Sukhoi PAK FA

[Defcon 1]

Defcon 1 MCA was suppose to be a deep penetration and strike aircraft , but current trend of multirole capabilities eliminates the need for dedicated fighter jets, why to have only the bomber if you can have the added capabilities of air role.

I am not talking about a bomber. Ground attack aircrafts such as Rafale & Mig-27 can also perform A2A roles but are more capable in conducting strikes. We already have numerous air superiority planes. So shouldn't we think about developing the other kind as well since they are more useful in offensive missions??

 

[p2prada]

P2p, are you sure that LCA has the potential to perform the role of maintaining air superiority? As far I have read, it is meant for point defense role primarily. It is a cranked delta wing with a payload capacity of approximately 6 tonnes, typically in the domain of Gripen c/d and JF-17. Considering it's wing shape, it has limited low altitude subsonic combat capabilities, not good for a typical "knife fight" for fighter jocks. Awaiting your comments.

Yeah. I mentioned that in the "JF-17 obsolete" thread. LCA is bad at knife fights below 20000 feet.

It is a point defence fighter but IAF is categorizing it as an air superiority fighter. It will be good at high altitude knife fights, if the battle happens high up. It should perform very well over the Himalayas though. So, even terrain matters.

I fully understand the need of maintaining air superiority. But my question is why we are developing only one kind of aircraft?

Strike is a secondary capability in all. That does not mean they cannot do it.

We have two fifth gen fighter programs. Shouldn't we spread our capabilities??? AMCA for strike role and FGFA, being more advanced can be used for air superiority.

That will degrade capability like the American F-35. MCA was a strike aircraft like the F-35, IAF stepped in and had them convert it to an all aspect 5th gen air superiority design with secondary strike.

Su-30 MKI is already the most advanced fighter aircraft in whole of asia (Except for the Saudi Typhoons). Shouldn't we take this opportunity and focus on an area where we are behind?

It is not a competition.

Pakistan's anti-aircraft defences are more advanced than their Indian counterparts. shouldn't we make some efforts to negate it.

I don't think they are more advanced than we are. They don't even have a future plan of action like we do with AAD/PAD, LRSAM, MRSAM, LQRSAM etc.

I understand when you say that FGFA & AMCA will be able to penetrate ground defences. But there should be some reason that strike aircrafts are still in service with all major airforces of the world.

We do have a need for strike aircraft. Rafale can handle strike and so can AMCA, both will replace Mig-27 and Jaguar. It is just that both aircraft have taken the more expensive option of being air superiority first.

Other air forces may not be able to afford what we can, so they will have to make do with one dedicated platform.

More importantly all our aircraft will be Multirole, not simply air superiority like the F-15C/Su-27. Air superiority has more preference than strike that's all.

UAVs like AURA will conduct dedicated strike.

 

[Payeng]

I am not talking about a bomber. Ground attack aircrafts such as Rafale & Mig-27 can also perform A2A roles but are more capable in conducting strikes. We already have numerous air superiority planes. So shouldn't we think about developing the other kind as well since they are more useful in offensive missions??

Bomber as in tactical strike or strategic capabilities? What are the added features required more then a regular multi role capable machine.

 

[Defcon 1]

Bomber as in tactical strike or strategic capabilities? What are the added features required more then a regular multi role capable machine.

AFAIK, there is nothing like a true multirole aircraft. Multirole aircrafts are of two types:

1. Fighter-Bomber: Basically fighters which can drop bombs. Air Superiority.

2. Strike-Fighter: Ground Attack aircraft which are also equipped with A2A missiles.

All our current developments are of fighter-bombers which are more suited to A2A roles. Which brings me to my question that when we are developing two different 5th gen planes why aren't we using the opportunity to expand our capabilities build aircrafts which are more suited to our cold-start doctrine??

 

[p2prada]

AFAIK, there is nothing like a true multirole aircraft. Multirole aircrafts are of two types:

1. Fighter-Bomber: Basically fighters which can drop bombs. Air Superiority.

2. Strike-Fighter: Ground Attack aircraft which are also equipped with A2A missiles.

All our current developments are of fighter-bombers which are more suited to A2A roles. Which brings me to my question that when we are developing two different 5th gen planes why aren't we using the opportunity to expand our capabilities build aircrafts which are more suited to our cold-start doctrine??

Cold start needs air superiority fighters, CAS aircraft and gunships, not strike fighters. The air superiority fighters can take over the role of strike when necessary.

Jaguar is not a dedicated CAS fighter, but it does very well at low altitudes. Rafale will take that role in the future and so will AMCA.

A single role strike fighter is not necessary when we have UCAVs being developed. AURA can carry two large bombs internally, that's plenty for all purposes. AURA is bigger, can carry more and maybe even fly farther than LCA, more of a F-16 class strike capable UCAV.

In the future we can expect AURA and more advanced UCAVs to handle most of our strike needs at FEBA(Forward Edge of Battlefield Area). PAKFA and AMCA will handle DPS missions, maybe even that is not required if UCAVs improve. Strike missions carry more risk than regular air to air missions.

 

[Payeng]

AFAIK, there is nothing like a true multirole aircraft. Multirole aircrafts are of two types:

1. Fighter-Bomber: Basically fighters which can drop bombs. Air Superiority.

2. Strike-Fighter: Ground Attack aircraft which are also equipped with A2A missiles.

All our current developments are of fighter-bombers which are more suited to A2A roles. Which brings me to my question that when we are developing two different 5th gen planes why aren't we using the opportunity to expand our capabilities build aircrafts which are more suited to our cold-start doctrine??

I think its not the missiles but the aircraft capabilities that makes the basis of Air superiority or interceptor, like maneuverability and climb rates, no doubt missiles are an integral part of it, when those air combat aircraft are also tailored to drop bombs or attack surface targets their role exceeds more then mere air dominance , bombers equipped with A2A missiles will have limited aerial warfare capabilities but may not perform air superiority due to various limiting factors and performance, while most current generation fighters have secondary ground attack capabilities, a modern fighter bomber concept stressing the need of primary ground attack capabilities are fast fading away due to various level of threats from both surface and air, What if you load the aircraft with all ground strike weapons, what may have fall short in it compared to a dedicated bomber configuration?

 

[Defcon 1]

I think its not the missiles but the aircraft capabilities that makes the basis of Air superiority or interceptor, like maneuverability and climb rates, no doubt missiles are an integral part of it, when those air combat aircraft are also tailored to drop bombs or attack surface targets their role exceeds more then mere air dominance , bombers equipped with A2A missiles will have limited aerial warfare capabilities but may not perform air superiority due to various limiting factors and performance, while most current generation fighters have secondary ground attack capabilities, a modern fighter bomber concept stressing the need of primary ground attack capabilities are fast fading away due to various level of threats from both surface and air, What if you load the aircraft with all ground strike weapons, what may have fall short in it compared to a dedicated bomber configuration?

I would have agreed with your claim if USAF was not inducting 187 air dominance fighters (F22) and over 2400 strike fighters (F35)

 

[Defcon 1]

Yeah. I mentioned that in the "JF-17 obsolete" thread. LCA is bad at knife fights below 20000 feet.

It is a point defence fighter but IAF is categorizing it as an air superiority fighter. It will be good at high altitude knife fights, if the battle happens high up. It should perform very well over the Himalayas though. So, even terrain matters.



Strike is a secondary capability in all. That does not mean they cannot do it.



That will degrade capability like the American F-35. MCA was a strike aircraft like the F-35, IAF stepped in and had them convert it to an all aspect 5th gen air superiority design with secondary strike.



It is not a competition.



I don't think they are more advanced than we are. They don't even have a future plan of action like we do with AAD/PAD, LRSAM, MRSAM, LQRSAM etc.



We do have a need for strike aircraft. Rafale can handle strike and so can AMCA, both will replace Mig-27 and Jaguar. It is just that both aircraft have taken the more expensive option of being air superiority first.

Other air forces may not be able to afford what we can, so they will have to make do with one dedicated platform.

More importantly all our aircraft will be Multirole, not simply air superiority like the F-15C/Su-27. Air superiority has more preference than strike that's all.

UAVs like AURA will conduct dedicated strike.

I don't understand why do you think that F35 has degraded capabilities. Kindly clarify.

Arms race is always a competition. What I am saying is that we are already ahead of Pakistan & China vis-a-vis Air superiority. Also we have FGFA & Tejas in the pipeline. So shouldn't we try to expand our capabilties.

Also I don't agree that strike fighters are not useful enough. If that was the case, USAF wouldn't be inducting 2400 F35. They are doing it since they know that they already have achieved air dominance in the form of F22. Similarly we will have FGFA for air superiority.

Pakistan's current OPERATIONAL air defences are better than us. The weapons you are talking about will only be inducted in the future.

Also I don't think Jaguar will be replaced anytime soon. Last I heard, they were being upgraded with Honeywell engine. It makes no sense to dump an aircraft just after upgrading it.

 

[Payeng]

I would have agreed with your claim if USAF was not inducting 187 air dominance fighters (F22) and over 2400 strike fighters (F35)

F-35 multi role, cheap to purchase,maintain and fly the the F-22, moreover F-35 is expected to generate business while F-22 is highly confidential and export is prohibited by law of the land. F-35 was designed for 3 types of roles Air force variant, carrier variant and VOTL/STOVL in mind, while F-22 was designed to realise state of the art technology and maintaining an upper edge in fighter jet capabilities and gaining dominance in airspace, even F-22 can be designed to drop bombs but program halted due to cost concern, well you wont risk that multi million dollar machine to earn cheap artillery shots when you can do without. F-22 cost a fortune to waste it in ground fire or as the US think it is.

 

[Defcon 1]

F-35 multi role, cheap to purchase,maintain and fly the the F-22, moreover F-35 is expected to generate business while F-22 is highly confidential and export is prohibited by law of the land. F-35 was designed for 3 types of roles Air force variant, carrier variant and VOTL/STOVL in mind, while F-22 was designed to realise state of the art technology and maintaining an upper edge in fighter jet capabilities and gaining dominance in airspace, even F-22 can be designed to drop bombs but program halted due to cost concern, well you wont risk that multi million dollar machine to earn cheap artillery shots when you can do without. F-22 cost a fortune to waste it in ground fire or as the US think it is.

I understand. My point was that since USAF is inducting a large number of strike fighters, your claim that the need of aircrafts with ground attack as primary capability is fading does not hold true.

 

[p2prada]

I don't understand why do you think that F35 has degraded capabilities. Kindly clarify.

Simple. It is not as air to air capable as it should be.

Arms race is always a competition. What I am saying is that we are already ahead of Pakistan & China vis-a-vis Air superiority. Also we have FGFA & Tejas in the pipeline. So shouldn't we try to expand our capabilties.

It all depends on requirements. If it was a competition we are way ahead of the PAF and technologically ahead of the PLAAF. We aren't looking for export success as of today. The kind of competition you mentioned is for large corporations. We won't be selling fighters until after 2020.

Also I don't agree that strike fighters are not useful enough. If that was the case, USAF wouldn't be inducting 2400 F35. They are doing it since they know that they already have achieved air dominance in the form of F22. Similarly we will have FGFA for air superiority.

They seem to be regretting it, but are going ahead with the decision anyway. F-35 is like the F-16. It does well in the subsonic regime. Both have been designed for dog fights, not for BVR combat. But the capabilities are enough for BVR engagement.

F-35 is multirole and many F-35s will replace F-15s. The reason why they are going ahead with such a decision is because they believe there is no other country which can challenge the US even if F-35s are used for air superiority.

Even if J-20 and PAKFA achieve kinematic superiority over F-22 and avionics superiority over F-35, the numbers being inducted will not be matched by American F-35 procurements. They had this twisted belief that maneuverability is no longer relevant because they believe in employing missiles and directed energy weapons, where the radar acts like a laser.

It is simple, they fvked up the entire program and there is no going back. Nevertheless the F-35 is still top of the line.

American requirements are different from IAF, VVS or PLAAF. They need an air force capable of running operations in other parts of the world while other air forces have their fights close to their respective borders.

It is more important for IAF to control the air than bomb the enemy on the ground.

Pakistan's current OPERATIONAL air defences are better than us. The weapons you are talking about will only be inducted in the future.

Not really. Both air forces and armies have obsolete systems. They won't do much against most of our upgraded and high end systems. Both have a very small number of modern SAMs. Their latest system is SPADA 2000 which is equivalent to AKASH. We have SPYDER as a QRSAM, they have none. PA and PAF had plans for HQ-9, but nothing has materialized to date.

Also I don't think Jaguar will be replaced anytime soon. Last I heard, they were being upgraded with Honeywell engine. It makes no sense to dump an aircraft just after upgrading it.

AMCA will come in the 2025-30 period. That's the time Jaguars will go. Rafale is replacing Mig-27s for now.

 

[Defcon 1]

Simple. It is not as air to air capable as it should be.



It all depends on requirements. If it was a competition we are way ahead of the PAF and technologically ahead of the PLAAF. We aren't looking for export success as of today. The kind of competition you mentioned is for large corporations. We won't be selling fighters until after 2020.



They seem to be regretting it, but are going ahead with the decision anyway. F-35 is like the F-16. It does well in the subsonic regime. Both have been designed for dog fights, not for BVR combat. But the capabilities are enough for BVR engagement.

F-35 is multirole and many F-35s will replace F-15s. The reason why they are going ahead with such a decision is because they believe there is no other country which can challenge the US even if F-35s are used for air superiority.

Even if J-20 and PAKFA achieve kinematic superiority over F-22 and avionics superiority over F-35, the numbers being inducted will not be matched by American F-35 procurements. They had this twisted belief that maneuverability is no longer relevant because they believe in employing missiles and directed energy weapons, where the radar acts like a laser.

It is simple, they fvked up the entire program and there is no going back. Nevertheless the F-35 is still top of the line.

American requirements are different from IAF, VVS or PLAAF. They need an air force capable of running operations in other parts of the world while other air forces have their fights close to their respective borders.

It is more important for IAF to control the air than bomb the enemy on the ground.



Not really. Both air forces and armies have obsolete systems. They won't do much against most of our upgraded and high end systems. Both have a very small number of modern SAMs. Their latest system is SPADA 2000 which is equivalent to AKASH. We have SPYDER as a QRSAM, they have none. PA and PAF had plans for HQ-9, but nothing has materialized to date.



AMCA will come in the 2025-30 period. That's the time Jaguars will go. Rafale is replacing Mig-27s for now.

All right. I will sign off after one final question.

You said it is more important to control the air. Agreed. Tell me what additional capabilities will the AMCA offer which are not offered by LCA or Su-30 or FGFA???

My concern is that we might face a problem of having surplus aircraft for one role and inadequate number for other.

 

[p2prada]

All right. I will sign off after one final question.

You said it is more important to control the air. Agreed. Tell me what additional capabilities will the AMCA offer which are not offered by LCA or Su-30 or FGFA???

My concern is that we might face a problem of having surplus aircraft for one role and inadequate number for other.

LCA and Su-30 are 4th gen aircraft. FGFA is a 5th gen high end fighter. AMCA is a 5th gen low end fighter. It will be cheaper to operate than the FGFA, provide complementary capability to FGFA's air dominance role and still carry out the strike role. It will be our own fighter.

By, say 2030, we will have anywhere between 1000-1500 air superiority fighters which will double up as strike fighters. So, we won't be lacking for strike fighters when the need arises.

UCAVs will dominate the strike role in the future. Only extremely important targets will be engaged by manned fighters or manned fighters may physically direct UCAVs towards such targets.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Here is an extract from a technical paper from Ufa State Aviation University (Уфа: УГАТУ) regarding the development of the next generation engine (by referring to the "fifth generation engine"- it is, by all accounts, referring to the PAK-FA stage 2 engine in all but name), dated 2008:

QUOTE:

Разработка двигателя нового поколения требует создания и использования новых материалов с высокой удельной прочностью —композиционных материалов (КМ) на металлической матрице. ВФГУП НПП «Мотор» отрабатывались вопросы разработки лопаток компрессора из КМ (B-Mg), проводились обширные экспериментальные исследования по оценке механических характеристик КМ на образцах и моделях лопаток при разных видах нагружения и обеспечения эксплуатационных свойств материала"¦

...В двигателестроении России приоритетными являются такие задачи, как модернизация двигателей 4++ и создание научно-технического задела для разработки двигателей пятого поколения.

Development of the next-generation engine requires the creation and use of new materials with high specific strength, composite materials (cm) on a metal matrix. VFGUP NPP Motor undertook the development of compressor blades from composite materials (Mg-B), carried out extensive experimental study on evaluation of the mechanical characteristics of the samples and models of fan blades with different types of loading and operating characteristics of the material"¦

...the Russian aircraft engine industry has prioritised tasks such as upgrading engines of 4++ (generation) and the establishment of scientific and technological solutions to develop fifth-generation engines.
http://www.ugatu.ac.ru/publish/vu/stat/UGATU-2008-2(29)/07.pdf

So what they're talking about is developing a fan-blade composed of what they call 'Meta-Composites', in this case a magnesium matrix reinforced with boron-carbon fibre composite. This would replace the Titanium superalloy 1st stage of the compressor.



Here is a Chinese technical paper on magnesium (Mg) alloys which it describes as possessing "special radar-absorption characteristics, low density and high rigidity"¦".
Quote:

В ОАО «НПП «Мотор» создана рабочая лопатка первой ступени ком-
прессора ГТД на основе магниевой матрицы, армированной борными и углеродными волокнами.

OAO "NPP" Motor " have established a working fan-blade of the [engine] compressor's first stage based on a magnesium matrix, reinforced boron (Mg-B) and carbon fibre composite.
http://www.ugatu.ac.ru/science/dissov/d5/27.04.12/nusratullin_avtoreferat.pdf

So it appears to be a very high-tech and elegant solution, also involved in composite fan blade development are FGUP TsIAM and FGUP VIAM (ФГУП ЦИАМ & ФГУП ВИАМ), these are big on nanotech, so I guess the final composition will be very interesting indeed!

COURTESY :JO ASAKURA
THANK U FOR THE INFO MATE

 

[bhramos]

I haven't seen any canard in t50....!!!

what are they called!!!!

 

[Payeng]

LERX -Lead Edge Root Extention

 

[p2prada]

LERX aren't exactly as movable as the ones on PAKFA or N-LCA. What they are really called are LEVCONS. I think credit would go to ADA for the name, but I am not sure.

LEVCON= Leading Edge Vortex CONtroller.

PAKFA and N-LCA are the first aircraft with LEVCONs. These are linked to the aircraft's FBW system. Regular LERX can be found on aircraft like Hornet, SH, JF-17 etc.

 

[hit&run]

LERX aren't exactly as movable as the ones on PAKFA or N-LCA. What they are really called are LEVCONS. I think credit would go to ADA for the name, but I am not sure.

LEVCON= Leading Edge Vortex CONtroller.

PAKFA and N-LCA are the first aircraft with LEVCONs. These are linked to the aircraft's FBW system. Regular LERX can be found on aircraft like Hornet, SH, JF-17 etc.

What advantage or functionality they offer ?

Thanks

 

[bhramos]

What advantage or functionality they offer ?

Thanks

thanks for asking my qyuestion bro......

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What advantage or functionality they offer ?

Thanks

Pak-fa have movable LERX ( Leading edge root extensions ) i.e 'LEVCON', Sukhoi is calling it a Movable Leading Edge (Podvizhnaya Chast Naplyva), These moveable LERX i.e 'LEVCON', work much like canards. These surfaces can rotate downwards around their rear edge. Similar to wing slats, they are rotated to assist control in high angles of attack (close to 90deg.) by reducing the exposed area to the direction of flight and also preserving lift by turning the influx over the fuselage (in a similar manner where slats have the same effect to the wing). These rotary parts shade the main engine inlets but there are auxiliary inlets at the sidewalls of the inlet tunnels where air can flow in avoiding restrictions.

------------------------------------------------------------

And Indeed its Canards create additional radar-reflecting area. A LERX, while providing many of the benefits of canards (additional lift, additional maneuverability) are less observable in the radio spectrum.

The additional benefit of this particular LERX design is that it may be able to serve as an additional intake ramp, to slow down the air hitting the engine compressor face from supersonic to subsonic speeds. Aircraft with more than one intake ramp generally slow down air more efficiently, which means that they are faster than other aicraft.