering on the t:w front except the typhoon recently.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Aug 2015 21:50

ALL that assumes that the Chinese actually invested in designing a 5th Gen plane.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 14 Aug 2015 22:00

60 million for Su-35 is BS. No way Russia will sell it cheaper than 100 mil per pop. Unless it comes without any Radar, EW suite or weapons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Aug 2015 06:12

Singha wrote:they have the funds and political backing to get whatever engine they can and build planes around it...call it J20+ if J21 if one must.

people who have a lot of engines (america) tend to build planes around engines. hot rods are loved. bulky internal bay VLO airframes have made powerful engines mandatory.

euros tend to design a plane and then look around to fit a suitable engine...usually euro planes are not overpowering on the t:w front except the typhoon recently.

Not really. Engine tech has developed enough in US and Europe to allow co-development of engine and plane. That is how Rolls Royce of Bilayat was allowed to work on F-35B engine and the Eurofighter engine was a new development.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2015 07:40

Singha wrote:they have the funds and political backing to get whatever engine they can and build planes around it...call it J20+ if J21 if one must.

Funny you did not mention stealing. Anyways, ..................

China can do anything they please. IF they want an "engine" they will have to work for it. No short cuts in "engine".

Now, if they throw their money at local research for the next 30-40 years, I think they will catch up. Nothing short of that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Aug 2015 10:46

yes I am well aware they have not been able to reach ge404 or al31 (early 90s) tech level as yet. but unlike india they are pouring money and people into both engines and airframe designs (avic, comac, chengdu) and running a contractor-grade industrial espionage op apart from recruiting ukr/rus scientists who are willing to help out. they are throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. univ r&d progs must have been beefed up with sinic top profs in american univs being offered kings ransom to come back start groups. china already sends most grad students to stem depts in massa and part of their brief is to pickup whatever they can for the motherlands efforts.

today china has perhaps the most new aerospace progs among all nations - j20, Y20 heavy lifter, j35, j10-x, few stealth drones, ucavs, a range of radars and missiles.....even if its not enough to scare the khan, its a deep threat against welterweight boxers like us who cannot even move a couple of domestic projects like IJT and LCA into FOC without 100 rounds around the farm.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Aug 2015 11:25

Cheen is not good with their metallurgy chemistry and physics hence their Engine effort has been a failure , I have yet to see any mass produce WS-10 engine they were talking about for more than a decade and since Cheen does not export fighter on big scale we do not know how well it performs unless we take their shanghai statistics at face value.

But cheen are investing heavily in their engine program and eventually they would reach there in a decade or two and every designer worth its salt knows that without a good engine there is no good fighter program.

J-20 looks like a huge bird and certainly the AL-31 looks underpowered so adding 117S of Su-35 wont do any harm except they will have to redesign the aircraft for higher air flow intake , some CG tweaking and then go through an elaborate flight test program to validate the airframe and certify it with new engine something we are doing with Tejas Mk2. Since J-20 is still in flight test program with the existing engine a new J-20 with high thrust engine is still atleast a decade away.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Aug 2015 11:28

Lets keep this thread for Su-30 discussion and move Cheen , Amerika , Bahubali etc to appropriate thead

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Aug 2015 17:07

Singha wrote:yes I am well aware they have not been able to reach ge404 or al31 (early 90s) tech level as yet. but unlike india they are pouring money and people into both engines and airframe designs (avic, comac, chengdu) and running a contractor-grade industrial espionage op apart from recruiting ukr/rus scientists who are willing to help out. they are throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick. univ r&d progs must have been beefed up with sinic top profs in american univs being offered kings ransom to come back start groups. china already sends most grad students to stem depts in massa and part of their brief is to pickup whatever they can for the motherlands efforts.

today china has perhaps the most new aerospace progs among all nations - j20, Y20 heavy lifter, j35, j10-x, few stealth drones, ucavs, a range of radars and missiles.....even if its not enough to scare the khan, its a deep threat against welterweight boxers like us who cannot even move a couple of domestic projects like IJT and LCA into FOC without 100 rounds around the farm.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1886422#p1886422

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Aug 2015 17:12

NRao wrote:This Super Su-30 MKI upgrade they are talking about, does is apply to only a few of the MKIs or can it be applied to the entire fleet? TIA.

It depends on how much variations are there between early MKIs versus the latest MKIs in production. Technically, every airframe can be upgraded but costs may prove to be prohibitive in some cases on older airframes with too many differences. Recent examples of this were seen on the Typhoon Tranche 1 /1A and Rafale F-1/2 where upgrading them to T-3 or F-3 would have cost close to equivalent of buying a new aircraft. There were airframe internals that weren't possible to upgrade and even in some instances software too. The RAF will not upgrade its 53 Tranche 1/1A to T-3 standards, and instead plans to retire them. I think the early batch of Rafales were upgraded but it costs them close to 90% of buying a new airframe.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 17:13

We'll upgrade all...airframe scarcity!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Aug 2015 18:35

Considering IAF has upgraded M2K and 29 purchased in late and mid 80's and post upgrade both frames are suppose to last 25 years , MKI most certainly all the frames can be upgrade after deep upgrade , It now a question of affordability.

I would rather have all the 270 upgrade to same standards with new PESA type upgrade and the new Indian Architecture involving PPC architecture etc then have few frames AESA rated but expensive upgrade , lets see what turns out eventually

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 15 Aug 2015 19:09

china's engine problems were in past buried in the same limitations as India -- no testing methods. Now that is a thing of the past. Chinas engine problems go away as it gets closer and closer to western technology. They sell when you are about to build.

Now when will there be a)high altitude testing, b)airborne testing possible in bangalore, kerala?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Aug 2015 19:21

Austin wrote:Considering IAF has upgraded M2K and 29 purchased in late and mid 80's and post upgrade both frames are suppose to last 25 years , MKI most certainly all the frames can be upgrade after deep upgrade , It now a question of affordability.

I would rather have all the 270 upgrade to same standards with new PESA type upgrade and the new Indian Architecture involving PPC architecture etc then have few frames AESA rated but expensive upgrade , lets see what turns out eventually

Its going to be other way around, take a bet. Mostly AESA with fewer (some 80 odd) PESA. IMO, with Su-35 and Irbis-E off to PRC one day or the other for reverse engineering, IAF will want AESA on its Flankers. They will take the T-50 AESA as standard as it matures (another 5 years) while the current Irbis derived Bars upgrade will be used for more immediate needs. With some 4 sq worth, that itself will take the next 5-6 years from date of signing..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2015 08:15

When you read this - and to be fair, Kopps bias on JSF apart, he has been right on many of the Flanker/T-50 details
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html
And then this:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/t-50-detai ... w-air-show
Plus this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byelka_%28radar%29
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/11340/ ... _EW_System

The T-50 design approach becomes clear.
Fly fast, high for optimal missile launch coverage, persecute and escape return fire
Long range sniper with RVV-BD, Kh-58s, R-77-1
Aft quarter stealth not such an issue because radar range degraded with receding targets plus there is the Himalaya
Maneuverability for both BVR/WVR

Typically Russian. Mix of JSF/F-22 concepts mixed with Russia's own anticipation of how the future battlefield will look. Willing to compromise on full stealth in favor of speed and kinematics with EW doing the rest.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2015 08:58

Bars current radar - modified two yrs back.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-un-v-RvjP1E/U ... nics-4.jpg

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2015 16:37

Russia's compromise with stealth is a function of its threat. It does not have to to deal with a very dense Integrated Air defense network set up by its bordering nations, and its primary mission is homeland defense where it may assist a future stealth bomber mission in a mixed role mission. The F-22 on the other hand did not have that luxury, it has to super-cruise at a speed (Mach 1.76) yet still "carry" all aspect stealth to deal with SAM envelopes of a growingly dense integrated air-defense system. As stealth proliferates over the next 2-3 decades (it will take a long time for the likes of T-50, J-20, J-31, AMCA, KF-X, F-3 etc to really proliferate around the globe) expect designers to trade away kinematics and speed for loiter, sensor size and power due to speed of light weapons, that will determine vehicle size...

There is also the cost component, trying to get the best RCS you can on a vehicle has a cost component beyond the design and materials. It costs money to produce that as it impacts touch labor and requires a sizable investment in production facilities and automation, and that will be the issue going forward in terms of how affordable the PAKFA is as Russia has quite a lot of Flankers to replace over the next 10-20 years. Higher tolerances and a very high end design in stealth would have not only been hard to design given that it was there first experience with production level stealth (and all the train associated with that) but it would have required a huge investment in the entire production chain requiring huge modernization investment.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2015 16:53

>>Russia's compromise with stealth is a function of its threat. It does not have to to deal with a very dense Integrated Air defense network set up by its bordering nations, and its primary mission is homeland defense where it may assist a future stealth bomber mission in a mixed role mission. The F-22 on the other hand did not have that luxury, it has to super-cruise at a speed (Mach 1.76) yet still "carry" all aspect stealth to deal with SAM envelopes of a growingly dense integrated air-defense system.

Actually, that seems to be a typical myth started in the initial days when the PAKFAs suite was not known and the average western commentator jumped to conclusions about why the PAKFA design didn't care much for aft quarter stealth. "It does not have to to deal with a very dense Integrated Air defense network set up by its bordering nations" - oh come on. PRC is well on its way to have one of the most comprehensive IADS in the world with not just Russian SAMs but many of its own design. The existence of a long range wideband ARM, which the F-22 doesn't have, and a powerful integrated EW suite from day one (as versus ESM) shows they think of SEAD in a different way. Clearly, they think speed, altitude with long range munitions and EW are sufficient when combined with LO as versus counting on VLO stealth alone which may be degraded as new radar technologies emerge.

>>>There is also the cost component, trying to get the best RCS you can on a vehicle has a cost component beyond the design and materials. It costs money to produce that as it impacts touch labor and requires a sizable investment in production facilities and automation, and that will be the issue going forward in terms of how affordable the PAKFA is as Russia has quite a lot of Flankers to replace over the next 10-20 years.

No reason why Russia can't/won't invest if customers like India insist on it.
Its not cost alone but the deliberate design choices taken by designers since they have come to different conclusions about what matters.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2015 17:01

The existence of a long range wideband ARM, which the F-22 doesn't have, and a powerful integrated EW suite (as versus ESM) shows they think of SEAD in a different way.

F-22 does only a very small aspect of the SEAD mission. It does however have to penetrate or bypass the IAD's for other strike missions before the air-defenses have been kicked down or suppressed. A long-range/SO ARM based SEAD/DEAD mission is the job of the F-35 and other fighters and strike aircraft, there are too few F-22's to offload the Stand off SEAD/DEAD mission to the raptor as it has to do other things.

and a powerful integrated EW suite (as versus ESM) shows they think of SEAD in a different way. Clearly, they think speed, altitude with long range munitions and EW are sufficient when combined with LO as versus counting on VLO stealth alone which may be degraded as new radar technologies emerge

Its a function of there threat. Look at the density and size/numbers of the IAD's they have to overcome vs what the F-22 has to overcome vis-a-vis Russia and china. The F-22 also has active EW and will get upgrades as there is room to grow in that end but suppression using soft kills is very much its and F-35's mission capability.

No reason why Russia can't/won't invest if customers like India insist on it.

Remains to be seen..At the moment there has been nothing on how much they have invested to modernize their production capability in light of a 'rate of production' of the T-50 that is going to start in the coming years. Of course they can but they have to do it...

Its not cost alone but the deliberate design choices taken by designers since they have come to different conclusions about what matters.

Designers play around with the threat and design around it (As the saying goes 'threat drives the design'). For the F-22/ATF it was as much about staying stealthy in the air-to air context as it was the age old problem of proliferating IAD's that the Soviets and increasingly the Chinese had been designing and mass-producing. The US or other western allies don't have the fraction of that density in ground to air defense where the investments are driven around killing missiles rather than aircraft. Russia simply has/had a larger trade space in that area than what the ATF designers did, and that was a function of the threat and projected threat.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2015 20:05

No matter what the stealth is even Stealth Aircraft needs to work with escorted Jammer Support in IADS environment

From Lessons of Kosovo: More B-2 Bombers? by Chris Hellman, Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 3, Issue No. 24

http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/ ... 62499.html

Stealth technology did not bring about the anticipated reduction in support aircraft needed for combat operations.
After the March 27 crash of an F-117A "Stealth" fighter, both the F-117As and B-2s begin flying with escorts of Navy EA-6B radar jamming aircraft. { note the Crash , it was shot by SA-3 of Zoltani Dani Fame }

The Air Force decided to retire its fleet of radar-jamming EF-111 "Ravens" in 1991 primarily because it envisioned a fleet of stealthy F-117As, B-2s and F-22 fighters operating without the jamming support needed by conventional aircraft.

The Pentagon's reversal on the need for radar-jammers left the Navy's fleet of fleet of 91 EA-6B "Prowlers," -- 30 of which were used to support air operations in Kosovo -- overburdened by the unexpected new requirements to escort F-117As and B-2s. As a result, the Navy has stated it will need at least 50 additional jammer aircraft.

Maj. Gen. Dennis G. Haines, Air Combat Command's director of combat operations, acknowledged the significance of the Air Force's lack of a jamming capability. At a conference on June 24, the General said, "stealth reduces the signature of an aircraft but it does not make it invisible. We have really neglected [electronic warfare]."

This ability to operate autonomously has long been a big selling point used by B-2 supporters. Repeatedly the Air Force stated how the B-2 dramatically cut operational costs by reducing support requirements. In a now famous chart, two B-2s with a combined crew of four armed with smart munitions were shown to be capable of performing the same mission that would normally require 55 aircraft of all types and over 100 aircrew.

Yet in practice, the B-2 did not operate alone during Operation Allied Force.

Flying out of Whiteman AFB in pairs, B-2s required mid-air refuelings for each leg of the 30 hour round trip mission.
Over the target area, B-2s were escorted by F-15s which provided air cover, F-16s to provide fire suppression against enemy anti-aircraft systems, as well as support from airborne air traffic controllers and systems which monitored enemy communications, as well as their "Prowler" escort. In all, often more than a dozen aircraft supported B-2 missions.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2015 20:08

Austin wrote:No matter what the stealth is even Stealth Aircraft needs to work with escorted Jammer Support in IADS environment

From Lessons of Kosovo: More B-2 Bombers? by Chris Hellman, Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 3, Issue No. 24
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/ ... 62499.html

Stealth technology did not bring about the anticipated reduction in support aircraft needed for combat operations.
After the March 27 crash of an F-117A "Stealth" fighter, both the F-117As and B-2s begin flying with escorts of Navy EA-6B radar jamming aircraft. { note the Crash , it was shot by SA-3 of Zoltani Dani Fame }

The Air Force decided to retire its fleet of radar-jamming EF-111 "Ravens" in 1991 primarily because it envisioned a fleet of stealthy F-117As, B-2s and F-22 fighters operating without the jamming support needed by conventional aircraft.

The Pentagon's reversal on the need for radar-jammers left the Navy's fleet of fleet of 91 EA-6B "Prowlers," -- 30 of which were used to support air operations in Kosovo -- overburdened by the unexpected new requirements to escort F-117As and B-2s. As a result, the Navy has stated it will need at least 50 additional jammer aircraft.

Maj. Gen. Dennis G. Haines, Air Combat Command's director of combat operations, acknowledged the significance of the Air Force's lack of a jamming capability. At a conference on June 24, the General said, "stealth reduces the signature of an aircraft but it does not make it invisible. We have really neglected [electronic warfare]."

This ability to operate autonomously has long been a big selling point used by B-2 supporters. Repeatedly the Air Force stated how the B-2 dramatically cut operational costs by reducing support requirements. In a now famous chart, two B-2s with a combined crew of four armed with smart munitions were shown to be capable of performing the same mission that would normally require 55 aircraft of all types and over 100 aircrew.

Yet in practice, the B-2 did not operate alone during Operation Allied Force.

Flying out of Whiteman AFB in pairs, B-2s required mid-air refuelings for each leg of the 30 hour round trip mission.
Over the target area, B-2s were escorted by F-15s which provided air cover, F-16s to provide fire suppression against enemy anti-aircraft systems, as well as support from airborne air traffic controllers and systems which monitored enemy communications, as well as their "Prowler" escort. In all, often more than a dozen aircraft supported B-2 missions.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1886935#p1886935

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2015 20:44

brar_w wrote:Its a function of there threat. Look at the density and size/numbers of the IAD's they have to overcome vs what the F-22 has to overcome vis-a-vis Russia and china. The F-22 also has active EW and will get upgrades as there is room to grow in that end but suppression using soft kills is very much its and F-35's mission capability.

Err, even the F-22s capability remains to be seen and it didn't have anywhere near the long range ARM capability packed by a Kh-58 sized missile or a RVV-BD either designed in specific for it at launch, which just goes to show the differing approaches to taking out targets. BTW the F-22 threat and PAK-FA likely threat remain the same, the PRC ..which is well on its way to creating an IADS superior in sophistication to that postulated in the cold war with earlier tech, and the Russians know better than the US about integrated IADS anyhow. After all they helped set it up for PRC and may have to break it one day if they must. As regards F-22 having active EW, with its radar and any future NGJ etc. The PAKFA will have full coverage including its radar, disposable decoys and has the EW planned from day one as part of its design. The JSF is still on paper for now with NGJ and stuff to come and not baked into its design as a full spectrum EW suite. You can quibble about semantics and plans and this and that about what doohickey will be added to the F-22/JSF in the future, but as things stand the F-22 is having a tough time even adding stuff like a HMS, its original design was upgrade limited as the need was underperceived and will likely need other support assets for EW and its design criteria was about speed, alt and stealth and adding even a screw to it is too expensive.

Remains to be seen..At the moment there has been nothing on how much they have invested to modernize their production capability in light of a 'rate of production' of the T-50 that is going to start in the coming years. Of course they can but they have to do it...

Why exactly should the Russians release any details to third party folks about what and how they are doing to modernize their infrastructure to make the PAKFA when that only gives leverage to the west to prevent it? Its in their interest (and India's) to talk as less about it as possible and just get it done. Hardly a coincidence as ties between Russia and the anglo west started going south, details on many key military programs became more restricted. Its not in Russias interest to add more points of leverage to the US led combine as they seek to armtwist suppliers into doing their bidding.
It would be the heights of silliness though on our part to presume that they haven't looked into manufacture and that's due to cost when they are going to extreme lengths to create a state of the art avionics suite and all the other bells and whistles when these could have been skimped on as well if your theory of "its not designed for a full IADS etc etc" was anywhere correct. A 5 channel AESA set of which 2 are LBand, an EW suite tied into the above + advanced EW aids, pilot associate aka on the fly mission planning, assistance with voice cues for actively tackling advanced threats, huge emphasis on front quarter stealth + long range munitions.. yup, cost was an issue and they suddenly forgot the aft quarter.

Designers play around with the threat and design around it (As the saying goes 'threat drives the design'). For the F-22/ATF it was as much about staying stealthy in the air-to air context as it was the age old problem of proliferating IAD's that the Soviets and increasingly the Chinese had been designing and mass-producing. The US or other western allies don't have the fraction of that density in ground to air defense where the investments are driven around killing missiles rather than aircraft. Russia simply has/had a larger trade space in that area than what the ATF designers did, and that was a function of the threat and projected threat.

In short, you have just made assumptions that the Russians are not looking at IADs and designed to a lower threat (yup sure, which is why their investments in Kh-58 and Kh-38 and other rocket powered armament happened).
The reason why these assumptions are meaningless is because the PAKFA has clearly got enough tools at its disposal to tackle a comprehensive IADS and alternate design features were baked into it from the start at great expense as versus the F-22's approach to tackling the issue. Logic suggests given their own extensive experience with state of the art antistealth IADS they decided where they wanted to prioritize based on sound operational experience.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2015 21:29

Err, even the F-22s capability remains to be seen and it didn't have anywhere near the long range ARM capability packed by a Kh-58 sized missile or a RVV-BD either designed in specific for it at launch, which just goes to show the differing approaches to taking out targets

I was referring to the PAKFA's industrial production and how much they invest, not the capability of it vis a vis the F-22. The F-22 does not have a DEAD mission where it utilizes an ARM at the moment. That mission rests with the AARGM-ER and AARGM equipped F-35A,C, F-18E/F and EA-18G. The F-22 as a SEAD platform is going to use the SDB as a swing mission from A2G to SEAD. There are too few F-22A's to have them up in the air as dedicated SEAD platforms when other platforms can be used on that mission. Therefore the F-22 lack an ARM missile and is unlikely to receive it because its not going to help improve the way its deployed in any significant way.

As regards F-22 having active EW, with its radar and any future NGJ etc. The PAKFA will have full coverage including its radar, disposable decoys and has the EW planned from day one as part of its design

No NGJ will be integrated with the F-22A because it would be quite stupid to even think of something like that. The F-22A at the moment performs the EA mission using its radar and there is plenty of capability to expand organic EA but that requirement is always going to play second fiddle to EMCON for there are plenty of other ways to suppress radars beyond the F-22's capability utilizing more appropriate assets.

The JSF is still on paper for now with NGJ and stuff to come and not baked into its design as a full spectrum EW suite.

The F-35B is capable of EA and EW utilizing the AN/APG-81 and any other classified system in its arsenal. The F-35A will be able to do so by this time next year and the F-35C by 2018. By 2017 there would be a minimum of 3 (and a max. of 4) F-35 A and B squadrons operational with full 3F capability capable of deploying. The PAKFA is years away from operational status in any numbers so it is even more of a 'paper' place that the F-35 if we want to go down that classification...As far as the FULL SPECTRUM EW solution is concerned we can only go by what is de-classified and publicly known. There is absolutely NO details shared about the cyber/EA pod for the F-35 other than an admission of its existence. Anyhow the F-35 as a program is at a much higher state of maturity.

Just like the F-22A, the NGJ will not be integrated into the F-35A. The Marines wanted to do so since they did not invest in the growler but it was luckily dropped and thankfully so (poor allocation of resources). You simply do not need a stealth fighter to perform the same Stand-OFF mission that the NGJ is designed to support with the jaw-dropping power production that that pod is capable of generating. There is a separate pod for the F-35 but it will perform the sort of EA and Cyber functions that make sense for an organic escort over and above the capability fielded at baseline.

Why exactly should the Russians release any details to third party folks about what and how they are doing to modernize their infrastructure to make the PAKFA when that only gives leverage to the west to prevent it?

They shouldn't but they still have to mass produce it NO? The industrial plans for the PAKFA remain to be seen. How long will it take them to produce 200 fighters? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? We also do not know what investments and capital investments have been made to support industrial production, in the absence of that there is a question mark that of course will no longer exist when they begin rate production...Of course they could invest a ton and build a 1000 PAKFAs by 2040 just like the Soviets did with the Fulcrum and Flanker so it all remains to be seen and it would depend on the economic outlook over the next 5 to 10 years..There are plenty of reports out there quoting officials of scaling back the acquisition plans and high rate production is yet to begin...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2015 22:04

brar_w wrote:I was referring to the PAKFA's industrial production and how much they invest, not the capability of it vis a vis the F-22. The F-22 does not have a DEAD mission where it utilizes an ARM at the moment. That mission rests with the AARGM-ER and AARGM equipped F-35A,C, F-18E/F and EA-18G. The F-22 as a SEAD platform is going to use the SDB as a swing mission from A2G to SEAD. There are too few F-22A's to have them up in the air as dedicated SEAD platforms when other platforms can be used on that mission. Therefore the F-22 lack an ARM missile and is unlikely to receive it because its not going to help improve the way its deployed in any significant way.

IOW, the F-22 cannot do a proper DEAD mission as the PAKFA does it since it doesn't have the tools for the job and even if it were to do the job, it would use SDBs and leverage its stealth. Two different ways to do the same thing.

No NGJ will be integrated with the F-22A because it would be quite stupid to even think of something like that. The F-22A at the moment performs the EA mission using its radar and there is plenty of capability to expand organic EA but that requirement is always going to play second fiddle to EMCON for there are plenty of other ways to suppress radars beyond the F-22's capability utilizing more appropriate assets.

Errr..if there are advanced threats tomorrow which bypass the F-22s stealth, it will require dedicated jammers..in which case the only ones stupid would be those fans who think the F-22 is something invulnerable and inorganic assets will always be on call or can provide the in depth persistence or deep capability a F-22 can. I am well aware of how the F-35 doesn't need EW and F-22 doesn't need EW stuff has expanded to..hey they can do everything with their super duper radars to... hey, the F35 and the rest will have this pod or that pod planned and what not has gone along.. in short, plans change.

The F-35B is capable of EA and EW utilizing the AN/APG-81 and any other classified system in its arsenal.

In short, front quadrant onlee.

The F-35A will be able to do so by this time next year and the F-35C by 2018. By 2017 there would be a minimum of 3 (and a max. of 4) F-35 A and B squadrons operational with full 3F capability capable of deploying. The PAKFA is years away from operational status in any numbers so it is even more of a 'paper' place that the F-35 if we want to go down that classification...

Err... So one system has it planned as a part of its overall design from day one and is known as versus the other doesn't have it and will get add ons later.

As far as the FULL SPECTRUM EW solution is concerned we can only go by what is de-classified and publicly known.

So in short, your claims that it has some classified solution are untenable?!?

There is absolutely NO details shared about the cyber/EA pod for the F-35 other than an admission of its existence. Anyhow the F-35 as a program is at a much higher state of maturity.

Yes, very high maturity and we all know the huge design limitations baked into that very mature design in kinematic respects because of which embarrassing results keep coming out and a whole dog and pony show with all sorts of suddenly available rtd pilots etc has to be dug out to somehow justify the obvious.. that its a limited airframe now being tasked to do far more than originally planned because the F-22 mass acquisition went bye bye. Of course, even with that and the huge support system the US has, it should do the job but it clearly doesn't have the same expectations more stand alone fighters which can't rely on the same system of systems approach the US has..

Just like the F-22A, the NGJ will not be integrated into the F-35A. The Marines wanted to do so since they did not invest in the growler but it was luckily dropped and thankfully so (poor allocation of resources). You simply do not need a stealth fighter to perform the same Stand-OFF mission that the NGJ is designed to support with the jaw-dropping power production that that pod is capable of generating. There is a separate pod for the F-35 but it will perform the sort of EA and Cyber functions that make sense for an organic escort over and above the capability fielded at baseline.

Separate pod/this pod/that designation. Basically, EW capability added on.

Why exactly should the Russians release any details to third party folks about what and how they are doing to modernize their infrastructure to make the PAKFA when that only gives leverage to the west to prevent it?

They shouldn't but they still have to mass produce it NO? The industrial plans for the PAKFA remain to be seen. How long will it take them to produce 200 fighters? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? We also do not know what investments and capital investments have been made to support industrial production, in the absence of that there is a question mark that of course will no longer exist when they begin rate production...

Repeating the same thing again, the "industrial plans remain to be seen" because they have chosen not to talk about it bar bare generics. The IAF and AFs like RMAF will receive more detailed classified presentations and even walk throughs, and detailed assessments of the investments, capabilities etc. The IAF clearly knows enough of the funding required and the HAL-UAC agreement if signed off on clearly will include a huge quantum of investment and detailed material list for India to ramp up capabilities. Its been done before.
The problem with the US is it takes far more of the money to do things other folks do, and that issue is not going away anytime soon.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Aug 2015 22:20

F-22 cannot do a proper DEAD mission as the PAKFA does it since it doesn't have the tools for the job and even if it were to do the job, it would use SDBs and leverage its stealth. Two different ways to do the same thing

The F-22 cannot do full spectrum DEAD because its not its mission requirement. If you build a 100 more, sure you can develop and integrate an ARM and have F-22's packed with them flying orbits for SEAD. But the F-22's main mission is Air-Superiority and secondary mission is highly defended target destruction and SEAD as a swing mission.

Errr..if there are advanced threats tomorrow which bypass the F-22s stealth, it will require dedicated jammers..

Sure and that does not mean the NGJ which is a very high power Stand-Off Jammer. If the F-22's balance of stealth and organic EA is not enough and it needs additions of EA payloads, those payloads will not look like the NGJ which is designed around a totally different mission. That was the point of NGJ addition to the F-22A being rather absurd...There is no single EA/EW payload or sollution..What works for the NGJ program or the now-cancelled core component jammer will not work for the stealth fighters, or the P-AEA mission...EM spectrum dominance is a lot more than just creating an NGJ pod that fits all applications..Hence no one in their right mind will put an NGJ on an F-22..

I am well aware of how the F-35 doesn't need EW and F-22 doesn't need EW stuff has expanded to..hey they can do everything with their super duper radars to... hey, the F35 and the rest will have this pod or that pod planned and what not has gone along.. in short, plans change.

Both the F-22 and F-35 have organic EA (and EW), support EA and EW and will have enhancements in their capability as has been revealed is in the works. Sure plans can change, both the F-35 and the PAKFA program can be cancelled tomorrow...

In short, front quadrant onlee

In short enough for the threat at the moment and it can keep on adding stuff as there is room for all sort of kit if required.

Err... So one system has it planned as a part of its overall design from day one and is known as versus the other doesn't have it and will get add ons later

What difference does it make when its about timelines? The F-22 that IOC was a lot different from the Increment 3.2 and the block 3F that capability that enters the fleet in 2017 is a lot different form 2b NOW..All aircraft are designed with open architectures and with growth plans to incrementally enhance capability..What matters is what capability the F-22 and F-35 will have by the time the PAKFA is operationalized with its full capabilities in respectable numbers...The F-35 baseline 3F is and was not what it was designed to be with stuff that comes after that being an afterthought...The FOD phase has always existed..Its akin to saying that the rafale was not designed with an designating pod in mind and it came in as an afterthought as a follow on development...

So in short, your claims that it has some classified solution are untenable?!?

The Barracuda is still largely classified (among the few systems on the F-35 to be so)...especially for a company that has exported advanced integrated active/passive digital EA/EW suites over a decade ago.

Separate pod/this pod/that designation. Basically, EW capability added on

The EW capability that is added on will be much different from organic capability and again, what it is is TOTALLY classified. one thing one can make out is that it will be more of the non-traditional cyber stuff than the active/passive EA that is generally associated with organic packages. The senior official that disclosed this did not call it EA or EW pod but a cyber pod most likely pointing to the spoofing capability driving its development.

Anyhow, lets see how the PAKFA's industrial production pans out...The next 3-4 years should make things a lot clearer, and beyond that they are yet to fly a fully integrated stage II jet that is likely to form the basis of the 'final version'. The PAKFA is a lot many years from existing in a state, and in numbers it has been designed to!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Aug 2015 09:43

Putting any number to FGFA/PMF purchase is pretty much meaningless as that would be crystal ball gazing into the future , When India purchased Su-30 in 1996 the number was 50 , after 5 years and out of the blue in 2000 they signed a deal to lic built 140 MKI that was not the end , post that they bought CKD in few batches and as of today the number to be built by 2018 stands at 272+ , I am not sure of that would be the final figure.

Back in 1996 no one even dreamt of getting more than 50 Su-30 much like lic producing 140 or bumping to 272

Same goes for building of Jags whose number keeps bumping or additional 29 and M2K we outright purchased

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2015 13:44

Austin wrote:Putting any number to FGFA/PMF purchase is pretty much meaningless as that would be crystal ball gazing into the future , When India purchased Su-30 in 1996 the number was 50 , after 5 years and out of the blue in 2020 they signed a deal to lic built 140 MKI that was not the end , post that they bought CKD in few batches and as of today the number to be built by 2018 stands at 272+ , I am not sure of that would be the final figure.

Back in 1996 no one even dreamt of getting more than 50 Su-30 much like lic producing 140 or bumping to 272

Same goes for building of Jags whose number keeps bumping or additional 29 and M2K we outright purchased

And whoda thunk 400 MiG 21? The gap between public and media noise and air force is so huge. The AF loved the plane.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Aug 2015 14:42

just wow photo! can kedar ji share with us the higher(est) resolution wala? this is classic shot [hopefully he didn't photoshop the rear blue flame]

q: does the rafel litening matches f35's sniper xr specs?