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

[Austin]

Comparision Photo : Su-34 , PAK-FA , Su-35S



While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage

[Austin]

Two Flying Prototypes of Su-57 at MAKS 17 , T-50 received the official name - Su-57.

http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/918917.html

[Philip]

All speculative.In battle very often variables upset prev. calculations.Who was it that said "No battle plan survives n contact with the enemy" ?Von Moltke.
Who would've thought that the little Gnat would wipe the pants off the famed Sabrejet,MIG-21s picking off more touted US fightersl in Vietnam,etc.A Gnat downed a Mirage-3 as well. So until "the twain shall meet:,we'll keep on speculating.CW (conventional wisdom) does give us clues,like David vs Goliath!

To me, the fighter that detects his enemy first will have a crucial advantage,but even if he lets go with his BVR AAMs,his enemy may have excellent decoys or even use his WVR AAMs to down the incoming BVRs.There would also be sufficient time for him to unleash a salvo of BVRs at the enemy,now detected.The amt. of weaponry (BVR+WVR)+decoys/EW systems,could tilt the contest.LIke hard-kill devices being adopted for subs against incoming torpedoes,we could see the advent of hard-kill munitions/devices against incoming AAMs too.

[Rakesh]

Philip, I do not know of BVR AAMs that can take out other incoming AAMs. Regardless, I do not believe the PAK-FA - in its current form - poses a significant threat to the F-22. That having being said, it is more than a match for the J-20s and FC-31s coming out of China.

[Kashi]

PAK-FA - in its current form - is unlikely to come up against F-22 in its present form, or F-35 for that matter.

[brar_w]

PAKFA in its current for is a prototype. Serial production has not yet begun, and a definitive go-to-war configuration is some time away given that it has yet to fly with a definitive/final config. engine etc. So one must compare it to an F-22 of the mid 2020s (my guess) probably even later if one considers the time it will take to field a comparable numerical fleet. As a reference the first serial production F-22 (LRIP) was delivered around 13-14 years ago.

[Austin]

PAK-FA - in its current form - is unlikely to come up against F-22 in its present form, or F-35 for that matter.

That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.

Fortunately IAF will have MKI , Rafale , Tejas ( and perhaps even the F-16 or Gripen ) all top of line fighters in years ahead to extensively DACT to test FGFA and even vice verse ...it should have a good database on all types and how advantage/disadvantage each has and how it can be over come by better combat tactics.

[Singha]

these two are older prototypes. the new ones have covered up the rear part of engine except the TVC part to reduce the thermal signature.
http://imgur.com/HVTSee3

[Singha]

is there a pic of the J20 flying together with Flanker. to me it looks bigger then flanker with a hefty mig31ish side profile due to internal bay and large air intakes. its role may be to cruise at high speed and release ASMs and ALCMs rather than a2a ACM. due to lack of F135 class engine tech, its combat radius is probably 20% less due to Al31 engine.

[Kashi]

That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.

No need to get yours in a twist. I simply meant that as things stand, these jets are unlikely to face each other in a combat scenario, especially in the Indian sub-continent. While, we will be getting Su-57s sometime in the next decade, Pakis and Cheenis are unlikely to get their hands on F-22 or F-35.

[Austin]

is there a pic of the J20 flying together with Flanker. to me it looks bigger then flanker with a hefty mig31ish side profile due to internal bay and large air intakes. its role may be to cruise at high speed and release ASMs and ALCMs rather than a2a ACM. due to lack of F135 class engine tech, its combat radius is probably 20% less due to Al31 engine.

Well with eye ball gazing you can easily figure out the J-20 is bigger than any 5th gen fighter flying out there , Likely the Chinese want larger persistance without the need to refuel.

IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?

[DavidD]

That sort of comparision boils down to my d*** is better than your d*** types , Unless you extensively DACT the two platform you cant really have those stastics to prove which type has advantage/disadvantage and in which regiems of flight , too many statistical data to go by not a simple yes or no answer.

No need to get yours in a twist. I simply meant that as things stand, these jets are unlikely to face each other in a combat scenario, especially in the Indian sub-continent. While, we will be getting Su-57s sometime in the next decade, Pakis and Cheenis are unlikely to get their hands on F-22 or F-35.

That's true, but China could potentially buy the Su-57, maybe just 24 to take a look.

Here's a comparison of the J-20 with the J-11:

[deejay]

As per wiki:

J 20:
Length: 20.4 m (66.8 ft)
Wingspan: 13.5 m (44.2 ft)
Height: 4.45 m (14 ft 7 in)

Su 57:
Length: 19.8 m (65 ft)
Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)

Su 30 MKI:
Length: 21.935 m (73 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
Height: 6.36 m (20 ft 10 in)

[Mukesh.Kumar]

Finally figured out the secret behind the Su-57 designation.

1x F-22+ 1x F-35= 1x Su-57

[brar_w]

IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?

It carries two engines and has 30% higher combined thrust in Afterburner. That will impact vehicle size and internal fuel requirements given a particular mission radius.

[Austin]

IS F135 engine 20 % more fuel efficient than Al-31 in military power ?

It carries two engines and has 30% higher combined thrust in Afterburner. That will impact vehicle size and internal fuel requirements given a particular mission radius.

Thanks I was more looking at SFC at Military power for both engines .

[Manish_P]

Finally figured out the secret behind the Su-57 designation.

1x F-22+ 1x F-35= 1x Su-57

[SaiK]

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-s ... ent-2017-8

Russia's new Su-57 'stealth' fighter already looks like a disappointment

[brar_w]

^ Honestly IMHO, Business Insider, Sputnik, National Interest, or the Drive do not really belong on a forum dedicated to military matters and defense technology etc unless they are directly quoting a source or managed to get an important scoop.

[Austin]

^ Honestly IMHO, Business Insider, Sputnik, National Interest, or the Drive do not really belong on a forum dedicated to military matters and defense technology etc unless they are directly quoting a source or managed to get an important scoop.

Add CNN , Janes ( excluding Richard Fisher ), Defense News to the list too most horrible reporting or a deliberate mischievous one ......some of them are Indian authors like Rahul Bedi and Raghuvanshi writes absolute trash

[brar_w]

Jane's still produces some really good stuff on their subscription side of things, particularly on their "Missiles and Rockets", and "Naval International" product lines. JDW does occasionally post some really good content as well as long as one can just skip their opinion pieces. Bedi and co may not be up to the mark but at least the publication is making an effort to maintain contributors from different parts of the world. On their analysis side they are perhaps the last of the remaining big publications that still maintains a cohort of subject matter experts and technical analysts across their product line (they even have analysts that have an Indian Navy background). I have been consuming their technical briefings for nearly a decade and although they have become fewer each year (A&D related) but they are still produced by subject matter experts and not journalists with a liberal arts background.

DefenseNews is a US publication with some pretty solid insight into US defense industry and the US services and the Pentagon. Their core group of reporters specialize in this and have come from the ID/DD background where you sort of build relationships within the Pentagon an the US industrial base so they leverage their contacts to provide information that others don't have access to. I agree that Raguvanshi or most of their international contributors are not up to the mark and can be ignored.

CNN/MSM shouldn't be a source for military matters anyways as 5 minutes on google can get one access to better stories then theirs pertaining to the same subject. There is an interesting exchange on social media between a retired US DDG captain where he complains about the story title and content that cite him and his report as a source. The particular story was written by National Interest's defense head (of Indian origin) and he replied that he agreed that the title did not convey the intent of the original report cited in it.. They are sensational click bait publications/blogs and this includes BI and Sputnik imho. Or anything written by TR @ TheDrive from the basement of his fast food joint..

[Austin]

Janes is no where near its quality or content compared to where it was in 80 or early , Pick up any old Janes and you would see good analysis by them.....now it is just a commercial venture with their own agenda driven article most be Western POV and less of unbiased balanced view which I guess its fine now since their target audience are mostly the West , even if you comment and point the flaws they dont care to correct it and the same guys keep dishing out same crap year on year.

[brar_w]

Perhaps on the open and free side but their technical briefings are still high quality. It is just that they cater to a different customer given the price point and the sort of audience that is likely to pay for their content. Back in the Cold War days their publications could afford retaining high end analysts...but not anymore. People just aren't buying magazines anymore. There isn't a legacy aerospace and defense publication out there that hasn't seen a decline in quality.

It is different on their briefings side and with their other products I mentioned in my earlier post. Outside of specialty publications they are the only large publication I know that retains naval officers and electronic attack operators as part of their analysis team. They know in the age of digital they can’t survive by selling a magazine anymore, and definitly not when they still have a specialized market focus (like specialized radar analysts, C4ISR analysts, Military Vehicle Analysts etc etc).so they focus their investment on the paid assessment and analysis side where they are in a unique position given the breadth of what they cover.

This year alone they have produced some really good briefings covering Counter UAS technology, Active protection systems, GCC Missile and defense procurement forecast and analysis, Iran's air defense capability, and the fighter trainer market. I'm looking forward to their end of the month briefing and analysis on Russia's SAM capability that follows up on a similar one they did in 2014/15. This time Sean O'Connor is leading the effort.

Briefing will examine the systems employed by the Russian SAM network, assess the capabilities of the network as a whole, and explore future capabilities as forthcoming systems are brought into service. Specifically, Jane's experts will cover the following:

- Current geographic disposition of forces within the strategic SAM network, highlighting recent developments noted over the past year
- An overview of the tactical SAM systems available for network expansion
- A brief examination of new developments in the early warning network supporting the SAM force, including 55Zh6M deployment
- Network capabilities including system locations and coverage gaps
- Forthcoming systems including the S-350 and 40N6
- Potential impact on the export market.

Say whatever about their free content side (or their Aviation desk) and the digital magazine but it wouldn't be smart to put them in the same class as a Sputnik or National Interest.

[SaiK]

These media guys use google deep learning to push such news into my device. Every day I get a negative PAKFA report pushed.

Today:
http://scout.com/military/warrior/Artic ... -106239954
Russia's Su-57 PAK-FA Stealth Fighter Might Have a 'Fatal Flaw'

[Rakesh]

I read the article. What exactly is the fatal flaw?

[Singha]

so i guess the internal bay and fatter fuselage of the J20 makes it look bigger than the Flanker ie Mig31ish. it should have a lot of combat persistence similar to the JSF which carries a lot of internal fuel. 9t like the flanker is probable or even more. so that takes weak link in chain out of the hypersonic ASM mission - the need to protect AAR assets and find safe areas from SAM/fighters to refuel the strike force.

J20 could launch devastating ASM/ALCM strikes esp with hypersonic weapons when ready.

[Cain Marko]

Perhaps on the open and free side but their technical briefings are still high quality. It is just that they cater to a different customer given the price point and the sort of audience that is likely to pay for their content. Back in the Cold War days their publications could afford retaining high end analysts...but not anymore. People just aren't buying magazines anymore. There isn't a legacy aerospace and defense publication out there that hasn't seen a decline in quality.

It is different on their briefings side and with their other products I mentioned in my earlier post. Outside of specialty publications they are the only large publication I know that retains naval officers and electronic attack operators as part of their analysis team. They know in the age of digital they can’t survive by selling a magazine anymore, and definitly not when they still have a specialized market focus (like specialized radar analysts, C4ISR analysts, Military Vehicle Analysts etc etc).so they focus their investment on the paid assessment and analysis side where they are in a unique position given the breadth of what they cover.

This year alone they have produced some really good briefings covering Counter UAS technology, Active protection systems, 7 Missile and defense procurement forecast and analysis, Iran's air defense capability, and the fighter trainer market. I'm looking forward to their end of the month briefing and analysis on Russia's SAM capability that follows up on a similar one they did in 2014/15. This time Sean O'Connor is leading the effort.

Then I expect some good stuff, Sean did a great write up on row GBAD systems on his blog not too long ago, wonder if it's still there.

[Cain Marko]

Comparision Photo : Su-34 , PAK-FA , Su-35S



While Flanker is more longer the PAK-FA appears more broader at mid fuselage

True but the flanker has a noticeably wider wingspan too, and is a lot taller.

[Austin]

Perhaps on the open and free side but their technical briefings are still high quality. It is just that they cater to a different customer given the price point and the sort of audience that is likely to pay for their content. Back in the Cold War days their publications could afford retaining high end analysts...but not anymore. People just aren't buying magazines anymore. There isn't a legacy aerospace and defense publication out there that hasn't seen a decline in quality.

It is different on their briefings side and with their other products I mentioned in my earlier post. Outside of specialty publications they are the only large publication I know that retains naval officers and electronic attack operators as part of their analysis team. They know in the age of digital they can’t survive by selling a magazine anymore, and definitly not when they still have a specialized market focus (like specialized radar analysts, C4ISR analysts, Military Vehicle Analysts etc etc).so they focus their investment on the paid assessment and analysis side where they are in a unique position given the breadth of what they cover.

This year alone they have produced some really good briefings covering Counter UAS technology, Active protection systems, GCC Missile and defense procurement forecast and analysis, Iran's air defense capability, and the fighter trainer market. I'm looking forward to their end of the month briefing and analysis on Russia's SAM capability that follows up on a similar one they did in 2014/15. This time Sean O'Connor is leading the effort.

Briefing will examine the systems employed by the Russian SAM network, assess the capabilities of the network as a whole, and explore future capabilities as forthcoming systems are brought into service. Specifically, Jane's experts will cover the following:

- Current geographic disposition of forces within the strategic SAM network, highlighting recent developments noted over the past year
- An overview of the tactical SAM systems available for network expansion
- A brief examination of new developments in the early warning network supporting the SAM force, including 55Zh6M deployment
- Network capabilities including system locations and coverage gaps
- Forthcoming systems including the S-350 and 40N6
- Potential impact on the export market.

Say whatever about their free content side (or their Aviation desk) and the digital magazine but it wouldn't be smart to put them in the same class as a Sputnik or National Interest.

That is because of SOC effort , SOC already did good work as independent analyst before joining Janes .......Janes has few bright spot in authors like SOC , Richard Fischer but beyond that they just put what is there in brochure

[brar_w]

You must have seen more briefings and analysis than me since I've only be subscribing to their briefings for about 8-9 years (but based on my limited knowledge they seem to be good quality at par or superior to anything else available out there). BTW SOC would probably be doing less than a 15-20% of what they put out but anyways since only that much covers his area of expertise. I'm not sure you know this but not all of their Subject Matter Experts actually publish on their print or digital magazine side of their business on products such as JDW etc.

but beyond that they just put what is there in brochure

Again, I would have to disagree with this based on my personal experience. From the limited briefings I have seen (6-8 a year for the last many years) they are usually of good quality with plenty of information and more importantly good quality analysis by subject matter experts who either have an operator and/or an industry background (plus they take questions as well). I guess it also depends upon what one is interested in. I'm usually looking for market forecasts and to see where technology in certain areas is heading and what the subject matter experts have to think about those trends, potential roadblocks etc etc..

For example, If I'm looking for a smart analysis on the global Ground Based Radar market over the next decade, I sure as hell won't be looking for something on Sputnik -

https://s2.postimg.org/erzzxpi21/GBRada ... utlook.png
https://s2.postimg.org/yb4l72gtl/hud2_Radars.png
https://s2.postimg.org/p4majsbl5/fhr_GBR.png

I'll give you another example. Let's take missile range. Of course what they put up will be sourced from what the OEM or operator puts out but the analysis covers beyond that. A few years ago while doing an analysis on Ballistic Missile Defense interceptors, they spent a good amount of time on SRM and the cost curves associated with them. Try looking for that in a brochure. SRM costs are some of the missile and rocket industry's most closely held data..and very few analysts venture into that realm because very little is publicly revealed.

[chola]

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-s ... ent-2017-8

Russia's new Su-57 'stealth' fighter already looks like a disappointment

Time to jump off this train (the Russians are not treating us in first class by any means) and concentrate on getting the F-35.

[Austin]

For example, If I'm looking for a smart analysis on the global Ground Based Radar market over the next decade, I sure as hell won't be looking for something on Sputnik -

https://s2.postimg.org/erzzxpi21/GBRada ... utlook.png
https://s2.postimg.org/yb4l72gtl/hud2_Radars.png
https://s2.postimg.org/p4majsbl5/fhr_GBR.png

I'll give you another example. Let's take missile range. Of course what they put up will be sourced from what the OEM or operator puts out but the analysis covers beyond that. A few years ago while doing an analysis on Ballistic Missile Defense interceptors, they spent a good amount of time on SRM and the cost curves associated with that. Try looking for that in a brochure.

My experience with Janes dates back to 80's and comparing to where it is now , I find the general quality of report compared to what they did in the 80's as poor . Janes used to be The Source then for any defence related issue back then Defence reporting was not so wide and depth as it is now nor was then any thing like internet , Today most major countries have their own local defence publications atleast India has quite a few now compared to then when only Vayu was available once in 3 month !

Ofcourse you cant compare Sputunik or RT to Janes which is a specialised publications they would be more like CNN and Fox news of Russia.

The General Quality of Defence Publication has fallen be it Janes , Military Technology Naval Forces AW&ST and Flight Intl as I have been subscriber or had access to these via library ,Today there are few good analysis/writers like SOC ,Richard ,Pitor Butwoski , Saurav Jha may be just handful of few others I would like to read be it from West or local publications .......On the positive note though local defence publications are coming with better Analysis /Writeups and Interviews compared to say 80's when either they copied from reputed magazine like Janes without acknowledging resorting to plagiarizing or doing a poor job.

That is just my personal observation based on almost 2 and half decades of following them and opinions might differ

[brar_w]

My experience with Janes dates back to 80's and comparing to where it is now , I find the general quality of report compared to what they did in the 80's as poor .

As I said, I am not speaking of their magazines per say (I think I made that pretty clear) which I too have been following since the early 80s. I have said as well that much like other A&D publications they have also seen a reduction in quality of their content due to the changes on the print and digital side of things and reading habits of the consumer. Folks just don't spend money on content anymore and as a result more and more publications have reduced their subject matter experts and specialized analysts. Aviation Week probably has 3-4 folks left now that can legitimately claim deep insight in the content they report on (On the defense side). This is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.

I am specifically referring to Jane's technical briefings, and other published materials not associated with their magazine either on the digital or print side of things. Here they still retain a wide range of subject matter experts covering key A&D areas such as missiles, naval warfare, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, and armor. Their aviation desk is something that leaves a lot of room to improve but that is also a subject one can get access to from other sources more easily then some of the other niche sectors. They also do a very good job of Defense budget analysis in US and Europe (where they mostly concentrate because I assume that is where their customer base is).

Again, my experience has been listening to these briefings and getting clarification and my questions answered on matters I am interested in from the authors/analysts. Based on that I would say they are about the top of the line that you can get access too. I don't expect technical clarity or competence from the authors of most of the media publications mentioned above unless they have a background in what they are talking about..They report news and come from a liberal arts or journalism background and have no real world operational experience with the products they are reporting on that can compensate for their lack of technical background. Accurate technical analysis is a bonus not a given with these folks. That may be fine if someone wants to report on a fact or get a scoop like for example..."I sat down with the LCA designers, or PAKFA designers, or F-22 designer and he/she told me XYZ"..that is reporting on something and plenty of sources do that. But analysis is different..you aren't neccesarily presenting unknown information but what people are looking for is a deeper analysis on a particular subject area and not just reporting..That is the sort of content that folks deeply interested will actually pay money for now since it adds value to their knowledge over and above what they can get for free from the thousands of journalists around the world reporting on defense and national security matters. The internet and digital media has changed how folks consume information and what they actually pay for.

The current state of A&D publications reflects that. To their credit, as Jane's has reduced their reporting footprint they have increased their content and analysis with their technical briefings covering everything from counter insurgency to niche areas that are more granular. Their modules on International Defense acquisition practices, Defense Offsets, and Technology transfers are quite detailed and include nuances that go generally unreported by 99.9% of those looking to sell magazines or generate web traffic etc. They realize that people will only pay for something if it adds value and if folks cannot easily get access to it for free or from elsewhere. Putting 4 radar experts together for example and having them go over the state of the market and then take questions is not something many can or do DO and not everyone has the time to hit the technical conference circuit and travel around the world to get to interact with experts from academia from the A&D sector. So there is no single Jane's "report" as such other then an organization that does a lot more than just publish a weekly digital and print magazine.

But comparing them to Sputnik and National Interest? LOL

[gaurav_w]

How old are u guys^^^?

[ArjunPandit]

How old are u guys^^^?

You're assuming them to be humans, they are as AI BRAR UB shiv

[SaiK]

Today, they pushed me a 1:1 comparison, and surprise, PAKFA though not as stealthy as Raptor, wins in BVR using electro-opticals! yay.

[brar_w]

The next incremental upgrade to the raptor is probably being defined right now and it is likely that the IR side of the things will be addressed and upgrades pondered to the AN/AAR-56s currently onboard and using the IRST space that Lockheed has claimed it had provisioned for a future upgrade once the requirement was removed. From open source information we know that USAF's AFRL is working on next generation IRST technology for current and future fighter and UAV applications.

[Gaur]

India-Russia fifth generation fighter project appears to be stuck: Def Min Report

http://www.timesnownews.com/india/artic ... port/77069

The committee recently submitted a report on the programme to the ministry and as per it, the cost of developing four prototype fighter jets would cost around $6 billion, which is very high according to officials in the Defence Ministry.

[Philip]

There are some serious issues here. Firstly,whether the Indian aerospace industry,both public and pvt.,would be able to absorb the tech with a full TOT,originally envisaged,where we would have IP rights to the same.We are struggling to get our act together even for the LCA,where the engine,radar and other weaponry are of firang origin.Despite sev.d ecades of knowing what we wanted for the LCA,we've not been able to pull it off. Kaveri has been a total disaster,where not even a single engine for alternative marine use has been delivered by the GTRE.

Secondly,let's look at MKI production,where despite a goodly 70%+ of material obtained locally,the cost of building an MKI by HAL is significantly more expensive than one built in Russia. If the current estimate for an SU-57 is around $100M+,then it would be fair to assume that one built in India say from 2025 onwards would cost another 25-50% more,also allowing for escalation.

We found the Rafale too expensive a prospect for a "built-in-India"/TOT option. The $5-6B asked for needs to be examined whether this is part of the entire costs of development,etc.,not just the cost of 4 prototypes,which seems more likely.For that price one could get 4 SSGNs!
Anyway, Should the full partnership aspect of the programme become too expensive,we should limit it to key components of the programme like engine,radar,stealth tech,etc. If even that cutting down on TOT appears to be too much,then a simple buy of the fighter which comes along with dedicated OEM support,set up in India,for the lifetime of the aircraft must be part of the contract.7 years have now gone by and at this rate the IAF will; never get a stealth 5th-gen bird. The AMCA right now is a dream for 2030+.When we have precious little developed at home for such an ambitious project,a decision on the FGFA/SU-57 must be taken at the earliest,as it will have an impact upon that programme,where it is /was expected that elements of the FGFA programme would find its way into the AMCA,making it easier to design,develop and produce.

In the context of the PLAAF preparing to rapidly induct its own stealth birds into service,our need is vital too for a 5th-gen bird and some solution based upon original or modified expectations should be urgently attempted otherwise in the next decade we will be both outnumbered and outclassed by our mortal enemies in the air.

[Austin]

India-Russia fifth generation fighter project appears to be stuck: Def Min Report

http://www.timesnownews.com/india/artic ... port/77069

The committee recently submitted a report on the programme to the ministry and as per it, the cost of developing four prototype fighter jets would cost around $6 billion, which is very high according to officials in the Defence Ministry.

That is not the cost of developing 4 prototypes but JV cost includes R&D , IP's etc of 2nd phase equally shared between India & Russia each will put in $3 billion