PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

[NRao]

That is true of any aircraft or for that matter any item subject to some form of secrecy. I was told that the MiG-21s had Indian components and were never shown to the Russians. Possible.

[member_20317]

The Q is that in a conflict,where the F-22 is outnumbered by a 3:1 enemy force of PRC Flankers-as has been wargamed,it will run out of AAMs pretty fast and the advantage will be with the enemy.This was supposedly in response to the US trying to prevent a PRC take-away of Taiwan.Until the F-22 sees conflict,we will be in the realm of speculation.Costs matter too.The US piece says that for every F-35C (currently estimated @ $186.5M,US figs,not mine! ),it could buy 2.8 F-18SHs (@ $66.9M)! Add to that the extra intense maintenance and support and the stealth wet dream could turn into an MRO nightmare.

That is the 2008 RAND study. Is it not?

They did not have Dedicated Jamming in it at all. Or did they? Also they had VHF but not the true blue VHF multi-static variety. Then the supposedly more exotic ideas that are put on net these days.

What they gamed was the best of all (exotic and non-exotic) that was there 5 years earlier. It was not about 10 years hence.

[Karan M]

^^^
They said the same thing about F-15. Because of this the four European countries went ahead and built the EFT. What happened next, Japan got F-15J. Israel got the F-15 too. So F-22 will not be exported right now. But it will be in the future without the its crucial components.

The F-22 line is shut down.
The F-35 is meant for exports. Exporting the F-22 = hitting the F-35. It wont happen.

[SaiK]

I think they have reached near 200 numbers of raptor production, so it is time to use the concurrent engineering facilities for something else.. i'm sure it would be all about UCAVs.

Besides, more than 200 of these stealth fighters will not be used and does not justify spending money for any rich nation on the planet. simply maintaining them itself is a big line off the production line.

[Singha]

F22 will not fight alone with PRC flankers. a huge force of F18 and F15 will very much be in the mix.
these 1:1 contests are for hollywood only. I believe usaf trains very seriously for upto 8:8 fights.

[KrishnaK]

Does the PLAAF have enough flankers to throw 1:3 against the USAF ?

[NRao]

The Q is that in a conflict,where the F-22 is outnumbered by a 3:1 enemy force of PRC Flankers-as has been wargamed

"wargamed" is the operative word.

In theory one can throw any number out there. "Stress" testing being one of the components of gaming.

[NRao]

Not terribly sure, but I think they are talking of this article:

2009 :: Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War

The same Axe is the author.

In 2000, the influential think thank RAND Corporation crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that “any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure” — especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation’s defense. But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved.

“A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,” the monograph notes.

It’s a potentially controversial assertion — and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.

Still, with or without F-22s, the Chinese air and missile force “dramatically outnumbers [U.S. and Taiwanese] forces and wins the war of attrition,” according to Steve Trimble’s summary of the RAND study. The Chinese lose 241 jets on the first day of fighting, while the U.S. and Taiwan together lose 147, but this lopsided kill ratio doesn’t matter, when China has hundreds more planes to put into the air. Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles. (It’s not for no reason that the U.S. Air Force is working hard to win new friends, each with juicy new bases, all over the Pacific.)

Before you panic, though, consider the many caveats RAND sneaks into the study — especially in the footnotes.

In light of how close the Chinese and Taiwanese economies have grown in the last decade, a Chinese invasion would amount to Beijing “shooting itself in the foot.” “China’s IT sector, in particular, could be devastated.” Never mind that the U.S. and Chinese economies are also irrevocably interdependent.

What’s more, despite focusing on the air battle for most of the report’s 185 pages, RAND admits that dogfighting can’t conquer an island. “Ultimately, there is only one military course of action that guarantees China control of Taiwan: a successful invasion and occupation.” An amphibious assault across the 200-mile-wide Taiwan Strait would represent “by far the most challenging military operation ever undertaken” by the Chinese. The entire Chinese navy could only carry 31,000 troops in the first wave — a number RAND admits would “almost certainly not” suffice, “assuming that Taiwan’s government, military, and populace chose to put up a fight.” It would take just one successful attack by Taiwan’s missile boats, or one day’s sorties by the island’s attack choppers, to incapacitate the whole Chinese assault fleet.

For that matter, RAND admits that successful attacks by just four U.S. B-1B bombers could also disable the invasion fleet. But let’s assume China does sweep the sky of U.S. and Taiwanese planes, bombers included — and even manages to take out Taiwan’s missile boats and choppers. The RAND study glosses over, in a single footnote, the force that would really play the biggest role in halting a Chinese invasion: the U.S. Navy’s huge, lethal fleet of nuclear submarines.

So, if the US/Taiwan lose many planes on the ground and yet China loses 241:147 at the end of the first day, that is a hell of number of planes lost for China.

The last para: gaming for you.

[Viv S]

^^^

Trouble is the Chinese invasion has be primarily seaborne i.e. a marine led. They're only so many troops that can be safely airlifted/airdropped at such ranges in unsanitized airspace.

With all the hoopla over air supremacy and carrier battle groups, folks often overlook the fact that the USN operates the world's largest more sophisticated undersea fleet. With the all fuss over SSKs taking potshots at (or 'sinking') CBGs its fair to assume the Chinese surface fleet wouldn't make it to Taiwan unmolested by cutting edge Virginia and Seawolf class SSNs.

Also on a similar note, its also why the Falklands War could have had only one victor as long as political pressure from anti-war lobbies was ignored.

[Austin]

Take discussion on China ,US, F-22 and JSF at appropriate thread , let this thread be to track FGFA/PAK-FA news and discussion. Thanks

[Austin]

NIIP Side Looking AESA Radar link



Red Indicated the location where it will be placed , Just behind the main radar.

[Singha]

why are they mounting so many radars on the Pakfa - 3 antennas in the nose alone + the L-band ones in the wings....in an env where AWACS support must be assumed.

is it to semi-actively guide missiles even at wide angles to the side? or generate better waypoint updates for active AAMs to the side? long range anti-AAM tracking vs the much shorter range of a EO system ?

[Austin]

Side radar should be able to give a good picture of the environment at wider angle aiding the main radar specially in difficult environment where EO capability would degrade , also it can aid in weapon system tracking/datalink for very wide off bore shot not just for IIR missile but even for ARH missile.

The L band radar on the Wings are not really radar in conventional sense but IFF devices are are used of long range ID'ng of targets to overlap the range of nose mounted radar and to compliment the long range weapons , No point in having a long range radar and a equal weapon to match if you cant IFF the target from long range bringing to play the concept of platform as sensors which can be seen in varying degree on 4/5th gen fighter.

[NRao]

why are they mounting so many radars on the Pakfa - 3 antennas in the nose alone + the L-band ones in the wings....in an env where AWACS support must be assumed.

is it to semi-actively guide missiles even at wide angles to the side? or generate better waypoint updates for active AAMs to the side? long range anti-AAM tracking vs the much shorter range of a EO system ?

Not a good location to place those two side radars. In level flight the radars would be angled downward and would have restricted view in the vertical plane.

Also, how powerful are they? TBD?

[Philip]

Here is a comparison between the F-22 and the PAK-FA ,the first from a pro-Russian point of view.There are heaps of sites and comparisons,but these two illustrate the issue well.

http://www.vostokstation.com.au/aircraf ... A_T-50.htm

In 2015 the rein of the F-22 and of the United States' quarter century long monopoly on the design of Very Low Observable (VLO) or stealth aircraft ended. The introduction of the PAK-FA or Su-41 (Firefox) while a known “known capability surprise” resulted in a significant impact in the tactical, operational and strategic levels. The Firefox competes with the F-22A Raptor in VLO performance from key aspects, and outperforms it aerodynamically and kinematically. After the PAK-FA achieved IOC in November 2015, it rendered all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant.

PAK-FA stands for “Перспективный авиационный комплекс фронтовой авиации - Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii” or in English; Future aviation complex - frontline aircraft.

Early analysis of PAK-FA airframe aerodynamic features revealed a design superior to all Western equivalents, providing supersonic cruise capability, VLO and ‘extreme agility’. The latter was accomplished by the combined use of 3D thrust vector control of the engine nozzles, all moving tail surfaces, and refined aerodynamic design with relaxed directional static stability and careful mass distribution to control inertial effects. The initial production aircraft boasted similar low observables performance to the F-35A JSF.

The Su-41 has a generally conventional layout with tailplanes, but additionally moving LERX above the engine intakes. The tail fins are unusually small and all-moving. The engines are mounted far apart, optimizing the impact of the 3D thrust vectoring control, and allowing for two large weapons bays mounted in tandem between them.

General characteristics
• Crew: 1
• Length: 19.8 m (65.9 ft)
• Wingspan: 14 m (46.6 ft)
• Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft)
• Wing area: 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2)
• Empty weight: 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)
• Loaded weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb)
• Useful load: 7,500 kg (combat load) (16,534 lb)
• Max takeoff weight: 37,000 kg (81,570 lb)
• Powerplant: 2× New unnamed engine by NPO Saturn and FNPTS MMPP Salyut of 175 kN each. Prototype with AL-41F1 of 147 kN each, definitive version with new engine >157 kN
• Maximum Fuel weight: 10,300 kg (22,711 lb)

Performance
• Maximum speed: 2,600 km/h (Mach 2.45) (1,615 mph) ; at 17,000 m (45,000 ft) altitude
• Cruise speed: 1,300 - 1,800 km/h (808 - 1,118 mph)
• Ferry range: 5,500 km[50] ()
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,616 ft)
• Rate of climb: 350 m/sec (1,148 ft/sec)
• Wing loading: 330(normal) - 470(maximum) kg/m2 (67(normal) - 96(maximum) lb/ft2)
• Thrust/weight: 1.4
• Maximum g-load: +11.0 g

Armament
• Guns: None on prototype. Apparent provision for a cannon (most likely GSh-301)
• Hardpoints: Two internal bays estimated at 4.6-4.7 metres by 1-1.1 metres . Two auxiliary internal bays for short range AAMS and 6 external hard points

Avionics
N050 BRLS AFAR/AESA built by Tikhomirov NIIP and based on Tikhomirov NIIP N035 Irbis-E .

Armament
• Two Izdeliye 810 Extended beyond visual range missiles per weapons bay. Multiple Izdeliye 180 / K77M beyond visual range missiles. K74 and K30 within visual range missiles can also be carried.
• Two KH38M or KH58 USHK air-to-ground missiles per weapons bay. Multiple 250-500kg precision guided bombs per weapons bay, with a maximum of ten bombs in internal bays
• Other possible loads include one 1500kg bomb per weapons bay or two 400km+ range anti-AWACS weapons on external hard-points. A maximum weapons load of 7500kg is reported.

Note on Air-Air Weapons: Russia has unveiled the RVV-SD missile, an updated version of the AA-12 Adder missile with folding fins, as the main missile of the aircraft. Although the PAK-FA’s weapons bays can likely carry larger missiles, they are probably not large enough for the massive KS-172 (RVV-L) weapon which has an expected range of about 400km.

The RVV-SD is likely a good match for the latest AMRAAM variants, though both may be eclipsed by the ramjet powered long range Meteor missile which will be fielded on ‘Eurocanards’ like the Gripen and Typhoon by the time PAK-FA enters service.

The above comparison with the F-22 shows the larger main weapons bays of the PAK-FA (red). The F-22 can carry 6 AMRAAM missiles in the main bay. Reports indicate that the PAK-FA can carry 8 equivalent AA-12 (RVV-SD) missiles, giving it a 2 missile advantage. The side bays (orange) are of similar capacity with both aircraft carrying just one short-range missile per bay. For the PAK-FA the two smaller weapons bays are probably for the RVV-MD version of the AA-11 Archer short range missile. The RVV-MD is probably capable of rear-firing, a unique feature whereby the missile flips immediately after launch and flies at a target behind the plane. AA-12s with this feature have been tested and are possibly operational within the Flanker community.

Both aircraft are equipped with a single cannon; 20mm Vulcan for the F-22 and probably a Gsh-30-1 for the PAK-FA.

Air-Ground role:

The PAK-FA is also reportedly a multi-role design. The internal weapons bays are larger than on F-22, but with less depth and may not be capable of carrying many of the weapons speculated. Various Kh-31 (AS-17 Krypton) family supersonic missiles seem plausible albeit on the large side, as do satellite guided bombs and KAB-500 series bombs. The weapons bays are about 5m long.

A folding fin version of the Kh-58 ‘Kilter’ anti-radiation missile seems a reasonable fit.

Avionics: The PAK-FA has several features of particular interest here. In the nose there is likely to be active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) as per F-22. This may actually have additional mechanical steering, although that would add weight. What’s virtually unique to the PAK-FA however is rear-facing radar in the tail. This too may be AESA and could simply be an additional array for the nose-mounted radar, or possibly a completely separate set.

The PAK-FA therefore has true 360 degree coverage. The PAK-FA has L-Band radars mounted in the wing leading edges. These have both passive and active emitting roles and are key to ‘seeing’ stealth aircraft such as the F-22.

The F-22’s stealth is generally optimized against X-band radars as that is what fighters generally use – L-Band is a much longer wavelength and can more easily detect stealth aircraft but is also less accurate -hence X-band radars are still used for routine intercept and virtually all fighters use X-Band.

Unlike the F-22 the PAK-FA features an IRST optical/IR search and tracking system. This resulted in the decision to retrofit an IRST to the F-22. IRST is the best way to target stealth aircraft since regardless of the IR stealth claims made of the F-22, jet engines are fundamentally not conducive to IR invisibility. The trail of hot air behind the F-22 is the first thing the PAK-FA sees as far as 25km.

The cockpits for both the Su-35 and PAK-FA Su-41 feature two very large multi-function-displays (MFDs) and a very wide Head-up-display (HUD). The F-22 in contrast has 4 large and two small MFDs and a large HUD, but the PAK-FA’s two primary displays are much larger still and the HUD even bigger.

Dogfighting: The F-22 is exceptionally maneuverable, but comparatively less dogfight optimized compared to the PAK-FA which has 3D thrust vectoring and moving LERX. This seems in line with Russian doctrine still influenced by the Syrian experiences over the Baka Valley in 1981 where Soviet supplied fighters were decimated by the Israeli air force in close combat.

The PAK-FA is more manoeuvrable, but the F-22 may boasts speed-bleed/regain advantages.

The F-22 has larger wing leading-edge flaps and larger tail planes. The PAK-FA’s tail fins are smaller but all-moving and the 3D TVC allows the engines to be used both laterally and horizontally unlike the F-22 which relies on massive tail fins for lateral stability and yaw control.

Export market: The PAK-FA is being exported through an Indo-Russian FGFA partnership (as a two seat Su-30MKI replacement) and to the general export market. Customers include India, Brazil, Venezuela, Belarus, Libya, Angola, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. Syria is negotiating and Iran is attempting to convince Russia to ignore protests from the west and Israel in allowing a sale.

The onboard computer uses artificial intelligence to help the pilot take decisions faster. Like the 5th generation American aircrafts, the Sukhois network with each other, sharing information about positioning, weaponry and targets in real time. What’s more, the PKA-FA uses an IRST optical/IR search and track system – this system is capable of detecting the heat trail of the F-22 from as far as 25km away.

The APG-77 is unique, it is elliptical. Each T/R module is the size of a finger nail, other advanced western AESA radars take 14 seconds to perform 120 deg six bar search pattern the APG-77 does it instantaneously. The elliptical shape of the APG-77 antenna provides a valuable clue to the low side lobe it presents many speculate it is around -70dB below the main beam, remember to qualify as a low probability of intercept (LPI) radar the main beam gain should be 55dB over the first side lobe. So the figure of -70dB is unimportant, the first side lobe is undoubtedly at least -55dB below the main beam.

The low side lobe performance of the APG-77 is achieved by the tapering the distribution of array elements on the antenna the smoother the taper from the center toward the extremity the lower the side lobe. If all T/R modules were made equal it would be easy to distribute array elements as described above – the phase error introduced as a result unachievable chip ‘manufacturing tolerance’ required to create identical T/R modules. The antenna array spacing should be precise to maximize power to the main beam; complex calibration is later required to achieve consistent performance. Further, all Russian AESA production radars antennas contain visibly uniformly spaced array elements, LPI and low side lobes have not known to be achieved in this manner.

The advantage of an LPI radar is that the an enemy RWR will receive its first warning only when the AMRAAM seeker is locked on, giving the enemy combatant a few seconds before intercept. All this is achieved by the APG-77’s transmitting several low energy pulses that are discarded by enemy RWR as clutter. These low energy returns are then assembled by the Raptors signal processors and the threat positively identified this technique is called spread spectrum transmission. The APG-77’s advanced signal processor is able to render an iSAR image of a moving target this capability is known to have been available only on dedicated air borne radars. The reason for this is the sheer processing power needed for complex calculation using the Doppler shift data was previously not possible on a small fighter jet sized aircraft it was the domain of larger dedicated AWACS platforms like E3 and IAF Phalcon.

Indian Air Force, which would acquire 50 single-seater fighters of the Russian version, would induct another 200 two-seater fighters beginning from 2016, according to reports.*(Outdated ,we are now acquiring only 144 single-seaters)

The PAK FA’s speed limit is 2600 kph, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 2100 kph. The practical range – 4300 km. For comparison, F-22 Raptor’s speed limit makes up 2410 kph, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 1963 kph, and the practical range – 3219 km. PAK FA’s speed limit is 2600 kph, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 2100 kph. The practical range – 4300 km. For comparison, F-22 Raptor’s speed limit makes up 2410 kph, the maximum non-afterburning speed – 1963 kph, and the practical range – 3219 km.

Stealth Parameters
Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
• F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
• F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
• PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
• Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Thermal Sensors
With the latest IRST technology the Pak -FA can detect F-22 at 70 km and AMRAM 120 launch.

Radar Parameters:
F-22A APG-77 = published figures (AW&ST - pessimistic);
F-35A APG-81 = published figures (AW&ST - pessimistic);
PAK-FA IRBIS-E N035 Best Case published figures (Tikhomirov NIIP);
Su-35-1 IRBIS-E N035 Worst Case published figures (Tikhomirov NIIP)
Irbis-E can detect and track up to 30 airborne targets at one time at ranges near 400 kilometres, and attack up to 12. In air-to-surface mode the Irbis-E provides mapping allowing attacks on a surface target with precision-guided weapons while scanning the horizon searching for airborne threats that can be engaged using active radar homing missiles.
Tikhomirov NIIP has provided the ability to spot super-low observable targets with RCS equal to 0.01 square meters at ranges out to 90 kilometres.

Conclusion
In stealth and radar parameters the F-22 is still better than PAK-FA, In optical terms the PAK-FA is better than the F-22, but because of radar this advantageous will be reduced in the next few years. In kinematic parameter F-22 and PAK-FA are comparable. In price terms of price the PAK-FA is much cheaper which will mean a big export opportunity and subsequently greater numbers of adversaries for the F-22 and F-35..

The PAK-FA production model, even if half as effective as the F-22A Raptor will still yield BVR exchange rates in the order of 50:1 against legacy fighters.
.

http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/F-22_Rap ... hoi_PAK-FA

“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter struggles to survive against the conventional Su-35BM Flanker, with only its -30 dBSM class front sector stealth keeping it alive in some BVR combat situations. Against even a -20 dBSM class PAK-FA, the F-35 falls within the survivability black hole, into which US legacy fighters such as the F-16C/E, F-15C/E and F/A-18A-F have already fallen.” “ The fate of the F-35 Lightning II would be far worse in an air combat environment challenged by the PAK-FA. If the Mach 1.5 PAK-FA is using its infrared sensor as the primary sensor and observes radio frequency emission control (EMCON), then the first detection by the F-35’s APG-81 radar could be at ~20 nautical miles or less with a missile launched by the PAK-FA’s infrared sensors already inbound from 60 to 70 nautical miles away. The PAK-FA could easily break to a direction outside the F-35’s AIM-120 engagement zone.” “The sustained turning performance of the F-35A Lightning II was recently disclosed as 4.95 G at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. A 1969 F-4E Phantom II could sustain 5.5 Gs at 0.8 Mach with 40 percent internal fuel at 20,000 feet. The F-35 is also much slower than the 1960s F-4E or F-105D. So the F-35A’s aerodynamic performance is ‘retrograde’ when compared with 1960s legacy fighters. The consequence of such inferior JSF performance is that its DAS might detect an incoming missile, but the aircraft lacks the turn-rate to out-fly it. As the F-35 also lacks the performance to engage or escape, repeated ‘freebie’ shots from the PAK-FA could inflict high losses. Expect the exchange rate to be of the order of 4:1 in favour of the PAK-FA,
PAK FA Stealth Fighter Maneuver(07:53)
2,759 viewsA PAK-FA manoeuvring
Fightercraft4Added by Fightercraft4
possibly much higher.”

This is what Ausairpower.net says to the F-35 JSF, and they claim what will happen if not more Raptors are going to be produced and I agree with them in most aspects, the PAK-FA has almost every advantage over the F-35.

“Fights between the F-22A and the PAK-FA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A may get ‘first look’ with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the PAK-FA may get ‘first look’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time.”

And this in a combat between the F-22A and the PAK-FA, and what is actually questionable is the statement that the PAK-FA could gain first lock when fighting against the F-22 Raptor, this is unrealistic, because the F-22´s engines and a special coating are optimized to prevent this and the maximum range of the PAK-FA's OLS-35 IRST is about 50 km against a non-afterburning target[23], but against a IR-stealthy F-22 it is much lower (about 20-30 km, estimated) so that the F-22 can still have first lock capability using the APG-77 and the F-22´s clear superior stealth design prevents it to be locked by the PAK-FA’s weaker radar.

[Philip]

Here is another Heritage Org. report on the same.It is 2.5 yrs old,but an interesting analysis.I've posted excerpts of the radar characteristics of the T-50/ FGFA,which is touted as having a "360 degree" coverage,nose,tail,wings and fuselage radars,plus rearward firing AAMs (other sources).

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... or-america

What Russia’s Stealth Fighter Developments Mean for America
By Mackenzie Eaglen and Lajos F. Szaszdi, Ph.D.

Key Points

1 Russia recently unveiled its PAK FA stealth fighter, which may prove superior to all fighters except the U.S. F-22.
2 Russia will develop the PAK FA in partnership with India and could sell it to China, Libya, Venezuela, Algeria, Syria, and Iran, which would be destabilizing and have unintended consequences.
3 With the closure of the F-22 production line underway, the U.S. has effectively lost its ability to hedge against PAK FA proliferation.
4 Delays and other problems plaguing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program are worrisome because the F-35 may be less effective as a force multiplier for the F-22 if it is built in insufficient numbers.
5 American air supremacy is no longer as assured as the U.S. Department of Defense once predicted.
6 To preserve a favorable balance of power in the skies, the U.S. will need to increase investment in modernization and explore new partnerships with its allies, such as Japan and Israel.

In addition to AESA radar, the PAK FA will have a side-looking radar and a rear-facing radar.[59] The sting fairing in the tail, located between the engine’s exhaust nozzles, may harbor a small fire-control radar[60] for detecting airborne targets and attacking missiles and to provide fire-control solutions for its air-to-air missiles. With AESA radars in the nose and tail, the PAK FA could cover 120 degrees of both the plane’s front hemisphere and its rear hemisphere.[61] In addition, the aircraft will have an L-band AESA radar in conformal arrays on the wings’ leading edges. According to some reports, L-band arrays can detect stealth aircraft the size of the F-35.[62]

The PAK FA’s design may also allow placement of additional AESA conformal arrays on the fighter’s surfaces that could provide radar coverage of its starboard and port sides,[63] allowing all-round radar surveillance. Perhaps with this in mind V. K. Naik, the Indian Air Force Chief of Staff, said that the FGFA’s “highly advanced avionics…[would be] giving 360-deg. situational awareness.”[64] In addition, the PAK FA’s AESA radar will have electronic countermeasures that can jam enemy radar. The F-35 has a similar system. Like the F-35’s radar, the PAK FA’s radar can use radio waves to burn the electronic systems of enemy radar, the command-and-control computer of a surface-to-air missile (SAM) battery,[65] and perhaps even the flight computer of an enemy fighter. The L-band AESA radars on the aircraft’s wings could potentially track, locate, and jam the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), and Link-16 communications links and emitters.[66]

The PAK FA’s optoelectronic system may incorporate a LADAR (laser radar) to identify targets, including other stealth fighters, by providing an image of a contact in three dimensions.[67] The PAK FA may also incorporate a more advanced, fifth-generation version of the infrared search and track/ laser rangefinder (IRST/LR) optoelectronic system that was used in earlier Russian fighter aircraft. The T-50 prototype has already been fitted with a newer version. The system has a sensor in the cockpit and uses infrared and television channels for day and night operations; a laser rangefinder for accurate targeting; and a “look down/shoot down” capability for detecting, tracking, and engaging targets over land, sea, and air. The system can detect approaching fighters at 40 kilometers (km) and departing enemy fighters at 100 km.[68]

According to some reports, a Russian-made IRST/ LR may have already proven effective in downing U.S. stealth aircraft. Although the U.S. Air Force officially determined that the F-117A stealth fighter downed during the Kosovo crisis of 1999 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile launched by the Serbs, some military analysts believe that it was shot down by a Russian-made MiG-29 operated by the Yugoslav air force. According to that account, the Serbian MiG-29 fired its infrared-guided missiles at the F-117A and destroyed it with the first missile launched. Some accounts say that the Serb pilot used the MiG-29’s IRST/LR system to stealthily detect, track, and engage the F-117A,[69] even though the U.S. plane was designed to mask its engines’ exhaust infrared signature. According to sources interviewed by Jane’s Defense Weekly, the Serbs may have intercepted the F-117A using the fighter’s mission flight plan, which was allegedly stolen by a spy working for Russian military intelligence who had infiltrated NATO.[70]

[Manish_Sharma]

http://s815.photobucket.com/user/gabo85 ... G.jpg.html

[Garooda]

Not terribly sure, but I think they are talking of this article:
2009 :: Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War

More than one way to milk congress for additional fundings. Old game being played out every now and then.

[NRao]

Not terribly sure, but I think they are talking of this article:
2009 :: Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War

More than one way to milk congress for additional fundings. Old game being played out every now and then.

That article is from 2009, for what that is worth.

[Garooda]

Not terribly sure, but I think they are talking of this article:
2009 :: Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air Warore than one way to milk congress for additional fundings. Old game being played out every now and then.
That article is from 2009, for what that is worth.

Agreed. The practice continues to this day for many other projects where funding is halted. Create a fear/crisis/vulnerability and approve budget to resolve and/or fund black projects. On a side note, SK is ready for F15SE.

SK_F15SE

South Korea appears poised to order 60 Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagles for its F-X Phase 3 competition, throwing a lifeline to the venerable fighter’s production line and offering the manufacturer an opportunity to improve it for future contests.

Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Agency says it has excluded one contender — identified by local media as EADS, offering the Eurofighter Typhoon — because the bidder, with the aim of reducing its price, changed previously agreed upon conditions of its offer without consent. The contentious change was EADS’s alteration of its offer from 45 single-seaters to 54, and 15 two-seat Typhoons to six, says Yonhap news agency.

Yonhap says the third contender, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, has also been excluded, because its bid did not meet the budget, 8.3 trillion won ($7.5 billion). Lockheed, however, is refuting this assertion, saying it “has not to date received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding the results of the price bidding for the F-X Program. The F-X source selection process has multiple phases and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. Government as they offer the F-35 to Korea.”

Boeing is not yet assured of a contract, however, and the air force is likely to keep pushing for the F-35, the type that it has always wanted for the competition.

The F-15SE is a proposed upgrade of the F-15 with features to control radar reflections, but to get into production it needs the South Korean order. Without F-X Phase 3, F-15 production may end in 2019 — and earlier for long-lead items—when the last of 84 new-build F-15SAs for Saudi Arabia are due to be delivered. F-X Phase 3 would prolong production until 2021, 49 years after the type’s first flight.

Boeing’s fighter has had several advantages in the program. Already in South Korean service, it has probably been the cheapest contender, a key advantage given the inability of the agency, constrained by parliament, to consider above-budget bids. Last month it rejected all offers because they exceeded the budget; it then called for new proposals from the competing companies. Lockheed Martin not only had to deal with the high cost of the F-35; it also had to offer the aircraft through the U.S. government’s foreign military sales arrangements, which links the price paid by the customer to that paid by Washington.

An additional advantage of the F-15 is that its major assemblies are already in production by Korea Aerospace Industries. So local manufacturing content, demanded by the agency, should not have driven up costs as much as it did for the other two. The F-15 offers a considerable payload-radius, although all three types meet the requirement in that respect. The type also comes from the U.S., which underwrites South Korean security.

Deliveries of F-15Ks for South Korea and similar F-15SGs for Singapore ended in 2012. Deliveries of Saudi Arabia’s new aircraft are not due to begin until 2015, although Boeing has already rolled out the first and is upgrading 70 F-15Ss to the F-15SA configuration. South Korea bought 61 F-15Ks under F-X Phases 1 and 2. One crashed.

The F-15SE has canted tail fins and can carry four bombs or air-to-air missiles internally, thanks to modified conformal fuel tanks that are optionally attached to the fuselage sides. A new BAE Systems digital electronic warfare system frees up space for more fuel and the airframe is treated with radar absorbent material. Since the F-15K won earlier F-X competitions with a mechanically scanning radar, Boeing has fitted the F-15 with the Raytheon APG-63(v3) radar, which has an active electronically scanning antenna. Since that radar has been sold to Singapore, it is presumably available to South Korea.

Jefferies aerospace analyst Howard Rubel says Boeing’s pursuit of the contract probably underscored its ongoing industrial cooperation with Korean aerospace producers. “The deal would represent a significant success for Boeing and indicate that its efforts to improve the F-15’s survivability have made progress,” he wrote in an Aug. 19 note to his clients. “The range and payload of the plane far exceed the capability of the F-35.”

But Rubel also stressed that the competition is not over until a deal is signed. “Much can happen between one round and the final contract,” he notes. “From Lockheed Martin’s point of view, a win would reinforce the company’s point that stealth and other F-35 system capabilities dominate such factors as range, payload or one versus two engines.”

[Philip]

The Super Eagle/Strike Eagle whatever one wants to call the bird on steroids,is being emulate din many other programmes.Even the F-18SH is getting a dose of stealth steroids to become the "Advanced SH",as an option for the USN which has to make a critical decision about buying the F-35C,the costliest of the JSF variants,est. by one article as around "$180M".Realistically,even if it around $150M,it is a huge amt. for an aircraft too heavily dependent upon stealth to survive with only 4-th gen dogfighting capabilities.If the F-18 can be thus exalted,why not the F-16? That aircraft has been one of the world's best ever creation's,a true legend.

This beggars a Q.What if the same is done for Russian fighters of the 4th gen? They are far cheaper and would give more bang for the buck.One could envision a partially "stealthy" MIG-35/36 with 360 degree radar coverage like the FGFA to add to its already superb and arguably unequalled dogfighting capabilities.The Flanker is already being developed into the SU-35 variant,which will possess some of the 5th-gen etch being designed for the FGFA and the bomber/strike version,the SU-34 is already into production for the RuAF.What would've brought tears to veteran fighter pilot's eye would've been a stealthy MIG-21 Bison.It was over a decade ago that Shiv and I found the answer in arresting the declining MIG-21s in the IAF's inventory by building ....more new MIG-21 Bsion's! In retrospect,it would've been the most cost-effective solution.

As the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert asked the Q,whether one needed "luxury fighters" when a bomb truck would do,keeping in mind the availability of long range stand-off munitions.It appears that there may be a lot of life still left in those 1970/1980 designs,because of current economic conditions.As Plato supposedly said,"Neccessity is the mother of invention".

[NRao]

Garooda ji,

That article belongs to the F-35 Turkey thread and so does the next post by Philip.

Thx.

[NRao]

The Super Eagle/Strike Eagle whatever one wants to call the bird on steroids,is being emulate din many other programmes.Even the F-18SH is getting a dose of stealth steroids to become the "Advanced SH",as an option for the USN which has to make a critical decision about buying the F-35C,the costliest of the JSF variants,est. by one article as around "$180M".Realistically,even if it around $150M,it is a huge amt. for an aircraft too heavily dependent upon stealth to survive with only 4-th gen dogfighting capabilities.If the F-18 can be thus exalted,why not the F-16? That aircraft has been one of the world's best ever creation's,a true legend.

This beggars a Q.What if the same is done for Russian fighters of the 4th gen? They are far cheaper and would give more bang for the buck.One could envision a partially "stealthy" MIG-35/36 with 360 degree radar coverage like the FGFA to add to its already superb and arguably unequalled dogfighting capabilities.The Flanker is already being developed into the SU-35 variant,which will possess some of the 5th-gen etch being designed for the FGFA and the bomber/strike version,the SU-34 is already into production for the RuAF.What would've brought tears to veteran fighter pilot's eye would've been a stealthy MIG-21 Bison.It was over a decade ago that Shiv and I found the answer in arresting the declining MIG-21s in the IAF's inventory by building ....more new MIG-21 Bsion's! In retrospect,it would've been the most cost-effective solution.

As the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert asked the Q,whether one needed "luxury fighters" when a bomb truck would do,keeping in mind the availability of long range stand-off munitions.It appears that there may be a lot of life still left in those 1970/1980 designs,because of current economic conditions.As Plato supposedly said,"Neccessity is the mother of invention".

I like the Q WRT passing up on the FGFA. Support moving away from the FGFA (and even the Rafale - in MMRCA thread).

[Philip]

No lack of support for the FGFA.It is a "Neccessity" to keep up the qualitative edge of the IAF against China and Pak! However,being realistic,we too cannot afford it in the numbers of MIGs and Sukhois acquired earlier if it becomes as expensive as the JSF,let alone the F-22.150+ is a number that we could acquire without too much of emptiness in the pocket given the usual lesser costs of Russian wares,at least 25% less than Yanqui/Western wares.

To keep inventories happy and possess that quality that "quantity" delivers ,5th-gen aircraft will have to have support from lesser entities.The IAF has been brilliant in keeping the MIG-21s flying..for 50 years in service! Neccessity again thanks to babudom's indifference at replacing them in time,and we have seen the same happen with the M-2000s and MIG-29s ,both being upgraded.I predict that future avatars of the MIG-29/35s will increase the stealth factor,just as is being done with the F-18SH,as at current prices,the "fully" ,or even "partially loaded" JSFs are unaffordable to US allies.I predicted a few months ago that SoKo would ditch the JSF and so it has done.Will the Japanese also do likewise and will it have a cascading effect on other nations like Oz and the NATO allies?

The perfection of PGMs and the "drone factor" ,the weapon of choice,flavour of the era,is making large inventories of RR class fighters questionable. In one of my posts above,the USN is faced with a tough decision on the JSF/F-18SH on steroids,so that it can have enough funding for the carrier UCAV development which is going to usher in an RMA in maritime warfare.Provided that limited numbers of 5th-gen aircraft can "talk" to their lesser brethren in the air,without too great a loss of stealth/surprise,hybrid air forces of 1st,2nd, and 3rd tier aircraft will be in the inventory of the world's major air forces.

The current eco crisis will impact more on the 4++ gen Rafale,as we weigh up the options.As far as it goes,the collapse of the Rupee will have a severe impact upon its fortunes.One wonders whether the deal will be signed at all during the coming months.Unless PC Sorcar comes to the Rupee's rescue,and this is not as some are alleging a conspiracy to bring in much needed extra electoral funds for a certain political alignment,The MOD/IAF will have to look for cheaper alternatives or acquiring lesser numbers of Rafales,to be supported by additional numbers of types in service.I can see the Yanquis offering their SH on steroids-that is if they are willing to give us all the bells and whistles,and the Russians with their 29s and 30s waiting in the wings with their offers.The Def. Sec. is off to Russia shortly,one is sure that he will be supplied with a tasty "menu" ! A great pity that at this time of crisis,the LCA MK-2 is unavailable.

[NRao]

Oh, did we seem to forget something called the AMCA? That is as realistic as any. Not for you perhaps.

Or else, why not the F-35? UK may not pick up 90 of their birds. There a couple of other nations that are faltering too. IF Italy can have a line, so can India. IF Canada + UK and Australia can write code, so can India. The F-35 looks pretty good at $85 million a plane, which is the latest figure for the F-35A.

If current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps version will fall to $110 million a plane from $153 million under the fifth production contract signed in December.

The Navy’s version will drop to $100 million from $140 million and the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said.

Taja, taja figures. August 20, 2013. From the horse's mouth.

Why not?

[Austin]

NRao , Philip move the F-22 and F-35 discussion to appropriate thread has no relevance on this one as our Armed Forces are not buying either of these. There is an F-35 Thread to discuss these

[Austin]

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/08/20/261953.html

- How is the work on the engine for the T-50?

- Development work on the engine of the second stage for the fifth generation fighter will be completed in late 2015. Until the end of 2013 will be completed engineering design of the engine of the second stage and released documentation for manufacturing and engine core demonstrator. The next year, to be manufactured, and the beginning of testing experimental gasifiers and engine demonstrator. Development of the engine of the second stage is carried out in close co-operation between enterprises Division "engines for military aircraft." KB integrator to develop the motor branch is defined UMPO KB. them. Cradles. In co-operation also involved Moscow's "Salute" and Ufa "Motor". Mass production of these engines will be organized at UMPO.

[Austin]

AW&ST: Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

[Karan M]

NIIP Side Looking AESA Radar link

http://www.ng.ru/upload/iblock/e16/29-5-1.jpg

Red Indicated the location where it will be placed , Just behind the main radar.
http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/15/54/62/79/kk7810.jpg

Eyeballing it gives it some 370 odd elements.. wonder what the peak/average power of those modules is. Probably rated higher than the front facing modules, to get reasonable performance despite low module count.

Darth Singha - apparently the IAF too has asked for 360 deg radar on the PAK FA.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 009_1.html

Now, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will partner Sukhoi to transform the bare-bones PAK-FA into an FGFA that meets the Indian Air Force (IAF)’s requirements of stealth (near-invisibility to radar), super-cruise (supersonic cruising speed), networking (real-time digital links with other battlefield systems) and world-beating airborne radar that outranges enemy fighters.

But Sukhoi insists the PAK-FA already meets Russia’s requirements, says N C Agarwal, HAL’s design chief, who spearheaded the FGFA negotiations until his recent retirement. HAL worries Russia might ask India to pay extra for further development, particularly the avionics that transform a mere flying machine into a lethal weapons platform. That would leave the $6-billion budget in tatters.

The IAF clearly wants a top-of-the-line FGFA. According to Ashok Nayak, who spoke to Business Standard as HAL’s chairman before retiring last October, the IAF has specified 40-45 improvements that must be made to the PAK-FA. These have been formalised into an agreed list between Russia and India, the Tactical Technical Assignment.

A key IAF requirement is a ‘360-degree’ AESA (airborne electronically scanned active) radar, rather than the AESA radar that Russia developed. Either way, India would pay Russia extra: either in licence fee for the Russian radar; or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, for developing a world-beating, 360-degree AESA radar.

[SaiK]

if we have the lca-mk2 in, then we have enabled a platform upgrade path to lca-mk3 and beyond. AMCA is exactly what we want.. if pak-fa refuses to build to our terms.. EOD it is our money.

[Karan M]

Its pretty interesting to see how the Russians see PAKFA - my assumptions based on how it is currently.
The article posted above references a specific 1.7M speed. That mentions a probable cruise speed of 1.7M - that sort of speed will extend BVR weaponry range. Add AESA radar (hopefully LPI) and a low frontal RCS and the T50 will be flying high and fast enough to see first, not be seen first and engage, yet escape before it can be shot at in turn. The side mounted AESAs will permit optimal F-poles, where the aircraft is turning, but it can still see the target and guide weaponry onto it. Similar to what the Irbis achieves, and what the EF Captor-E gimballed design is meant for. There is at least one report which states even the T-50 AESA will be gimballed. If so, that will give this plane remarkable capability.
The rear RCS is ignored (for now?), but then again, combine it with the flight profile, and the fact that for conventional receding targets, airborne FCR ranges drop radically, (e.g. to 40% of approaching targets) plus reports that the T50 will have active EW, and it makes sense. Similarly, that with pilot aids (automated flight maneuvers/guidance for the pilot) will help even against SAMs, so the Russians are not so bothered with reducing the RCS of the rear aspect.
The PAKFA is stated to have a first - per Piotr Butowski - an airborne dazzler - for IR Missiles.
Also, given IAF penchant for asking for the best, and 40-45 improvements asked for, it may be that the IAF FGFA has all around stealth or at least improved rear quarter stealth over the more bare bones Russian version. We may end up financing the fancier version, and the RusAF may buy it later on, anyways.
The definitive engine is due around 2020. We would probably take the current engines for the MK1 and shift to the other engines for MK2.
50% workshare by HAL is a stretch. Without involving DRDO and even CSIR, they don't have the expertise to contribute significantly across the spectrum.

[NRao]

IIRC the FGFA/PAK_FA can fire a missile only around 1.4M. It is the F-22 IIRC that can fire around 1.7M.

Like the article states that all these could COST India a ton more - billions perhaps. And that would take a few more years - I just not see them achieve all round stealth in the next few years - they will have to go back to the basics and redesign or at least I hope they do not resort to add-ons, that would be a travesty.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
They said the same thing about F-15. Because of this the four European countries went ahead and built the EFT. What happened next, Japan got F-15J. Israel got the F-15 too. So F-22 will not be exported right now. But it will be in the future without the its crucial components.

The F-22 line is shut down.
The F-35 is meant for exports. Exporting the F-22 = hitting the F-35. It wont happen.

And yet the tools for F-22 were preserved. Just let the shooting start across the Taiwan straits and see how quickly the line is put back into action. Or let PLAAF/PLAN field considerable amount of its 5th gen fighters and it will change. F-22 is meant for other tasks like air dominance. F-22 is to F-35 what F-15 was too F-16.

[Karan M]

And yet the tools for F-22 were preserved. Just let the shooting start across the Taiwan straits and see how quickly the line is put back into action.

You cant put a line back in action and have fighters fielded in the time a shooting war would unfold. It would be over by the time the first fighter was assembled. There are years of experience that would have been lost, many tools would require rework, and calibration before they could even be started up. That tooling has been preserved, because with a limited fleet of 187 aircraft, replacements may be required (but not necessarily in realtime) and if significant structural rework is required even that requires the specific tooling.

Or let PLAAF/PLAN field considerable amount of its 5th gen fighters and it will change. F-22 is meant for other tasks like air dominance. F-22 is to F-35 what F-15 was too F-16.

That's just not going to happen because the F-22 is so expensive, that air dominance will now be done by the F-35 and F-22 together. By the time the F-35 is in series production, the USAF will be working on its next big boondoggle, the 6Gen fighters. You have to understand how the US MIC works. They work on completely disruptive innovation from gen to gen, because those huge injections of capital allow them to keep their empires intact. If F-22 restart threatens the 6G plan, then guess what, the F-22 makers itself will tom tom how obsolete and useless it is.

Besides which, with some 3000 odd F-35s or even 2000, the US is so ahead of PLAAF/PLAN plans, that its not even funny. Those F-35s will be backed up by the world's most comprehensive ISTAR/C3I assets and huge numbers of PGMs with accuracy far beyond what PRC/PLAAF/PLAN can field.
The F-22 is just overkill in such a situation. The much vaunted J-20 is dependent on AL31s for its propulsion and is by all accounts far behind the current state of the art in Euro/Russian/American aviation, let alone bringing in what the F-35 will to the table.

[Karan M]

IIRC the FGFA/PAK_FA can fire a missile only around 1.4M. It is the F-22 IIRC that can fire around 1.7M.

I don't think we have a firm idea on the speed at which a missile can be fired (no tests done yet) or even the top speed. I wouldn't be surprised though if both are a bit lower than that of the F-22s in MK1 with current engines. IIRC one of the T-50 specs, its speed was reduced to M2 Max, because adding more speed meant weight increase and cost increase (in composites for high speed, to counter the weight issue).
What really matters though more than the top speed is rate of speed increase (acceleration) and how quickly it regains speed (agility). In this, the PAKFA seems to be competitive versus the F-22 and a huge notch ahead of the best out there today (the advanced Flankers, Eurocanards).

Like the article states that all these could COST India a ton more - billions perhaps. And that would take a few more years - I just not see them achieve all round stealth in the next few years - they will have to go back to the basics and redesign or at least I hope they do not resort to add-ons, that would be a travesty.

My understanding of how it will work out is that the IAF will eventually agree to a MK1-MK3 sort of transition, same as they did with the MKI. The definitive Indian FGFAs may come around 2020-5 at that rate, even if the first ones start coming to IAF as planned by 2015 or thereabouts. Even the original ones should be pretty capable.

The MKI for instance - recently (last year) received its definitive radar variant, hardware and software - based on all the IAF experience plus original contract. But we have been using the earlier variants with significant success.

I only hope the Russian costing doesn't keep going upwards (a dodgy hope I know) and HAL gets proper TOT and actually contributes to the aircraft beyond basic stuff. Hope they also involve DRDO/CSIR/Pvt firms for the work packages which means a proper contribution may be possible.

[Philip]

X-posted.The DRDO chief on the future need for unmanned air and underwater vehicles.

Unmanned weapons future of warfare'

By Papiya Bhattacharya - BANGALORE

Published: 23rd August 2013 08:31 AM

Last Updated: 23rd August 2013 08:31 AM

DRDO chief Avinash Chander stressed on the need for weapons, which would not show on radars, be unmanned and have protection against laser attacks with plasma-based surface coatings to either absorb or dissipate the laser attacks.

According to him, photosensitive structures at several places on these machines would lend them the colour of the environment for camouflage. He said the weight of a bulletproof jacket of a soldier is about 12 kg and it needs to be lighter.

“Materials are the core of defense capability, “ said Avinash Chander. The Padmashree, who is also the scientific advisor to the Defence Minister of India, Secretary to the Department of Defence (R&D) was here to deliver the Brahm Prakash Memorial lecture on ‘Materials in Defense’.

The event was organised by the Indian Institute of Metals, Bangalore Chapter. Also present on the occasion were Professor K Chattopadhyay, the president of The Indian Institute of Metals and Chairman, Division of Mechanical Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. An alumnus of the IIT, Chander joined the DRDO after completing studies in the IIT. “Agni I, II and III missiles were developed under his (Chander) leadership,” said Prof Chattopadhyay.

Chander said the future will produce more challenges with high energy weapons, cyber warfare and warfare that is unmanned in space or underwater and technology intensive.

“To fight these future wars, the defense requirements are materials that can function in extreme environments like the ocean bed and can resist high temperature. “We need the sixth generation aircrafts with stealth capability, hypersonic speed, extra manoeuvrability to change shape- morph, fuel efficiency, heat and flame resistance. We need aerospace materials like Aluminium Lithium alloys which can perform the above roles. We need materials for aerostats that stay at altitudes of five kilometres for months,” he added.

He said defense research needs high energy fuel cells, solar Cells, biofuels, thermoelectric batteries and more to run these machines.

The immediate problems are shortage of rare elements and their processing methods. According to him, elements like Tungsten, Helium, Tantulum, Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt and high purity Boron used in making these weapons and machines are in short supply.

Chander said an integrated and national approach was needed to make the industry participate in the sourcing and designing of such materials, develop a skill force and certify materials and methods. “A national material initiative will accelerate innovation, manufacture and deployment of materials,” he said.

[NRao]

The next phase - R&D - was expected to cost a total of $11 billion USD. And, the two nations were to split the cost. Why would Russia spend that much for an Indian plane? Any idea/s?

[Austin]

A lot of these figures are mearly speculation put by media literally pulled out of thin air no official confirmation on these numbers .....be it R&D or Production figures since the PD phase of FGFA has just started jointly and once that is completed and each parties decide what they bring to table and what IAF needs are , we will get accurate figures from MOD on the R&D Phase , Testing/Production and final numbers that IAF wants.

Till date we dont really have the final figures for MMRCA which is at advanced stage of negotiation since there are no much of nitty gritty involved be it TOT, Production , IP and stuff like that ..... but media is already speculating it at cost of $12 billion some say $ 20 and some $18 billion , simbly pulled out of thin air ........once the final deal is signed we will have an accurate figure same for FGFA too.

Also dont get worked up on things like Top Speed , Range Payload etc since these are again some creative imagination put up by some people since Sukhoi has not released any specific information on its NTOW,MTOW , Fuel etc ....... We just know one thing officially from interview with UAC chief that its supercruise range will be 1500 km plus ...again a very generic figure without knowing other parameters.

PAK-FA/FGFA capability and figures will remain a closely guarded secret till such time either the Russian MOD or Indian MOD revels it at the time of their choosing.

[Austin]

Ok, let me try again. Whatever the cost for the R&D phase ( my last post said " expected"), the question still remains why is Russia interested in investing whatever percent in what is an Indian plane?

As an extension the Russians expectations, claims Sukhoi, has been met in the PAK-FA.

Why is Russia , US . France or any country will be interested in selling arms to India ? Why would Russia JV with India on Brahmos ? To share technology ,IP via JV and make money what else.

Let take an example of Indian contribution to MKI , how did India gain from it .....besides using Indian components in MKI which means indiginising components and not paying royalty on purchase we made money by selling mission computer and avionics stuff to Malaysian Su-30MKM and Russian Su-30SM program.

[NRao]

Nope. Another rambling answer. Does not answer why Russia is sharing the cost to design an Indian plane.

Thx tho. Let us move on.