5th Gen FGFA Deal with Russia about to Crash land : Report

[Gufi]

The criticism that the F-35 is a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none is an immature one in light of decades of air combat and associated weapons development.

The F 35 is an invisible platforms which launches missiles and bombs enemies... it is a great platform for the USA with their cruisers and destroyers flattening the opposition with the plane picking off what survives the shock and awe policy

 

[randomradio]

Where is India's '5th gen' bomber ? You barely get along with China and Pakistan, so where is a strategic weapon like a bomber ?

The Soviet Union offered bombers to the IAF, so did the Russians, but the IAF rejected it because they considered it unnecessary for their objectives. Soft borders remove the need for bombers. Once our objectives go into other continents outside the IOR, then we may have to worry about bombers, even then it most likely won't come to pass though.

For countries, including your India, that must import their defense, jack-of-all-trades platforms are all they can afford, either to buy or in indigenous development.

This is not correct. IAF never had a real jack of all trades jet before 2002, and even that term isn't really accurate to describe what the IAF wants. Before that, the IAF had always operated mission specific aircraft. Multirole has become a recent fad. IAF want all their jets designed for the air superiority role as much as possible, but they want the strike option to come along with it.

The F-35 is the opposite of IAF's requirements.

Basically, the IAF is moving towards air superiority aircraft with a secondary strike role plus stealth UCAVs for the strike role. The French are doing the same with their Rafale/FCAS combo. In fact, this type of a fleet is more expensive because you want all your fighter aircraft to be configured to the highest possible configuration so any aircraft can perform any role at any time.

India is going to end paying $200 million per FGFA which is basically a Su-30MKI with internal weapons bay albeit with more powerful engine and upgraded avionics.

Not true. It also has sensor fusion and is VLO, can supercruise etc. Your claim is no different from claiming the F-22 is just a F-15 with internal bays, bigger engine and better avionics.

it's going to cost a ton to fly and maintain just like the Su-30MKI is, and if it doesn't have availability rate of over 80% but more like 50% to 60% is going to suck as well.

Not correct again. The Flanker series is derived from the Soviet Union. They had lower quality standards, that's not the case with Russia today.

The Su-30 has engines that's only good for 1500-2000 hours. The Su-35 has engines good for 4000 hours. It's obvious PAK FA will have engines that will match western standards of 8000-10000 hours, at least that's what the Russians are claiming.

Similarly, the quality standards of the PAK FA will also be high enough to be competitive with American jets.

The availability of the Su-30 in the IAF is due to bureaucratic hurdles, not due to technical hurdles. IAF's spares orders are initiated 1 year after the order is placed today, they want to reduce that time to 30 days. Once spares are made in India, Sukhoi will transfer their production line to India, the wait time will further reduce to just a few days.

The F-22's availability goal is 70%. The Su-30MKI today is just 5% below that.

 

[gambit]

The Soviet Union offered bombers to the IAF, so did the Russians, but the IAF rejected it because they considered it unnecessary for their objectives. Soft borders remove the need for bombers. Once our objectives go into other continents outside the IOR, then we may have to worry about bombers, even then it most likely won't come to pass though.



This is not correct. IAF never had a real jack of all trades jet before 2002, and even that term isn't really accurate to describe what the IAF wants. Before that, the IAF had always operated mission specific aircraft. Multirole has become a recent fad. IAF want all their jets designed for the air superiority role as much as possible, but they want the strike option to come along with it.

The F-35 is the opposite of IAF's requirements.

Basically, the IAF is moving towards air superiority aircraft with a secondary strike role plus stealth UCAVs for the strike role. The French are doing the same with their Rafale/FCAS combo. In fact, this type of a fleet is more expensive because you want all your fighter aircraft to be configured to the highest possible configuration so any aircraft can perform any role at any time.

Tell that to your fellow Indians who criticizes the F-35 as a mere jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. You did not see how you confirmed my argument against that criticism.

 

[randomradio]

Tell that to your fellow Indians who criticizes the F-35 as a mere jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. You did not see how you confirmed my argument against that criticism.

My post was in reply to sections of the post you had posted.

Anybody who's followed the program enough will know that the F-35 is a brilliant strike aircraft. But my opinion lies somewhere between your opinion and my fellow Indians'.

Even if I call it a brilliant strike aircraft, I wouldn't call it the best strike aircraft around. If you want to hit a hardened target during the middle of a war, then the F-35 is the best aircraft around. But if you want to commit to SEAD/DEAD, even your top generals and pilots recommend using the F-22. The F-35 cannot perform SEAD missions at the same level as the F-22 does, and the F-35 isn't good enough to counter a F-22 class aircraft either. Basically, the F-35 cannot perform the most crucial missions, so this becomes a problem for all the air forces that plan to buy the F-35 without the F-22. It's just stuck in between. People are confusing that to be jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.

 

[Su-11]

This tells me you know nothing of the technical issues which earns you nothing but derision from those of us -- like me -- who do know.

Am going to be nice and give you a clue: If rain is detrimental to 'stealth', it is 10 times worse for 'non-stealth'.

First off, the fact that you throw whole number figures like 10 or 20 shows how much of a fanboy poser you are.
When a non-stealth fighter comes up against rain/water, a known attenuation but less of an attenuation than a stealth coating, its resulting radar reflection may even go down depending on where the water is collecting and on what part of the plane the radiating is painting it. Not the same case for a 'stealth' plane.
Oh and, the coatings for the F-22 require major maintenance for just regular flying, I would love to see this crap flying at several hundred km per hour rain drops crashing on its skin.

 

[knight11]

My post was in reply to sections of the post you had posted.

Anybody who's followed the program enough will know that the F-35 is a brilliant strike aircraft. But my opinion lies somewhere between your opinion and my fellow Indians'.

Even if I call it a brilliant strike aircraft, I wouldn't call it the best strike aircraft around. If you want to hit a hardened target during the middle of a war, then the F-35 is the best aircraft around. But if you want to commit to SEAD/DEAD, even your top generals and pilots recommend using the F-22. The F-35 cannot perform SEAD missions at the same level as the F-22 does, and the F-35 isn't good enough to counter a F-22 class aircraft either. Basically, the F-35 cannot perform the most crucial missions, so this becomes a problem for all the air forces that plan to buy the F-35 without the F-22. It's just stuck in between. People are confusing that to be jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.

How did you came into the conclussion, that F-22 is better than F-35 for SEAD/DEAD mission. Can you explain how.?

F-22 is primaraly designed for Air Defense/ Air Superiority.

Be careful doing business with Russians as we are.

Reject SU-35, people will start doubting China with 2 Stealth plane program going.

 

[randomradio]

How did you came into the conclussion, that F-22 is better than F-35 for SEAD/DEAD mission. Can you explain how.?

F-22 is primaraly designed for Air Defense/ Air Superiority

The F-22 is built for speed and performance. General Hostage says he only needs 2 F-22s for a mission instead of 8 F-35s. Basically, Hostage says the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22, but the F-22 is individually superior to the F-35 due to the performance difference.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

Of course, he also points out that the networking capabilities of the F-35 is better, but that's moot considering avionics can be upgraded on the F-22 also. It doesn't bode well for the F-35, especially if the Russians and the Chinese put F-35 level avionics on a F-22 class platform.

 

[gambit]

First off, the fact that you throw whole number figures like 10 or 20 shows how much of a fanboy poser you are.
When a non-stealth fighter comes up against rain/water, a known attenuation but less of an attenuation than a stealth coating, its resulting radar reflection may even go down depending on where the water is collecting and on what part of the plane the radiating is painting it. Not the same case for a 'stealth' plane.
Oh and, the coatings for the F-22 require major maintenance for just regular flying, I would love to see this crap flying at several hundred km per hour rain drops crashing on its skin.

Yeah...And people says Americans are stupid...

The current foundation of 'stealth' is more shaping than on materials. That is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm

Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM.

On post F-117 'stealth' fighters, absorbers are used more on leading and trailing edges than on general large areas of body surfaces. Why ? Because of wave diffraction behaviors.

An aircraft is a finite object, meaning it has boundaries. A radar signal on this body cannot stay on it forever. On the body, the radar signal produces several behaviors, such as surface waves, creeping waves, or diffraction. Each behavior warrant different response method.

Curvatures affects surface wave behaviors. Can we install absorbers to reduce leaky waves from surface waves ? Yes, we can. But would it be worth it ? For US: No. Those leaky waves have been found to be below the clutter rejection threshold for %99 of the radar systems out there, including the military ones. So it would be a weight penalty to install absorbers all over the F-22. Whereas diffraction signals that came off edges are strong enough that it MIGHT trigger an alert, so absorbers would be appropriate at large areas of edges such as wing leading/trailing edges.

Again...This shit is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Regarding rain that is supposedly so detrimental to 'stealth'...

No surface is ever completely smooth. But even so, if the operating freq is centimetric (cm), then as long as surface imperfections are within that range, there would more surface wave behavior than of diffraction behavior.

What water on the surface does is increase surface area and does it irregularly, producing uneven wave behaviors that MIGHT trigger an alert on the seeking radar. This behavior is applicable TO EVERYTHING. This is not 'Chinese physics' or 'Indian physics' or 'Russian physics'. This is real physics. So if rain affects radar signals behaviors on a 'stealth' fighter, it would be even more so on the 'non-stealth' fighter because the 'non-stealth' fighter does not have the shaping foundation to start.

Do you understand so far ?

You want to talk about crap ? Go look at the Russian hardware. The Soviets/Russians produces great aerodynamicists, they taught US a few things, but when it comes designing low radar observable bodies, currently we are the standards to match, let alone beat. What I posted in this response to you is 1/10th of the technical information I gave to this forum on 'stealth'.

 

[knight11]

@gambit Sir thanks for the post, but the debate is going too offtopic. And should be only related to FGFA. Kindly post what information do you have on the PAK-FA program.

2. Your views on the IAF wanted the tandem twin seat for FGFA.

3. Why India, don't follow the Russian/Soviet doctorine despite being the Russian birds and hardware in high percentage.

 

[Su-11]

Yeah...And people says Americans are stupid...

The current foundation of 'stealth' is more shaping than on materials. That is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm

On post F-117 'stealth' fighters, absorbers are used more on leading and trailing edges than on general large areas of body surfaces. Why ? Because of wave diffraction behaviors.

An aircraft is a finite object, meaning it has boundaries. A radar signal on this body cannot stay on it forever. On the body, the radar signal produces several behaviors, such as surface waves, creeping waves, or diffraction. Each behavior warrant different response method.

Curvatures affects surface wave behaviors. Can we install absorbers to reduce leaky waves from surface waves ? Yes, we can. But would it be worth it ? For US: No. Those leaky waves have been found to be below the clutter rejection threshold for %99 of the radar systems out there, including the military ones. So it would be a weight penalty to install absorbers all over the F-22. Whereas diffraction signals that came off edges are strong enough that it MIGHT trigger an alert, so absorbers would be appropriate at large areas of edges such as wing leading/trailing edges.

Again...This shit is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Regarding rain that is supposedly so detrimental to 'stealth'...

No surface is ever completely smooth. But even so, if the operating freq is centimetric (cm), then as long as surface imperfections are within that range, there would more surface wave behavior than of diffraction behavior.

What water on the surface does is increase surface area and does it irregularly, producing uneven wave behaviors that MIGHT trigger an alert on the seeking radar. This behavior is applicable TO EVERYTHING. This is not 'Chinese physics' or 'Indian physics' or 'Russian physics'. This is real physics. So if rain affects radar signals behaviors on a 'stealth' fighter, it would be even more so on the 'non-stealth' fighter because the 'non-stealth' fighter does not have the shaping foundation to start.

Do you understand so far ?

You want to talk about crap ? Go look at the Russian hardware. The Soviets/Russians produces great aerodynamicists, they taught US a few things, but when it comes designing low radar observable bodies, currently we are the standards to match, let alone beat. What I posted in this response to you is 1/10th of the technical information I gave to this forum on 'stealth'.

The very fact that these fighters have radar absorbing coatings on them which are highly maintenance (manhour and money)intensive, testifies to the fact that these fighters rely on radiation absorbing materials so much it is unwilling to ease up on that and reduce the overall fighter's disadvantages. Add to that if, these radar absorbing coatings are not that necessary and the shaping alone is sufficient enough for a SIGNIFICANT stealth edge for these 2 fighters, there should have been several user trial of these fighters flying without these coatings to prove that - when it comes down to it, when fighting a war where supplies(of new coatings) could be bombed or intercepted, a supposedly non-essential item like new coatings is not necessary to take to the sky. We are not seeing that are we? Instead we are forced to chug down words from the user and the manufacturer on how awesome their toy is.
Actions always speaks louder than words.
And, when non-planform 4.5 gen fighters have reduced their RCS by factors of 100's of percentages with adding coatings, this shows how much of an impact a radar absorbing material has with respect to planform.

And 2, you are talking about rain with planform and not coatings.
For coatings: While its fairly obvious, that these coatings are maintenance intensive with just regular flying, but with rain, you can forget it. It may even peel off in long distance wet flights. And a partly peeled of coating is a lot worse!
For Planform: When non-stealth fighters don't have much planform construction to begin with and are riddled with imperfections, adding a few more will not increase its overall footprint by much! 10 water bumps in an already 10 surface bumps is only a 100% increase of imperfections for a non-stealth fighter, while 10 water bumps for a lets say in an already existing 1 surface bump in a stealth fighter is an increase of 1000% of imperfections. I would love to see the RCS increase of the F-22 when its sprinkled with water. We don't have that RCS number now do we? How convenient for the user and manufacturer to release RCS numbers for who knows under what conditions it achieved it.
Oh and, when a non-stealth fighter is already shining like a neon billboard on the radar screen with its inbuilt imperfections, increasing its RCS with rain drops will not matter much, while on the other hand, a previously invisible stealth fighter suddenly showing up during rain defeats the very purpose of what it was built for.