Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Sukhoi Su-57 / PAK FA 5th Generation Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by tariqkhan18, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The engines will be covered so this isn't really a concern. It's the rest of the body.

    Since the exact composition of the bodies are classified it's hard to say exactly what the F-22 and F-35 have without speculating. However, the F-22 is the third generation of stealth aircraft for the USAF and you're postulating that Russia with a total experience of zero stealth aircraft and a less advanced industrial base will have a superior product. That's also speculation and less well founded.

    No, it isn't, but it's proven.

    As I said, we're getting closer to that point. Aircraft, particularly manned ones, have limits to their kinematics that are much severe than missiles. 9g is pretty close to those limits.

    [/QUOTE]There are many R-77s and R-73s, which one are you referring to. The basic PAK FA weapons will be the K-77M (R-77M) and R-74M2. But these are just stop gaps for new missiles.

    The Russians have given hints of the existence of two new missiles. One is a new ramjet missile, a model in an office, and the other is a WVR missile that looks similar to the ASRAAM.[/QUOTE]

    The K-77M isn't in production. It should have been in service years ago but it nowhere to be seen.
    The R-74M (I'm assuming you mean the older item 740 and not the newer product 750 or K-74M. Not in production yet. The K-74M2 (product 760) also isn't in production. The latter is expected to match ASRAAM or AIM-9X but not exceed it.

    These are evolutionary upgrades that aren't being built. I wouldn't expect to see substantially better missiles in the near to mid future.

    R-77M1, R-77P, R-77-PD, R-77T, R-77-1, K-100 etc.


    Big enough to do what? It has a very low number of modules and the plane's role doesn't make ground scan very useful.

    These are pure-play foundries, or companies that don't do their own design. Notice how Intel isn't there even though it generally has the best processes? Nor is Samsung which also has very good production abilities.

    Even though the Power architecture is widely used, you do know that the military uses hardened versions, not what you'd get off the shelf. You still have to manufacture the things and Russia is deficient in modern semiconductor fabs.

    http://www.intelligent-aerospace.co...-fighter-uses-cots-hardware-and-software.html

    Q: What are some examples of COTS products used in the F-35 cockpit – displays, processors, real-time operating systems, databuses, etc.?
    A: Power architecture processors, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), DDR RAM, DDR2 RAM, flash memory, active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs), PCI, PCIe, PCI-X, RapidIO, openGL, Green Hills Integrity-178 real-time operating system (RTOS), IEEE-1394, Fibre Channel, etc.
     
    Shekhar Singh likes this.
  2. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I've been consistent. It was a cost save to remove them and there is no plan to add them back in a future upgrade even they'd be drop-in since the plane is already wired and programmed. That should show how much value is placed on them now. The APG-77 has come a long way in the 25 years since the plane was designed.
     
  3. Shekhar Singh

    Shekhar Singh 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    68
    Country Flag:
    India
    Do aircrafts use heat seaking missiles? If yes then this technology can work adversely. And if no then can it absorb 100% or over 95% radar waves so that we can say it stealth. Plz educated as I am not an expert and what ever I know is result of reading posts of IDF forums.
    Thanks..
     
  4. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    678
    Country Flag:
    India
    PAK-FA/FGFA will not happen as long as we have Modi as the PM or HAL as the Indian partner. AMCA is practically dead at least until 2030.
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,572
    Likes Received:
    3,386
    Yes, consistent biased and consistent wrong.
     
  6. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Same thing really. We don't know if that engine is for Stage 1 or Stage 2.

    That's not how it works. The F-22 is known to not have RAS, they said so themselves. It's pure shaping. And the F-35 can only be stealthier than the F-22 if it has RAS. It has to be RAS because it can't be RAM. They also said that using the F-35's RAM on the F-22 won't reduce the F-22's RCS.

    As for the PAK FA, the Russians claimed to have invented structures that can reduce RCS by 400 times. Where they put those structure, that's a different thing.

    Also having a lower industrial base does squat. The fact is that Sukhoi has had a very very healthy orderbook for decades, even after the fall of the Union.

    270+ Su-30MKI
    200+ Su-27, J-11
    200+ Su-30
    150+ Su-30SM
    100+ Su-35
    100+ Su-34

    All built by Russia, it's more than what's above actually. That's more air superiority aircraft and other fighters than what the US has built in the same timeframe. So the industrial base argument is a no-go area.

    Detecting the F-22 is not about power, it is about signal processing. These radars already exist, they need to bring them in in numbers. The USAF says that the F-22 and F-35 will become outdated after 2030 because of new advances in Russia and China.

    No. The plane doesn't have to be enveloped by plasma. That's not how plasma stealth works at all.

    Plasma is inside the aircraft. The PAK FA allows signals to pass through its airframe and get absorbed by plasma. So it's an active stealth technique. For example, some PAK FAs will go radar active while some will go radar passive. It's like activating a stealth mode where plasma will be injected into all high spike areas to facilitate absorption.

    This only works at short distances. At long distances, it won't matter.

    Maneuverability isn't about high Gs alone. You utilize the missile's weaknesses to out maneuver it, not just the aircraft's strengths. And also with EW and decoys.

    These are stop gap missiles. There are other newer missiles in development.

    India also has 3 new BVR weapons in development.

    You have confused some development missiles with some experimentals. Some were built as competitors to the R-27 and failed.

    In R-77, there's only three types. RVV-AE, RVV-SD and K-77M. The seeker head depends on how much they have told us about them. The K-100 is an Indian program effectively, like Brahmos. Nothing is known about it.

    500 modules is not good enough? Dude, that's gold standard for such radars.

    You have confused the side radar with air to air radars. The PAK FA doesn't have side arrays for air to air detection, it has a large main array with a 240 deg FoV with a repositioner for this purpose.

    Remember your argument was the PAK FA has a side array because the main array is inadequate. Now you've decided the side array is too small even for ground search. :lol:

    Exactly. You don't need to be a designer to make stuff.

    Hardening is ancient technology. Everybody knows how to do it. In fact, the Russians are right among the top in this field.

    You are confusing the old Soviet Union with Russia. Whatever quality electronics the west has developed, the Russians have now achieved the same quality levels. Their electronics and other systems have achieved the same level of competence, in fact they are pushing ahead. For example, the new K-77M has a range more than 220Km without any external modifications.[/quote]
     
  7. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    387
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    Averageamerican and Sancho like this.
  8. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    I had already mentioned it. It's not from a Russian source, it's Indian. The IAF was talking about the Stage 1. Basically, they told the govt not to make their decision based on the Stage 1.

    Most of the article is nonsense. The Russians have asked India for 3.7B for R&D.
     
  9. stephen cohen

    stephen cohen Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Country Flag:
    India
  10. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
  11. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    We're going to have to disagree then.

    The Russians say a lot. Sometimes it's even true. Sometimes.

    Over the past 25 years?
    F-15 245+
    F-16 750+
    F/A-18 (E/F/G) 500+
    F-22 187
    F-35 250+

    I'm sure I'm missing some since compiled data is surprisingly is hard to find.

    This doesn't prove much though. Compare the 2016 revenues of UAC against various Western companies:

    UAC $7,005,600,000.00
    Lockheed Martin $46,000,000,000.00
    Boeing $94,000,000,000.00
    Northrup $24,000,000,000.00
    BAE $17,000,000,000.00
    Airbus Defence and Space $14,000,000,000.00
    Alenia Aermacchi $3,000,000,000.00
    Dassault Aviation $3,500,000,000.00

    UAC is the Russian equivalent of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman all rolled into one but economically it's a pipsqueak.
    And Russia is far behind the west in much basic electronic technology.

    Without power you're not going to detect anything and signal processing can only work with what you send out, unless you're talking ESM. The biggest threats to VLO aircraft are high powered stationary radars which are, of course, primary targets in the case of war. And again, Russia and China are not in the forefront of electronic developments.

    Well, that's an interesting claim. How are you supposed to inject this plasma **inside** the plane? You realize that you'd need to have a void to contain what is essentially an ionized gas? And how are you going to keep the plasma away from the other parts? And why would you want to allow radar to hit potentially reflecting parts before hitting the radar absorbing medium as opposed to the reverse? All the research I've seen involved creating plasma near the surface of the vehicle. I think you may have a faulty understanding.

    At short distances; after it's been detected at medium to long distance by radar and is now in visible/IR range. Seems not too useful. If it even works at all which is unlikely possibly except against antiquated technology.

    Please explain how that is related to maneuverability. It seems you could utilize the missile's weaknesses whether you're a SU-57 or an IL-76. EW and decoys have noting to do with maneuverability.

    Those are what they have at the moment and the immediate future. Again, Russia has a habit of announcing new weapons that never make it into production.

    I actually place more likelihood in Indian designs making it into production than Russian ones.

    They are missiles announced by Russia that never made it into production. You asked for examples and I gave them.
    K-77M is still in development, thus the K designator.

    For K-100, India is funding final development of a Russian missile dating back to 1991.

    The actual module count is more like 360 to 400. And gold standard for what? Even 500 modules is pathetic by todays standards. The APG-77 has about 1,900 and the APG-81 has around 1,600. CAPTOR-E is 1,400+.

    And after doing some more reading, I can't find anything to substantiate your claim that they're for ground search, something they're clearly unsuited for. Consensus seems to be that they're to increase the FOV. Maybe useful against non-stealthy targets if the plane was operating alone.

    You need to be a designer to design stuff and military electronics are not bought off the shelf. Unless you think they're outsourcing to Taiwan?

    It changes for different materials and different processes. And it's specialized work that you're not going to find off the shelf. Russia isn't going to contract that work out to another country where it could become a strategic bottleneck. It would be done locally even if the processes available are much worse.

    That's completely BS. Russia is quite far behind in processes and quality has the same Russian spottiness.

    The K-77M is in development and is completely unproven. And you really expect to get double the range of the R-77-1 without increasing the size? That's more range than a R-33 which is substantially bigger.
     
    X_Killer and Averageamerican like this.
  12. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    You will find other companies saying the same thing a few years later.

    I was talking about just one company, you are referring to 2 different companies. And I was talking about heavy air superiority aircraft, similar to what the F-22 or PAK FA are. That's where most of Soviet R&D has gone into.

    Compare F-15 and F-22 numbers to Flanker numbers, you will get my point.

    All irrelevant. The US has access to bigger foreign markets. Selling 747s to China means squat. What matters is the kind of research that has gone into relevant technologies, mainly air superiority aircraft.

    The Europeans have sold more such aircraft than the US has.

    Nope.

    It's clear you don't know much about radars.

    No, it has nothing to do with electronics. Even an old Mig-21 radar can detect the F-22 if it has the right software.

    Look at what the Israelis think.
    https://news.vice.com/article/do-israels-new-fighter-jets-mean-stealth-is-going-out-of-style
    "Low radar cross section is a niche capability, and new sensor technology advances can make it less important. China, India and Russia are already finding weaknesses in stealth as they develop it for their own advanced strike aircraft." The story then goes on to quote a senior Israeli Air Force official as saying (of the F-35) "We think the stealth protection will be good for 5–10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30–40 years."

    This was said back in 2012. And in just a few years, many countries will have operational radars capable of detecting the F-22 from long range.

    Even the USAF admits that the F-22 and F-35 will lose relevance by 2030.
    http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan.pdf
    The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities.

    That's why they say something very radical:
    Gaining and maintaining air superiority to enable joint force operations in 2030 and beyond requires a new approach.

    Can you imagine an air force admitting that their current approach is going to be useless pretty soon?

    You just inject it in high spike areas. One of these areas, as the Russians have revealed, is the nose.

    You have misunderstood. It's the opposite. Active cancellation will work at long distances, not short distances.

    It's all about survivability.

    The F-22 has two major means of survivability. Stealth and performance.
    PAK FA has five. Stealth, performance, ECM, DIRCM, DEW. There is a good chance that no aircraft will be able to kill the PAK FA even after it is detected.

    As explained above, passive only stealth is going away.

    When it comes to stealth as well, the F-22 has only 2 means, shaping and RAM. The PAK FA has 4, shaping, RAM, active cancellation, plasma.

    Using decoys without maneuverability is useless. Even something as simple as climbing and descending can break lock.

    Maneuverability in stealth aircraft matters a lot because even changing your orientation a little bit can make you disappear from the seeker.

    You are confusing secrecy with capability.

    The Russians are a step ahead of the Americans, let alone India. You simply have no news about it.

    The US is developing a new air to air missile that the Russians are already going to initiate serial production for.

    All bad examples.

    Irrelevant.

    No, it was started sometime in the mid 2000s.

    You don't know anything about radars.

    The module count is gold standards for what its meant to do. The F-22's side arrays are more likely smaller than the PAK FA's.

    As I said, if you knew something about radars, you wouldn't be making such posts.

    The shape of the radar matters a lot as well. Look up the shape of dedicated ground radars.

    You are confused between what really matters and what's irrelevant. What requires high precision is already COTS, like processors. Most military electronics designs are pretty low by civilian standards, this applies to tech that's in the F-22 and F-35 as well.

    Even in the civilian sector, look up the number of computer motherboard companies around versus processor designers.

    Do you know what's electronics in the first place? It's not as complex as you think. The highest grade components are already available in the civilian market.

    http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2017/03/cots-technologies-specialized-packaging.html
    Many years ago, functionality came from hardware; that’s no longer the case. Today, functionality is mainly driven by innovations in software.

    Hardware has become less relevant.
    Here's why: The COTS industry lets the defense industry focus on where innovation has the greatest impact.

    It's all about software now, not hardware.

    Read the article about COTS. Both the US and Russians are using the same hardware.

    Yeah, that's the range of the new K-77M.

    Not to mention, the missile has far more advanced seeker hardware than anything available in the west. The K-77M is equipped with a new digital AESA seeker. The west is yet to develop something like it.

    [​IMG]
     
    ashkum2278 and LonewolfSandeep like this.
  13. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    387
    Country Flag:
    Canada
  14. Locke

    Locke FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    23
    Country Flag:
    United States
    So your idea is to restrict your example to the one category where Russia has some advantage? Not taking that bait. And just about the only plane built in quantity since 1992 is the Flanker.


    Russia has access to lots of markets, but most countries don't buy Russian if they have another choice. India is really the only one buying in quantity and they're assembling MKIs themselves which says someone for Russian quality.

    And do you really think Russia has put anywhere near the funds or manpower into research that the US has? The program cost for the F-22 alone is an entire year of the Russian defense budget, and that's after the massive increases it's seen in recent years. Add on the F-35 costs and you think Russia is anywhere close?

    How many planes have various European counties produced?

    Typhoon 600
    Gripen 247
    Mirage 2000 600***
    Rafale 160

    ***I can't tell how many were built in the same period. While production continued until 2007 I think the big orders were in the 80s.

    You can deny it as much as you want, but that still doesn't make it true.

    Though it looks like Mikron has actually moved or is moving to 65nm. That's only 11 years behind.

    You don't know as much about radars as you think you do.
    Yes, it can, at very close ranges. After the F-22 has detected it and the pilot has had time to go get a cup of coffee and take a nap.

    And look what the Israelis are buying... ooh! F-35s! I guess maybe the see some value in them afterall.

    That's a pretty generic statement and has nothing to do with stealth so I don't know why you through it in.

    Maybe you can quote the whole paragraph:

    I don't see anything about stealth there either.

    You need to get a plasma layer over the entire plane. One injector isn't going to do it unless your plane is shaped like a needle. And how will you be generating this plasma in the required amounts? You realize that you have to continuously replace it because the plane is, like, moving?

    First let's start out with the fact the active cancellation is never going to work against anything but the most antiquated radars. Against even a semi-modern AESA radar the whole idea is a waste of time, weight and money. That said, you are correct about long distances; I misspoke on that. At close range the other plane's radar would easily overpower the AC signal. So you were right on that part. But not about it working.

    1. The SU-57 has only a moderate amount of stealth. Most likely better than a clean Super Hornet or Rafale but not F-22 or F-35 class and the Russians have admitted this themselves.
    2. SU-57 performance is likely to be good, but once again, it isn't as important as it once was.
    3. ECM performance is going to be limited by the backward state of Russia's electronics industry. Yes, I know you'd like to believe it was different, but facts don't care anything about your feelings. And the F-22/35 have much better ECM than Russia could ever build.
    4. Yes, the F-22 lacks DIRCM. It would be a welcome addition, but it's questionable whether it could easily be retrofitted.
    5. You really thing the SU-57 is going to carry directed energy weapons? In this century? Maybe if they buy it from alien space bats.


    For active cancellation and plasma stealth, see above. Currently they're somewhere between science fiction and fantasy.
    The SU-57 has much poorer shaping with a RCS at least an order of magnitude bigger, possibly two and Russia has no history of working with RAM/RAS. There is nothng to suggest that Russia has come up with some magic material other than propaganda on RT.


    No, beyond a certain level it doesn't. In fact, if you're turning away from the missile you're likely making it easier since all VLO planes have their best performance in the front.

    They repeatedly announce weapons that never go into production. Russia isn't quite the opaque police state the USSR was.

    Yes. And the US is has a 1000G, mach 20 missile with a 100KM range and a 10MW AESA radar. You just hear no news about it.


    Transalation: I can refute this.

    Transalation: I can't refute this.

    The Indian involvement, yes. Russia shopped this out for a decade before India decided to bankroll it. Do your research.

    But apparently more than you do because you keep making ridiculous claims.

    Since it never went into production we won't know, but the US is far ahead in process technology and produces better T/R modules.

    Do you mean airborne ground search radars? Well, we have the Pave Mover array in JSTARS:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:..._-_National_Electronics_Museum_-_DSC00429.JPG

    Hmm, looks different.

    Don't know the name of the radar in the TU-214R but you can see it in the picture:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tupolev_Tu-214R_inflight.jpg

    Hmm, looks different again.

    Maybe it's more likely that the side arrays have nothing to do with ground search?


    Did you even read the article or just skim it?

    COTS leverages industry standards like processors (Pentium xxx; powerpc; others) PCIe, Ethernet, IEEE 1394, DDRDRAM and other technologies. You still have to design and build the hardware though and much of the avionics is still custom built. There is no off-the-shelf military radar.

    The Russians can utilize the same base technologies but they still have the build everything with a lower tech base and with fewer qualified designers since Russia has an anemic electronics industry.

    Let us know when it's actually in production. Until then it's a paper weapon like so many other Russian announcements.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2017
    sunstersun likes this.
  15. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,181
    Likes Received:
    6,295
    Um... Yes, that one category is what matters because that's where all the funds have gone to.

    The US has built very few air superiority fighters during the time the Russians built 1000+.

    PAK FA is an air superiority aircraft.

    So?

    They are no longer a superpower. Most deals the US signs are political deals, not that the countries actually need the firepower.

    So?

    It's all about quality. American MIC is over-inflated. Most of the money goes into salaries. Just google how much money the US military spends on salaries and compare that to Russia, you will have your answer.

    The Israeli F-35s are free. The Israelis are not paying for it, America is.

    That's because you are not technically sound to understand the ramifications of that report.

    :lol: You are not injecting plasma outside, it's all inside the aircraft.

    I already gave you one location, it is inside the nose. The plasma cloud inside the nose will prevent signals from escaping, so zero RCS from there.

    It will work against any radar. What active cancellation needs is good software and fast processing.

    The Russians claim the Su-57 is more stealthy than any other jet.

    And--
    https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-repor...d-in-electronic-warfare-says-cyber-commander/

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...ng-outclassed-russian-electronic-warfare.html
    It has become clear to the U.S. military that Russian investment in electronic warfare capabilities may have outpaced anything available in the West

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...i-tech-shock-to-west-and-israel-a6842711.html
    Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”.

    The Pentagon is decades behind Russia when it comes to electronic warfare.

    Nope. That's not how it works.

    For one, you change your heading away from a missile regardless of your RCS. You don't keep going towards it, that's plain dumb. And generally, when you change your heading, you drop your decoys and change heading very, very quickly, that's called dodging.

    They are still opaque.

    :lol:

    The French are better. Even the Japanese.

    The Russians are most likely already a step ahead in fielding GaN.

    If you knew something about radars, you would know what I'm talking about. I can't explain to you how radar works, so get studying.

    The article clearly says software is champion, not hardware.

    It's not difficult to design hardware, I have done it. It's like designing a house, you want the bedroom here, kitchen there etc. What matters is the size of the plot. And the PAK FA has massive real estate. It's more difficult to design electronics for aircraft like the LCA Tejas.

    So your tech base is irrelevant. It's all comes down to skill with a paper. You could be the biggest company in the world and still make a lemon.

    Dude, you have very little idea about aircraft or electronics, so please stop, I am just wasting my time here.[/quote]
     

Share This Page