The F-22 versus the low tech FC-1 shows how much the FC-1 is an obsolete fighter despite it can be built in larger numbers, comparing the Su-35 versus the FC-1 seems like a Pakistan versus India face off, the F-35 still is quit superior to the FC-1 it will hide and fight the FC-1 just by virtue of stealth and it will defeat the FC-1 with ease, light weight fighters without no technical advantages are crap, a fair F-22 light weight fighter challenger is only seen in the F-35 or in the PAK FA from Russia.
Hordes of FC-1 versus SAMs, AWACS and stealthy F-22 or F-35 will repeat the american results of gulf war I, even the J-10 or JAS-39 can not fight F-22, F-35, AWACs and SAMs altogather since the americans can use the F-16 upgraded to the Israelie or Greek latest standards and you will see that such combination will make obsolete and cannon fodder any of those fighters such as the FC-1 or JAS-39s

let`s remeber that according to computer simulations the F-22 will shoot down 9 Su-35 per F-22 lost, the FC-1 is technically inferior to the Su-30MKI and Su-35 by a great margin in agility and weaponry so the american perhaps can shot down 20 FC-1 per F-22 lost

Where you get the agility figures of FC-1 that you are proclaiming that there is wide difference in agility between Su-35 and FC-1? Either backup your statement with evidence or retract it now.and what do you think about air to air weoponary of FC-1. FC-1 will use BVR and WVR which are either superior or atleast equal to any Russian weopons on Su-35 thats for sure.

I am saying that you can’t compare MTBF of a new system with that of an established one. In the early days Su-27 radar MTBF was 5 hours, but later on this was increased to 200 hours.

this again proves my point. Kopyo story is now decade old with derivation from ZHUK

Flight International

June 1, 1994

FIGHTING OVER THE SCRAPS

BODY:
The hotly contested Indian MiG-21 upgrade programme, won by Mikoyan, and the recently resolved cross-border bickering between Northrop of the USA and Canada’s Bristol Aerospace over Northrop F-5 upgrades, are indicative of more than just international rivalry: they reflect the increasing importance of third-party upgrades. Douglas Barrie and Alexander Velovich look at a buyers’ market. Photographs by Mark Wagner.

Mikoyan’s MiG-21 Fishbed had its public debut at Tushino in June 1956, a month after the US Air Force had put Northrop under contract to develop the T-38/F-5. The 50th anniversary will be celebrated with both aircraft still in service with capabilities far beyond their initial “clear-sky only” combat configurations.

That these aircraft are exhibiting such longevity is in part down to their basic robust design, coupled with enormous export success. Declining Western and Russian defence budgets are also, perhaps ironically, prolonging the lives of these designs, although many of their operators have not experienced the same, if any, military cuts.

The budget squeeze among Russian and Western manufacturers has forced them to cast their nets ever wider in search of business to supplement their traditional buyers. The competition for third-party upgrades has also resulted in industry pressure on their respective governments to release hitherto-restricted technologies to client states.

Along with Russian and Western manufacturers, two Cold War “Pariah States” are increasingly visible in the third-party-upgrade marketplace. Israel has traditionally bolstered its limited internal market (and heavy financial dependence on the USA) by providing combat- aircraft upgrade expertise. South Africa, now accepted into the democratic fold, is also touting upgrade capabilities developed because of its near total political isolation.

If Artem Mikoyan had designed only the MiG-21, his name would still have remained in aviation history. Although the prototype was flown for the first time almost 40 years ago, the aircraft remains in service with more than 30 air forces. Upgrade programmes are on offer which will extend the MiG-21’s operational life well into the 21st century.

In all, 6,635 MiG-21s, with different modifications, were delivered to 38 countries around the world, either exported or built under licence, not including more than 2,500 Chinese “clones” and derivatives. NATO almost ran out of letters of the alphabet distinguishing different modifications of the Fishbed, as it called the delta-wing MiG fighter.

It is no wonder that India, which produced the MiG-21 until 1987 and successfully used it in combat, has now become the launch customer for the ambitious modernisation programme, dubbed the MiG-21-93, offered by Russia. Having warded off competition from many contenders, Mikoyan is to install modern digital avionics and new-generation air-to-air and air-to-surface (AAM/ASM) missiles on 125 MiG-21bis fighters of the Indian air force.

The core of the new weapons-control system is the Phazotron Kopyo radar, a derivative of the Zhuk installed in the MiG-29M. Yuriy Gus’kov, radar chief designer, says: “We [Phazotron] were the initiators of this modernisation and persuaded Mikoyan to offer it. The work began back in 1988 and we have made full use of our experience with the Zhuk radar.”

The X-band radar weighs 165kg and has a 500mm flat slotted-array antenna and a travelling-wave-tube transmitter of 5kW peak/average power. The transmitter has a liquid cooling system and weighs just 18kg. The radar’s power consumption is 8.5kW and mean time between failures is claimed to be 100h.

The Kopyo’s detection range against a fighter-sized target of 3m2 (32ft2) radar cross section is 45km (25nm) head-on in both look-up and look-down mode and 30/20km tail-on. Tracking coverage is *-40degrees in both azimuth and elevation. In track-while-scan mode, the radar can be used to track up to eight targets simultaneously and attack two of them with fire-and-forget missiles.

Gus’kov stresses, however, that the major advantage in air combat of the MiG-21-93 modernisation over other proposals put forward by foreign companies is the beyond-visual-range (BVR) capability provided by two Vympel R-27R (AA-10 Alamo) semi-active-radar missiles. The aircraft can also carry four Vympel RVV-AE (AA-12) active-radar missiles, now cleared for export, although it is not certain whether they have been included in the deal with India.

For close air-combat, the Kopyo has three automatic lock-on modes: vertical two-bar scan covering 10degrees in azimuth and 50degrees in elevation; head-up display coverage of 20 x 20degrees; and a boresight beam tied to the aircraft axis with 4 x 4degrees coverage. The helmet- mounted target designator provides visual hand-off for missiles and radar, following movements of the pilot’s head. Up to six R-60 (AA-8 Aphid) or four R-73 (AA-11 Archer) close-range dogfight missiles can be carried

CAPABLE KOPYO

The Kopyo’s capabilities in air-to-ground/sea modes are equally effective. Four ground-mapping modes are provided: low resolution, with 4.5degrees real beam and mapping range up to 300km; medium resolution, with Doppler beam-sharpening to 0.23degrees beam width at azimuth angles greater than 10degrees; and high resolution with a synthetic beam of 0.1degrees (HR1) and 0.05degrees (HR2) at azimuth angles greater then 20degrees. Scale enlargement and freezing modes are provided, as well as moving-target selection, optimisation of signals over sea surface, and slant-range measurement.

Air-to-surface precision weapons include a pair of KAB-500KR television- guided bombs, one Kh-31A (AS-17 Krypton) anti-ship or Kh-31P high-speed anti-radar missiles, or a pair of Kh-25MP (AS-12 Kegler) anti-radar missiles. A variety of bombs and air-to-ground rockets provides cheaper strike solutions.

The concept of “hands-on-throttle-and-stick” has been successfully implemented in the upgrade programme. Mikoyan also redesigned the front canopy, adding more transparent surface in the rear part to facilitate better visibility.

The cockpit is not changed radically. By using smaller round-dial instruments, space became available for installation of a 125 x 125mm head-down radar display which is also used to aim television-guided bombs.

Gus’kov says: “Some foreign companies offered radically new ‘F-16-like’ **** pits. In general, however, their modernisation programmes raised combat efficiency by about 15%.

“Our package provides the increase of combat potential by five to six times, because we concentrate on weapons systems rather than on secondary items.”

Alexander Manucharov, MiG-21 upgrade programme manager at Mikoyan, says that India demanded that several Western systems be incorporated, including a ring laser-gyro inertial-navigation system with satellite correction. An inertial-navigation system (INS) has yet to be selected, although India has previously had links with SAGEM of France and Mikoyan has held talks with the company.

Another item which India wants to source in the West is the radar- warning receiver. Again, no decision has been made, although French company Dassault Electronique appears to have the favoured solution. The MiG-21-93 on display at the Berlin show will have a Dassault EWS-A RWR already fitted. The lightweight RWR covers the E to J bands. Mikoyan, Dassault, and GosNIASS, the Russian avionics institute responsible for systems integration, have been working on incorporating the EWS-A since mid-1993. The RWR will control chaff-and-flare dispensers along the wing root, housing 120 26mm upward-firing rounds.

The third area where a Western standard is required is the MIL-STD- 1553B databus. The supplier of the INS, says Manucharov, will also likely receive the order for the databus.

INDIAN LICENCES

Indian-sourced equipment, produced under licence, will also be included in the upgrade: these consist of two radio stations, marker radio receiver, radio altimeter and interrogator/transponder for identification friend or foe.

Manucharov stresses: “One of the conditions of the deal put forward by India was granting them licences for all upgraded equipment, with the right to export it to third countries. We agreed to that.” This relates only to onboard systems, but not weapons themselves.

Sergei Titkov, department head at GosNIASS points out that arranging a team effort with Mikoyan is the key to success for any Western company wanting to offer its system for installation on the MiG-21.

“This aircraft was developed and designed in the 1950s, according to the design standards of those days. Its internal volume is very confined, so it is hot and therefore difficult to install any black box. To do that now, one should know all the peculiarities of operational conditions, loads, power generation and environmental- control systems [ECS]. This knowledge is available only to the original design bureau. Only Mikoyan can use the very limited, and not obvious, reserves of the design to install modern equipment.”

The original power-generation system, for example, on the MiG-21bis provided 115V with frequency varying between 380 abd900Hz. Most of the power supply was through a 27V direct current, with overall power consumption amounting to only 6kW. With the Kopyo radar and BVR missiles, power-generation requirements have risen to 12-15kW. The solution was to install a PGL-40 hydraulic-generator driver on the old engine-gearbox. The gearbox is now being put through durability tests, but Mikoyan and engine-plant specialist Ufa are confident that their approach is acceptable. A new ECS, based on elements of the MiG-29 ECS, is also fitted to provide increased cooling capacity.

Most of the MiG-21bis due for the upgrade have between ten and 12 years of operational life. Manucharov says that Mikoyan will extend the airframe life up to 30 years and 3,500h and even further, using the results of continual static structural-load tests.

Mikoyan is unwilling to divulge how much the upgrade programme will cost. A figure of $ 1.5-1.8 million per aircraft has previously been quoted by Russian officials. This was, however, based on Russian- sourced equipment only. Manucharov says that Russian equipment is between 25-30% cheaper than its Western equivalent.

The Indian order is the first of what Manucharov hopes will be a considerable number of MiG-21 modernisation programmes. The next prospect is Romania, where Israel’s Elbit was chosen as prime contractor. Mikoyan is co-operating with Elbit, but the final contract for workshare has yet to be signed. Romania is also struggling to finance the programme.

Alongside the MiG-21, Russian systems-design bureaux are also pushing upgrades for the Mikoyan MiG-23 Flogger and MiG-29 Fulcrum. Air- Intercept radar specialist Phazotron is offering an upgrade of its NO19E cassegrain-antenna radar, which is fitted to the Flogger and basic export-model Fulcrums. The upgraded radar, the NO19M Topaz, would improve both reliability and combat capability considerably, allowing the aircraft to carry the Vmypel RVV-AE advanced active homing missile. Upgrading the MiG-29E’s NO19 to NO19M standard costs around one-third of the price a new radar, such as Phazontron’s Zhuk development for the MiG-29M.

NORTHROP EFFORTS

While Mikoyan has been trying to fend of third-party competition on the MiG-21, Northrop has been trying to bolster its position on the F-5. Its apparent chagrin with Canada’s Bristol Aerospace over infringing on proprietary rights, settled out of the public eye, becomes all the more understandable with even a cursory glance at the present F-5 upgrade market. Turkey, Brazil, and South Korea together have a requirement to upgrade up to 350 aircraft, with South Korea’s potentially the largest single programme at 250 aircraft.

Since patching up their differences, Northrop and Bristol have discussed teaming to compete for future F-5 upgrade work. On the Turkish upgrade programme, Northrop has teamed with Spain’s CASA and AlliedSignal in the USA, while, in Brazil, it is aiming to team with Embraer, with Samsung its partner for the South Korean programme.

The Turkish competition provides a reasonable competitors’ template with Israel Aircraft Industries/Elbit/Singapore Aerospace, Rockwell International/Bristol Aerospace and GEC-Marconi/Sogerma, while Deutsche Aerospace/Fokker/Sierra Research are all believed to have pitched their hats into the bidders’ ring.

Generically, the F-5 upgrades, as do most others, focus on cockpit avionics, radar and weapons-system suite. Structural changes are aimed primarily not at enhancing the aircraft’s manoueverability, but at extending its airframe life to justify the expenditure. Northrop’s offering on the F-5, as far as structural modernisation is concerned, covers the use of composites for the tail and intakes, along with a redesigned forward-fuselage section.

An indication of the step change available to F-5 operators in the radar can be gained by comparing the performance levels of the F-5E’s baseline ESCO APQ-153 I-band fire-control radar with the Westinghouse APG-66 I/J-band pulse-Doppler radar being proposed for retrofit.

The search range of the APQ-153 was 37km, allowing the pilot to lock on to targets out to 19km. The radar also provided cueing information for the aircraft’s AIM-9 Sidewinder. By comparison, the I/J-band coherent pulse-Doppler APG-66 radar has a look-up range of up to 75km and a look- down range in ground clutter of up to 55km. The APG-66T, fitted for test on a US Navy F-5J, included multi-target track-while scan, four combat modes and a situational-awareness mode. The radar also allows for the integration of the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 Advanced Medium- Range Air-to-Air Missile, along with a variety of air-to surface weapons.

Alongside these weapons, Israel is offering the Python 3 infra-red- guided AAM and Python manufacturer Rafael is also looking at offering the Popeye 2 precision stand-off missile. South Africa’s Denel, meanwhile, is carrying out firing trials with the U-Darter AAM on the F- 5.

Other radars on offer include derivatives of Israel’s Elta EL/M2035, FIAR of Italy’s Grifo, the Italian/Brazilian SMA/TECNASA Scipio, GEC- Marconi Avionics Blue Hawk from the UK and US Electronics and Space’s APQ-159(V).

RADAR OPTIONS

SMA/Tecnasa’s SCP-10 is the favoured radar for Brazil’s F-5 upgrade; the radar is under development for the air force’s AMX strike aircraft. Northrop is talking to Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer about teaming for the requirement.

As far as the rest of the avionics fit is concerned, F-5 operators can choose from a long shopping list of items: standard air-data computer, mission computer, liquid-crystal multi-function displays, head-up displays, stores-management system, armament-control unit, inertial navigation, ejection seat, hands-on-throttle-and-stick, radar altimeter and airborne video recorder. All are usually hooked up through a 1553B databus.

On top of the basic avionics suite, manufacturers are also offering sensors such as forward looking infra-red, laser target-designator systems, defensive aids sub-systems and electronic countermeasures.

Alongside the F-5, the Mirage is also proving its staying power, with Chile continuing to upgrade its fleet through its Pantera Mirage 50M modification programme. The programme, launched in the mid-1980s, is being carried out with the aid of Israel Aircraft Industries. It has, however, been hampered by a lack of funds. Chile is now negotiating to acquire ex-Belgian air force Mirage Safety Improvement Programme (MRSIP) aircraft. Belgium is offering to export the whole MRSIP package, including fitting canard surfaces, pressure re-fuelling and a substantial avionics upgrade.

Another addition, at least to the official competitors’ list, is South Africa’s Atlas 1. Its Cheetah programme, originally developed for the South African Air Force (SAAF), is now being offered on the open market for Mirage III operators.

The Atlas upgrade includes a wing modification covering the fixed leading-edge extension already fitted to SAAF aircraft, along with extra internal fuel and additional wingtip missile stations. The modification is claimed to increase sustained turn performance by 15%, and provide a 100km improvement in tactical radius. Atlas also offers wing refurbishment, with the replacement of the main spar.

Two nose modifications are also on offer: the Mirage IIIR2, for reconnaissance, and the Cheetah E nose, which provides for the inclusion of an air-intercept radar. Like the Belgian MRSIP package, the Atlas upgrade also includes fitting canards to improve longitudinal stability and the angle of attack.

The canards also compensate for the shift in centre of gravity, which is brought forward by the new nose section.

Atlas also offers a re-engineing programme for the Mirage, replacing the ATAR 9B/C with the ATAR 9K50. This improves performance noticeably.

But not to mention operating also 3 FC-1s will be more expensive than operating a single Su-35 plus to add to the maintenance and other crap + extra pilot training. Also would you not say that Su-35 can carry way bigger weapons than FC-1 could, though lets say FC-1 was armed with Russian weapons, an Su-35 would be able to carry much bigger weapons like larger cruise missiles, and even long range AAMs could be integrated like R-37/M and large Anti-AWACS missiles like KS-172.

Also would you not also say that an Su-35 will be able to engage and down 3 FC-1s at a same time?

When you are discussing FC-1 and Su-35 than it means mostly third world airforces where pilot and maintainance personel are not that expensive. for fuel compare 3 RD-93 versus 2 AL-31FP. On one side 6600KG fuel versus 10000KG fuel. If FC-1 is going to be fitted with that H-4 Raptor 2(1200KG) and Antiship missiles than rest assured that it can carry heavier AAMs also. Regarding engaging multiple aircraft than you should know that most BVR engagement is within 20 to 40KM range and FC-1 is getting multiple engagement radar with IRST so it doesnot make big difference. the other advantage of smaller fighter is that due larger RCS of Su-35 it will be locked first.

In reference to the articles posted, the N001VE on the first MKKs for the PLAAF do not have air-to-ground modes (as confirmed by Pibu)

Reread the article they are talking about an integrated system for attacking the ground targets not just modes.

The Su-27’s ground-attack weapons capability – limited to unguided rockets – has been replaced by an integrated system allowing the use of precision munitions.

OMG….you are trying to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General of an DEMOCRACTIC country who is independent of the the Govt in power and answerable to the PARLIAMENT is NOT reliable????

You sure??? Ok if you say so you are the oracle….a perfect example of what high quality madrassa mathematics can produce. 😀

Indian sources often confuses the down payment for production with R&D. Does the down payment of MIG-29K represents R&D or production tooling? the same is the case for Su-30. Russian companies often lacks the money for commercail production of technologies developed during Soviet era. Regarding India credibility its rather low for among the oldest democracies.check the TI index.

Flight International

December 2, 1998

Russian engine manufacturer Lyulka Saturn has publicly revealed a three -dimensional thrust vectoring version of its AL-31 powerplant for the first time at the recent Air Show China 98 show (Flight International, 25 November-1 December). The new AL-31FP is fitted with an all-axis thrust vectoring nozzle. Lyulka Saturn says it is particularly suitable for single-engined fighters, possibly even the Chengdu F-10.

The two-dimensional thrust vectoring variant of the powerplant powers the Sukhoi Su-37 fighter, and is to be fitted to later batches of the Su-30MKI, an aircraft type which has now been ordered by the Indian air force.

The 28,000lb-thrust (125kN) engine can be retrofitted to all variants of the Su-27 family of fighters which have digital flight control systems, such as the Su-30 and Su-35. The basic AL-31 core remains unchanged from other versions, with a modular layout and a claimed 1,000h time between overhauls.

Strange, I have always heard the exact opposite.

there is also a possibility that France may have directly or indirectly released information about M2K EW suite to China as France does not put much value into relationship with Taiwan now.

This should clear who did the R&D and borne the costs.

Flight International

July 02, 2002

IAPO delivers first Sukhoi Su-30MKIs to India

BODY:
India received its first two Sukhoi Su-30MKIs late last month after the multirole fighters were shipped from Russian manufacturer IAPO’s factory in Irkutsk, central Siberia, on board an Antonov An-124.

IAPO chairman Aleksei Fiodorov says the remaining eight aircraft in the initial batch will be delivered “within weeks”. IAPO will deliver 22 aircraft next year in two batches.

Su-30MKI development began in 1996, when India awarded Sukhoi a contract worth $1.5 billion for eight Su-30K interceptors (without canards and thrust vectoring) and 32 Su-30MKIs, ahead of the prototype’s first flight in July 1997. The interceptors were delivered in 1997. Su-30MKI development delays prompted India to order 10 additional Su-30Ks in 1998, which were delivered the following year.

In December 2000, India awarded IAPO a $3.3 billion contract for local assembly of 140 aircraft over 17 years at Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL). The HAL plant in Bangalore will roll out its first Su-30MKI in 2004. By 2007 the annual production rate will be 10 aircraft.

The fighter’s Rif mission system was integrated by RPKB Ramenskoye and includes items of French, Israeli, Indian and Russian origin, including Thales multifunction colour displays and an Elop head-up display (HUD).

IAPO hopes the Su-30MKI deliveries will improve the company’s financial situation and help clear debts amassed from funding research and development (R&D) and setting up production.

Su-30MKI R&D has cost about $400 million, provided by IAPO and Sukhoi. India “buys aircraft and does not pay for research and development”, says Fiodorov.

LOAD-DATE: July 11, 2002