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

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 May 2017 19:27

Philip wrote: PS: The highlighted part about ":equal rights" is v.interesting.It avoids the Q about TOT and our ability to absorb the tech involved.However,given our financial stake in the JV,it gives us "equal rights" to ANY tech that is involved. This means that any tech developed by Sukhoi for the FGFA which may not be under manufacture in India for a while will still belong to us as well. So each side develops what it can do best and the two sides own the bird together.Something like BMos.

Yes, it will be like Brahmos, but it is not like the basic missile tech belongs to us. That is Russian and we respect that. What we have done on top of it is ours and they respect that. It is still license and build with fancy names but the difference is we can take the basic platform and do whatever with it. Very helpful, if we choose to take the platform and build all the sensors and fusion and communications and our own weapons. No one else, who has such a platform will allow this type of customization. Will provide to us the breathing room we need for the AMCA and UAV's and engine tech evolution. Good decision after the brief romance with the west, seems Modiji has quickly realized the difference in the meaning of strategic partnerships. Now let us see, what happens in another strategic area the SSN project.

IOW: No IP is being "transferred". We should all be crystal clear on that. No one will ever "transfer" their IP, not in defense or high tech. What it means is, just because we get the license build and customize the platform, we will not get any great insight in the design and build of the platform. That part of the investment into the AMCA has to on our own sweat and money.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 May 2017 21:49

I'd be happy if they just are able to take the basic airframe and do with it what they want.... Although I doubt India will screw around with the main radar or anything deeper than that initially. The radar suite is very cool with x band front and side arrays, and l band on wings. Plus another in tail sting. Optical suite is rather sweet too. Would be great if they can integrate local weapons as needed. Engines might be another story.

They will probably start out with vanilla pakfa and make Incremental changes block wise till mlu. Come MLU time circa 2040, will replace with all local kit used for a AMCA.

In terms of maintenance, hopefully they can get local industry to source local production where needed.

ashbhee · Post by **ashbhee** » 10 May 2017 00:39

Let me ask you this then, hypothetically, if russia stops cooperating / losses interest in Bhromos will India be capable of building one yourself. And same question with FGFA, will we be always dependent on Russia for knowhow and some spares?

ShauryaT wrote:
Philip wrote: PS: The highlighted part about ":equal rights" is v.interesting.It avoids the Q about TOT and our ability to absorb the tech involved.However,given our financial stake in the JV,it gives us "equal rights" to ANY tech that is involved. This means that any tech developed by Sukhoi for the FGFA which may not be under manufacture in India for a while will still belong to us as well. So each side develops what it can do best and the two sides own the bird together.Something like BMos.
Yes, it will be like Brahmos, but it is not like the basic missile tech belongs to us. That is Russian and we respect that. What we have done on top of it is ours and they respect that. It is still license and build with fancy names but the difference is we can take the basic platform and do whatever with it. Very helpful, if we choose to take the platform and build all the sensors and fusion and communications and our own weapons. No one else, who has such a platform will allow this type of customization. Will provide to us the breathing room we need for the AMCA and UAV's and engine tech evolution. Good decision after the brief romance with the west, seems Modiji has quickly realized the difference in the meaning of strategic partnerships. Now let us see, what happens in another strategic area the SSN project.

IOW: No IP is being "transferred". We should all be crystal clear on that. No one will ever "transfer" their IP, not in defense or high tech. What it means is, just because we get the license build and customize the platform, we will not get any great insight in the design and build of the platform. That part of the investment into the AMCA has to on our own sweat and money.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 May 2017 02:16

ashbhee wrote:Let me ask you this then, hypothetically, if russia stops cooperating / losses interest in Bhromos will India be capable of building one yourself. And same question with FGFA, will we be always dependent on Russia for knowhow and some spares?

The answer depends on the level of indigenization we are able to achieve in the spares and our ability to build from scratch. But it is reasonable to presume that we will be dependent to a large degree on Russia for their part of the wares. E.g: What I know of is the basic missile for the Brahmos is still a Russian "product" - customized by India. We make some parts but not the full missile. It is highly unlikely we will be able to make the Brahmos, if Russia stops cooperating. On the FGFA, a virtual impossibility no matter what is signed on paper.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 May 2017 07:23

If India is that dependent on the roosis for the Brahmos then it is better to let go of it now than to be blackmailed for decades for spare parts and have to surrender its foreign policy. It is better to give up all Roosi hardware if it will lead to blackmail and enslave independent decision making.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 May 2017 07:24

ShauryaT wrote:
ashbhee wrote:Let me ask you this then, hypothetically, if russia stops cooperating / losses interest in Bhromos will India be capable of building one yourself. And same question with FGFA, will we be always dependent on Russia for knowhow and some spares?
The answer depends on the level of indigenization we are able to achieve in the spares and our ability to build from scratch. But it is reasonable to presume that we will be dependent to a large degree on Russia for their part of the wares. E.g: What I know of is the basic missile for the Brahmos is still a Russian "product" - customized by India. We make some parts but not the full missile. It is highly unlikely we will be able to make the Brahmos, if Russia stops cooperating. On the FGFA, a virtual impossibility no matter what is signed on paper.

Why would Roos allow you to make the spares? If you can answer that then a lot of the basics will be cleared.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 May 2017 08:23

Vivek K: I share your desires but my view of the realities force me to take a different approach.

To answer the question, i think there are limits but they will allow as long as it is profitable for them. But, indigenization can proceed along with new learnings. I will bet you the learnings of the Brahmos are being applied to say the Nirbhay? But critical components are tough. We have no choice. Russia is an ally but not someone who will simply dole out critical goodies in the name of friendship.

Q. What is the level of indigenisation, and what plans do you have on this front?

A. The indigenous content for the missile at present is over 60 percent. India has involved over 205 small, medium and large-scale domestic defence production enterprises both public and private in the BRAHMOS project and they are contributing in the design and development of several key components, including the weapon’s fire control system, electronic system, guidance system, avionics and materials for air frame etc. Our Russian partners are providing us with the critical propulsion systems, i.e. the ramjet engine technology and booster for the missile.

BRAHMOS: Outcome of successful India— Russia relations

Russia’s leading aircraft manufacturer, is exploring the possibility of investing in an Indian Joint Venture (JV) for maintenance and spares production of its combat aircraft Su-30 MKI. Currently, HAL’s Aircraft Manufacturing Division at Nashik carries out maintenance and overhaul of the Su-30 MKI while its engine is overhauled by the Sukhoi Engine Division at Koraput. Russia has expressed willingness to transfer technology of 332 components termed as Line Replacement Units (LRUs) for Su-30MKI fighter aircraft under the ‘Make in India’ programme.

Make in India: Problems and Prospects for the Aerospace Industry

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 May 2017 10:19

Shaurya ji - the critical question is = how long can India fight against a determined enemy - one that is not dependent on limited reserve stockpiles bought from foreign vendors who will in times of war jack up the price for these spares. Can India fight a 30-60 day war with China?

But the point is - when LCA can secure the skies, why look elsewhere? Why miss the economic upliftment of a nation? When Arjuns can do a better job (IA proved this not I) why buy a single T-90 and miss out on the economic benefits it promises India's middle class? Why buy Krivaks when the Shivaliks can do as good a job if not better? Why miss out the opportunity to reap the benefits of developing a maritime tradition in India?

Your view of the realities, I say respectfully, is a facade. It is a cover up for your (not you the person but the procurement mafia) lust for the sexy, shiny, brand new toys, the promise of glossy brochures and nothing else. We are not told the stories of hangar queens, tanks rotting in depots for want of spares or failed electronic junk received from the OEMs with promised equipment not living up to brochure promises.

Brahmos will never get the engine tech - and we have not shown the capability to reverse engineer a bicycle. MKIs have not taught HAL to screw on a tyre without a manual. So these are mere stop gap projects to allow us to develop local MIC. If India fails to develop its local MIC then it will remain a buyer. And you cannot buy your way to power in today's geo-politics because you don't have the money to do so. (BTW ISRO has shown what can be done to develop local techs without help to overcome tech barriers. You can bet they have reverse engineered where they can.)

So India is today at a cross-road. Will she spend her money wisely and become stronger in the future or will she remain a buyer - taken to the cleaners by the French and the roosis? Roosi Rakshaks on BRF say that IA should buy 500 Arjuns as baksheesh so that the IA can buy 3000-4000 Tseries. Tells a story of the state of affairs, doesn't it. The IN knew that the LCA MK1 was a trial bed for its requirement and MK2 was the real deal. But they still went ahead and rejected it - a custom built aircraft built to suit their specific needs and operational requirements.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 May 2017 10:49

Vivek K wrote:The IN knew that the LCA MK1 was a trial bed for its requirement and MK2 was the real deal. But they still went ahead and rejected it - a custom built aircraft built to suit their specific needs and operational requirements.

Small correction - IN has rejected MK2 as well.

COming to FGFA, I feel that MP managed to push MoD baboons to negotiate much better deal. That's why it took so long to finalise it. Earlier the joint program was more or less a joke. Now it atleast have become Brahmos like JV. Not the ideal but much better than what it was.

I hope we will not be signing stupid clauses which will stop us from replacing any Russian part as and when we can have desi alternative. I read somewhere that Brahmos has such clauses and we cannot unilaterally proceed to replace/improve technologies like seeker or ramjet motor coming from Russia. It has to be either JV or Russians have to give consent.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2017 12:48

I think that we must be fair to both the IN and ADA/HAL.The IN invested good money for an NLCA,but like its IAF counterpart,the NLCA was overweight and landing gear supposedly too heavy/improperly designed. The ADA/HAL underestimated the design requirements for a naval version having never built/designed one before.The fundamental mistake of the entire LCA programme has been to imagine that within such a small airframe,where the selected engine could produce only "X" thrust,we would still be able to develop and meet all design parameters of the world's smallest "multi-role" light fighter (one analysts says that the current intake design is flawed),burdening it with extra avionics,sensors and weaponry to make the "multi-role" grade .The worry with the designers is that even the MK-2 with a more powerful engine requires major redesign of the fuselage/intakes,and once that has been accomplished with the new (heavier) engine,we will end up in the same situ,power-to-weight ratio.

If the wet dream is still there for a super-carrier for the future,the IN would best look at developing a naval version of the FGFA,since IAC-2 EMALS et al,will only arrive by 2030 at the earliest (14 years to field the IAC-1 of just 40K t!),the naval version of the PAK-FA/FGFA will already be in service by then with the RuN. Since the deal is on the anvil to be signed within a short time,the In must also jump onto the bandwagon and possess what will be the best 5th-gen naval fighter in service anywhere in the next decade. The naval FGFA will also come in cheaper than the Rafale-M,as $100M is expected to be the unit cost of an FGFA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 May 2017 17:59

T-50-9

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2017 22:58

Literally no aft quarter stealth at all.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2017 15:14

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2017 15:15

First flight dates:

T-50-1 - January 29, 2010

T-50-2 - March 3, 2011

T-50-3 - November 22, 2011

T-50-4 - 12 December 2012

T-50-5 - October 27, 2013, T-50-5R - October 16, 2015

T-50-6-2 - April 27, 2016

T-50-8 - 17 November 2016

T-50-9 - 24 April 2017

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/6975/

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 May 2017 08:44

Karan M wrote:Literally no aft quarter stealth at all.

Layman question alert - What advantage does this a/c offer over Su-30 with upgrades? And how relevant are those in terms of emerging threats? What is longevity of its sub-systems?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 09:26

Rohit,

Much reduced signature, RCS (especially frontal) will be a fraction of Su-30 class. Basically we are talking of 0.1 sq mtr and below, versus Su-30 which can be 10-15 mtr square (untreated).
Much better sensor fusion from beginning - integrated internal EW & AESA radar. Though with Super 30 upgrade, this may be marginal at best.
Key advantage will be kinematics. Aircraft can supercruise & will have much better transonic & supersonic performance than Su-30 class, especially with final engine. I will not be surprised if current PAK-FA with 117S derivative outperforms Su-35 with 117S, which in turn outperforms the current Su-30 in terms of acceleration & speed & agility. Note, subsonic maneuverability, nose pointing with TVC etc - the Su-30 class may still be good enough.
Basically, this will also translate to a range advantage. Current Su-30 (without IFR) can do 1500km (radius) with 4 AAMs (fired midway) and then return the same distance.

The rationale for the low aft quarter stealth is the Russians intend to field long range SEAD missiles,AAMs etc and anyways, radar ranges against speedy, receding targets can be reduced by upto 60%. So they didn't bother. Unlike most other stealth fighters, the Russians intend to field active EW in the fighter. Himalaya suite with both onboard and disposable EW jammers. This indicates they regard VLO/LO as sufficient (VLO in front, LO at sides) with these aids & went for the simpler approach.

IAF obviously would have wanted an all round beast.

Now, longevity - good question. Against 4th, 4th+ threats, its lethal.
Against other 5G platforms, it depends.

My take is the JSF for instance will have a look first advantage (say equivalent radar but JSF has much better stealth). However, the PAKFA will have better kinematics.

On paper, the J-20 should be a very dangerous opponent to the T-50, much more well rounded shaping (bar the bizarre canards) and a larger AESA. However, the Russians are very well aware of the Chinese effort. Its very likely they hand held it at every stage (see the resemblance to the 1.44 design despite PRC protestations to the contrary) & the Chinese are still eager to buy the previous generation Su-35. Hence, I would state the T-50 has the edge in avionics & kinematics (especially the propulsion, even before the final engines come in) versus the PRC fighters. The stealth too, the Russians may not really be that behind, if at all.

Now, stealth vs EW. Neither is perfect. The Chinese themselves are fielding anti-stealth radars. However, shaping + stealth is a huge advantage as versus relying on EW alone which may or may not work depending on the opponent system. Having said that, DRFM based EW has advanced to the point the world over, IRSTs are becoming a necessary adjunct on all fighters, including USN F/A-18s and JSFs. The T-50 too has one.

In net centricity, the T-50 is I think, the IAF's choice because they might want to use it without CISMOA etc. However, we will need special radios in our AWACS or Ground systems to get equivalence. LPI (Low probability of intercept capability) is specific to stealth fighters and their emitting radars, datalinks. Not all these will be compatible with our existing gear.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 09:27

The JSF once its fielded will be not just a fighter but an IW asset, soaking up info and passing it on. The T-50 IMO is not there yet but will be a credible fighter, with battlespace management mostly the work of AWACS.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 09:35

Our big issue is versus the J-20 is what do we use to detect it? Majority of our current procurements bar Phalcon & MPRs will not provide basic detection of this aircraft at tactically useful ranges. Even the Rafale will struggle if the aircraft is a VLO.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 09:37

Sadly, I have seen literally no thinking by IAF on this issue at all. They seem to be stuck in fighting the last war aka the Gulf War type conflict & barely any serious commentary on how to handle stealth targets exists. Nor does it reflect in our procurement urgency.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2017 12:06

Karan M wrote:Our big issue is versus the J-20 is what do we use to detect it? Majority of our current procurements bar Phalcon & MPRs will not provide basic detection of this aircraft at tactically useful ranges. Even the Rafale will struggle if the aircraft is a VLO.

That is not True , Most our Radar as part of ADGES would be able to detect stealth aircraft at long ranges , The newer ones operating in L & S band AESA would be able scan and detect it further at longer ranges than the older ones , There are still many good upgraded radars THD-1955 ,PSM etc that would be of good use for LR detection as they operate in much lower VHF band atleast good for trip wire functionality as static system may not last long in conflict.

The J-20 ,F-35 or PAK-FA has low RCS only in a narrow re-rediation cone the average rcs of these types are much higher and will vary depending on the RF frequency band they face starting from X to VHF band and every thing that comes in between S/L etc and angle to the target and we operate all these types.

The biggest threat to our AD is not J-20 or stealth aircraft but low flying cruise missiles whose average RCS are much lower then stealth aircraft and can fly low and fast precisely to the target with CEP not more then 1-2 m.

What we need is a mobile AD system static would be taken out eventually and sensor fusion among all the radar/missile types etc so that the big picture does not die even if some of these mobile sytem is taken out and system remains as redundant as possible and provide FC data to missiles and aircraft . There is nothing more frustrating to encounter then a mobile AD system which can constantly evolve during war

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2017 12:09

Karan M wrote:Sadly, I have seen literally no thinking by IAF on this issue at all. They seem to be stuck in fighting the last war aka the Gulf War type conflict & barely any serious commentary on how to handle stealth targets exists. Nor does it reflect in our procurement urgency.

That is not true at all , IAF is much aware of real threats and is doing the right approach many of our DRDO organisation is working on Sensor Fusing our AD nework and making it redundant even in case of loosing many of them , IAF does not depends on Brochure Bazi and knows what threats it will face stealth is just one part of the puzzle and not the most critical one

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 16:35

Sorry Austin, you are wrong.

Clearly, you are unaware that the older radars like THD1955 are on the verge of retirement and even IAF radars under induction are at the 400Km max range against 2 sq mtr targets.

Look at the specular cross section here:
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&sourc ... GELBNzzmww
against a range of bands.

Unlike PRC or Russia, IAF literally has no modern VHF or UHF radars in service.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 16:40

Bulk of IAF radars are S Band, some L Band. Several X Band, C Band. None of the new inductions are VHF or UHF. Stealth aircraft are optimized against the higher bands. We were actually looking for Russian VHF radars but it never took off. A 150km radar (2 sq mtr) will only have a range of 40 odd km against a 0.01 sq mtr target . Think about whether that has any adequate warning.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 16:56

I'd be glad to be mistaken. But the current IAF procurement has not sufficiently taken VLO aircraft into account. Also, DRDO GaN has at least 5 years to go before they deliver HPR capable TRMs. Current IAF inductions are all GaAs.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 May 2017 17:06

While shaping of stealth fighters may be focused heavily on RCS reduction in the C and higher bands the third and fourth generation RAM/RAS are likely focused at much wider frequeicies.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2017 17:12

Exactly the issue. Even taking a conservative approach ( as vs what the shaping indicates puts us at a disadvantage)

Crudely put, three approaches to detect passive targets. Change bands to more exotic ones, ramp up power on regular bands, move to exotic radars (bistatic etc).

IMHO a detection range of 100 odd km against a fighter able to deploy missiles of eqvt range is not sufficient.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 May 2017 19:09

So, how will a combination of Barak8, s400, and akash do against such threats?

In response to rohits question, one thing that stands out about the pakfa is that barring other 5 gen fighters, there is nothing around that can challenge it.

And, in terms of kinematics and maneuverability, it is quite remarkable especially wrt other 5gen birds. Iirc, it already holds the record for climb speed, even with the current engine. I actually appreciate the non stealthy rear quarter, keeps it simpler and affordable, and allows for exceptional maneuverability by not restricting the nozzle shape. Maneuverability is further enabled with the moving lex,/levcons and fins and 3d tvc, something nobody else has. Once two vlo fighters engage, the outcome is likely to be decided by kinematics and maneuverability, the closer they get to each other, the more likely this gets. At least the Russians seem to believe this and have invested heavily here.

As far as shooting a receding target at high speeds and ranges goes, it is very difficult to begin with..the Russians will know this with their mig 31 experience, and have put it to good use in the pakfa. Although sams might manage this with their larger radars and missiles.

the rear quarter difference between the pakfa and the raptor seems only based on shape of engine nozzles. But as Kopp, puts it, the same problem exists with the jsf too.

Ventral aspects though are very exposed. Which makes me wonder if this is not what the IAFs biggest gripe is all about despite the emphasis media reports have put on engine inadequacy. After all, the Russians might not have to worry about intense Sam networks in the European theater, but iaf will face this serious challenge against China. But then again, based on kopps analysis, this is no different for the jsf.

My guess is that this is one area where the fgfa might differ from the current pakfa, especially with the newer engines.

All in all, the pakfa as is seems very capable and in some respects superior to all other fighters in the world, although it achieves this with some compromises. That this current design works for the Russians, is a given. Whether it will work for the IAF, is another question. From initial indications, it seems that the IAF wants something slightly different.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2017 20:03

Karan M wrote:Bulk of IAF radars are S Band, some L Band. Several X Band, C Band. None of the new inductions are VHF or UHF. Stealth aircraft are optimized against the higher bands. We were actually looking for Russian VHF radars but it never took off. A 150km radar (2 sq mtr) will only have a range of 40 odd km against a 0.01 sq mtr target . Think about whether that has any adequate warning.

You are just being paranoid ,Thankfully IAF isnt.

The shape of Fighter aircraft with LO capability only impacts in a certain way the X band radar , the L and S band don't have much impact , you don't need VHF which any way has just detection and trip wire role to detect them , radar frequency and algorithm is more than enough and the current procurement of aesa is focussed on check the new aesa from drdo or Israel variant and it's mostly L and UHF/ S band.

IAF has its own scientific wing and drdo to do these works don't need apa or others to tell them what works for and against anti-LO , don't get fooled by brochure for and exponentially exaggeration work carried by media.

I would rather let iaf focus on mobility of AD and highly redundant network and sensor fusion then worry about lo aircraft , beating a low flying cruise missile with detection and interception is exponentially higher threat today and it will get much more difficult as cruise missile adopts better lo capability

kit · Post by **kit** » 14 May 2017 21:59

Karan M wrote:Bulk of IAF radars are S Band, some L Band. Several X Band, C Band. None of the new inductions are VHF or UHF. Stealth aircraft are optimized against the higher bands. We were actually looking for Russian VHF radars but it never took off. A 150km radar (2 sq mtr) will only have a range of 40 odd km against a 0.01 sq mtr target . Think about whether that has any adequate warning.

IAF had recently put in a tender for "high power" medium range radars . Dont know about the progress

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 May 2017 03:23

Austin wrote:You are just being paranoid ,Thankfully IAF isnt.

Austin, living in la la land about the reality doesn't help anyone. Wakey wakey..

The shape of Fighter aircraft with LO capability only impacts in a certain way the X band radar , the L and S band don't have much impact ,

you don't need VHF which any way has just detection and trip wire role to detect them ,

radar frequency and algorithm is more than enough and the current procurement of aesa is focussed on check the new aesa from drdo or Israel variant and it's mostly L and UHF/ S band.

i won't even bother responding to this hilarity about shaping and bands. good luck reinventing reality. have you even done any cursory look at the specular analysis posted above before coming up with such mind bending alternative facts?

btw for your kind information, the DRDO has no UHF radar in service. and the only L Band AESA it has is for a strategic purpose. good luck in using that huge AESA for fighter targets as a de facto option..

IAF has its own scientific wing and drdo to do these works don't need apa or others to tell them what works for and against anti-LO , don't get fooled by brochure for and exponentially exaggeration work carried by media.

lol the IAF actually asked DRDO to do the research for them, for your kind information. a couple of years back, one of the IAF bigwigs even publicly noted as such.

you are just cooking up rubbish to make up for the obvious fact that the IAF today has no in service modern, long -range (note the term) anti-stealth radars..

I would rather let iaf focus on mobility of AD and highly redundant network and sensor fusion then worry about lo aircraft , beating a low flying cruise missile with detection and interception is exponentially higher threat today and it will get much more difficult as cruise missile adopts better lo capability

you can like apple pie and orange juice... doesn't change the reality though that the IAF still needs comprehensive anti stealth measures..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 May 2017 03:36

kit wrote:
Karan M wrote:Bulk of IAF radars are S Band, some L Band. Several X Band, C Band. None of the new inductions are VHF or UHF. Stealth aircraft are optimized against the higher bands. We were actually looking for Russian VHF radars but it never took off. A 150km radar (2 sq mtr) will only have a range of 40 odd km against a 0.01 sq mtr target . Think about whether that has any adequate warning.
IAF had recently put in a tender for "high power" medium range radars . Dont know about the progress

Those are THD-1955 replacements.
http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.a ... no=1&td=TD

Maximum detection range and minimum detectable speed for a target of Radar Cross Section
(RCS) of 0.2 m2 to be specified.
(c)Range Maximum detection range for
air launched stand-off weapons having
RCS of 0.1 m2 or less

This is the exact concern I have. The measurements above, are for current gen "LO" platforms which IAF has envisaged from public brochures, vendor submissions & other programs. Note though, in restricted frontal coverage, several UCAV & fighter programs are already looking at going significantly below the above figures.

Also even if we ignore the fact that EW measures won't be spelled out in a RFI, there is literally no specification about band or weightage given to specific bands for counter stealth measures. Given these are surveillance systems, L Band and above would be Ok.

And the max range performance has not been specified either.

So here is what is going to happen. Every other vendor will dust off their Tier 2 "affordable" system albeit with a ring of shiny pearls like GaN and offer it to the IAF. The same way the US tried to sell us a Hawk variant for our MRSAM. Took a look at our needs, good enough they said. The Tier 1 systems we can't purchase and will remain in western control.

As much as I would like to be as blase as Austin about tomorrows PRC challenge, we really shouldn't.
The above approach is exactly where we are NOT setting a definitive standard for importing really what we need.

Same with the Rafale and EF. In the competition, several fighters which would likely struggle against J-20 in WVR detection with their radars. Of the two, R and EF, IAF takes Rafale which has limited primary nose aperture for its AESA. Point being a lot of this J-20 considerations is occuring after the fact and it shouldn't have.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 May 2017 05:31

Could it be that the s400 is the answer to j20 types. It is a start until the local vlrsam comes through.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 May 2017 10:53

Another major advantage is price.Just $100M when compared with the almost double priuce we're paying for Rafales! Which would you rather have post 2020?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 May 2017 11:48

Karan M wrote:
kit wrote:
IAF had recently put in a tender for "high power" medium range radars . Dont know about the progress
Those are THD-1955 replacements.
http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.a ... no=1&td=TD

Maximum detection range and minimum detectable speed for a target of Radar Cross Section
(RCS) of 0.2 m2 to be specified.
(c)Range Maximum detection range for
air launched stand-off weapons having
RCS of 0.1 m2 or less

The tender is good information without restricting to things like at what range 0.1m2 target can be detected etc. There is no need to explicitly put any benchmark on such things and leave it open for vendors to respond with what they have and then IAF to take a final call.

0.1m2 is quite good that is lower than average rcs of common cruise missile like kaliber or tomahawk that has avg rcs of 0.1-0,2 m2 , A typicl LO of J-20 class will have average RCS of 0.4-.0.5m2

Another interesting part of the tender is

Ability to detect and track targets having RCS of 0.1 m 2 or less following parabolic trajectory

That is the RCS of a RV that shows the new radar will also track Ballistic Targets.

I have read what you said and all I can say is IAF has its feet on the ground , The Tender pretty much nails it what they want and the RCS figures are close to what they will experience in Real Life for next couple of decades not some mythical value

Thanks any way for posting that its a good find , I am not sure that will replace THD types but it could very well be , I was expecting the LRTR will be the one replace THD types something like LRTR on elevated platform.

BTW there are S band radar I saw on DRDO Revathi some to my mind , Even the DRDO AWACS has S band AESA.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 May 2017 16:02

I would love to know the thought process that led to those J-20 RCS guesstimates, and also Ess-band (2-4GHz/8-15cm) hot spots on fighters like the J-20, F-35, PAKFA, F-22 etc (of particular importance sine all of these stress ESM hardware investment in an effort to present best possible RCS to an emitter when penetrating or on SEAD duties) before we get into the claims of anything 'below 8 GHz being magically "counter-stealth".

An analysis on broadband 3rd and 4th generation RAM could also challenge some of these simple assumptions. There are patents attributed to aerospace OEM's that cover broadband RAM/RAS that extends and covers the L-X space and beyond. Then you get into the fact there already are, and are likely to be more and more LO and VLO designs that are not constrained by 9G maneuver, or supersonic performance that can therefore make use of more RCS efficient shaping or thicker, heavier RAM.

From an absorption standpoint, the previous notion on ratio of signature reduction between shaping and materials is definitely under challenge, since while shaping has marginal room to grow given design constraints imposed on most platforms, there are tremendous advances happening on the materials and manufacturing side of things (On the B-21 it was all about materials and manufactering hence the official program only prototyped 'panels' and not full up aircraft as part of the selection process). Below is a patent filed 7 years ago, work now owned by Lockheed and forms the research into what the company described as the breakthrough that would have wound up on the F-22B had it happened but had to wait for the F-35 to be operationalized.

A radar absorbing composite includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite absorbs radar in a frequency range from about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the radar. A method of manufacturing this composite includes disposing a CNT-infused fiber material in a portion of a matrix material with a controlled orientation of the CNT-infused fiber material within the matrix material, and curing the matrix material. The composite can be formed into a panel which is adaptable as a structural component of a transport vessel or missile for use in stealth applications.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 May 2017 21:59

Cain Marko wrote:Could it be that the s400 is the answer to j20 types. It is a start until the local vlrsam comes through.

with China having both is that a good idea for the eastern front ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 May 2017 23:44

and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the radar.

I believe this relates to dissipation of heat. The radar energy is "trapped", in the process the temperature in the material increases - sufficient enough to be track-able. They had been working on finding ways to dissipate this heat.

Do not know if it was this particular material.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 16 May 2017 08:08

The radar energy that is captured by a searching beam is miniscule when compared to the heat energy caused by friction of air on the aircraft surfaces.
Or for that matter the diffused exhaust gasses.
However if a VLO craft is suspected in a narrow segment, then the pinpointed microwave energy would cause a slight increase in temp, however by that stage the game of cat and mouse has changed and the heat signature will not be an issue because the fighter might have to up power and bogey out.
This is just a surmise on my part so do not take it to the bank. Gurus could comment further.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 May 2017 14:38

Indo-Russian project to develop aircraft hits roadblock over price, technology
The Indo-Russian project is believed to have been shelved due to differences in pricing and technology. Indian analysts are not happy with the technology used in the multi-role aircrafts.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indo ... 59013.html

An ambitious Indo-Russian project to co-develop fifth generation fighter planes has hit major roadblocks over the issues of price and technology even as New Delhi has scrapped a programme to jointly produce multirole transport aircraft with Moscow over similar issues.
India and Russia had signed an agreement around 2007 to co-develop both the transport plane and the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) as part of their attempt to pool in resources to develop latest and advanced variants of the aircraft to meet the global challenges in this domain. "We have decided to scrap the Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) as we don't need the plane anymore due to issues over the technology offered for the planes and constant delays," government sources told Mail Today.

RUSSIAN STANDARD NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

The decision of the government and the Air Force has been conveyed to the Russians some time back, they said. On the FGFA programme, the sources said the aircraft being built under the plan are going to cost much more than what the Indian Air Force had expected and the technology on offer from Russia is also not up to global standards.
The Russians were developing the aircraft known as PAK-FA on their side as a counter to the American F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightening which are considered the latest combat planes with stealth technologies and abilities to strike farther than their older counterparts.
"The cost of the FGFA progarmme is coming to be huge. While we have already spent close to US$ 300 million (Rs 2,000 crore) on the preliminary design phase, the Russians are demanding US$ 6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) as the development cost of the planes which is coming to be much higher than what we had perceived," the sources revealed

'RUSSIA WANTS US TO BUY 127 AIRCRAFT'

"The Russians are asking us to make big investments in the programme. While we are planning to induct only 12 of these planes in their IAF, they are asking India to buy 127 of these aircraft," added the sources. Sources said the investment of USD 6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) would give India only four prototypes of the FGFA aircraft and it will have to pay another USD 135 million (Rs 900 crore) each for the 127 planes which we would be ready for induction only after the year 2027-28.
The overall cost of the project for the IAF is likely to come out to USD 24 billion (Rs 1,60,000 crore) which is almost the double the amount the force had envisaged when the project was initiated, the sources said. The IAF had first started negotiating for the acquisition of more than 210 planes and wanted an equal share in terms of technology development as it was making equal investment in the project.
Sources said a committee has been formed under Air Marshal (retired) S Varthaman to see whether the FGFA planes were actually required by the IAF and how did the Russian aircraft compared with the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) proposed by the DRDO to be developed as an indigenous fifth generation combat plane.

The Varthaman committee has already given presentations to defence minister Arun Jaitley on the matter as the government has to take a final call on whether the FGFA is required or not. Sources said the decision on developing the AMCA will have to be taken in near future as it will take at least 15 years for the plane to come out of the drawing board to join the IAF for operational service

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 21 May 2017 17:58

If we are getting full TOT, why are we paying anything after USD 3.5 or 6.7 Billion dollars. Another fake JV like Brahmos, Shakti engine, Barak 8 missile.