Russian vs Western Stealth Technology

[bhramos]

Concept of Stealth in Sukhoi Family.

Stealth Aircraft Technology: "Our Capabilities are not Inferior to Those of America"

Andrey Lagarjkov, Director General of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences (and an Associate Member of the Academy), talks about Russian stealth technology in the following interview with the Russia/CIS Observer.

Until recently, all Russian developments in the field of stealth technologies were strictly classified. There weren't any reports made concerning research institutes dealing with these issues. The veil was raised somewhat last year when it was announced for the first time that the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences was carrying out research in the domain of reduced aircraft visibility. The information was rather sketchy. It was reported that the institute is specialized in creating materials with new properties, in particular with ferromagnetics and so-called artificial magnetics. It was pointed out that technologies developed by the institute were used in designing and manufacturing the Sukhoi Su-27M and Su-37 (Su-47). Director General Lagarjkov, who hasn't spoken about such matters in public before, told Sergey Sokut about work of his institute in greater detail.

- How does Russia's way of making aircraft stealthy differ from the American technology?
- The Americans have two approaches. The first, and earliest one, was used for the F-117 and B-2. The low radar cross-section (RCS) was achieved through the shape of the aircraft and the use of radar-absorbing materials to cover the airframe. In this application, the principle of minimal level of visibility was a cornerstone - and other characteristics had to be sacrificed. For example, both aircraft are subsonic. Later the Americans tried another approach: modern radar absorbing materials are applied to F-16 and F-18, as well as to 5th generation F-22 and JSF combat aircraft, which have a traditional shape. The low level of visibility is achieved through different techniques, which Mikhail Pogosyan, director of Sukhoi, and I are going to reveal in the near future. We and the Americans are close to each other in this type of technology. Russia possesses the technology for upgrading in-service aircraft with modern stealth characteristics, and moreover, this technology is demanded by foreign operators of Russian aircraft. We, together with Sukhoi, have achieved world-class results in this area, which are confirmed by tests of real aircraft. We also can optimize the shape of the aircraft to lower the level of visibility, but I still wouldn't like to speak about the use of our techniques for 5th generation aircraft.

- When would it be possible to speak about achieved results?
- Some discussion is possible today. The exact results of radar cross-section reduction will never be disclosed, neither here in Russia nor abroad. But sometime ago it was announced that the RCS of a MiG-21 fighter after its treatment by our institute is approximately 0.25 sq m. This corresponds to the characteristics of a cruise missile.

- How far is it possible to go in reducing visibility of the 4th generation aircraft, and what additional improvements can be achieved in the next generation?

- My MiG-21 example demonstrates that the RCS of upgraded/modernized aircraft can be reduced 12-15 times. If we speak about new designed models, I wouldn't want to discuss the numbers publically.

- In the press, information has been published about exotic technologies for providing low visibility, for example, plasma. How effective is it?

- We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.

- What is the share of stealth technologies in the total aircraft cost?
- If stringent, but reasonable requirements for visibility are implemented in the project from the very beginning, it won't be too large. I'd like to point out here that at my institue, we have carried out advanced work in fundamental research. I also want to stress here that we had to do this without governmental support - funding our research from out-of-budget sources during the last 10-15 years.

- It is known that you cooperate closely with Sukhoi. What about the institute's work with other design bureaus?
- Recently, we have started cooperating intensively with the others as well.

- If we compare achievements of different countries in the reduction of aircraft visibility, who would the leaders be? Obviously, the Americans would hit the top, wouldn't they?
- The Americans are no. 1 because of the application of stealth to a large volume of real products. But considering the understanding of the whole problem in general - and the potential

- I don't think the Americans are better than we are. We are able to achieve, and already have achieved, the same - and even in some areas, we have had somewhat better results. Another plus for the Americans is their broader application of stealth. In particular, they are entering the world market with the stealthy aircraft. Similar developments are being made in Europe, but the level of these countries is not so high. The French are tackling this problem as well. They have very good research equipment - anechoic chambers, for example. Their Rafale fighter is advertised as an aircraft with a low radar cross-section.

ATO Russia & CIS Observer*-*Archive*-*¹ 2 (4), November 2003*-*INTERVIEW*-*

nice article but even old, so i taught post it here

 

[bhramos]

Great Article does any these tech is seen in PAKFA?

 

[AJSINGH]

good insight , Russian were the first to inverstigate plasma stealth application when the launched their first sattelite Sputnik

 

[bhramos]

good insight , Russian were the first to inverstigate plasma stealth application when the launched their first sattelite Sputnik

need some info,
are any of the artcle mentioned above presented in PAKFA?

 

[flash]

good insight , Russian were the first to inverstigate plasma stealth application when the launched their first sattelite Sputnik

- We use plasma in solving the problems of RCS of an aircraft's nosecone. In general, plasma technologies are very useful at flight altitudes of more than 25 km. At low altitudes it is impossible to use them, because there is not enough power on board.

Am I reading this wrong? 25km is well beyond the service ceiling of the PAK-FA, is Lagarjkov confirming what many suspect that plasma stealth has limited real world use?

 

[AJSINGH]

need some info,
are any of the artcle mentioned above presented in PAKFA?

there are claims that a system was offered for export by Russia in 1999. In January 1999, the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency published an interview with Doctor Anatoliy Koroteyev, the director of the Keldysh Research Center (FKA Scientific Research Institute for Thermal Processes), who talked about the plasma stealth device developed by his organization. The claim was particularly interesting in light of the solid scientific reputation of Dr. Koroteyev and the Institute for Thermal Processes[citation needed], which is one of the top scientific research organizations in the world in the field of fundamental physics.[4]
The Journal of Electronic Defense reported that "plasma-cloud-generation technology for stealth applications" developed in Russia reduces an aircraft's RCS by a factor of 100. According to this June 2002 article, the Russian plasma stealth device has been tested aboard a Sukhoi Su-27IB fighter-bomber.

Theoretical work with Sputnik

Due to the obvious military applications of the subject, there are few readily available experimental studies of plasma's effect on the radar cross section (RCS) of aircraft, but plasma interaction with microwaves is a well explored area of general plasma physics. Standard plasma physics reference texts are a good starting point and usually spend some time discussing wave propagation in plasmas.
One of the most interesting articles related to the effect of plasma on the RCS of aircraft was published in 1963 by the IEEE. The article is entitled "Radar cross sections of dielectric or plasma coated conducting spheres and circular cylinders" (IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, September 1963, pp. 558–569). Six years earlier—in 1957—the Soviets had launched the first artificial satellite. While trying to track Sputnik it was noticed that its electromagnetic scattering properties were different from what was expected for a conductive sphere. This was due to the satellite's traveling inside of a plasma shell: the ionosphere.
The Sputnik's simple shape serves as an ideal illustration of plasma's effect on the RCS of an aircraft. Naturally, an aircraft would have a far more elaborate shape and be made of a greater variety of materials, but the basic effect should remain the same. In the case of the Sputnik flying through the ionosphere at high velocity and surrounded by a naturally-occurring plasma shell, there are two separate radar reflections: the first from the conductive surface of the satellite itself and the second from the dielectric plasma shell.
The authors of the paper found that a dielectric (plasma) shell may either decrease or increase the echo area of the object. If either one of the two reflections is considerably greater, then the weaker reflection will not contribute much to the overall effect. The authors also stated that the EM signal that penetrates the plasma shell and reflects off the object's surface will drop in intensity while traveling through plasma, as was explained in the previous section.
The most interesting effect is observed when the two reflections are of the same order of magnitude. In this situation the two components (the two reflections) will be added as phasors and the resulting field will determine the overall RCS. When these two components are out of phase relative to each other, cancellation occurs. This means that under such circumstances the RCS becomes null and the object is completely invisible to the radar.
It is immediately apparent that performing similar numeric approximations for the complex shape of an aircraft would be difficult. This would require a large body of experimental data for the specific airframe, properties of plasma, aerodynamic aspects, incident radiation, etc. On the other hand, the original computations discussed in this paper were done by a handful of people on an IBM 704 computer made in 1956, and at the time, this was a novel subject with very little research background. So much has changed in science and engineering since 1963 that differences between a metal sphere and a modern combat jet pale in comparison.
A simple application of plasma stealth is the use of plasma as an antenna: metal antenna masts often have large radar cross sections, but a hollow glass tube filled with low pressure plasma can also be used as an antenna, and is entirely transparent to radar when not in use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

 

[AJSINGH]

Couple of things to keep in mind: plasma is ionized gas particles. Therefore, plasma flow is a flow of ionized gas particles. Ion is an electrically charged particle or group of atoms. Plasma cloud is a quasineutral (total electrical charge is zero) collection of free charged particles. The vast majority of matter in the universe exists in plasma state. Near the Earth plasma can be found in the form of solar wind, magnetosphere and ionosphere. The main property of plasma (for our purposes) is its frequency, which is equal to a square root of a ratio of 4 * Pi * square of ion charge * concentration of ions to the mass of ion:

SQRT ( (4 * Pi * n * e^2) / m ),

where e is electron or ion charge, n is concentration of ions per volume of plasma and m is mass of ion.

There are several types of oscillations in plasma: low frequency (ion-sound waves), high frequency (oscillations of electrons relative to ions), spiral waves (in the presence of a magnetic field - "magnetosound"), and cross waves propagating along a magnetic field. A device for generating plasma is called plasmatron. This device generates the so-called low-temperature plasma
Russian Academy of Sciences recently revealed information about a novel "stealth" technology, that incorporates plasma fields. Russian ITAR/TASS news agency recently interviewed the director of the Keldysh Research Center (FKA Scientific Research Institute for Thermal Processes), Academician Anatoliy Koroteyev, who briefly summarized capabilities of plasma stealth system developed by his research center and the current status of the project. You can read the entire ITAR/TASS article in Russian or in English (external link.) An interesting fact: Keldysh Research Center operates a unique plasma wind tunnel for analyzing propagation of electromagnetic waves in the vicinity of a spacecraft as well as for testing of antenna inserts and ion thrusters. Detailed info about Keldysh Research Center . First, I would like to assure people with high school physics background that, at least in theory, the system, described by Academician Koroteyev, is perfectly valid. Interactions between various types of electromagnetic radiation and plasma fields were studied for many years in Russia, the United States and around the world. Among recent achievement in this area is a "plasma stealth" antenna developed by the US Navy for use on LO aircraft. The system employs a U-shaped glass tube filled with low-pressure gas (something like a fluorescent tube). This antenna is energized and acts as a highly-directional, electronically steered transmitter/receiver. When de-energized, the antenna is virtually transparent to hostile electromagnetic signals. One of the problems with such a system is its vulnerability to resonant signals. The system developed by the Russians is also based on electromagnetic wave-plasma interactions, but in a very different way. Russian stealth plasma device creates a plasma field around an aircraft. This field partially consumes electromagnetic energy of a hostile radar or causes it to bend around the aircraft, reducing the aircraft RCS by up to 100 times. Sounds fantastic? Not really: effects of dissipation and bending of electromagnetic signals in presence of plasma field have been observed for decades. If there is anything new about the system developed by the Russians it certainly is not the theoretical part but technical aspects of the plasma generator. Keldysh Research Center claims to have developed, built and tested a plasma shield generator that weighs only 100 kg.The idea of creating a plasma field around an aircraft is not a new one either. This was done for very different reasons, however. Aircraft designers want to use a plasma shield generator on hypersonic aircraft. In this application, plasma may be generated by a powerful plasma laser and will act as a heat shield for an aircraft. There are plans to use such a system in conjunction with a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) propulsion to achieve velocities up to Mach 50. For more information click here or here. This is truly unbelievable, but even this theoretically and technologically is perfectly possible. It is not known whether the plasma stealth system developed by the Russians employs a plasma laser or some other method for creating a plasma field. My personal opinion is that it has nothing to do with a plasma laser (which is a very large and very power-hungry device.)Plasma physics was given priority in Russia many years ago, which resulted in a number of breakthroughs in theory as well as practical applications of plasma. Perhaps one of the most interesting and promising applications of plasma is the so-called ion thruster, used to propel spacecraft. This technology was first developed in Russia (mainly by Keldysh Research Center) a. The system uses xenon gas as fuel and can achieve exhaust velocities of up to 30 km/sec (ten times that of an average rocket engine.) . Interesting to note that first such "ion thrusters" were developed in USSR and used on Soviet spacecraft almost 30 years ago.
http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/articles/active.htm

 

[AJSINGH]

Moscow, January 20, 1999. Nicolai Novichkov, ITAR-TASS information agency

Research team of the Recearch Center named after M.V. Keldysh has developed new technologies allowing dramatic decrease in aircrafts' radar observability.
Russian approach to low observability (LO) technologies is completely different from US Stealth and offers complete furtiveness of the protected object at a significantly lower price.
An exclusive interview about these technologies was conducted by Nicolai Novichkov, ITAR-TASS with director of the Center, academic of Russian Scientific Academy Anatoliy Korteev.

As academic explained, American approach to LO (Stealth technology) applied on B-2, F-117A, and fifth generation fighter F-22 "Raptor" is based on the following principles.
The airframes of these aircrafts are designed to minimize their radar cross section (RCS), avoid all possible elements of the structure, which could reflect electromagnetic radiation.
In order to minimize reflected radiation radio absorbing materials (RAM) are also applied to the surface of the structure. The main drawbacks of the Stealth technology are its negative effects on the flight and agility characteristics of the stealth aircrafts.

Russian scientists approach the issue from the other direction. They proposed to create a plasma formation around protected object, which prevents radars from seeing it.
Thus,aerodynamical characteristics of the plane itself do not suffer. Without interfereing with technical characteristics the artificially created plasma cloud surrounding the plane guarantees more than hundred times decrease in its observability.

The physics of plasma protection can be described as following. If an object is surrounded by a cloud of plasma, several phenomenas are observed when the cloud interacts with electromagnetic waves radiated by enemy radar.
First, an absorption of electromagnetic energy occurs in the cloud, since during plasma penetration it interacts with plasma charged particles, pass onto them a portion of its energy, and fades.
Second, due to specific physical processes, electromagnetic wave tends to pass around plasma cloud. Both of these phenomenas results in dramatic decrease of the reflected signal.

Static and flight experiments proved the effectiveness of this technology. The first generation devices, producing plasma field surrounding an aircraft and decreasing reflected signal were created in the Center. Later, a possibily of creating second generation advanced systems (capable of not only decreasing reflected signal and changing its wavelength, but also producing some false signals) was discovered.
Such systems significantly complicate determination of actual aircraft's speed, its location and leads to development of completely new approaches to LO provision, unachievable to conventional Stealth technology.
Furthermore, the weight of the systems developed in Russia do not exeed 100 kg, and power consumption ranges from kilowatts to tens of kilowatts.

Advances in development of the third generation LO systems allowed to clear the systems of first and second generation for export, commented academic Anatoliy Korteev.

26/01/99
(c) ITAR-TASS,
http://www.air-attack.com/page/19

 

[san]

Russia had great technology and Research base during Soviet time but after 1989 their capability in the field of R&D reduced drastically. Present Russian best technology is atleast one to two generation behaind USA . Stealth technology will be a closely gurded secret but looking into last 2 decades in science & technology, we assume russia is atleast 15 year behind USA in stealth tchnology.

 

[AJSINGH]

Russia had great technology and Research base during Soviet time but after 1989 their capability in the field of R&D reduced drastically. Present Russian best technology is atleast one to two generation behaind USA . Stealth technology will be a closely gurded secret but looking into last 2 decades in science & technology, we assume russia is atleast 15 year behind USA in stealth tchnology.

even after the comming out of PAK FA , i think that changes everything about what we knew of Russian stealth

 

[san]

PAK FA still needs several milstone to pass. Engine, radar and weapons. Still modification may require in engine intake and exhust to reduce RCS. With a military budjet of $45 billion Russia cannot and will not match USA in atleat for 50 years in the field of R&D. During th time of USSR, budjet is almost equal to USA. Even China has a military budjet of approx $150 billion dollar.

 

[AJSINGH]

PAK FA still needs several milstone to pass. Engine, radar and weapons. Still modification may require in engine intake and exhust to reduce RCS. With a military budjet of $45 billion Russia cannot and will not match USA in atleat for 50 years in the field of R&D. During th time of USSR, budjet is almost equal to USA. Even China has a military budjet of approx $150 billion dollar.

russian are not new to stealth desgin , ( have a look at Mig1.44 ) ,even if you take PAK FA as first real attempt to design a stealth strike fighter ,then bravo to Russians , yes PAK FA is not yet complete but it has great potential , higher super cruise than F-22 , and russians design philosophy is different than the Americans( russians have asked themselves , how much money do they want to pay for stealth fighter ?) so thats why PAK FA happens to be 2.5times cheaper than F-22 with all most the same RCS. and yes Russian have not allocated as much funds as americans have ( the advantage of this that the PAK FA fighter will be cheaper because the estimate cost of fighter is " the amount taken to develop divided the number of fighters on order)
plus Russian use the fund money more efficiently , if you notice the whole landing gear was borrowed from flanker series fighters and so were the intinal engines . the PAK-FA is a fusion of ideas and design features seen in late model Flanker variants and demonstrators, but incorporating specific stealth shaping features employed previously in the Northrop/MDC YF-23 ATF demonstrator, and the production LM F-22 Raptor. The PAK-FA is clearly a unique Russian design and is neither a copy of the F-22 or the YF-23.

No less importantly, the PAK-FA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the Russian philosophy of "evolutionary" design, rather than the "Big Bang" approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.

It is important to note that the Russian approach to development more than often differs from the Western approach, particularly that of the United States industry, with a much stronger Russian focus on risk management and risk minimisation. A powerful approach evident in the development of the Flanker family of aircraft has been, firstly, to plan long term, then to spread developmental risks across the series of planned new aircraft types and variants as well as parallel design/development activities. The benefits of such an approach are clearly obvious.

The best illustration of how much more effective Russian systems development philosophy is, is that the development of the PAK-FA, with a projected budget in the order of US$10 Billion, was launched officially in 2002, concurrently with the launch of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, yet the latter has experienced repeated delays in schedule, repeated problems with basic technology, and remains heavily laden with accumulated design risks as well as inordinately high and growing costs.

If the objective is to produce a design on-time and on-cost without unpleasant surprises, there is much to be said for the Russian approach to systems development.

 

[flash]

ajsingh you believe the Russians will have a better fifth generation aircraft at a fraction of the price because:

1. The Russians use their funds more efficiently.
2. An "evolutionary" design paradigm
3. Russian focus on risk management and mitigation.

If Russian tech is that impressive why is our own MKI stuffed with French and Israeli avionics.
Why is the Mirage 2000 still regarded as one of the best in the IAF? What are the sortie rates for Russian fighters?
Can the MKI engines be replaced in 20 minutes?Can the MKI OR Mig-29 radar be replaced in 10?
Why do they have first generation western T/R modules in the IRBIS-E?

 

[AJSINGH]

ajsingh you believe the Russians will have a better fifth generation aircraft at a fraction of the price because:

1. The Russians use their funds more efficiently.
2. An "evolutionary" design paradigm
3. Russian focus on risk management and mitigation.

If Russian tech is that impressive why is our own MKI stuffed with French and Israeli avionics.
Why is the Mirage 2000 still regarded as one of the best in the IAF? What are the sortie rates for Russian fighters?
Can the MKI engines be replaced in 20 minutes?Can the MKI OR Mig-29 radar be replaced in 10?
Why do they have first generation western T/R modules in the IRBIS-E?

okay ...so why is India Su30mki equped with French and Israeli avionics , well for that i would say that the most important system is radar which is from russia ( that too very capable one ) highly customized version of the Israeli Elbit Su 967 head-up display consisting of bi-cubic phase conjugated holographic displays and seven liquid crystal multifunction displays, six 127 mm x 127 mm and one 152 mm x 152 mm. The HUD was widely misreported to be the VEH 3000 from Thales. Variants of the same HUD have also been chosen for the IAF's MiG-27 and SEPECAT Jaguar upgrades, highly customized version of the Israeli Elbit Su 967 head-up display consisting of bi-cubic phase conjugated holographic displays and seven liquid crystal multifunction displays, six 127 mm x 127 mm and one 152 mm x 152 mm. The HUD was widely misreported to be the VEH 3000 from Thales. Variants of the same HUD have also been chosen for the IAF's MiG-27 and SEPECAT Jaguar upgrades, on grounds of standardization. Also what IAF needs are different than what Russian can provide that does not mean Russian tech any less , for example we have our own electronic warfare system called " tarang" ,so we opted for that because we would prefer our own system than theirs ( does that imply russian electronic system any less , i do not think so )
and the most important stuff in Su30 is from russia ,not from france or israel. The superiority of the Su-30MK's radar in terms of the target detection range, scanning sectors, jamming immunity and capacity to launch active and semi-active radar homing missiles provides high efficiency in long range combat. In terms of long range and medium-range air combat with various aerial targets, the Su-30MK will command a considerable air superiority over not only the Mirage 2000C but the Mirage 2000-5 equipped with a more powerful radar. When operating against ground targets, the capabilities of radars of the aircraft under consideration are virtually equal.

All Russian modern fighters, including Su-30MK, are equipped with an optical locating station (OLS) designed to search, detect, lock on, automatically track aerial targets, and determine target coordinates and range. The high accuracy and jamming immunity of the system interfaced with the onboard radar makes it possible for timely detection of enemy aircraft at a range of up to 50 km, which significantly enhances the aircraft's combat capabilities. Mirages have no analogue systems. The OLS operational modes made it possible to reduce lock on time, facilitate post-lock-on flight profile and increase a gun firing accuracy. For ground attack missions, both the Su-30MK and Mirage 2000-5 use optical target seeker/designator pods of (Atlis 2 type on the Mirage 2000-5) with similar characteristics. A number of the Sukhoi's onboard subsystems (navigation and communications equipment, cockpit instruments) are being developed jointly with foreign avionics companies. This assumes that these subsystems will be technologically at par with the best foreign analogues.

The Russian fighter features high survivability, provided by a wide range of assets, in addition to those provided by its two-engine configuration. Systems protecting from fuel loss and hydro-shock, as well as the fire fighting system (which also protects airframe compartments) improve survivability by 20 per cent compared to that of Mirage class fighters.

It should be noted that, in terms of potential weapons options, the Su-30MK considerably outclasses Mirage type fighters. The R-73E close range air-to-air missile in service with the Su-30MK has better characteristics (target designation angles, maneuverability, etc.) than those of the analogous French K.550 missile and is rightly considered the world's best in this class.

With their high power and ballistic parameters, Su-30MK 's long-range air-to-air missiles allow it to deliver preventive attacks. In terms of range, these missiles surpass French AAMs of a similar class by 20-30 per cent (for example, Mirage's Super Matra) and can maintain large advantage zones in long-range air combat.

With 12 stations for armament stores (compared to nine on the Mirage), the Su-30MK fully equipped with air-to-air missiles is more effective in repulsing a massive air raid. Compared to Mirage, the Russian aircraft the advantages include greater tactical range and weapon load (guided weapons) and better survivability, which all result in the overwhelming superiority of the Russian aircraft. For example, Sukhoi is 2-3 times more effective than the Mirage 2000-5 when employed against airfields and infrastructural targets; it is two times more effective against armored vehicles and three times more effective against sea targets. In all, the Su-30MK vs. Mirage 2000-5 combat capability ratio stands at 2:1 (in combat actions against a totality of ground and surface targets). The Su-30MK is indeed a multi-role aircraft. It can be used as reconnaissance aircraft and targeting platform and lead group missions of other aircraft. The analysis indicates that this aircraft is primarily designed to attain air superiority, repulse massive air raids, support combat actions of other air arms, destroy a wide range of ground and surfaces targets, and execute a number of special missions. The Mirage type aircraft are typically used for air defense missions in the near zone of, possibly, against ground targets lacking air defense cover. Unlike the Mirage, operating the Su-30MK in the near zone will not fully exploit its capabilities. However, the advantages of the Russian aircraft are obvious. The heavy-class Su-30MK fighter can be detailed as a lead aircraft or group commander in the composition of combined aircraft groups to provide the cooperation and concentration of efforts, including those of light fighters, to accomplish assigned missions. Operating autonomously and presenting a long-range threat, the Su-30MK will dominate in any situation.IAF does not play any favouritism games and treats every type of aircraft individually. and how does it matter that MKI engine can be replace in 20 miniutes , if you must know it will obviously take more time to remove MKI engine because it being twin engine aircraft ( mirage being one )
and Radar of MKI and Mig29 are not taken out every week or very 14 days , it is only taken out when it time to overhaul the radar system

the fighter with the largest aperture size wins in this game - for instance the N011M has around twice the aperture size of the JSF AESA and F/A-18E/F's APG-79 and even with inferior TR module technology will be highly competitive. The Irbis-E is an evolution of the BARS design, but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, the noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kiloWatts. The radar is cited at an average power rating of 5 kiloWatts, with 2 kiloWatts CW rating for illumination. NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and better ECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS. A prototype has been in flight test since late 2005. The performance increase in the Irbis-E is commensurate with the increased transmitter rating, and NIIP claim a detection range for a closing 3 square metre coaltitude target of 190 - 215 NMI (350-400 km), and the ability to detect a closing 0.01 square metre target at ~50 NMI (90 km). In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targets simultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M. The Irbis-E was clearly designed to support the ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M missile in BVR combat against reduced signature Western fighters like the Block II Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Curiously, NIIP do not claim superiority over the F-22A's APG-77 AESA, yet their cited performance figures exceed the public (and no doubt heavily sanitised) range figures for the APG-77.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

 

[average american]

In the real world if Russia produced a steath plane tomorrow, which they cant it would be the first one they have ever built. the F35 will be 6th operational stealth plane the USA has built plus ten prototypes the US did not build plus generations of stealth drones. Think about how much problem India has had building the Kavil then think how difficult it would be to build a F22 or F35.

 

[p2prada]

Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

From what I seen the differances in pay for engineers in the field of electronics engineers in the US and India are not that much differance, and thats where the future lies in modern warfare, I am not sure of my data, how about giving me an idea of the pay scale in India vs USA. there are not going to be any minium wage jobs working on a PAK FA.

There is no concept of minimum wage in India. A regular Joe Indian software engineer in an American company based in India would earn $400-500 a month. If he is moved to the US for a 3 month duration then he would earn around $40 a day over his regular salary. Increments are based on experience and this is only in the private industry.

In the govt, after the new pay rules enacted recently, a regular Joe graduate can earn anywhere between $280 and $700 a month depending on his qualification. After 30 years of service he won't get paid more than $1500 a month.

All the top scientists working on PAKFA, ICBMs, tanks etc get paid the same($1500) without any exception. There is equality in a socialist govt.

In the US an engineering graduate gets paid $30000-40000 a year, that's $2500-$3300 a month and the increment is much faster. That's a difference of 5 times for an entry level in India. With a Masters degree the pay doubles or even triples depending on the field.

In the aeronautics field, Boeing pays between $40000 a year and $250000 a year to engineers with decent experience. So, that's anywhere between $3300(entry level) and $21000 a month. Program directors get paid more, in millions I assume. I can't find the exact amount but it is quite high. At least the senior engineers(maybe level 3) get paid 15 times more than our TOP MOST head honchos(and there are not many as compared to the US). Perhaps a difference of 1000 times if we compare Director level salaries in the US compared to India.
The Boeing Salary

CEO of Lockheed Martin, Robert Stevens was paid over $20Million a year. A similar "CEO" of DRDO gets paid $1500 a month or $18000 a year. A difference of 1111:1. So, now you get the point. Your top dog's salary is equal to the top salary of 1000 of our top dogs. That's how it rolls here.

 

[Armand2REP]

There is something wrong with F-22 stealth technology. The RAM coat makes people sick!!

 

[average american]

Re: Sukhoi PAK FA and FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft)

I think they have already deployed F35 to bases in Arizona, Florida, Utah and Vermont . As far as India is concerned maybe socialism explains a lot.....

 

[p2prada]

I think they have already deployed F35 to bases in Arizona, Florida, Utah and Vermont .

The first actual fighter configured F-35A is set to roll out in late 2018 or early 2019 and that's only IOC. Meaning you can fly it and train with it, but you can't go to a real war with it.

Actual combat prepped F-35 induction is after 2020 or 5 years after PAKFA achieves IOC. These are not fantasy numbers, these are the optimistic but speculative figures released by Lockheed Martin and USAF.

The deployed F-35s are for training only. The second biggest reason is to start building the F-35 quickly in order to keep it cheap. Eventually these aircraft can be upgraded in another expensive program to bring it to latest F-35 block standards after 2020.

The current situation is such that USAF, USN, USMC and LM aren't able to pinpoint a particular time to achieve IOC for all three versions, they are thinking in the lines of "it will come when it comes."

While I don't deny the aircraft is good, the program itself is in a lot of trouble over delays. So, no you won't get your precious UCAV by 2020, try 2030 or 2040. A UCAV meant to replace F-35s are not expected until 2040 anyway, because the F-35 will fly until 2050.

As far as India is concerned maybe socialism explains a lot.....

I am pretty sure you know nothing about it either. Anyway, it is Russia developing the PAKFA, not India.

 

[average american]

My understanding is the F35 will control or use packs of drones in future air wars.