The Indo Russian PAK-FA Project

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Jan 2010 09:20

That would bring us to the Gripen ? but again wont geopolitical compulsions have a role in selection. So the viper ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jan 2010 09:36

No, I doubt the lower priced ones will have much advantage if they are tying it to the MCA, which they might - the requirement for a 40 year lifespan is an indication of this imho; so is the budget of over $ 10 billion not to mention the recent go ahead for the Kaveri JV. They may opt for fewer numbers with an option upto 190. In any case, none of the MRCA contenders are really cheap, other than the fulcrum of course; but the IAF will probly stay away from the fulcrum and indulge in more flankers.

It seems as though the current GOI would prefer an American purchase, the MOD will probly prefer the cheapest one (and considering the strength of the russian lobby as well), the fulcrum might have certain advantages with the ministry; the IAF otoh, would probly look at performance and future needs; hence either the Gripen or more likely, the Rafale. JMT.

The solah is least likely to find takers, for one it is not really inexpensive compared to the fulcrum or the Gripen or for that matter, the shornet. Nor is it a really modern design, nor does it find favor with the country that makes it; nor does the IAF find favor with the country that really uses it, nor dare I say, does it offer any redeeming quality that might make it a worthy instrument for the next four decades. If it is to be American, the Shornet shows far more promise, esp. with the EPE engines.

CM.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jan 2010 09:40

over the lifespan of 40 yrs starting 2015, it will have to face off against both 5th and 6th gen chinese fighters. also it has to be able to produce very favourable
exchange ratios against J10/J11/su30mkk all of which will get improvements.

so cost cannot be the main criteria.

the gap between MRCA induction and FGPA-mki induction into IAF is likely to be
only around 5-7 years. we are still 18 months away from signing up for MRCA
and first delivery typically takes 3 yrs, so 2014 is best I would hope for to get
the first squadron.

both Rus-FGPA and our version will likely enter IOC in 2020 after a 10 yr flight test and certification program for its airframe , avionics & weapons.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jan 2010 19:15

Whatever composite materials they have now, they’ll use. But, because the composites will change… the FGFA will keep evolving for a fairly long time.

Now that is a pointer to which where our major contributions may lie. "Stealth", Software and Electronics.

BTW, shouldn't we change the topic to FGFA rather?

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 15 Jan 2010 10:41

Some news form Roys

http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_jan2.html#13jan
India Buying Fifth Generation Fighters

The Indian air force plans to buy 250 fifth generation fighters. The project will be developed using the joint efforts of Indian and Russian firms. This aircraft is known as the PAK FA in Russia, and in India it has received the designation FGFA ((Latin letters)).
-
-
-

HAL will receive 25 percent in the airplane's development. This company's role will consist of the creation of the aircraft computer, navigational system and the majority of the cockpit's displays. India also will be sharing experience in the creation of composites used in the creation of the Indian Tejas lightweight combat airplanes with Russia. The fifth generation fighter's fuselage will consist of 25 percent titanium and 20 percent composites. As the Indian military note, an "amazing airplane" should be the result. Its effective reflective surface will be equal to only 0.5 square meters (in comparison with 20 square meters for the Su-30MKI). This means that if the Su-30MKI is seen on radar as a metallic object with a size of 5 by 4 meters, then the reflection on a radar screen for the new fighter will be 40 times less ((1/40th of that)). The Indian air force plans to receive the first such fighters in 2017. The Russian expect it 2 years earlier.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 15 Jan 2010 12:31

^^
Seems to be a Ajai Shukla's article rip off.

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 15 Jan 2010 12:57

Cannot say that. Shukla is not the only one who has access to ppl working on PAK-FA. This piece of news about 25% work by HAL etc etc, must have released officially.

Reading the article, I didn't get the feeling that it is a ripoff of A Shukla. Nevertheless, few percepts might have been taken to convey the point.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 15 Jan 2010 20:17

Originally posted on KEYPUBLISHING FORUM...!

It is in talk that it is real stuff...or atleast cockpit simulator.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Jan 2010 20:50

Wow looks like a sliding canopy (just like the sea harrier) , but it is still the same vintage design with re-enforcing frame/brace in the front.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Jan 2010 20:58

Ravishankar wrote:Its effective reflective surface will be equal to only 0.5 square meters

If true, that would be horribly disappointing, nowhere close to stealth.

Reduced RCS, yes. Stealth, no.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2010 21:00

so no gold tinted canopy eh!..

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 15 Jan 2010 22:00

The above image has quite a bit of resemblance to the cockpit of one of the many renders of PAK-FA doing the rounds...

Here are the similarities I could notice...

The main difference between both the pics is the empty part behind the seat in the 2nd pic. IMO that might be because, it is a simulator shown. Just an observation. Views of experts required about this.

The unofficial render is here.
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6906/26459256.jpg

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 15 Jan 2010 22:30

Given the pictures and models that have started appearing on the internet, I think one is now forced to admit that this rendering is what the PAK-FA is indeed like. BTW no pics of the FGFA yet.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 16 Jan 2010 00:19

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Ravishankar wrote:Its effective reflective surface will be equal to only 0.5 square meters
If true, that would be horribly disappointing, nowhere close to stealth.

Reduced RCS, yes. Stealth, no.

How is that? Do we have any official or even semiofficial confirmation on F22/JSF radar cross section from LM or USAF or GoTUS?

What I have seen is that internet jingos adding another zero after decimal with each passing year for F22. I do not think 0.1 Sqmt is feasible for a flying aircraft of F22 size leave aside other outragious claims of 0.0001Sqmt.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 16 Jan 2010 00:41

The thread in keypubs have concluded that it is a Rafale PS job passed off as the PAK FA cockpit

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=301

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 16 Jan 2010 00:42

Sometime back I remember reading in an article quoting a USAF official stating that RCS of the Raptor is equal to the size of a Golf ball , now how much would that be?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 16 Jan 2010 00:45

Katare wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:If true, that would be horribly disappointing, nowhere close to stealth.

Reduced RCS, yes. Stealth, no.
How is that? Do we have any official or even semiofficial confirmation on F22/JSF radar cross section from LM or USAF or GoTUS?

Yes, the USAF has said F-35 is ~ golf ball and F-22 is ~ marble

The standard golf ball today is 1.68 inch (4.2672 cm) in diameter.

So it's cross-section is ~ 0.0015 sq m (this is over 300 times smaller than 0.5 sq m)

Katare wrote: What I have seen is that internet jingos adding another zero after decimal with each passing year for F22. I do not think 0.1 Sqmt is feasible for a flying aircraft of F22 size leave aside other outragious claims of 0.0001Sqmt.

If it was easy, everyone would have stealth

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jan 2010 00:56

Akshut, imho, it does not match..

look at the angles of those frames. Plus, the frame joins after the lobe (head part), where as in the first pic, the frame line joins before the apex.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jan 2010 02:28

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Katare wrote: How is that? Do we have any official or even semiofficial confirmation on F22/JSF radar cross section from LM or USAF or GoTUS?
Yes, the USAF has said F-35 is ~ golf ball and F-22 is ~ marble

The standard golf ball today is 1.68 inch (4.2672 cm) in diameter.

So it's cross-section is ~ 0.0015 sq m (this is over 300 times smaller than 0.5 sq m)

Katare wrote: What I have seen is that internet jingos adding another zero after decimal with each passing year for F22. I do not think 0.1 Sqmt is feasible for a flying aircraft of F22 size leave aside other outragious claims of 0.0001Sqmt.
If it was easy, everyone would have stealth

All fine and dandy but what at what angles does the F-22 look like a marble to a given radar? Head on? Side on? Ventral, tail on? What if the Pakfa 0.5 RCS is side on figure? Or even ventral? Or a combined average of various angles?

Bottomline - that 0.5 msq figure needs to be put into proper perspective (as does the marble figure) before jumping to conclusions. The MiG-29SMT is supposedly @ 0.5 msq head on. So the Pakfa is the same is it? Or should we conclude (as George so aptly points out), that since stealth is not easy, the russkis simply cannot better a MiG-29SMT!

CM.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Jan 2010 02:44

Cain Marko the RCS figures to this date always imply frontal RCS (unless explicitly specified as aft/ventral yada yada).Those RCS figures for F-22,F-35,F-117,B-2 etc etc are all frontal RCS figures same is the case when a manufacturer says Radar 'R' can detect a target of 'x' msq at 'd' kms and this is true for all OEMs RU/US (x mtr sq being frontal RCS).

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 16 Jan 2010 02:54

SaiK, I suppose you are talking about these angles...

Is it?

My assumption was based on another assumption that canopy will join like this. Is it the way it should be??

Though it was just a guess, I am no expert.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Jan 2010 03:21

Cain Marko,
As negi pointed out, rcs is always assumed to be frontal rcs unless specified otherwise.
Jingoism aside, one has to admit that the figure of 0.5 msq, if true, is worrying. However, the article seems to have borrowed generously from Ajai Shukla. And IMHO the figure is hogwash since no one will specifically give out classified data as critical as rcs. AFAIK, no modern fighter's rcs has ever been disclosed. So IMHO, all rcs figures found on various sites are hogwash. So relax.

There is no way that rcs of pak-fa could have been disclosed.

added later:
0.5 msq rcs figure for Mig-29SSMT seems doubtful to say the least. Considering that it does not even has basic rcs reduction features for its inlets, I seriously doubt the figure. But then again, I don't believe in rcs figures of any modern fighter found on net.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 16 Jan 2010 03:44

Cain Marko wrote:All fine and dandy but what at what angles does the F-22 look like a marble to a given radar? Head on? Side on? Ventral, tail on? What if the Pakfa 0.5 RCS is side on figure? Or even ventral? Or a combined average of various angles?

I would assume both values are for frontal (ie optimal) RCS

Cain Marko wrote:The MiG-29SMT is supposedly @ 0.5 msq head on. So the Pakfa is the same is it? Or should we conclude (as George so aptly points out), that since stealth is not easy, the russkis simply cannot better a MiG-29SMT!

Which is why I said 0.5 sq m would be a disappointment

These are all rumors at this point, and the fact that it is supposed to be stealthy would lead me to dismiss this particular report as inaccurate because 0.5 sq m is nowhere close to stealth

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 16 Jan 2010 05:49

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Yes, the USAF has said F-35 is ~ golf ball and F-22 is ~ marble

The standard golf ball today is 1.68 inch (4.2672 cm) in diameter.

So it's cross-section is ~ 0.0015 sq m (this is over 300 times smaller than 0.5 sq m)

Katare wrote: What I have seen is that internet jingos adding another zero after decimal with each passing year for F22. I do not think 0.1 Sqmt is feasible for a flying aircraft of F22 size leave aside other outragious claims of 0.0001Sqmt.
If it was easy, everyone would have stealth

George,

link please!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jan 2010 06:36

I know that most RCS figures seem to be for head on, almost by default. However, people would be out of their minds to suggest that the Pakfa will have an RCS higher than say a Rafale. India/Russia are not going to invest a bazillion bucks to pull out a wannabe Eurocanard out of their heads/wahzoos. The whole pakfa thing is v.v. vague; the passage of time and the coldwar seemed to have hardly dulled the two countries penchant for obfuscation. Otherwise India, which has been in on this program since the v. beginning should instead just purchase a Rafale or perhaps even a Tiffy.

Sources (paper by Lazarov + Pogosyan iirc) indicate that the Su-35 and upgraded MKIs are well on their way to have rcs values in the 1-2 msq range; the MiG-29 vanilla was about 5msq (refer Doug RIchardson), and the RAM treated ones have often been advertised as 5 - 10X lower by OEM. If the performance of the BIson is any indication, the Russkis do a pretty decent job of lowering RCS values.

IIRC, one of the head honchos involved in the Tejas programs (probly subramanyam) in an interview had discretely indicated that the Tejas will have a v.small RCS and this in the same breath as mentioning the Rafale.

So, I am afraid it is bordering on lunacy (and hardly "worrisome") to have a supposedly 5th gen a/c, which optimizes stealth that ends up with a footprint that is a few 100X larger than a Raptor or JSF, something that a Rafale might be ashamed of! Either that or the F22 and JSF do not have said super low RCS figures either.

In any case the said report is anything but alarming at least imho.

CM

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Jan 2010 06:44

Katare,
It is true. Such a statement was made. But the analogy of golf balls and marbles was used to give a rough idea of rcs at "certain critical angles". For obvious reasons, USAF or LM cannot give frontal rcs figures.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0909p2.xml

Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble." By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.

I also do not believe that rcs figure for pak-fa would have been released. So I take all these rcs figures with a pinch of salt.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 16 Jan 2010 20:07

Akshut wrote:The above image has quite a bit of resemblance to the cockpit of one of the many renders of PAK-FA doing the rounds...

Here are the similarities I could notice...

The main difference between both the pics is the empty part behind the seat in the 2nd pic. IMO that might be because, it is a simulator shown. Just an observation. Views of experts required about this.

The image looks photoshop'ed to me. Watch Gen. Zelin's paws are bit sharper.

swapna · Post by **swapna** » 16 Jan 2010 20:38

The series below will give an idea how lethal f-22 is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KpjgHYjcA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxY ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY2KkvD4 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpAQhYh ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef9tmTT ... re=related

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jan 2010 20:52

those trapezoidal wings and internal bay plus more powerful engines and lighter airframe should comfortably give it a better acceleration and top speed than flanker family imo.

it needs the performance to defeat the JSF/TF/16block60 and by these looks it will.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 16 Jan 2010 21:14

swapna wrote:The series below will give an idea how lethal f-22 is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KpjgHYjcA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrAYSxY ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY2KkvD4 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpAQhYh ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vef9tmTT ... re=related

Dont read too much into this. The documentary is highly biased, based on mythical judgment of american tech, french tech (rafale) and russian tech

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 16 Jan 2010 22:18

Pavel's several renderings of possible PAK-FA

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 16 Jan 2010 22:20

Gaur wrote:Katare,
It is true. Such a statement was made. But the analogy of golf balls and marbles was used to give a rough idea of rcs at "certain critical angles". For obvious reasons, USAF or LM cannot give frontal rcs figures.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0909p2.xml

Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble." By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.
I also do not believe that rcs figure for pak-fa would have been released. So I take all these rcs figures with a pinch of salt.

All I have seen is unnamed sources and private conversation of a highly complex technical parameter. Is there a statement by LM or USAF or any GoTUS person/institute out there about RCS of F22/JSF?

There was a news article circa 2005 which claimed that USAF has revealed F22 RCS to Congress (the golf and metal marble story) to get more funding but I haven't been able to find who revealed it to congress or what were his exact words? Unless there is a name associated with the claims they are worth little to me.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Jan 2010 22:39

^ Yeah it is even quoted in F-16.net fora and again the original link is not there. But I remember reading it myself . At this point given the capability already demonstrated and proven by platforms like F-117 and B-2 it is safe to assume that given F-22's size its frontal RCS should be at least equal to or less than the F-117 'nighthawk' .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2010 00:35

I am really starting to like this fpga thing. hope they retain the big wings and dual canted tailplanes. cant have enough of big engines and low wingloading.

and that large flattened nose should accomodate a meaty radar

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Jan 2010 16:26

just thinking a bit laterally.Should one be too concerned about RCS ? say if you have an RCS of o.05 and i have an rcs of 1 ., but lets say i have a better radar, maybe twice more capable than yours and can detect you at almost exactly the same distance as you can wont that be an equalizer ? In close combat this wont matter unless you bring into play visual stealth.Am i simplifying things too much ?

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 17 Jan 2010 16:53

kit wrote:just thinking a bit laterally.Should one be too concerned about RCS ? say if you have an RCS of o.05 and i have an rcs of 1 ., but lets say i have a better radar, maybe twice more capable than yours and can detect you at almost exactly the same distance as you can wont that be an equalizer ? In close combat this wont matter unless you bring into play visual stealth.Am i simplifying things too much ?

Yes RCS matters. Detection distance is fourth root of RCS. RCS of 0.05 will be detected at 0.4728 the distance of RCS of 1. To get a RADAR to detect it at the same distance you have to improve the SNR and the dynamic range atleast fourfold which is easier said than done.
Even if you detect the aircraft you need to shoot it down using A2A missiles. Having a low RCS will enable the aircraft to easily break lock using ECM ,chaff and decoys.

There is just no substitute to stealth & advanced avionics if we are to fight F-22s or F-35s.

If the PAK-FA has an RCS of less than 0.01 sq m, I don't think it can be called a stealth aircraft or a fifth generation aircraft.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 17 Jan 2010 19:54

rohiths wrote: If the PAK-FA has an RCS of less than 0.01 sq m, I don't think it can be called a stealth aircraft or a fifth generation aircraft.

perhaps you wanted to write more than.

Well..people in other forums are talking about high-speed taxi trials of PAK-FA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jan 2010 20:45

Akshut, the two images are different in the sense, the 951 picture is a single seat, the the one the Russian enters is tandem one.

I still don't see the angles fit. It may be my aging eyes.

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 18 Jan 2010 02:51

^^ I get your point Sir.

That was a mild stroke of "taken aback by this long suspense" syndrome.

caesar · Post by **caesar** » 22 Jan 2010 19:19

THE PAK FA

http://themostfeared.blogspot.com/2010/ ... r-jxx.html