Nick_76LOL…. Don’t use Carlo’s work as “proof” of anything, especially when he’s comparing Flanker radar’s to US equivalents. Unless you want to kill me with laughter. That whole article only addresses hardware capability and power aperture product comparisons, and then he draws conclusions from said comparisons. There’s a lot more to contemporary radar design than peak power & aperture size.
Actually he does more than that, and assumes that folks will already be familiar with his previous work. Carlo has a tendency to assume the worst case & push “possibility” as fact, as he does with Sukhois armed with ARM versions of the RVVAE and R27, and with AL41 engined variants. But on other aspects he is quite accurate, and in fact, even prescient. He for one, predicted the emergence of imaging IRST paralleling western developments, and the new MiG-35 A2A OLS seems to be exactly that.
As i understand it the huge power output of the single TWT in current gen Russian PESA’s does have a significant problem with internal EM leakage, and this issue is reduced in US 3rd gen systems.
What sources, where? This is a typical internet urban legend. Compare the performance of modern Russian FCRs like the Zhuk, the Kopyo and the Bars to western equivalents like the RDY, APG series, and even the RBE-2, and it is clear that Russian TWTs & recievers are quite good. Mark this one down, as the radar equivalent of the “T-72 autoloader eats up human arms”. The latest American radars – AESAs may have quite good sensitivity/ gain but that doesnt imply that the Russian PESAs are by far inferior. In fact, a comparison printed iirc showed that they had figures comparable to several airborne AESA units.
The phase shift loss isn’t relevant because we are comparing phased array radars.
Huh? You do realise that several AESAs have phaseshifters in their MMICs. And that for PESAs losses in the phaseshifters do matter!
Additionally i’d put my money on 3rd gen AESA’s having better side lobe performance and beam coherence.
Generally accepted as true, but once again, does it translate into a massive conflict winning advantage? Doubtful.
I’m sure NIIP has a very prestigious pedigree with passive array radars, but you have to look at this in context. Examine the R&D budgets of fighter radar technology, I wonder whether Raytheon or LM have more $$$ to play with than NIIP or Phazotron? Now i know there’s more to it than $$$, but more cash means more people (and in most cases better quality people), better quality equipment, more testing in and out of the lab in addition to more sophisticated testing. Now in terms of processor/software combinations the same rule applies. In addition to the money, the complexity of the software needed just to run an LPI AESA means that by default US designer have to be ahead in terms of software development. Also the software needed to employ advanced features like EA or extremely detailed SAR imagery is even more hideously complicated than the baseline code, and US designers are fielding some of these features now.
Context is important- which was precisely my point. Take a look at the quality of people in NIIP- go to their website, and you’ll see a who’s who of Russian scientists who are reknowned for their work in the field. That apart, NIIP has had sufficient money to finance its work on PESAs – they have won a whopping 230 radar production contract from India, and licensing money for that would be split between NIIP and Ryazan, and development costs of the Bars itself came out of the initial development of the Su-30 MKI paid for by India. The Indians are working on future upgrades for the MKI as well with NIIP and Russia is financing the PAK-FA radar again with NIIP as the lead developer. Now if that werent enough, tell me – who do you think worked on the already paid for radars for the Chinese, some 100 odd sets, plus their upgrades? And who is providing the upgrades for the Russian Flankers? And, apart from all this, NIIP is ALSO responsible for SAM radar development. In short, funds arent a problem for NIIP, especially since they didnt splurge it on all new AESA development, but worked on iterative improvements of PESAs. Note, Phaza – with a much smaller funding footprint is now actively developing its own AESA set and has prototypes in expensive flight trials!!
1st) you’re assuming the limiting factor in BVR engagement envelope is the platforms radar. All current gen BVRAAMS can use an of board sensor as a fire control device i.e. an AWACS. By the way as it stands now (or next year) the US will field the longer range AAM, AIM-120D vs R-27ER/EA.
Wrong. No current gen AWACS can guide a BVR AAM directly. They can provide data to the launch platform which then does MCG. While the US may field the AIM-120 D, the Russians are also working on a range of improvements to their AAM set, and the Meteor is in flight trials. The US lead is by no means absolute or certain.
2nd) with or without AWACS any target being tracked by an Irbis in most cases will know about it before the shooter gets accurate track data. The flanker on the other hand is only going to know its been fired upon when it actually detects the missile, which will be very late.
Incorrect, because you are assuming that the Flanker will not receive broadband digital receiver equipped RWRs which are now being worked upon worldwide. ECM and ECCM are a constant game of cat and mouse, and LPI sets are by no means invulnerable. Its merely a question of funding and time & the need to push them. Second, a fighter targeted by Irbis will not know anything apart from the fact that the Irbis is TWS’ing him- whereas the Irbis could be sharing data w/other Irbis or even lower grade sets which act as fire control for respective missile armament.
And third, lets assume the worst case – that the Flanker only detects the missile at the last stage, even here, @20-30 odd km – when the missile goes active, the Flanker has time to activate its onboard SPJ and even towed decoys are available off the shelf. All in all, the missile does not have it all, its way.
3rd) LPI AESA’s will be used in stealthy platforms.
See above.
4th) even with AWACS in a heavy EW environment the surveillance footprint of said system would be significantly limited. In that case ELINT is going to be a big resource.
Modern AWACs have a variety of ECCM options including sidelobe blanking, sector cancellation, rapid frequency agility etc to combat a variety of ECM options. That apart, the most modern AWACS such as the US ones, the Israeli Phalcon also carry a huge amount of ESM gear which is then sensor fused with the radar data to build a proper tactical picture. And this is then datalinked onwards.
Nick_76Theres a fundamental difference between AESA’s and PESA’s when it comes to detection and track radii. Because powerful PESA’s like Irbis & BARS use a single TWT, the internal electronic “noise” is significant. This EM “noise” significantly limits the radars sensitivity when compared to an AESA, which because of its multiple transmittion sources limits this problem significantly. Therefore AESA’s will always have larger detection and track footprint’s at comparable power outputs, all else being equal. Additionally because of the complexity of AESA’s frequency modulation they usually need more capable signal processors, and US 3rd gen AESA’s have a decade more development in processors & software. Those two reasons alone indicate to me that IRBIS would probably not have a larger detection/track footprint than the AN/APG-77 or AN/APG-79. In addition to that, at 21kw peak power output IRBIS is going to light up every RWR, ESM & ELINT asset in the theater.
Incorrect. All things being equal, a radar with a single discrete, well designed transmission chain will have the noise advantage (ie lesser) than that of the AESA above, which is why several designers continue to get good performance of even earlier slotted array radars, which have this advantage plus dont suffer the phase shifter loss that can occur in PESAs (and AESAs depending on how their array is designed) and which needs to be compensated for. In other words you have got it the other way around.
Second, AESAs are the future on account of various factors. Thats known. However, you are mistaken about decades of development and processors and software. NIIP for instance has decades of experience with PA systems and is arguably the most experienced airborne PA designer outside the US. The performance of the Bars and Irbis flows from that.
Third, the Russians & even the rest of the world are all aware of and make extensive use of COTS processors and can rig together processing boards using FPGAs which meet the needs of the highest power radars.
Fourth- given the proliferation of AWACs, the Irbis range may be moot, but it isnt, since its a fire control set with that kind of range, and is apparently meant for cueing LRAAM against varied targets at range. So triggering RWRs etc is kind of moot since it obviously goes for the raw performance aspect, instead of LPI + shorter BVR, which is kind of pointless what with AWACs and a non stealthy (apart from +/- 60) airframe.
P.S. you guy’s are throwing around radar performance numbers like they’re a known fact. The reality is every performance parameter of any of the systems being discussed will be classified, and anyone who thinks they KNOW how capable any of these systems are is simply kidding themselves.
Everyone knows that. All the ranges mentioned are from manufacturers blurb and even those vary like anything depending on what parameters were used as the test conditions.
Nick_76surely. Why India is even discussing 5th generation fighter? u have to finish inducting MKI than LCA and than MRCA. So these are all three different aircrafts with different supply chians.
so financial/technical/Rawmaterials/Composites. India is not in position to add anything to PAK-FA project. So the end result will be licensing at best.u have to consider this also between Export and domestic contracts.
you have also not told me about other vital copy pasted stuff:
status of endangered siberian mollusks in Russia
how the wild man of borneo would wrestle with the abominable snowman
increased price of vodka in leningrad
maria sharapovas hemline
random copy pasted BS from the internet
Nick_76By all sympathy about India and it Tejas, it is no good idea to rise hopes, which can not be kept. The integration of the avionics and basic weapons has to have top-priority to bring the Tejas into military service as soon as possible. See the F-18E about that, just to ease the temper. The Tejas has not to win a racing contest, but to create air-power as a weapons-carrier.
Sens, Boeing is not being sought for weapons integration. That is the job of another team at NFTC and HAL + ADA. ADE is integrated w/them for flight testing, but the assistance there will be from Elta. And several of the LCAs avionics and systems are already flying as part of the MKI/ MiG/Jag upgrades. So the onboard avionics are not as much of an issue, as is meeting the flight testing requirements in time given AND completing weaponisation with available stores – my bet is on Derby, R-73E and Griffon LGB since they are items the IAF/HAL and OEM team will have experience with. The Griffon can be designated by the Litening, which has been integrated with the Tejas, and is its standard LDP. Next, we’ll see integration of the Elta 8222 SPJ, followed by the internal EW suite developed by DARE.
And please, no offence intended, but could you hold off on comments about “temper” – I revisit my posts to see when and where I lost my temper, only to realise its a turn of phrase you use in your posts, but it does tend to get confusing and repetitive.
Nick_76so development cost of Captor/APG-77/APG-79 are the same as Irbis?. Irbis is low cost upgrade of previous PESA technology.
so let say Russia spend $10 to $15B on 5th generation fighter R&D than West has to spend $150 to $200B on R&D alone to match that. I am not even going into production prices.
You are not going into anything. It is obvious that besides Lexis Nexis and google, you have not worked for a single day in your wonderful life. Enjoy the internets, yack yack yack blah blah blah on till you drop!!
Nick_76All this sea level thrust performance and what not is also bogus and reflective of how the IAF approaches any local program. It has to match the best of the paper brochure out in the market. At 300 feet, the LCA can go to 1.1 M per released figures. And any lower than that, unless the pilot is over the sea and it would be lunacy to have a supersonic fighter engage in some dogfight at those speeds. But the IAF will continue asking for more. Its just the way they are. But for the sake of serious discussion, its important to understand the reality.
Sens,
The ADA is asking for external consultancy to speed up the testing process, not to finetune the design itself – that will happen later, after the program delivers its first 120 etc. The best description of the process is in the LCA Tejas Story by AM Rajkumar. Basically, what ADA wants is to eliminate is all the non productive exhausting testing that they do. Like making choices like developing a more complex method to test, then realising a year later that the beginning had to be done with fixed gain FBW, for risk aversion and developments sake. These “small” lessons add upto a whopping time increase, when taken in entirety over every aspect of the envelope. A Boeing / BAe pilot familiar with 2-3 FBW programs will know what aspect of the testing can be taken off the critical list. That is what ADA wants. Basically, its all about time. Ifs, and buts are no use, but basically, the combination of sanctions and financial troubles robbed the LCA team of a full 5 years worth of time, and that has meant that the original estimates of “doing” the Kaveri and radar totally inhouse couldnt be met- even though there is money now, there is no time. And same holds for flight testing. As the book makes clear, the NFTC in India + ADE now have enough experience and infrastructure to develop the FBW, but for speeds sake, they need to take shortcuts in developing the test process instead of painstakingly validating each and every point, and then using the lessons in the MCA/IJT etc.
Nick_76Well when you find a non-Russian Radar that can: “detect a 0.3 m2 RCS cruise missile at 35 nautical miles range.”
You let me know o.k.:eek:
The Captor, the APG-77 and probably even the APG-79, never mind the APG-63 V(2) and 3 should be able to get similar performance.
Nick_76If BMW claims that only they can built best sports sedans (perfect 50/50 weight distribution on rear wheel drive) would you doubt that?
Without Russians World will be still using 585 microprocessors and Sun Micro System would not have become best internet firm of 90s.
how can you aware of something which is not allowed for export and discuss? just try to find some information about deep drilling technology that Russians is developing for Arctic. Certain things are not even for discussion let alone for export.
BAe systems have demonstrated its competence? let them do it infront of Russians
Let first India get return on investment on Gorskhov/T-90/Brahmos/MKI projects than talk about PAK-FA. u are out of touch with reality.
thats good point.
Not with Weopons and Radar.
lgeria/Malaysia is using what is certfied. They wont be getting anything related to Su-35 based on Su-30MK money.
India has far better track record? try to compare India internal problems with Russia. u will get the answer. I am not even going into Budget surpluses. and super efficient government system.
You are person in serious delusion trying to compare Russia with India. where even Japanes/Chinese cannot do what Russians can do.India hasnt made anything superior to Russia as far as Aviation/electronics/software field. copy and paste does not work here.
what India do or dont is irrelevant as far as Russia is concerned. They got license for thales Catherine TI , Domocles pod and 3rd Generation night vision system from Sagem. Russian has all the money in the World to buy the stuff which they are interested but surely they wont be buying anything worth while from India.
Dear Star
I am sure you live on the internet and every day is a day of joy when you find similar brainiacs like yourself who will engage in nonsensical debates with you and jump with glee..at the thought of countering your brilliant research
Russia invents first nano toilet
Russian footballs are the best
Russian brains are the best and they have good cheekbones
..and similar relevant stuff.
Unfortunately – I am not one of those people.
I cant hold a candle up to your brilliant debating skills. Trying to make sense of your absolute imbecilic posting style + loony points will reduce me to the level of a gibbering sloth. So play with yourself.
Nick_76You are again confusing the upper limit of operational G force with the design limits. The design limit of JF-17 would be higher then 8.5G. This is true for all fighters. You dont set the G limit at the maximum design limit. That would be insane.
What he is saying is simple. If PAC sets the max possible at 8.5G, then the rational normal operational limit would be lower @ 6-7 Gs.
You are choosing the most optimistic possibility – could be true, could be false.
Nick_76Well. The PAC website states that the speed is mach 1.8 and the G limit is 8.5G. And since they are making the aircraft and will also be exporting it, i would think that by know they know what the limits are.
This is semantics. What you are stating are design aims ie “good to have” and unless there are other sources (note my comment about transparency) corroborating the above, “good to have” may end up being “can live with it”.
As for the FBW, abhimanyu stated the JF-17 does not have pitch FBW. Which is incorrect. It does have pitch FBW but does not have yaw and roll FBW.
..Thanks. Which is what I was getting at, a partial FBW solution, which is much simpler to implement and finalize.
Nick_76You can it not have both ways. Either the LCA has a good drag-thrust ratio or it has not. Drag is related to the wet area. A lot of wing-area is in need high-up, when it does not much sense on the deck. Compare the wing-area of the Tejas and the similar size Gripen and you will get an idea about that.
The LCA looks like a scaled-down Mirage 2000, but with less performance.
Hi Sens, that simply doesnt make sense. The LCAs drag thrust ratio is tailored for its specific performance requirements. If it meets those, then thats that – its good etc. If it doesnt, then scope exists for reengineering. And all sim and flight details till now match what was predicted.
Its not just wing area here, but the overall effect of the drag vs thrust on operational performance. As far as I know, not a single IAF presentation (note IAF, not ADA) has been bothered about drag. Its simply not a factor. They have been bothered about payload and payload performance dependent upon thrust and that is more dependent upon inlet geometry vs installed engine. Which is where I think optimization may actually benefit the LCA. And the bit about Mirage 2000 isnt factual either because the LCA was never intended to carry that much fuel – but as far as airframe performance & avionics are concerned, LCA TP, some of whom are M2K experienced, have already praised the handling as superior to that of the Mirage 2000 and in terms of avionics and payload – the current payload limited (4 M + fuel LCA + IFR already matches the IAF M2Ks and is actually superior in avionics). For the LCA to truly match the *one* area where it is inferior to the Mirage 2000, it will have to add a fuselag plug or CFTs (which do add more drag) for extra fuel. But I do hope the IAF has more sense than to ask for yet another reengineering solution, than convert a light fighter into yet another goal ..
Nick_76RSM 55,
Thanks for your response. Didnt think what I wrote deserved histrionics of that caliber, but I remain to be surprised etc.
To be frank, I get the impression that if your analysis capacity is matched by your ability to commit two factual errors at the very beginning of a post (i.e. labelling me as a)nationalist b)probably Russian), there is a fair chance that the rest of the post is similarly flawed. I personally get much more upset about Indian chest-banging and baseless claims, for example, but I would never label anyone as nationalist just like that.
Hmm…I dont personally give a damn about nationalist claims from any nations supporters as long as they dont troll or flame, so I dont know why Indians would offend your sensitive nostrils so much? But given your claims about Russia and some obvious factual errors- I can very much say that you are doing some nationalist handwaving. “Mine is best, everyone else better watch out”…irrespective of whether you are Russian or somebody who worships Mother Russia being from “a lesser clime”..etc.
Dear Nick, I don’t know why, but I suppute you’re not an expert in Soviet/Russian EW/RWR doctrine and capability. Because if you were, you would know that the bloody Russkies have been aware of the importance of the latter since at least the Zapad 1977 maneuvers (notwithstanding Ogarkov’s ramblings about strategic depth etc and his traditional unrequited love for everything armoured). I also suppute you don’t have any ideas about the results of the Zapad 81 maneuver (because it’s still classified), and you’ve never heard of the results of a series of tests conducted in the late 80’s and involving a Tu-95 with its EW suit switched on and a Foxhound bound to intercept it.
More irrelevant stuff, and without a relevant bit of information. Its like me stating, in 1984, the IAF conducted a secret exercise Vajra Shakti and the results were classified and blah blah blah …etc …blah blah..and adding a bunch of winks..impressive, eh?
Lets get to the point shall we?
That your claims of Russias airborne EW suites outmatching whats available today in the west, elsewhere, are – hyperbole.
As simple as that.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I am well aware of how marketers across the world brag and talk – “Air Force General, we have given you most modern aircraft”. Yeah sure. And before you burst a capillary, let me tell you the above was said by someone to someone else, who promptly replied – “first give me what you promised, then we will talk about tomorrow”.
Without giving up boring details, the MiG-31 got a “launch authorised” on his HUD when the bomber was in sight (that might explain why the Bears still retain their tail guns btw). Of course, you may argue that it doesn’t prove anything but that the tracking/lock-on capability of the 31 is just s**t, but that would deny the results of another series of tests involving the 31 which I might elaborate upon later if you need it.
You can keep the details to yourself RSM. Unfortunately, at my age I have little patience for prima donnas. If you want to share information and learn from ideas which add to yours, your call. If you want to act pricey – your call as well. Least bothered.
Basically, I am keenly aware of what Russia has achieved in terms of airborne suites for avionics, and while impressive, it is by no means worthy of irredeemable handwaving. No country is at that stage, and nor is Russia.
For every statement you make – I can point out several facts in the other area, namely that the Zaslon @ 81, was anything bar what we have today, and what Russia is aiming for today, and what others have also shot for.
Just to sum my argument up: your focus on compact packaging and DF accuracy is absobloodylutely irrelevant when one talks about the efficiency of an EW suite. Radio-wave propagation rules can be learned at college level, but the algorithms permitting the said efficiency of an EW suite is quite another thing – and you won’t argue that the Sovs/Russkies were/are bad at math. And for heaven’s sakes, we’re talking about 80’s/90 tech vs. 21st century tech here!
More handwaves. What I was getting at, is simple. Walk the talk. The BAe team which developed the ALR-94 has demonstrated their competence, and the rest of the world acknowledges it. For you to come and state that Russia will do better because…well they are Russians…I like it (I like Russia) but can I accept it w/o proof, hardly.
you didn’t get the irony in using the term “helpful”, that’s all. I was only saying that India did want to get involved in the design process, and the Russians duly said no way. That’s all. Everything that happens (see above) and will happen in and around this project has till now met my prediction – India will remain a junior partner, do some build-it-yourself job and provide some money. Period.
You can hope so. But given you aint investing, you aint running the project and you aint even Russian and you are already wrong (about what India knows about the project and doesnt) – I can also tell you this, India will get its ROI one way or the other, thats the way it works. And frankly, the PAK-FA developers know this, and which is why they have been after Indian participation since 2001. Surprise!!
And the Indians- also told them this – get the MKI functional, we’ll see if it meets our requirements – and then we’ll talk. It did, everything went well, rest is all well and fine. Thats how things work.
The IAF does know what it needs to know – i.e. they haven’t even seen the shape of the aircraft – and I know that for sure. Avionics are classified anyway. The Indians were shown the specs the Russian set for themselves.
Please, please dont make me laugh RSM. I can tell you sincerely, that all your braggadacio apart, you dont know anything that the folks at HAL and AHQ know. They have seen detailed presentations, they are drawing up plans for industrial participation and wait, they dont even know what the PAK-FA looks like! Even if that wasnt silly enough, frankly if you think that a customer as tough as India would commit Billions of $$ without even seeing the shape of the aircraft (how silly can your rhetoric get?) than please do pass me what you are smoking, because its luverly & I’d appreciate it. FYI, the Indian Def Min & AHQ both got detailed briefings, and HAL has been roped in along with the SA (Sci Advisor) to RM (Def Min), who represents the entire Indian def R&D. And about avionics, more hilarity – the Indians *have* to be told the specs because they intend to integrate the PAK-FA with their own perspective plans & India operates a variety of systems. And WHICH IS WHY, the Indian SA to RM recently revealed details about choosing which EW fit from Russian firms etc.
Of course, as any foreign customer would be.
Gee, which is why every foreign customer gets a deep license, makes their own weapons integration rigs and integrates their own items on their own, even without OEM involvement. ..which btw, is what India is doing.
No, just because the “oh so superior” Russian Tech has been denied to them and because they want to produce their own avionics suites with Russian backing.
Please dont make me grin again!! The Pastel RWR was rejected on grounds of obscolescence! And what the Russians offered for the MKI was also not good enough in terms of EW. So much so that the Elta 8222 SPJ was chosen! And it was remarked upon by non lesser than the State Auditor General. And the Indians, have never bothered with what Russia “denied to them” – as facts have been, the Russians have offered a lot, only that the Indians have chosen exactly what is capable enough. Which is why – FYI, even Algeria and Malaysia are using Indian processors for their MKIs.
And no, India is not producing its avionics suites with “Russian backing” – its doing so on its own, has had considerable success (and one prominent holdup) so far, and is retrofitting them to whatever it inducts. The benefits of the LCA program and non OEM upgrades.
I am sure India has plans galore (remember the Trishul?).
Well I dont know! Given that India has a far better track record of implementing its “plans” than post Soviet Russia (Chechnya anyone?), your jibe was rather self defeating! For all the tough talk the likes of you do, Russia supporters like me, are dismayed at how much remains to be done to bring Russia upto what it could be viz its conventional forces.
But would you please enlighten me what kind of ESM pod India is developing for the Krypton? I’m extremely interested. Because what I’ve heard is that the Russians don’t want to to give away their AR tech and certainly not their RW recognition codes, especially since the Kh-31 electronic suite shares components with almost all Russian anti-radiation missiles (when talking about the “P” version), and some guidance components from Moskit and Granit ASMs. So India is getting what’s India’s getting, meaning a Russian electronic suite with Indian algorithms and threat profile databases.
Your attitude speaks for itself. In the world that you inhabit, the incompetent Indians cannot obviously make their own systems superior to what Mother Russia fields, or more tailored to their own needs! Please please wake up. The world isnt where you thought it was.
And FYI not “developing”, but developed and validated for the Krypton and general ESM already. Kindly google for the DRDO Shiv/ Siva High Accuracy Direction Finding Module pod. Its intended for both ESM and cueing Krypton missiles fielded by the MKI. And India has no plans to introduce any Russian RWR on its MKIs – the R118 set from DRDO has already been selected as the standard fit. Not only does it provide better direction finding accuracy & several other features than the standard Russian RWRs, its far more flexible and has already gone three block upgrades. Oh btw, in case you dont think the pod exists:
http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscn0014eq1.jpg
Regards!
Nick_76Abhimanyu, once again, please use accurate figures. It is Mach 1.8 and 8.5G for the JF-17.
Who knows? We’ll only know once the a/c completes testing and right now, there is precious little information bar the occasional mag article. The program simply isnt as transparent to know about what milestones it has achieved, the problems it faces, the performance shortfalls or overachievements ..
And iirc, Abhimanyu was correct, the JF-17 does have partial not full FBW. Which of course translates into easier testing. No need for painstaking code releases flight after flight, sim clearance, modification, hardware rig test etc.
Nick_764. If nobody is acquiring or using either weapon, are they both dead projects (apart from the SPYDER SAM variant of Derby, obviously)?
India has purchased the Derby for the Sea Harrier as Swerve said, and is also likely to purchase it for the LCA first block (48 aircraft) as USS noted – because of the fact that the Elta 2032 and variants are going to be the radar of choice for at least the first 28, and Israel is cooperating with India on a variety of indepth projects.
For the long term, India has its own Astra (AMRAAM C/ RVV-AE eqvt) in devpt.
Nick_76Of course we have no way of knowing if this RCS test/simulation was related to the real PAK FA design. I was simply trying to suggest that the Saturn drawing and this RCS model are closely related, based on the same design. And the RCS model seems entirely plausible . . . the size, the planform alignment, the proportions, the shape of wing, etc. — there’s nothing to make me think it CAN’T be the real deal. That’s not to say it IS the real deal.Please tell me this is some kind of translation problem. I would bet a year’s salary that the PAK FA won’t have a forward-swept wing.
The journalist has mixed up three things :-
1. Interview quotes with rtd IAF personnel – only ones who’ll go on the record with criticism and open commentary – but who are not aware of the current status of negotiations and program, so are speaking in generics.
2. Online copypaste- hence the bit about FSW, so he could talk about the PAKFA history
3. The actual stuff – which is interesting, about the Indian involvement in the program and what India is planning to do. I believe his source is someone @ HAL. Unless he has copied from Force magazine, which would make what the article says trash
Hyper,
The Russian test programs are quite efficient and well coordinated and proceed fast. Partly because they tend to reuse a lot of existing engineering and components instead of designing everything from scratch. But the PAKFA is going to be their first all new operational project of this size ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. So please dont expect any miracles and it will be a miracle if it is ready before 2018-20, to say the least. India for one will as usual see the specs of what Russia can do and substitute its own avionics and international systems, giving another year or two, minimum to the test integration complexity.
Sign In
