PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2014 00:15

"Definitive" engine is, by far, THE biggest mistake. Helmet, which means lack of data fusion. Network, the US as an example, started work on it in 1995 or so. The design of the pak-fa - hoping this one they is not the final version, which by itself is self defeating.

And plenty more.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2014 01:30

India still needs dal-roti = Pakfa = Fast, high alt, supercruising, stealthy, ultra-maneuverable and get this, bristling with sensors jet phyter wonlee.

Cool.

No need for a MMRCA any more. AMCA, with her panoramic screen, fly-by-light, networks, etc.......chicken makhani..........not our taste.

De-rate the the Russian claimed F-22 equivalent PAK-FA and the IAF will withdraw their one-off statement too, the dal-roti FGFA is absolutely deliverable.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 May 2014 06:24

Given our lack of adequate funding for the forces,cannibalisation a regular occurrence,a robust easy to maintain aircraft would be preferable performance notwithstanding.Unless the def. budget is dramaticaally increased-difficult for the first few years to get the economy back on track,e will have to be very prudent in our acquisitions."dal-roti" Gnat,Hunter and MIG-21 fighters in large numbers saw off the Pakis both in '65 and '71.We will have 270+ Flankers of MKI and Super-Flanker capability within a couple of years. In the med. and light category,which will be the workhorses of the IAF,capable,affordable fighters are required to replace the hundreds of MIG-21s ,etc. This requires both ramped up LCA production and extra imports.Whether we can afford the Rafale is the Q for the new dispensation. At current costs it will eat up a large portion of the IAF's budget. The two other services are also "starving" ,esp. the IN which may go underwater if new subs are not acquired yesterday.

Finalising the FGFA JV at whatever level is satisfactory for the IAF is another key priority.We have to maintain the qualitative air superiority factor against the Chinese. We are not fighting against NATO or the US ,don't anticipate doing so either,and don't need their uber level of bleedin' edge ultra-expensive tech as of now. In the future the Chinese will have to deal with 3 5th-gen threats.The F-22,JSF and FGFA/T-50.
"May they live in interesting times" !

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 May 2014 07:56

bristling with sensors jet phyter wonlee. As much as folks like Copp and now even Sweetman (who has always been amongst the best defense reporters around) have garnered criticism, they do make some very good points. No getting around it.

Sweetman's hypocrisy is quite obvious. He continues to lap up Swedish PR on his visits there, and does the same from the various brochures and PR efforts of the Russian defense companies, while at the same time attacking the "few" classified elements of the F-35 elements claiming that they exist only to HIDE certain capability compared to his beloved programs. Neither on his interactions with swedish defense companies, or those with the russian firms does he ever ask for verifiable, accountable, audited performance figures on what is being "claimed" while he does his best to distort those available on the US programs. He calls the Gripen NG as the best stealth fighter in the world and a true "6th gen fighter". Its always unwise for the reporter to become the center of the story, and with his entire F-35 coverage over the years he has unfortunately become the center point of the story. He would never do that to SAAB for example, or on one of his trips to russia where he laps up all PR from all companies that are totally opaque.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2014 11:25

More Pictures ( via mp.net )

Image: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/anykeyso ... iginal.jpg

Image: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/anykeyso ... iginal.jpg

Image: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/1405 ... 5f2e_o.jpg

Image: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/1424 ... c405_o.jpg

Image: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/1405 ... 4179_o.jpg

And more:

http://anykeyson.livejournal.com/28435.html

http://nickras.livejournal.com/27148.html

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 May 2014 12:26

Cain Marko wrote:^ Tsk, tsk, how you fail to understand? What the naysayers are saying, among other things, is that there is no super duper network enabled gizmo like the JSF - that is its rather singular USP it seems - something very esoteric.

To repeat,

APG-81, EOTS, DAS, Barracuda, VSI HMDS, MADL, a superb MMI, outstanding sensor fusion and high-end VLO capability, in addition to NCW adaptability. Plus the most diverse arsenal ever fielded on an aircraft.

Point is - no matter how net-enabled a platform is, the network has to be in existence prior to the platform so that it can take full advantage of the same. In case of IAF, this is the IACCS and the ODL - both of which the Pakfa will be enabled with - can't see what JSF can bring here.

The F-35 can be equipped with the ODL as well. Everything it sees it'll be able to pass off to friendly aircraft and vice versa. Israel for example, is adding its own comms & data-links to the F-35I. The MADL will still be available to modified F-35s.

Again, as someone has pointed out earlier - the JSF is designed for and works well with NATO type infrastructure - redundancy in assets such as HUMINT, space based, Air/seaborne, MPAs, IFR, ISR and a host of other acronyms that countries like India still have a long way before they can make sense of.

Works perfectly well without interfacing with space or sea based assets. It ties in well with the AEGIS but that's not relevant to most non-US customers, the prime example again being Israel.

India still needs dal-roti = Pakfa = Fast, high alt, supercruising, stealthy, ultra-maneuverable and get this, bristling with sensors jet phyter wonlee. As much as folks like Copp and now even Sweetman (who has always been amongst the best defense reporters around) have garnered criticism, they do make some very good points. No getting around it.

Supercruise is 'dal-roti'? 'Bristling with sensors' compared to..? Certainly no more so than the Eurocanards (with the sole exception of the two conformal antennas).

A true 'dal-roti option' would be an aircraft that comes at a reasonable price, costs a moderate amount to operate, offers high reliability, high operational availability and good after sales support. Until UAC can demonstrate that, the sobriquet doesn't apply.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 May 2014 15:06

The F-35 can be equipped with the ODL as well. Everything it sees it'll be able to pass off to friendly aircraft and vice versa. Israel for example, is adding its own comms & data-links to the F-35I. The MADL will still be available to modified F-35s

MADL is just form of LPI information exchange. The beauty is that its seamless, almost like a WIFI connection. As soon as an aircraft is within range (few miles) sensor information is automatically updated on the displays to build up Situational awareness. No pilot input is required, and information received from multiple sensors is fused and automatically updated. In a four ship formation for example, the aircraft on the extreme right has a totally different picture than the aircraft on the extreme left and all this information si fused together and displayed on all aircraft within the MADL network.

What makes MADL more than just a communications tool is its ability to connect with other planes and automatically share situational awareness data between fighters. The more planes in the network the greater the data shared and the more comprehensive a picture is formed.

Picture a group of jets flying in formation. The pilot farthest to the right will have a different situational awareness picture than the pilot on the left. But once they’re networked, all the information is automatically shared among the pilots.

Prior to takeoff, planes would be designated with partners to form the network. When a plane gets within range, the network is automatically created.

“Like on your computer, your network into the local area, we’re building that network in the sky and it’s keeping up with all the dynamics and spatial changes,” said Bob Gough, director of CNI technology and programs at Northrop. “MADL has the smarts to keep up with all of that and keep the network in place so they can share the same data.”

Gough declined to say how close jets need to be to trigger the network link, but did say tests have shown “very fast” acquisition times once within range.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... lthy-Comms

MADL is not the only data link or communication/info sharing tool on the F-35 and the CNI suite has room for addition of any data link the customer may so desire. As you've mentioned the IDF will add its own secure data link. MADL is just something that is hardwired into the Avionics and SA picture the integrated avionics build up. Link 16 is used for long range data transfer within f-35's and with other aircraft. SATCOM capability will also be available from block 4 if I recall correctly.

The two-rack communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system processes waveforms internally, sending high-level status data to the core processor. The CNI system is designed to provide functions such as beyond-visual-range identification friend-or-foe (IFF); secure, multichannel, multiband voice communications; and intraflight data link (IFDL) exchanges, synchronizing the displays of multiple aircraft. The CNI suite will support 35 different com, nav and identification waveforms–about 5 pounds (2.26 kg) per waveform function, compared with the legacy black box approach of 10 to 30 pounds (4.54 to 13.6 kg), or more, per waveform, according to Frank Flores, JSF program director for Northrop Grumman Radio Systems.[/B}
Software-defined radio technology means that the suite can provide numerous radio functions–ranging in frequency from VHF to K band–from a set of more general-purpose module types, including:
Wideband RF module, performing analog-to-digital conversion, waveform processing and digital signal processing.
Dual-channel transceiver module, which can receive and digitize waveforms over a wide frequency band and generate� waveforms for transmission, driving �� power amplifiers. This module supports most of the 35 waveforms.
Frequency-dependent power amplifiers, including L-band, VHF/UHF, and higher-frequency units.
Power supply module.
CNI processor module, which performs signal processing, data processing and comsec processing.
And an interface module.
Northrop Grumman developed middleware, located between the operating system and the applications. This layer of software is designed to allow smooth system growth and compatibility with Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) waveforms.
The CNI suite uses Green Hills Software's Integrity commercial real-time operating system, PowerPC processors, field programmable gate arrays and digital signal processors. Radio Systems is streamlining the design to minimize footprint.
Some of the suite's baseline functions include: VHF/UHF voice, HaveQuick I/II, Saturn (HQ IIA), satcom T/R, IFF/SIF (selective ID feature) transponder, IFF Mode IV interrogator, ILS/MLS/MLS/Tacan, IFDL, Link 16 T/R, Link 4A, tactical data information link (TADIL-K), 3-D audio, TACFIRE/Air Force applications program development (AFAPD), and ADS-B.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/c ... 38cYK228lM

brochure

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... asheet.pdf

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2014 18:33

Point is - no matter how net-enabled a platform is, the network has to be in existence prior to the platform so that it can take full advantage of the same. In case of IAF, this is the IACCS and the ODL - both of which the Pakfa will be enabled with - can't see what JSF can bring here.

And what about the Indian Navy? And the Indian Army? And the Indian soldier? Tanks, UAVs, ........ Do they *all* have this ability to "network"? Today?

The issue here is not the technologies - every one has it. The question is have the participating entities sat down, agreed on a design and implemented it?

Heck I am dead sure that the Russians have fantastic sensors. They have been at it for decades. Q: What have they done with those foundational technologies.

From what I am reading, they are in the catching up mode. My estimate was 5 years (without making mistakes - like the US did). The Australian CAS claims 10 years.

Recall it took *years* to integrate Israeli and French components into the Su-27 to produce the MKI. Years. But, the Russians did it.

Integration is doable, India *today* does what they could not 10-15 years ago.

So, Russia and India can do it (integration). What about vision?

The article about the Russian helmet seems to indicate they lacked this part of the vision. What good are all those acronyms?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 May 2014 22:05

Open source, IAF "network" jhalak:

This article provides an insight into what it takes to build a "network":

Oct, 2011 :: IAF's defence network set for December boost with IACCS

That is when the first five nodes of IACCS (integrated air command and control system) will become operational in the western and southwestern sectors.

IAF is now also moving the case for government approval for the next five integrated air command and control system nodes, which will be even bigger and complex to cover the rest of the country and island territories, say officials.

Though the integrated air command and control system project was mooted by IAF in 1998, it's only now that the critical requirement to have a fully-automated network to integrate the wide array of military radars with each other as well as with civilian radars has gained momentum.

So, first thought of in 1998 and end of 2011 saw the first 5 nodes deployed.

Dec, 2013 :: Indian Air force C4ISR capabilities - A year end round up

Two full years later:

The IACSS by 2015-17 will have under its purview a fully modernized fleet of early warning and electronic countermeasures (ECM) resistant radars

That is from first thought to complete deployment around 19 years or so.

That is for the AF. And, from the 2nd article:

Keeping its lead in ICT initiatives over the Indian Army, IAF launched

So, the IA seems to have her own "network" and is behind the AF? No integration at that level? Since I have not conducted a good search on this matter I will leave it as a Q.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 May 2014 22:14

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^ Tsk, tsk, how you fail to understand? What the naysayers are saying, among other things, is that there is no super duper network enabled gizmo like the JSF - that is its rather singular USP it seems - something very esoteric.
To repeat,

APG-81, EOTS, DAS, Barracuda, VSI HMDS, MADL, a superb MMI, outstanding sensor fusion and high-end VLO capability, in addition to NCW adaptability. Plus the most diverse arsenal ever fielded on an aircraft.

All of the above if not most of it is on the Pakfa or in development, difference is marginal so far as I can see. The weapons fit admittedly could be more diverse, however, here it entirely depends on what the IAF finds necessary or affordable.

Point is - no matter how net-enabled a platform is, the network has to be in existence prior to the platform so that it can take full advantage of the same. In case of IAF, this is the IACCS and the ODL - both of which the Pakfa will be enabled with - can't see what JSF can bring here.

The F-35 can be equipped with the ODL as well. Everything it sees it'll be able to pass off to friendly aircraft and vice versa. Israel for example, is adding its own comms & data-links to the F-35I. The MADL will still be available to modified F-35s.

So how is this going to make the Pakfa any worse? Irrespective of what the NCW capability of the JSF, it will still be restricted to IAF network and ODL - same as Pakfa.

Again, as someone has pointed out earlier - the JSF is designed for and works well with NATO type infrastructure - redundancy in assets such as HUMINT, space based, Air/seaborne, MPAs, IFR, ISR and a host of other acronyms that countries like India still have a long way before they can make sense of.

Works perfectly well without interfacing with space or sea based assets. It ties in well with the AEGIS but that's not relevant to most non-US customers, the prime example again being Israel.

Yes, but much of its uber capabilities are lost without all those assets - kind of makes it less attractive. Add to this the fact that under these circumstances the basic oomph of the Pakfa in terms of key flight performance parameters makes it rather survivable.

India still needs dal-roti = Pakfa = Fast, high alt, supercruising, stealthy, ultra-maneuverable and get this, bristling with sensors jet phyter wonlee. As much as folks like Copp and now even Sweetman (who has always been amongst the best defense reporters around) have garnered criticism, they do make some very good points. No getting around it.

Supercruise is 'dal-roti'?

Sure, for a 5 gen a/c. Anymore even 4.5 gen a/c have it - Su-35 included.

'Bristling with sensors' compared to..? Certainly no more so than the Eurocanards (with the sole exception of the two conformal antennas)

.
In addition to the L-band array, a rather unique feature, let us not forget the side AESA arrays, 360 deg optical sensor suite and DIRCM. All in all, quite ahead of any single Ecanard and in some ways, of the JSF as well.

A true 'dal-roti option' would be an aircraft that comes at a reasonable price, costs a moderate amount to operate, offers high reliability, high operational availability and good after sales support. Until UAC can demonstrate that, the sobriquet doesn't apply.

Considering that the IAF at least so far has not complained about the Su-30MKI, it seems that UAC can certainly do the needful. From all indications, Pakfa/FGFA will follow an even more involved path assuring better SCM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 May 2014 22:26

NRao wrote:
Point is - no matter how net-enabled a platform is, the network has to be in existence prior to the platform so that it can take full advantage of the same. In case of IAF, this is the IACCS and the ODL - both of which the Pakfa will be enabled with - can't see what JSF can bring here.
And what about the Indian Navy? And the Indian Army? And the Indian soldier? Tanks, UAVs, ........ Do they *all* have this ability to "network"? Today?

The issue here is not the technologies - every one has it. The question is have the participating entities sat down, agreed on a design and implemented it?

Heck I am dead sure that the Russians have fantastic sensors. They have been at it for decades. Q: What have they done with those foundational technologies.

From what I am reading, they are in the catching up mode. My estimate was 5 years (without making mistakes - like the US did). The Australian CAS claims 10 years.

Recall it took *years* to integrate Israeli and French components into the Su-27 to produce the MKI. Years. But, the Russians did it.

Integration is doable, India *today* does what they could not 10-15 years ago.

So, Russia and India can do it (integration). What about vision?

The article about the Russian helmet seems to indicate they lacked this part of the vision. What good are all those acronyms?

Sir, please make up your mind - is the issue with lack of NCW capability of pakfa? Or is it sensors? Or now, is it lack of vision?

Btw, where is that helmet article, I did not read it. AFAIK, while the helmet itself was designed, the HMS was still being worked on..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 May 2014 01:47

On NWC, I am sure the PAK-FA *has* it. If the MKI can paint and send the info another MKI, why not the PAK-FA?

Not to worry about vision - just a silly six letter word.

On helmet, will track that article down. But frankly do not worry. For

Viv S wrote: Cain Marko wrote:
^ Tsk, tsk, how you fail to understand? What the naysayers are saying, among other things, is that there is no super duper network enabled gizmo like the JSF - that is its rather singular USP it seems - something very esoteric.

To repeat,

APG-81, EOTS, DAS, Barracuda, VSI HMDS, MADL, a superb MMI, outstanding sensor fusion and high-end VLO capability, in addition to NCW adaptability. Plus the most diverse arsenal ever fielded on an aircraft.
All of the above if not most of it is on the Pakfa or in development

If above bolded is true, then some "sensors" are not yet ready, which means they have not achieved data fusion, then why even worry about helmets?

They must have a ton of stubs in their hardware and software and then a million or two lines of code to write to fuse all that.

I think I will start believing in the what the Oz CAS said: 10 years out. At least.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 24 May 2014 03:00

Like I said before they are not making any technical to-do punch lists available to the public to scrutinize like the JSF has done. So these guys can make all sorts of stupendous claims pertaining to the PAKFA with out having to defend their punch lists. If they told ya they would have to kill ya so to speak.

Actually I don't mind being underestimated because we are transparent. Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan also underestimated us to their demise.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 May 2014 08:52

In addition to the L-band array, a rather unique feature, let us not forget the side AESA arrays, 360 deg optical sensor suite and DIRCM. All in all, quite ahead of any single Ecanard and in some ways, of the JSF as well.

Not to nit pick, but wing-embedded sensors do also exist on the F-35, and have existed on the F-22 since it first flew with a full missions load in 1996. These include L band sensors. I have earlier provided links to the same. The F-22 had close to 30 of these, while on the F-35 they were able to shrink components down to where a dozen or so would suffice.

Now coming to the 360 degree active X band emissions (Does the T-50 plan on having a rear X band sensor?). This was an 80's concept for the ATF, as can be seen in any book written about the ATF program or the F-22 raptor. In the constant battle between the "fighter mafia" and the "stealth mafia" the consensus emerged in the 80's on the ATF program that the rear x band sensor is redundant and a pain due to EMCON (emission control). The original X band sensor (apg-77) had to have the front radar and two side radars tilted to provide greater FOV. This was then shifted to locating X band emitting sensors on the wings edges. The Stealth mafia had to take a back seat because what they suggested (Boosting SA ability from the IFDL (intra flight data link) ) had been "never done before" and was thought to be too risky to implement.

Fast forward to the 90's, when the JSF concept was being discussed, the maturity that came with time, and proper sensor investments lead to MADL requirements being framed in such a fashion so as to totally make the F-22's "way of doing things" in this regard redundant. Because stealth fighters do not fly as close to each other in formation as non-stealthy birds MADL was tasked to build up a comprehensive 360 degree picture using net-centricity and very high speed, Low probability of Intercept data link (hence the MADL is exclusively kept for SA data over short distances, which are mostly a few miles apart as would exist in a 4 ship or a larger formation. Longer distance data links were kept separate and provided within the CNI setup, including eventually SATCOM for NLOS sharing). Here advances in integration of avionics (real time SA picture updating without requiring any pilot workload whatsoever. In fact not only is the picture updated, but coordinates of threats are automatically presented to all MADL birds in the loop) and net-centricity all but trumped the earlier 80's concept of having front and side facing emitting sensors. This approach kept the fighter folks happy as they got their SA picture they were looking for, and it kept the VLO requirements in tact, as the emissions were kept to a minimum, directional and through the LPI primary sensor. In a virtual acknowledgement that the stealth mafia was correct, the USAF has decided at least in principle to have the entire stealth fleet (F-35, F-22, B-2, UCAV's and future B-3) MADL enabled. The F-22 was stated to get it very soon, but the integration was pushed back to a point where the system could be verified and operationalized so as not to take funds away from the f-22 program (let the f-35 develop, test and operationalize madl). B-2 will follow the f-22. F-22's IFDL is basically an early version of MADL, but not as comprehensive or as ambitious or comprehensive, hence it will be replaced by MADL.

Invisible Talk

Members of the airborne networking division within the 653rd Electronic Systems Group at Hanscom AFB, Mass., are tacking the challenge of adding secure data-linking technology known as the multi-function advanced data link (MADL) onto the B-2, F-22, and F-35 so that these three low-observable platforms will have the means to share data amongst themselves and other aircraft in a manner that doesn’t blow their stealth cover. Originally MADL was going to be integrated onto the F-35 first and then the technology would have been handed over to the F-22 and B-2 programs in a serial fashion for inclusion on those aircraft. But then, last November, the Office of the Secretary of Defense decreed that MADL must be developed for integration on all three platforms, with an emphasis on ensuring an enterprise approach. Kim Kendall, MADL program manager, said the Air Force has already validated that the MADL waveform originally developed with the F-35 in mind will support all three platforms. The MADL program office is now working to fully define the system’s requirements.

MADL capability is fully delivered to all F-35s that are coming out of the production line. More than 100 CNI Suites (which include MADL, link 16 etc) have been delivered so far.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... 5-aircraft

Advantages of a Net centric approach to achieving comprehensive 360 degree Situational awareness picture instead of kitting each airframe with multiple emitting sensors:

- Strict Adherence to the principles of emissions control, a cornerstone of operational stealth doctrine
- Lower complexity of sub-system which equals lower cost
- Reducing the number of emitting sensors on the airframe equates to better maintainability and lower down times
- MADL brings legacy systems up to par and allows them to share the SA provided by 5th gen system without getting expensive, complex sensor upgrades to achieve the same
- MADL and the son-of-MADL which will be developed in the future ensures that sensor advancements that occur in time need not be applied fleet wide to gain the required effect.

Regarding DIRCM, NG has a system it is offering for classic fighters, and is developing a shrunken version of it for the F-35. No customer has so far come out and said that we want it by so and so date. Until someone comes out and asks for DIRCM integration in an open block version (block 5 mostly) other things that the customers see as more important will keep on getting priority. Such as weapons integration through the groundbreaking UAI effort and more modes to the sensors (enhanced EW capability for example). In addition to the DIRCM other things such as Engine enhancements have already been shown in ground testing, but are yet to get approval by a customer for integration into the production process.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 24 May 2014 09:36

TSJones wrote: Actually I don't mind being underestimated because we are transparent. Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan also underestimated us to their demise.

The Nazis actually badly underestimated the Russians and we all know who liberated Europe.

Anyway, i find this "they are at least 5-10 years behind" thing absurd. Samsung was years behind Motorola but today things are very different. It takes a very long time to bring something new to the market but it doesn't take a lot of time to replicate it and to innovate and improve on the existing takes even less time. I am not trying to play down the US' superiority but in my view,the technological gap specially in the field of avionics/electronics is far more easy to narrow than it is in other fields. Another example is the display and other avionic systems on our aircrafts, a decade ago it was almost totally Israeli/French but today most of it is Indian(small time Indian vendors along with PSU/DRDO have done a remarkable job) and in a few more years i am sure it will be 100% indigenous and all this at the same or better performance as compared to the equivalent Israeli/French system.
Cheers!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 May 2014 10:53

TSJones wrote:Like I said before they are not making any technical to-do punch lists available to the public to scrutinize like the JSF has done. So these guys can make all sorts of stupendous claims pertaining to the PAKFA with out having to defend their punch lists. If they told ya they would have to kill ya so to speak.

Actually I don't mind being underestimated because we are transparent. Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan also underestimated us to their demise.

Boss, the fact that you don't know how to judge a plane unless it is explicitly spelled out, does not mean that nobody knows. Experts who operate these planes and people who understand planes can come to their inferences with a little thought. By the way, outside the world of internet forums, I have found knowledgeable people admire and dislike both the JSF and PAK-FA. Everybody unanimously likes JSF's electronics, avionics and quite literally dishes its aerodynamics. Not because the Americans are dumb, but because (I think they misjudged) how quickly the others will catch up on the avionics part. Unfortunately, the planes made now will stay in the air for 30 years. The electronics of the JSF will remain cutting edge for at most 5-10 years (even by your estimates). So ...

And oh! IAF and IN have repeatedly been offered the JSF. Both have looked elsewhere and both harbour no special love for Russia anymore. Both chose a western product, not Russian. So ...

And please stop this shirt-waving (in this case a world-war-II-era shirt) as a sign of a better product. It is the worst argument one can give.

P.S. Please excuse my direct speech.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 May 2014 11:18

New missile for Russian fifth-generation fighter to be developed by 2016

"We have established close contact with the Sukhoi design office. A permanent working group is formed. All the protocols of informational cooperation are agreed on. Models are made according to schedule. Everything must be done by 2016," Obnosov said, noting it was a new modified aircraft cruise missile X-74M2.

It was hard work. Intensity of tests was very high. Even the main test centre coped with it with difficulty, he added.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2014 01:16

Anyway, i find this "they are at least 5-10 years behind" thing absurd.

which is:

Another example is the display and other avionic systems on our aircrafts, a decade ago it was almost totally Israeli/French but today most of it is Indian(small time Indian vendors along with PSU/DRDO have done a remarkable job) and in a few more years i am sure it will be 100% indigenous and all this at the same or better performance as compared to the equivalent Israeli/French system.

Strange. What is the difference?

What you wanted to say is that anyone can catch up. But that does not negate the fact (IMHO) that the Russians *today* are behind. How far behind can be debated and that is fine with me.

Aam admi can make such mistakes.

Just BTW, that moto vs. Samsung example does not fly in this case. As far as I know the US has made progress in many fields, while the Russians are behind, by their own admission, in engines. Are the Russians capable of catching up - I think so. Will they? I do *not* think so. Moto slid, I do not thin the US will (for a variety of reasons - one of them *not* being emotions.)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2014 01:52

As I started reading up on the F-35, after a thread with a silly title was started, and now reading up on the PAK-FA, I am finding that comparison of these planes is by far the most stupid stuff.

Why would anyone bother if the PAK-FA = F-22 is beyond me.

I would think an AF would say something like, I bet my 25 pilots with these 20 air crafts will beat your X number of pilots in any of your air crafts.

And, no matter who wins, even then no plane can compare with another the way we seem to be comparing. The outcome of combat is the plane + pilot + a ton of other people and efforts.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 25 May 2014 03:54

NRao wrote: Just BTW, that moto vs. Samsung example does not fly in this case. As far as I know the US has made progress in many fields, while the Russians are behind, by their own admission, in engines. Are the Russians capable of catching up - I think so. Will they? I do *not* think so. Moto slid, I do not thin the US will (for a variety of reasons - one of them *not* being emotions.)

Samsung have succeeded because they've been innovative, no doubt. Without access to the US market the wouldn't have the $$ to do so. They've also been given access to US technology. None of this is going to happen for mil hardware. Only India and China are capable of catching up with the US, and that too in the long term. Russia ain't ever catching up unless they get market access.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2014 04:13

KrishnaK wrote:
NRao wrote: Just BTW, that moto vs. Samsung example does not fly in this case. As far as I know the US has made progress in many fields, while the Russians are behind, by their own admission, in engines. Are the Russians capable of catching up - I think so. Will they? I do *not* think so. Moto slid, I do not thin the US will (for a variety of reasons - one of them *not* being emotions.)
Samsung have succeeded because they've been innovative, no doubt. Without access to the US market the wouldn't have the $$ to do so. They've also been given access to US technology. None of this is going to happen for mil hardware. Only India and China are capable of catching up with the US, and that too in the long term. Russia ain't ever catching up unless they get market access.

I humbly disagree from a military angle.

There is absolutely no need, for anyone, "catching up with the US".

It is more than sufficient for India (and similarly other nations) to catch up with their own solid requirements. Build a "F-35" IF there is such a need. Else build a solid "AMCA" - whatever that means. Do not chase a "F-35" when a "AMCA" will do and please do *not* compare them.

As you mentioned, the "need" in business is international competition. The "need" in military is very "local", with some overlaps.

I am trying to figure out what the IAF statement - Russia cannot deliver - actually means. From what little is out there in the open source, my research so far, seems to indicate that this is not an empty statement. That from a militarily uneducated person like me. I wonder what people who are really educated think about this.

My feel is that there is a huge difference between a PAK-FA and a FGFA as each national player view it. And therein lies the rub. This "huge" difference was not there in the MiG series, so the IAF accepted what was supplied as an export version of the MiG. Today the IAF is no longer willing to sit and accept what a Russia says it can provide. The IAF wants to define the machine and expects the Russians to supply a custom built machine. My feel is that this new chasm between the two is what is causing this delay we are witnessing. ?????

But, I certainly hope that India does not go about building the AMCA with a F-35/PAK-FA/whatever in mind. Borrow whatever is needed, copy whatever is needed, but build what is needed. Do not waste time/effort mimicking others.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 25 May 2014 06:21

NRao wrote:I humbly disagree from a military angle. There is absolutely no need, for anyone, "catching up with the US".

I'm only talking of possibility, not necessity. Russia is incapable of doing so, irrespective of whether it choses to or not. I don't think India has any particular proclivity to compete with the US on arms. Also my previous post wasn't meant to counter yours Nrao.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 May 2014 12:35

Cain Marko wrote:
Viv S wrote:To repeat,

APG-81, EOTS, DAS, Barracuda, VSI HMDS, MADL, a superb MMI, outstanding sensor fusion and high-end VLO capability, in addition to NCW adaptability. Plus the most diverse arsenal ever fielded on an aircraft.
All of the above if not most of it is on the Pakfa or in development, difference is marginal so far as I can see. The weapons fit admittedly could be more diverse, however, here it entirely depends on what the IAF finds necessary or affordable.

- The Russians have never delivered an operational AESA to date. Expecting something in the APG-81 class would be highly highly optimistic.
- No EOTS. The PAK FA will use a external pod for PGM delivery. Even there, given that its importing (third gen) Damocles pods from France, how can you expect something in the Litening G4/Sniper XR class?
- Maybe the PAK FA will feature an EW suite comparable SPECTRA class. Maybe. Comparable to the Barracuda... not likely.
- VSI HMDS analogue. Not advertised. Speculative.
- MMI & sensor fusion? Lets see if it matches the Eurocanards for now.
- High end VLO capability? Compromised by the IRST & MAWS 'bulbs', lack of S-ducts, exposed exhausts etc. Indian MoD 'sources' put the RCS at 0.5m2 while the recent Russian patents placed it at 0.1-1m2.

# The munitions complement will be entirely Russian so 'could be more diverse' is an understatement really. (The SDB has become essential even for the F-22. No CBU-105 analogue either.) As far as integration of non-vendor items goes; does the PAK FA employ open architecture like the F-35? The Russians advertise it for the Su-30MK and MiG-35 (I even recall seeing it for the Mi-38), and yet nothing on the PAK FA.

Point is - no matter how net-enabled a platform is, the network has to be in existence prior to the platform so that it can take full advantage of the same. In case of IAF, this is the IACCS and the ODL - both of which the Pakfa will be enabled with - can't see what JSF can bring here.

So how is this going to make the Pakfa any worse? Irrespective of what the NCW capability of the JSF, it will still be restricted to IAF network and ODL - same as Pakfa.

I'm just saying it'll be as well linked within Indian networks as any other aircraft (with the possible exception of the IAF's AEW&C units).

Nothing exceptional in terms of NCW vis a vis the PAK FA in the Indian context. Agreed. But then NCW was never offered as a reason why India should, in Mihir's words, 'ride the lightning'.

Yes, but much of its uber capabilities are lost without all those assets - kind of makes it less attractive. Add to this the fact that under these circumstances the basic oomph of the Pakfa in terms of key flight performance parameters makes it rather survivable.

Which 'uber capability' is lost with all those assets? Radar, DAS, ESM systems, stealth, sensor fusion et al... its all still there.

Supercruise is 'dal-roti'?
Sure, for a 5 gen a/c. Anymore even 4.5 gen a/c have it - Su-35 included.

Some aircraft have it does not make it essential. Well.. maybe if you need to operate over the huge Russian hinterland or the Western Pacific.

'Bristling with sensors' compared to..? Certainly no more so than the Eurocanards (with the sole exception of the two conformal antennas)
.
In addition to the L-band array, a rather unique feature, let us not forget the side AESA arrays, 360 deg optical sensor suite and DIRCM. All in all, quite ahead of any single Ecanard and in some ways, of the JSF as well.

L-band yes (though as BW mentioned its there on the F-35 as well). Conformal AESAs I mentioned. Near 360 deg IR spectrum coverage is there on the Rafale and an option for the EF through the PIMAWS. The latter also features the Striker 'imaging' helmet.

The F-35 has a DIRCM option and the emphasis here again was to ensure that it doesn't jeopardize the VLO qualities, by flushing it with the airframe.

A major feature of the F-35 is its low-observable design, vital to its stealth capabilities. Anything sticking off the plane could threaten those stealth characteristics, so ThNDR will be installed inside the jet, with a window cut out to allow the lasers to operate. (link)

A true 'dal-roti option' would be an aircraft that comes at a reasonable price, costs a moderate amount to operate, offers high reliability, high operational availability and good after sales support. Until UAC can demonstrate that, the sobriquet doesn't apply.
Considering that the IAF at least so far has not complained about the Su-30MKI, it seems that UAC can certainly do the needful. From all indications, Pakfa/FGFA will follow an even more involved path assuring better SCM.

Huh? Blanking out HUDS and MFDs. Non-operational Su-30s piling up because the overhaul facilities remain unbuilt, deputation of Russian specialists being 'on hold' for over a year despite desperate pleas from HAL and now Russian supplies to HAL being 'on hold' as well. And that's without going into the recent IAF broadside against the FGFA.

At the very least it merits caution while negotiating agreements (how well they're respected is a different issue) and the current pay-first-examine-later model is the very worst way to do it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 May 2014 13:11

indranilroy wrote:Not because the Americans are dumb, but because (I think they misjudged) how quickly the others will catch up on the avionics part. Unfortunately, the planes made now will stay in the air for 30 years. The electronics of the JSF will remain cutting edge for at most 5-10 years (even by your estimates). So ...

Not to nitpick here but the F-22 is now over a decade old and its electronics are still cutting edge and by a considerable margin.

And oh! IAF and IN have repeatedly been offered the JSF. Both have looked elsewhere and both harbour no special love for Russia anymore. Both chose a western product, not Russian. So ...

True. But since then the Rafale's cost has ballooned, the FGFA has devolved into a plain vanilla PAK FA, and the PAK FA itself has been... less than inspirational (with red flags on cost front).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 May 2014 13:31

The F-35 has a DIRCM option and the emphasis here again was to ensure that it doesn't jeopardize the VLO qualities, by flushing it with the airframe.

A major feature of the F-35 is its low-observable design, vital to its stealth capabilities. Anything sticking off the plane could threaten those stealth characteristics, so ThNDR will be installed inside the jet, with a window cut out to allow the lasers to operate. (link)

DIRCM (ThNDR), Aim-9x blk 3 integration as well as bringing all electronic developments (EW sub systems, EW mounts, additional embedded structures etc) into the UAI program is a goal of the overall posture towards the pacific. The capability post block 4 has quite a bit of "growth" left into it from the start. More and more media reports are indicating that this will be the avionics and capability "growth" that will be pacific focused and as such would rapidly introduce technologies to enhance the capability of the fighter with that theater in mind. P&W for example has already made changes to the F-135 that allow for far greater thrusts, and have are well underway to bring a 5-10% baseline performance improvement into the F-135 from the Adaptive Versatile Engine technology program. These additions are currently planned for the Block 6 capability but may be pushed ahead if so desired. The goal is to boost range and improve performance with higher dry thrust from a more effecient engine (technology application from the AETD program). This is before the 6th gen engine efforts kick in.

http://www.slashgear.com/darpa-plans-to ... -28266925/

Things are quietly moving forward in other areas as well including Ramjet BVR missile tests, directed energy weapons etc. Northrop's facility that makes the Apg-81 radar is also supposed to get full on GaN certification for DOD contracts this year. The first radar to come out would be the US marine corps Gator radar, which will use the common GaN chipsets (X band). What is not talked about much is that Lockheed Martin has submitted a Super Lightning II (F-35D?) proposal to the US Navy which is a 5.5 gen technology in case the USN does not wish to pay for a full fledged 6th gen effort to replace the Super Hornet starting 2030 or near abouts.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 May 2014 18:18

From what I see the Modi government is not going to put forth any effort for military cooperation with the US. So I don't understand all this anti JSF argle bargle put forth on the forum. India does not want the JSF. OK, go with with whutever floats your boat. But don't claim a bunch of nonsense on how Russia is going surpass the jsf because it ain't happening anytime soon. A lot of hot air will few details presented. Like they are going to have no technical challenges. Or they are going to noodle it out behind closed doors and India must have the required faith. What a bunch of hokey nonsense. Oh they will get there. Eventually. I have faith in that. But that doesn't mean they will be caught up with the US. We have a lot of gear in the works.

I repeat, India must follow the path that suits their strategy. That does not necessarily include a lot of US military cooperation. At least as far as I can see. India should develop its own equipment where ever it can.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 May 2014 23:22

Russia blows hot air that reaches Indian shores, whereas USA shows hotter products for themselves and expect the world to go cool!

JSF will not make to the Indian land because of the constraints that comes with it. it matches the russian hot air shows hair by hair.

Instead of bragging USA is mightier than Russia etc, why not just present not what you can do to yourself, but what you can do for others - put down your limits and make it public.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 May 2014 23:36

Viv S wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Not because the Americans are dumb, but because (I think they misjudged) how quickly the others will catch up on the avionics part. Unfortunately, the planes made now will stay in the air for 30 years. The electronics of the JSF will remain cutting edge for at most 5-10 years (even by your estimates). So ...
Not to nitpick here but the F-22 is now over a decade old and its electronics are still cutting edge and by a considerable margin.

Good point. But I don't agree with the considerable margin part. By the way, you are speaking to a big F-22 fan here

. In my eyes, F-22 is still the plane to beat, not PAK-FA.

Viv S wrote:
And oh! IAF and IN have repeatedly been offered the JSF. Both have looked elsewhere and both harbour no special love for Russia anymore. Both chose a western product, not Russian. So ...
True. But since then the Rafale's cost has ballooned, the FGFA has devolved into a plain vanilla PAK FA, and the PAK FA itself has been... less than inspirational (with red flags on cost front).

You think vanilla PAK-FA is bad? I would buy it over the F-35 any day!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 May 2014 23:47

KrishnaK wrote:
NRao wrote:I humbly disagree from a military angle. There is absolutely no need, for anyone, "catching up with the US".
I'm only talking of possibility, not necessity. Russia is incapable of doing so, irrespective of whether it choses to or not. I don't think India has any particular proclivity to compete with the US on arms. Also my previous post wasn't meant to counter yours Nrao.

Of course, your vast experience and knowledge in military systems makes you confident that Russia is incapable of doing so, irrespective of whether it chooses to or not. Seriously, your rabid pro America posts are one thing, but the above is hilarious even by those standards, given there are umpteen weapons systems wherein Russia developed something that matched American capabilities or even exceeded them in several parameters.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 May 2014 23:50

raghuk wrote:
TSJones wrote: Actually I don't mind being underestimated because we are transparent. Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan also underestimated us to their demise.
The Nazis actually badly underestimated the Russians and we all know who liberated Europe.
Anyway, i find this "they are at least 5-10 years behind" thing absurd. Samsung was years behind Motorola but today things are very different. It takes a very long time to bring something new to the market but it doesn't take a lot of time to replicate it and to innovate and improve on the existing takes even less time. I am not trying to play down the US' superiority but in my view,the technological gap specially in the field of avionics/electronics is far more easy to narrow than it is in other fields. Another example is the display and other avionic systems on our aircrafts, a decade ago it was almost totally Israeli/French but today most of it is Indian(small time Indian vendors along with PSU/DRDO have done a remarkable job) and in a few more years i am sure it will be 100% indigenous and all this at the same or better performance as compared to the equivalent Israeli/French system.
Cheers!

Exactly. The US fanboy club was rah-rahing about how badly behind the Russians were in airborne FCR only to get a wakeup call when the Russians developed their PESA tech to overhaul the US lead in conventional slotted array antenna's, forcing the US to rapidly invest in AESA upgrades.

Which lead can also be met by Russia given the wide number of PESA/conventional radar equipped fighters in Indian & Russian service, which can benefit from an AESA upgrade and are slated for one, apart from the PAKFA itself.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 May 2014 00:02

TSJones wrote:From what I see the Modi government is not going to put forth any effort for military cooperation with the US. So I don't understand all this anti JSF argle bargle put forth on the forum. India does not want the JSF. OK, go with with whutever floats your boat. But don't claim a bunch of nonsense on how Russia is going surpass the jsf because it ain't happening anytime soon. A lot of hot air will few details presented. Like they are going to have no technical challenges. Or they are going to noodle it out behind closed doors and India must have the required faith. What a bunch of hokey nonsense. Oh they will get there. Eventually. I have faith in that. But that doesn't mean they will be caught up with the US. We have a lot of gear in the works.

Boss, this is a very silly argument. Don't you discuss things which you don't buy? Coming over to fighter planes, havn't you discussed about Gripen, EF, Rafale, PAKFA, Mig-35 etc. on this forum and elsewhere. US has no plans to buy them? Then why this hypocrisy?

I don't understand avionics to the point that I can delve into the details like a few pundits here can, so I will leave it to them. But I have read and heard only good things about the F-35 in this regard.

But, I do understand aerodynamics a bit. And I can tell you with utmost guarantee that the F-35 is a compromise when it comes to aerodynamics. You can ask anybody else and he will tell you the same things. If the Marine Corps wanted the VTOL version, then LM shouldn't have tried to merge the F-35B version with the other two. It was a damn good attempt. They got it as close as one can possibly get. And for this they should be commended. But that is where the lesson ends.

By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time.

Anyways, the world would not gain anything by me convincing you one way or the other. So, I rest this argument.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2014 00:09

Indranilroy, in the world shri TSJ inhabits, nuance is not done, criticizing anything American = anti American, pro Russian argle bargle.

Seriously, the JSFs aero compromises thanks to the very reasons you note, are by now so well documented, its hilarious to see it even being debated as some sort of anti American conspiracy.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 27 May 2014 00:17

Karan M wrote:Indranilroy, in the world shri TSJ inhabits, nuance is not done, criticizing anything American = anti American, pro Russian argle bargle.

Seriously, the JSFs aero compromises thanks to the very reasons you note, are by now so well documented, its hilarious to see it even being debated as some sort of anti American conspiracy.

...it is you who doesn't understand the way we intend to fight and the strategy and tactics there of. Please do enjoy your pak-fa's or whatever you wish to call it. when it gets there. The Chinese will enjoy theirs too I'm sure.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 May 2014 00:28

Actually, I well understand the way you intend to fight etc. What I am pointing out though is that thanks to your way, you have compromised elsewhere. And of course, if the opponent does not fight the way you want him to fight, you may end up having some trouble.

Of course though, that could never be the case. The US is infallible and has never, ever lost a war wherein it fielded the wrong equipment, its tactics and strategy could not cope and it had a tough opponent (cough, cough Vietnam) and of course, the opponents always play according to the roles set by the US (cough, cough, COIN in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Oh wait, saying the above makes me a Russkie, anti American, goshdurnit!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 May 2014 01:49

May I post xcpts. from another td. some intriguing secrets about the acquisition of he MIG-21s decades ago and US chicanery,well worth remembering even at this time as its continues to support Pak in every way regardless of its terror campaign against India.

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... landing/2/

At the start of 1960s,the Cold War was its height. A four-power East-West summit in Paris had just fallen flat because of the flight over the Soviet Union by Americas U-2 super-spy plane,which was shot down. Both the United States and Britain,therefore,strained every nerve to dissuade India from going in for the MiG-21 or any other Soviet weaponry. American effrontery was unbelievable. Having supplied Pakistan with Sabre fighters already,the US had also started gifting it the more sophisticated F-104s,also called Starfighters. In no mood to offer India any lethal military equipment (even though it had given us three squadrons of C-119 transport aircraft in 1954-55),Washington urged New Delhi to buy British Lightning aircraft,wrongly claiming that it was better than anything the Soviet Union could offer. Britain was,of course,very keen to sell Lightning fighters to India,but wanted payment in cash. This country had no foreign exchange and was,in fact,busy pruning the Second Five-Year Plan to slash expenditures in foreign currency.

John Kenneth Galbraith,then the US ambassador to India,recorded later that he and some others had then advised President John F. Kennedy to pay the British for the aircraft and recover the amount from India in relatively small instalments. JFKs reply was: Why should we be so foolish as to pay millions of dollars to save the Indians from their folly? There was no such problem vis-à-vis the MiGs. The Indo-Soviet trade was in rupees and was basically barter. So we paid for fighter aircraft in shoe-uppers,bananas and tea.

After the 1962 war,the US offered India the F-4,a two-seater fighter aircraft of high quality,but later reneged on its promise. In the meantime,we had trained a large number of pilots and navigators for the F-4,which created a major problem. As for the F-104 Starfighter,which later earned the moniker widow-maker because it crashed all too frequently,the story is even worse. After a joint exercise with the US air force at Palam,the IAF declared the Starfighter to be a superior aircraft and was eager to acquire it. The Americans refused to give it,which was a stroke of good luck for India.

For long before the dawn of the global age,it was discovered that the big sales of Starfighters were a global racket. A powerful prime minister of Japan and a prince in Western Europe were among a large number of middlemen who went to jail for accepting heavy bribes. The flames of accusation reached even West Germanys famous defence minister,J. Strauss,but did not singe him. However,he was heard reciting: The fault is not in our stars but our Starfighters.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2014 02:02

By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time.

Do not be surprised if the IAF's statement - that Russia cannot deliver - is related to this topic - aerodynamics (VTOL included) vs. "stealth" - among other things.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 May 2014 02:03

Philip sir,

I disagree with you. Times have changed since then. Russia supplies the engines on which almost every Chinese and Pakistan planes fly (and no, they are not dumbed down, as you believe). And, now oil as well! Every body is looking out for themselves. So should we. If we don't acknowledge and adapt, there will be nobody to blame but ourselves.

We are lucky to be able to buy from both Russia and USA now. We should buy on merit, and not sympathies.

PAK-FA is a damn good plane, and so we should buy them. Not because it comes from Russia, and not because they are giving us any design know-how (which they aren't).

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 27 May 2014 02:12

We are lucky to be able to buy from both Russia and USA now

India is not buying US jet fighters of any sort. Not anytime soon and certainly not under the Modi government. Maybe not anything else either. Deal with it. maybe Modi will work a deal with Japan.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 May 2014 02:14

NRao wrote:
By merging the F-35B with the A and C versions a lot of insurmountable compromises made due to the VTOL design were inherited into the A and C designs. There is a reason why the VTOL versions don't make good fighters. You think all these years since the German's first attempt to make VTOLs since WWII, people are dumb not to incorporate this very useful feature into their fighters? I really wish the F-22 production is restarted to provide air cover for the F-35s which are arguably the best ground attack planes out there and will be for some time.
Do not be surprised if the IAF's statement - that Russia cannot deliver - is related to this topic - aerodynamics (VTOL included) vs. "stealth" - among other things.

I did not get it. IAF's complaints were on something very different. PAK-FA is a beautiful design when it comes to aerodynamics. They have explained why they went for the non-stealthy aft-fuselage design. Basically, they chose not to compromise on performance over stealth, whereas the Americans did not want to compromise on stealth over performance. If you speak to people from both camps they know this and respect each other. Both sides can't predict the outcome of what would happen when they go up against each other. In the history of aerial battle since WW-II, the outcomes have rarely been dictated by the superiority of planes on paper.

IAF's bone to pick is not with the design. They would be extremely happy to get what the design promises. The problem is that there is sufficient uncertainty on when those design goals would be reached. For example, the engines are a big if (in spite of all the reports that Austin ji posts). We have no option but to wait and watch.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 May 2014 02:34

TSJones wrote:
We are lucky to be able to buy from both Russia and USA now
India is not buying US jet fighters of any sort. Not anytime soon and certainly not under the Modi government. Maybe not anything else either. Deal with it.

In the history of free India, no Indian govt. has told IAF which plane to buy. The IAF tells the govt. what it would like out of the options present.

India's decision not to buy F-16/F-18s was not a UPA govt's decision either. IAF had a free hand and it laid out its judging parameters objectively. Now those parameters can be different from what the USAF draws, but the US jet fighters did not match up to IAF's parameters. You are free to believe what you chose, but I believe IAF's statement that geo-politics did not play a part in the decision.

If you don't make it personal (or national) it would be a much more easier pill to swallow. Otherwise, you will have a Brazilian pill and a Swiss pill as well. You know that Morrocco and S. Korea also favoured the Rafale over the F-16 and the F-15 respectively.