The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project

kit · Post by **kit** » 16 Aug 2009 19:12

The next generation AEGIS currently entering USN service uses a combo of X and L band radar .. this type is also entering service with the Australian Navy.There might be some virtue in this combo, the gurus might be able to explain why

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 16 Aug 2009 20:27

It is actually a good move to have L band radar in a 5th gen stealth aircraft.
1. It can detect enemy aircraft at a greater range
2. Enemy stealth will be neutralized by a great extent.
3. Electronic counter measures will be much harder
4. Even the most sophisticated RWRs may not effectively pick up AESA L band radars

But then you will have some disadvantages like poorer directivity and more sidelobes and poorer resolution. Should also use advanced methods to improve signal to noise ratio

If PAK-FA has to take on F-22 then there is no option but to go for low frequency radar.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 20:29

No expert.

poorer directivity and more sidelobes and poorer resolution

In an AESA?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2009 21:15

Igorr wrote:My translation of the Litovkin's article with some original pics of NIIP's production - in my blog.

Good Work Igorr , are you visiting MAKS 09 and we could see pictures from you ?

If you are visiting MAKS 09 , please try to click pictures of Information Board , Brochure , images on the stand , they will contain many use full technical information on radar , aircraft and weapon system, once that is done , focus on beautiful ladies out there and lastly aircraft , dont miss the first two

"The visitors of MAKS -2009 air show in Zhukovskiy (Moscow district), which is starting at August 18, will be surprised. They will see the full-scale AESA X-band radar, developed for the Russian prospective multifunctional fighters (PAK FA).

I guess you need to change that to L band.

BTW guys the NIIP AESA radar , are they referring to NATO L band or IEEE L band ?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Aug 2009 21:31

NRao wrote:No expert.

poorer directivity and more sidelobes and poorer resolution
In an AESA?

Sir, such limitations are a part of any and all radar systems. The L-Band being far lower frequency than X-band, these problems are more pronounced (higher wavelength), and thus, affects the accuracy and resolution of the radar.

This is irrespective of AESA or non AESA. Such problems are a physical issue - to remove them, the laws of physics will have to change. AESAs only minimize them by clever technology, but they aren't a cure.

Using an L-band array as primary sensor may be a very bad idea, but it may work if it acts as a secondary sensor to detect stealth aircraft. However, per IRSI-07, what I could figure was that Ruskies haven't yet been able to master the MMIC technology and other tech reqd to develop a good airborne X-band radar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Aug 2009 21:48

Is it possible to have a Dual Band ( X & L ) on a fighter radar with AESA ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Aug 2009 22:32

Sir, such limitations are a part of any and all radar systems. The L-Band being far lower frequency than X-band, these problems are more pronounced (higher wavelength), and thus, affects the accuracy and resolution of the radar.

This is irrespective of AESA or non AESA. Such problems are a physical issue - to remove them, the laws of physics will have to change. AESAs only minimize them by clever technology, but they aren't a cure.

Using an L-band array as primary sensor may be a very bad idea, but it may work if it acts as a secondary sensor to detect stealth aircraft. However, per IRSI-07, what I could figure was that Ruskies haven't yet been able to master the MMIC technology and other tech reqd to develop a good airborne X-band radar.

(For all: no need for "sir")

------------------------------------------

To the most interesting aspect of the topic.

Irrespective of the band, in an AESA, is "such problems are a physical issue" a problem? (I suspect it is.)

Is the problem more pronounced in a non-AESA? If so, by how much (approx: 2x, 3x,.....)?

Would software take care of some of the deficiencies?

I suspect more "power" would be better.

Finally, "radar" typically has come to mean "forward looking". There have been some rumors about rear-looking radar on the MKI (rumors). With an AESA being capable of so doing so many things, power supply and cooling notwithstanding, perhaps sideways looking pods (MKI?) should resolve major problems of a single forward looking radar. (If I have not confused you please let me know.) Thoughts? Comments? what's out there?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 16 Aug 2009 23:38

Austin wrote:, once that is done , focus on beautiful ladies out there and lastly aircraft , dont miss the first two

Yes, sir!

"The visitors of MAKS -2009 air show in Zhukovskiy (Moscow district), which is starting at August 18, will be surprised. They will see the full-scale AESA X-band radar, developed for the Russian prospective multifunctional fighters (PAK FA).
I guess you need to change that to L band.

I have only translated that text. NIIP's X-band and L-band radars are two different devices. See my own pics from MAKS-2007 there in my blog: the L-band radar dummy was already demonstrated then in 2007.

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 17 Aug 2009 00:20

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/S ... 261852.jpg
Isn't this the AESA panel, that was proposed to be fitted on the leading edges of wings or slats , to enhance radar coverage ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Aug 2009 02:10

Igorr wrote:I have only translated that text. NIIP's X-band and L-band radars are two different devices. See my own pics from MAKS-2007 there in my blog: the L-band radar dummy was already demonstrated then in 2007.

Fantastic report Igorr. Did they actually say "several thousand" TRMS?

Another request - could you please get some info/images of the latest MiG-35 and mig-29k. Such as - changes to airframes, empty weights, max payloads, radar possibilities.
Thanks much

CM.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 17 Aug 2009 03:23

Bob V wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/S ... 261852.jpg
Isn't this the AESA panel, that was proposed to be fitted on the leading edges of wings or slats , to enhance radar coverage ?

It could be placed anywhere, edges, lateral conformed surface or tail. The main point: the prospective AESA radar will have more than one antennas (arrays).

Cain Marko wrote: Fantastic report Igorr. Did they actually say "several thousand" TRMS?

In the context they mean that AESAs in general could have up to thousands emitting elements. It's true in general.

Another request - could you please get some info/images of the latest MiG-35 and mig-29k. Such as - changes to airframes, empty weights, max payloads, radar possibilities.

- I can say very breifly the main differenses 1) between classic line of MiG-29 and the latest MiG-29K/MiG-29M/MiG-35 line:
-the latest has 15-20% composite airframe,
-slightly bigger wings and elerons,
-bigger horizontal stabilizers and rudders,
-wider spine with bigger internal fuel tanks, 1.5 time more fuel.
-bigger additional fuel tank is allowed (from 1520 l to 2150 l)
-higher load, (5500 kg for MiG-29K)
-antiradar coating,
-higher trust engine, with longer MTBO/MTBF (2000 --> 4000 hours)
-Redused infrared emission of the engines, smokeless, FADeC.
-longer life of airframe (from 2500 fly hours or 20 years rised to 5000 f/h or 30 years on MiG-29K)
-Higher number of load points and bigger weight is allowed
-Dorsal air intake inlets are removed, fuel tank is installed instead.
-Inlet defence system is installed, grids.
-Totally redesigned cannopy
-Service improvement , on-condition maintenance, fuel economy with 2.5 times reducing of flight-hour cost.
-Fly-by-wire
-Refueling capacity
-Open architecture of avionics
- Anti-corrosive defence of a Naval aircraft level.

2) between MiG-29K and MiG-35 in its most advanced variant offered for Indian MMRCA

- MiG-35 has no dorsal air brake (rudders are used instead),
- 11 points of load instead of 9
- 6500 kg max load instead of 5500
- Difference in chassis
- Airframe life 5000 -->6000 hours or 40 years
- AESA radar
- Missiles warning system
- Broader weapon spectrum (+3M-14, 3M-54, KAB-1500)
- Advanced IRST
- Trust vectoring engine

However, the difference with MiG-29 can be finally minimal if a castomer wants so.

More broadly I will seemingly write about MiG-35 soon in my blog .

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Aug 2009 07:06

Igorr wrote: More broadly I will seemingly write about MiG-35 soon in my blog .

Excellent blog Igorr ; you are a true Jingo pretty neat compilation on the AESA front.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Aug 2009 09:35

Great Job Igor
please continue the good work

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 17 Aug 2009 21:24

Amazing beauty
PAK-FA on livefist
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/im ... a-5th.html

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 17 Aug 2009 21:33

These are pretty old artistic impression .. It's already been long time since floating around on the web ...

rohiths wrote:Amazing beauty
PAK-FA on livefist
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/im ... a-5th.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 22:58

rohiths wrote:Amazing beauty
PAK-FA on livefist
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/im ... a-5th.html

Concepts of a great artist.

However, does look like a single seater. PAK-FA perhaps, but certainly not THE FGFA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Aug 2009 23:13

I expect FGFA to look like a twin seater PAK-FA ( Su-27 and Su-27UB or Su-30K ) , what will matter is what goes inside it whether PAK-FA or FGFA , and what kind of technology will Russia share with us on this.

I would like to think that critical technology for FGFA will come from Russia and the rest like EW , Radar , MMI will be Indian input for its version.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 18 Aug 2009 03:59

Austin wrote:I would like to think that critical technology for FGFA will come from Russia and the rest like EW , Radar , MMI will be Indian input for its version.

The EW, Radar and MMI ARE critical technology. What exactly are the Russian's supplying? The shape? Maybe the engine?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Aug 2009 04:08

Austin wrote: I would like to think that critical technology for FGFA will come from Russia and the rest like EW , Radar , MMI will be Indian input for its version.

Last I heard we were struggling with the MMR for LCA. That is not even a PESA AFAIK. From where are we going to conjure up an AESA for the FGFA?
The Russians are way ahead of us in manufacturing aircraft Radars. We'll get the radar from either them or the Israelis.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 18 Aug 2009 04:46

Igorr wrote:
Bob V wrote: More broadly I will seemingly write about MiG-35 soon in my blog .

Good blog Igorr. Quite informative, from now on your blog goes to my list of favourites.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2009 08:11

GeorgeWelch wrote:The EW, Radar and MMI ARE critical technology. What exactly are the Russian's supplying? The shape? Maybe the engine?

Well Russia can supply end to end system for FGFA , but then what do we contribute to it and what do we gain from it ?

So my thinking is DRDO/LRDE will chip in with Radar , MMI ,EW , OSA/MC , Composites for its FGFA.

The total Design of the Aircraft , Engine and major portion of Weapons will be Russian , Flight testing program will still be conducted out there.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 18 Aug 2009 09:30

Initially HAL was to contribute in Composites and Avionics but now no contribution for the prototype (except $$) coz of time constrains. Recently I read somewhere that HAL will contribute in future Indian specific twin-seat and navel variant.. it will be more like Pak-FA-MKI for India

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 18 Aug 2009 10:29

rohiths wrote:Amazing beauty
PAK-FA on livefist
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/im ... a-5th.html

Sweet design! But it still lacks the tech demonstrated by Pratt & wittney. I like the color of the aircraft.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 18 Aug 2009 14:59

can anyone please tell what would be the cost of this a/c an estimate! just wanted to know how a/c india will have.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2009 18:07

Gorgeous! It immediately brings to mind the face of a "King Cobra',which could be a perfect name for the beast.From earlier info,the IAF wanted an aircraft smaller than the Flanker.Ideally a single-seat aircraft would be best,as it would also have a smaller profile,cost less and given the shortage of pilots,plus the large amount of two-seat Flankers to be in service,a single seat version make sense.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Aug 2009 18:14

Well that Shiv blog pictures of PAK-FA are just fan boy art , nothing to do with reality

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Aug 2009 19:04

From all accounts the FGFA is expected to be a double-seater.

And, yeah, Aroor should know better than to post such pictures without red-bold-cap lettered caption that it is just a drawing and not the real thing. And, there are plenty more out there too.

Here are his original workS: http://duler.ru/design.html (scroll down for PAK-FA)

http://duler.ru/CONTENT/pic/industrial/ ... _pic_3.jpg
http://duler.ru/CONTENT/pic/industrial/ ... _pic_4.jpg
http://duler.ru/CONTENT/pic/industrial/ ... _pic_2.jpg

http://duler.ru/CONTENT/pic/industrial/ ... _pic_9.jpg

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Aug 2009 00:34

Sigh - you can make all the sleek gorgeous images you want.

I woul dbe shocked if they leapfrogged to such a beauty from where they last were

Lets see what comes out.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Aug 2009 00:44

We have seen more drawings and 'artist's impressions' of the PAK-FA on the net than pics of actually existing Russian aircraft.
I expect the shape to be different from every one of those products of a fertile imagination.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Aug 2009 02:34

The F-22 went through 10 design iterations, in 10 years - clearly the US had the time.

However, others have had time to analyze what the US has done - to some degree.

WE, tho', have enough time to gab - a cool 4 months or so.

Surya,

That impression could be rather close. It does have the overall shape of the Su-27 family with much more cleaner lines.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 19 Aug 2009 03:00

NRao wrote:The F-22 went through 10 design iterations, in 10 years - clearly the US had the time.

However, others have had time to analyze what the US has done - to some degree.

WE, tho', have enough time to gab - a cool 4 months or so.

Surya,

That impression could be rather close. It does have the overall shape of the Su-27 family with much more cleaner lines.

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/photoshow ... ng=0&id=29
the above picture is the official artistic image of PAK-FA, anyways we should not be bothered much by what the PAK-FA looks as from many of the posts posted by our erudite seniors, one can consulde that INDIAN version of PAK-FA would be different.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Aug 2009 05:55

rajsunder wrote: http://www.npo-saturn.ru/!new/photoshow ... ng=0&id=29
the above picture is the official artistic image of PAK-FA, anyways we should not be bothered much by what the PAK-FA looks as from many of the posts posted by our erudite seniors, one can consulde that INDIAN version of PAK-FA would be different.

With missiles hanging on the outside?

That picture seems to be from 2005. Perhaps then the RUians did not think of RCS?

Neerajsoman · Post by **Neerajsoman** » 19 Aug 2009 10:00

The PAK-FA would likely have an internal weapons bas as well as external conformal hardpoints, as hardpoints on the wings increase RCA by a larger margin. Additionally, it would seem that the Russians are discarding the R-77's potato-masher fins for a more conventional design. Remember that the potato-mashers were an interim solution due to the lack of well-developed servo technology.

Although the current control surfaces are foldable, conventional fins would make the R-77 logistically simpler, lighter, and more easy to accomodate in an internal bay. Also remember that India is looking at procuring the Novator K-100, which is unlikely to fit in any internal bay. Add to that the possibility of mounting a BrahMos ALCM or two, and we see the necessity of external hardpoints.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 19 Aug 2009 10:33

The IAF started out saying that they wanted a smaller single engined aircraft than the sukhoi design and were plumping for the MIG design. Now this has all changed and the IAF seems to want a bigger two seater version than the sukoi design. What caused this change in doctrine?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Aug 2009 11:07

Willy wrote:The IAF started out saying that they wanted a smaller single engined aircraft than the sukhoi design and were plumping for the MIG design. Now this has all changed and the IAF seems to want a bigger two seater version than the sukoi design. What caused this change in doctrine?

No its a wrong belief that the Mig 5th gen fighter was a single engine fighter , both the Mig and Sukhoi proposal were twin engine , but Sukhoi won in 2004 and went ahead.

IAF interest in Mig design was because it could have a greater say in it and would have given greater flexibility to customise the aircraft , but RuAF was not interested in it and IAF had to go alone which was a risk.

IAF avoided the risk and decided to go ahead with the Sukhoi design as RuAF was keen for it and was funding it as well.

Mig design was also a medium one in Mig-29 class , but who knowns we will see the Mig design flying as well as a cost effective alternative.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 20 Aug 2009 03:58

NIIP's AESA, presumably for the PAK FA.

Image 1:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file ... &mode=view

Image 2:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file ... &mode=view

Image 3:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file ... &mode=view

Also, from some Russian forums, people who have attended the show have counted the # of T/R modules to be > 1500.

Next, from Vesti Moscow I got a video about NIIP's radars and have uploaded it to youtube at NIIP's radars from MAKS 2009 including PAK FA's AESA radar and Irbis-E

Next, Sukhoi T-50 patch from MAKS 2009.

Also, some A2G missile types have been displayed at MAKS 2009, which should also be applicable to the PAK FA.
- Kh-38M and Kh-35 UE
- Kh-38M and Kh-59MK2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 04:26

That youtube stuff does not work right now

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Aug 2009 04:31

RuAF Commander Zelin has stated that the T-50 prototype will fly in November or December of this year, and this is from AW&ST's latest edition..will be real pie on his face if they don't do it this time around..kind of like what happened to Boeing top honcho Scott Carson who was blowing the trumpet about the 787 first flight at Paris Air Show and less than 2 weeks later the Side of Body issue blew up in their face.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Aug 2009 04:51

i am sure it will fly. The question is how close to production will it be. The shape perhaps will be the most intriguing. The radar is out - it seems. The engine will be next.

Looks. Looks. Looks.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Aug 2009 07:18

1500 TRMs - not bad at all! Here is probly the best speculation for the Pakfa shape, by Pibu via Quantum FX @ Keypubs:

http://paralay.com/t50/butowski.jpg

V.close to what the NPO saturn folks had up previously. Slick.

CM