Sukhoi PAK FA

[plugwater]

FGFA is a variant of PAK-FA with Indian Avionics..

It will come in Double and in Single, As per new reports..

AFAIK all FGFAs are two seaters.

Can you post that report?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

AFAIK all FGFAs are two seaters.

Can you post that report?

Post No #1549
http://defenceforumindia.com/indian...a-sukhoi-rosoboronexport-hal-jointly-155.html

Post No #1538
http://defenceforumindia.com/indian...a-sukhoi-rosoboronexport-hal-jointly-154.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

PAK FA's - UVKU-50L internal launcher (designed by Vympel). Images posted on paralay forums.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[plugwater]

Post No #1549
http://defenceforumindia.com/indian...a-sukhoi-rosoboronexport-hal-jointly-155.html

Post No #1538
http://defenceforumindia.com/indian...a-sukhoi-rosoboronexport-hal-jointly-154.html

From post 1538

Indian Air Force plans to induct the FGFA / PAK-FA as 166 single-seaters and 48 twin-seaters.

FGFA and Pakfa combination will have 166 single-seaters and 48 twin-seaters. IMO this statement does not say FGFA has both types.

Post 1549

The IAF will procure 214 FGFAs, of which 166 aircraft will be single seaters, while the remaining will be twin seaters. "The twin-seater variety would be assembled at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL)," Browne said.

Reporting error, two seater which they are going to assemble in HAL is FGFA . Single seater is Pakfa which will be made in Russia.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[venkat]

India is a cash rich cow for the wrong reasons,not for eliminating BPL,sukhoi is a customer in need of cash!!! rosboronexport is a milk vendor who knows how to milk the cow more than the cow's capacity!!!

why do we need two seaters. atleast commonsense prevails with NAK!!! Pilots are a rare commodity!!! with all that Automation why do we need a two seater plane, when pilotless UCAVs are going to be in the main-stage in the next two decades!!!

 

[p2prada]

India is a cash rich cow for the wrong reasons,not for eliminating BPL,sukhoi is a customer in need of cash!!! rosboronexport is a milk vendor who knows how to milk the cow more than the cow's capacity!!!

why do we need two seaters. atleast commonsense prevails with NAK!!! Pilots are a rare commodity!!! with all that Automation why do we need a two seater plane, when pilotless UCAVs are going to be in the main-stage in the next two decades!!!

Training?

We don't know if 48 or 166 is going to be the final number considering the MKIs alone will be 270 and will need replacement after the 214 PAKFAs are built.

 

[ace009]

Even with Automation, in a intensive combat environment, for complex machines with multiple options, two brains work better than one - it has been proven time and again, which is why USA used the two-seater variants for their more advanced F-15 D.

Having said that, there is no reason for India to have all two-seaters for the FGFA - however, I would rather have two variants of the FGFA than one seaters all being PAK-FA and two seaters being FGFA. Reason is simple,
1. Having two set of cockpit conditions is hard for pilots - which means IAF may have to maintain two set of pilots - one for PAK-FA and one for FGFA (two seater)
2. Indian cockpit design, avionics and other components in FGFA gives IAF more flexibility than having Russian avionics and cockpit design.

 

[Anshu Attri]

 

[K Factor]

Even with Automation, in a intensive combat environment, for complex machines with multiple options, two brains work better than one - it has been proven time and again, which is why USA used the two-seater variants for their more advanced F-15 D.

Flawed logic - F22 and F-35 are single-seat.

 

[ace009]

Read the rest of the post - 5th generation fighters have better automation - which is why a single pilot is almost as good.

 

[A chauhan]

From Dr. Carlo Kopp :-
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Russian-Fighters-March-2011.pdf

sorry if re-post !!

 

[SPIEZ]

From Dr. Carlo Kopp :-
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Russian-Fighters-March-2011.pdf

sorry if re-post !!

Thank you for bringing out a wonderful article

 

[p2prada]

Read the rest of the post - 5th generation fighters have better automation - which is why a single pilot is almost as good.

It is not so simple. There will be more to it instead of just saying it has more automation.

The functions a 5th gen fighter handles is expected to be a lot more than a 4th gen. So, automation does help. But we should not forget what Sukhoi said about FGFA. They said that adding a second seat would mean increasing the cockpit height and therefore will see an increase in RCS.

The Preliminary design for FGFA is perhaps at an advanced stage and there is a chance that IAF thinks the single seater is simply a more efficient design. Perhaps the 166 projected number may be primarily for air superiority missions and one pilot is enough for such a mission. So, a combination of single seat and dual seat is seen as a good option instead of focusing only on dual seaters like on the MKI.

Let's also not forget that the single seater will be inducted faster than the dual seat version. Considering our squadron numbers are decreasing the option for single seat may be more lucrative. There is always the possibility that the LCA and MRCA may see further delays due to technological, manufacturing and ToT hurdles. Perhaps the IAF is simply being cautious.

 

[ace009]

It is not so simple. There will be more to it instead of just saying it has more automation.

The functions a 5th gen fighter handles is expected to be a lot more than a 4th gen. So, automation does help. But we should not forget what Sukhoi said about FGFA. They said that adding a second seat would mean increasing the cockpit height and therefore will see an increase in RCS.

The Preliminary design for FGFA is perhaps at an advanced stage and there is a chance that IAF thinks the single seater is simply a more efficient design. Perhaps the 166 projected number may be primarily for air superiority missions and one pilot is enough for such a mission. So, a combination of single seat and dual seat is seen as a good option instead of focusing only on dual seaters like on the MKI.

Let's also not forget that the single seater will be inducted faster than the dual seat version. Considering our squadron numbers are decreasing the option for single seat may be more lucrative. There is always the possibility that the LCA and MRCA may see further delays due to technological, manufacturing and ToT hurdles. Perhaps the IAF is simply being cautious.

Honestly, for a second seat in a 5th gen fighter, the WSO (Weapons Systems Officer) is not involved in flying the aircraft and has no need to have a clear view or a complete glass canopy. He can be placed behind the pilot and have half of his cockpit covered by the metal frame with reduced RCS.

For the FGFA, a two seat version makes sense for a ground attack capability while the air superiority version may not need a specialized WSO at all. It will also enable the single seater version to carry extra fuel (instead of the longer/ larger cockpit, pilot weight and associated equipment) and have longer legs.

 

[p2prada]

Honestly, for a second seat in a 5th gen fighter, the WSO (Weapons Systems Officer) is not involved in flying the aircraft and has no need to have a clear view or a complete glass canopy. He can be placed behind the pilot and have half of his cockpit covered by the metal frame with reduced RCS.

The WSO is as much a part of aircraft as the pilot. Just because MKI has 2 pilots does not mean the WSO needs to be blind. BTW, the WSO can also fly the aircraft in case of emergencies.

For the FGFA, a two seat version makes sense for a ground attack capability while the air superiority version may not need a specialized WSO at all. It will also enable the single seater version to carry extra fuel (instead of the longer/ larger cockpit, pilot weight and associated equipment) and have longer legs.

The extra fuel load isn't a very big advantage. It's just 1.5 to 2 tons.

What I am more worried about is if the second pilot has affected the size of the weapons bay and of course stealth. In case of air superiority a more stealthy PAKFA will be better than a less stealthy FGFA. At the same time the FGFA can be designed like the F-35 with better stealth characteristics against ground based radars.

 

[ace009]

The WSO is as much a part of aircraft as the pilot. Just because MKI has 2 pilots does not mean the WSO needs to be blind. BTW, the WSO can also fly the aircraft in case of emergencies.



The extra fuel load isn't a very big advantage. It's just 1.5 to 2 tons.

What I am more worried about is if the second pilot has affected the size of the weapons bay and of course stealth. In case of air superiority a more stealthy PAKFA will be better than a less stealthy FGFA. At the same time the FGFA can be designed like the F-35 with better stealth characteristics against ground based radars.

Well, my point is that the pilot being disabled, the WSO still able to fly the plane is a scenario in case of a gun kill - but in todays warfare gun kills are becoming rarer by the day. With high-G long range AAM / SAM, a hit on an aircraft reduces the chance of survival significantly - even if the aircraft has two engines. Which is why remaining undetected (and thus avoid being hit) is better than trying to survive AFTER being hit. In which case stealth and jamming are more important than redundant avionics or maneuverability.

 

[p2prada]

The second pilot is not needed in case of a dog fight, he can help by trying to visually ID an aircraft during merge. You may have seen Behind Enemy Lines, Owen Wilson helps out his pilot in charting the course of the missile verbally. Anyway, automation only helps a little when it comes to target prioritization and the WSO handles that very well. When a radar picks up a target, there is no guarantee the target can be identified easily. One of the best ways to pick up a target is by counting the number of compressor blades in the inlet when detected head on. However there is no way to identify say, a B1B bomber armed with A2G ammo and a B1R armed with Aim-120Ds. Assuming there is also a SAM threat, a computer cannot distinguish which target takes priority. A human pilot is better at that and while the pilot is occupied in out flying the enemy the WSO determines which target to hit first.

Next comes the question of Situational Awareness. In case of the F-22, the US doctrine allows for a single pilot operation because of their massive air assets like tankers and AWACS. Their doctrine allows them to fight over enemy territory. The Russians are more interested in air denial. The Russians don't want the enemy to bombard their ground units. We are quite like the USAF in that respect. We want our air force to take the fight to the enemy. This is where the second pilots helps out, in determining the next course of action. While the USAF is supported by their AWACS we don't have such assets in similar numbers.

The USAF has something like 40+ E-2 AEW&C and some 70+ E-2C Hawkeyes. Compare that to 3 Phalcons that we have, that is a pretty awesome capability when it comes to situational awareness. Heck while we have 3 Phalcons in our entire air force each of the USN carriers alone carry at least 5 Hawkeyes.
Now you understand why the second pilot is needed. He is the one who does the job of the AEW&C, albeit not as capable. The WSO is indispensable asset. Perhaps there is a reason why we are going for a mix of single and dual seaters. Perhaps the MKI and later the Super 30 is expected to continue it's role of being an AEW&C while the PAKFAs will work together with the MKIs in taking out the enemy in any mission profile.

The USAF seems to be going for a similar pattern. The F-15Cs with their new radars like APG-82 will light up the frontlines while the F-22s(with radars turned off) will take the enemy head on using the F-15s feed. A 5th gen fighter is deadliest when it is not emitting signals. Even Rafale's passive capability becomes useless.

 

[agentperry]

hey guys just found out that T-50 and future version of Su-47 will be having plasma torch for stealth and not the old cuts and ram coating stealth feature. this is a superior technology and will make F-22 raptors stealth tech look stone age tech.

in this plasma torch tech, there is a special nose designed for the T-50 on which plasma torch will be focussed or may be even put on. the function of this plasma torch is to cover the plane with an ionizing layer.
this ionizing layer will then ionize the radar waves touching it thus no reflection of striking radar waves from all dircetion => stealth( 360 degree).

in all the western planes the stealth is by the virtue of cuts and shapes of plane with the ram coating. the ram reduces the radar cross section area but the cuts and shapes are only effective from certain degree of view or positioning of radar.

if this tech got shared with India it will greatly enhance India's air dominance and tech advances.