Slashdot Mirror
India's First Stealth Fighter To Fly In 4 Months
xmpcray writes "Less than four months from now, India's first stealth fighter will fly for the first time. It is called the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, or FGFA, and is being developed in Russia by Sukhoi. Several of the technologies being developed for the stealth fighter have evolved from those used in the Sukhoi 30 MKI. Considered the most maneuverable fighter in the world, the Sukhoi 30 MKI uses thrust vectored engines, which deflect the exhaust from its engines to extreme angles, enabling the jet to pull off violent maneuvers like a flat spin — where the jet literally spins around on its axis."
That would be one way to mix a martini, yes.
The end of last year, a couple videos came out with an American F-15 pilot talking about what it was like going up against the Indian Air Force Su-30MKI. It was quite interesting, as the vectored thrust did offer additional maneuverability but it came at a cost. That isn't to say that this new jet and training wont overcome that advantage, but it was a glimpse into the world of air to air combat I don't think makes it out into the civilian world all that often. The clips were put up on youtube - I'll link to both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w
Basically if I understand it correctly the vectored thrust allowed them to turn, but they would lose airspeed and altitude in the process. As the fighter types say - speed is life - and once it happened they were apparently easy pickings. This FlightGlobal writeup about it may do a better job of explaining.
But I wonder is how much longer this will matter. The Lockheed video on their DAS for the F-35 pretty much asserts that the system makes maneuverability irrelevant. I realize that it's a vendor sales presentation, but at the same time I know off-bore-sight missiles are pretty much a done deal. Stealthiness helps some, but I doubt it would be enough as these systems keep improving. It seems soon the primary factor in air to air combat will be the quality of radar and missiles that are available.
When I bring this up with current military folks, they say they think rules of engagement will keep it from going that far. I can see that in situations where one side has complete air superiority - but if it comes to evenly matched sides, I think ROE will be out the window when sticking to it means losing. The whole thing is rather disconcerting as we seem to be developing better ways to kill just as quickly as all our other tech is advancing but I don't see leaps in our ability to live peacefully or get along keeping up with it all.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
A flat spin killed Goose.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
There's a pretty good software fix for combating stealth fighters. It involves radar information sharing between many radar sources. Take a little piece of the picture from many different radar sources, and share them, and someone's going to get enough of a picture to launch a missile at. Guess what the F-22 can do?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I was told that a flat spin was a bad thing.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Although I'd rather everybody were coming to American companies for such technology — rather than to Russia, as the Indians did for this fighter — a strong India is good for US.
Their values are the closest to ours in that neighborhood and it is good to have a counterweight to the ambitious China.
And, hey, maybe, the Indians will share some of the load world-wide, that Americans (and the British) are currently managing almost entirely on our own. Perhaps, people will even begin blaming them (and burn their flag), when they screw up...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And if no one can see them, that means they are extra stealthy.
It's certainly a lot cheaper than actually making them.
Am I the only one that looked at the thing and thought "it doesn't look very stealthy." No, I'm not talking about the paint. Just the fact that the intakes and some other features look like they are going to be big scatterers and contribute significantly to RCS. My understanding is that vectored thrust also has a significant thermal and radar signature... This sort of seems like Russia trying maintain prestige and credibility against F-22 with someone else conveniently picking up a big chunk of the tab. Then again, India is probably buying them to neutralize Pakastani F-16's, so it may be worth the investment in their minds. I'd have a hard time believing that these would give even F-15E's or Super Hornets a tough time.
Almost all new fighter jets (and indeed most military vehicles) incorporate stealth elements. It's one of the considerations you have when designing a combat aircraft these days. It would be unusual for an aircraft to be designed that WASN'T stealthy. "Stealth Fighter" is really just a term used by the media.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Vectored exhaust also allows for some incredible stunts. There's a video of a Russian jet flying backwards briefly. It gains a lot of forward speed, then uses the exhaust to flip over.
Long term, are manned aircraft going to be still used for air superiority?
Cost effectiveness might be a key factor. Drone aircraft don't need to be manufactured to fly for years and thousands of missions. They could be made just good enough to survive 10 to 100 or so sorties, with a 10% failure rate considered acceptable for the first mission. Drone operators could train using simulators and a small number of better quality drone aircraft. For the missions needing drones to loiter over an area for a prolonged period, a different model of drone would be used - you don't need high speed jet interceptors if the enemy has no aircraft left. Also, drones wouldn't need to have the dogfighting performance of an F-35. They could be slower and less maneueverable - but packed with missiles and with a radar system capable of defeating stealth aircraft.
Drone aircraft wouldn't need to be "recalled" or inspected. If a fault is found that might cause a crash, no point in fixing it unless the problem is severe. You could manufacture thousands of them and leave them stored in special packing canisters. Unpack a few every few years and use them testing them to get empirical measurements of average 'shelf life'.
I think that with these and other cost saving measures, you could probably manufacture 3 to 5 drone aircraft for the cost of one manned aircraft with similar capabilities. The MQ-9 Reaper is about 1/3 the cost of the Apache helicopter it supplants. As long as you could guarantee that the drones would always work despite enemy jamming (possible with mesh networking, phase array communication antenna and one time pad encryption, I think) then they would be the only game in town.
About all I can say about that is, you really don't know anything about India.
But since you think you know something about India... you'll never learn anything.
What the headline should say:
India will fly it's first Russian stealth fighter in four months.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
BRIC an economic bloc of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). There is already a great deal of co-operation between India and Russia, and India and China
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Something Lockheed makes makes India's planes' maneuverability(sic) irrelevant? How so?
I very much doubt that maneouverability will become irrelevant. The last time someone put all their trust in weaponry at the expense of maneouverability it did not go so well for them.
Why does it matter if it is "worse"? I get really tired of this more equivalence people try to pull. "Oh there were bad thugs in the past so that excuses this thug now!" No, it doesn't. NEITHER is excusable. Did the US do some bad shit in central america? You bet your ass. However that doesn't mean that it is a good thing that there are now people doing bad shit there that aren't associated with America. They are still thugs, still assholes.
I mean this would be like saying you can't criticize Bush for his spying on Americans because people like Putin, Kim Jong Il, and so on do it worse. Ummm, just because they do it worse doesn't make it ok.
What amazes me are the people suckered in by his "socialist" stance. The guy is NOT a socialist. He's a totalitarian thug. He just uses socialist propaganda to get power. However because he spews rhetoric people like, they completely overlook what he actually does.
The Indians and Russians may call it the"Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft" but they are wrong it will not be a 5th generation fighter. Simply put if you use the F-22 as a yardstick there is no other publicly disclosed aircraft that comes close to qualifying as a 5fth generation aircraft the closest you really get is generation 4.5. The F-35 dose not really even come close. A comparison would be the Seawolf ssn and the Virgina ssn. The Virgina class submarine was designed and built at a later point than the Seawolf. However you could easily say the Seawolf is a superior boat The Seawolf and the F-22 were designed to take The Russians at the hight of their power and after the USSRs failure there is no need/very little need for the top shelf equipment. So we are left with the F-35 and Virginia good in the own right but not nearly as bad-ass as the F-22 and The Seawolf. Yes I know the F-35 and F-22 fill different roles so a direct comparison is a little off, but there is a reason why we wont sell the 22 to any other nation not even our closes allies. So back to my point. This fighter will not be a 5th generation aircraft. There is a quick way to tell when a true 5th generation aircraft comes out that isnt from the USA. The US air force would probably triple the number of 22's that they purchase.
Which only worked because the Argentinians weren't very good. Against a proper adversary, slamming on the brakes in a fight is an extremely bad idea and will get you killed rapidly. As they say, speed is life. It doesn't really help all that much to be behind the other guy when he has a couple hundred knots on you and is zooming away.
That's an outrageous claim. The Argentineans were not bad pilots in fact considering their equipment and the ineptitude of some of their leaders they gave the Royal Navy a proper spanking. The Argentines would not have succeeded in inflicting such heavy losses on the Royal Navy if they were bad pilots. The British were plan lucky they didn't loose any carriers. These guys were flying from bases on mainland Argentina to the Falklands which was at the very limit's of their range. The Argentine strikers were laden down with bombs, they had no effective ECM assets and very few air to surface missiles which meant they had to go in with dumb bombs and that made them fairly easy meat for SAMs. Since they didn't have any escorts either they also suffered heavily at the hands of the Harriers. Any attempt by the Argentines to operate fighters over the islands failed because once they got there the supersonic Mirage couldn't use the considerable speed and power advantages it had over the subsonic Harriers (read: the Harrier had no afterburners and the Mirages couldn't use theirs) because if they had done that the MIrages would have run out of fuel before getting home. Effectively the Argentinean Mirage pilots had 10 minutes max over target area before they had to return to base. All of this gave the more maneuverable Harrier a huge advantage. If the junta had actually had the brains to land heavy construction equipment along with the initial invasion forces and extended the Port Stanley runway ASAP (which foreign observers considered to be the obvious thing to do) the boot would have been on the other foot since it would have allowed for the forward deployment a portion the sizable fleet of Argentine AF Mirage fighters to the Falklands and they would have had no performance or patrol time restrictions. It has been argued that extending the runway would have been impossible because of local conditions. However, the British extended the Port Stanley runway after the war to allow F-4 operations out of Port Stanley so that argument is BS.
You have a poor understanding of the systems.
Datalink is capable of two way communication, yes. But that is by no means it's main strength. It's main strength lies in it's ability to work with other aircraft, while one or more aircraft cruise undetected at a higher "stealthiness" level. They can get their data from other F22s, AWACS, ground stations, or other aircraft with similar systems once they come online.
So picture a CAP flight of four F-22s. Two are flying forward, with a 5-10 Nautical mile separation from the trailing pair of aircraft.
The lead planes are radio silent, they are on passive sensors only, and all the other features that make an F-22 as stealthy as possible are in use.
Meanwhile the two trailing aircraft are lit up like Christmas trees. Active radar, data link, talking to each other, talking to AWACS, ect, etc, etc.
The "stealthed" planes aren't blind. They have a composite of their passive sensors, the uplink from both of their flight mates, AWACS, and possibly dozens of data points. They don't *need* radar, they can see just as well without it, through the (for them) passive data link.
The flight sees a flight of four unfriendlys off somewhere and vectors to engage. The unfriendlys see this, and figuring they have numerical advantage turn to engage.
Meanwhile, the two aircraft they do see are cruising toward them nice and slow at say, 400 knots or so, while the two stealthy aircraft have gone supersonic. They're in weapons range before the enemy aircraft even know they exist. With a little luck, they're out of the sky before with know they exist too.
This is just one very simple, basic tactic that uses this concept. There are many more tactics you can build on this new technology.
As it comes into it's own, Air Forces will adapt, and come to expect these tactics, and they will have to evolve further. But it's still an edge.
To answer your point about the MiG-31: Data links have existed in American inventories for years as well. The F-22s use a new standard called Link 22, which replaces a roughly 10 year old standard called Link 16. Link 4 was introduced in the 1950s... But they've never been this mature, nor well integrated, or "smart". I don't know much about Russian MiG-31 data systems, but I believe you may be referring to the MiG-31BM variant. It's only about 10 years old, and exists in very few numbers. It's possible the Russians have had data link capability longer than that, but again, the existing of data links themselves are not what people who understand this plane are excited about.
Even so, the West has trailed behind the Soviets / Russians in other ways in the past. The passive sensor suites on the MiG 29 for example shocked western analysts when we finally got our hands on them. They weren't out of our capability to produce, but they far outstripped anything we had deployed. Vectored thrust is another area they've lead. The F-22 is the first serious production attempt at vectored thrust by the U.S., where the Russians have had several aircraft in production for years that utilize it.
All this is besides the point though. Data link is nice. Stealth is really nice. Having both in a well integrated package along with well trained pilots who understand how it works, who can coordinate attacks together to exploit it's advantages? That's a potential game changer.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Which axis? Probably the axis of evil for all the editor knows...
First, we had the shift from hunting/gathering to agriculture.
You know, its not always necessary to start at the beginning.....
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You overreach.
Technology will continue to be a giant advantage for the next 30 years or so, at least. I question your understanding of military technology portfolios.
World War I was a war of attrition. WWII, also, but to a lesser degree.
IT is not so predominant among the worlds' armies that it dominates. Understanding a technology doesn't mean the ability to solve engineering/production challenges, weaponize it, train troops, and then operate the new capability.
In fact, we are coming to a moment in time where the sophistication of our capabilities may render obsolete various styles of warfare. The "fog of war" is dying a slow death.
Actually, I'm sure that a flat spin would qualify more for 'stirred' than 'shaken'. You'll need to perform a multi-axis tumble in order to mix a really cool martini.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I worked on a modern SAM site for a couple of years as an operator (the guy who actually tracks the targets and pushes the fire button), so hear this.
Most SAM systems use a different radar to "identify" that a target exists in their missile engagement zone (you can identify these by their constantly rotating nature) and a different radar to actually track & lock a target. The tracking radar does not spin but rather follows the locked target as the target flies. Depending on the SAM system and technology, you CAN use multiple tracking radars for better triangulation and/or to combat ECM or other anti-tracking technologies. You can even use multiple fire batteries if they are spread far enough for even better than better triangulation. The caveat is that of all the fire batteries interconnected, only the Master battery can do this, the slaves can't. Additionally, the slave fire batteries must not be currently tracking and/or engaging other targets for this to work.
The importance of stealth technology is to remain unseen by the radar that identifies a valid signature in the sky and then passes the target to the tracking radar. If you are identified as an aircraft but can't be tracked by the tracking radar, then usually the target is assigned to airborne forces to intercept or ground small arms (including stinger missiles and manual tracking flak cannons). Remaining completely undetected is what stealth technology is all about.
The German gun was for firing at a relatively immobile target, commonly referred to as Paris.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That must be what they lost the Chandrayaan-1!
Somebody accidentally hit the prototype stealth button, and POW, satellite gone.
The F35 is a global project with several countries footing the development bill, and many US allies purchasing it for their own air forces...
Not only that, but some allies will be building it themselves. Turkey will produce most of their F-35's at their own factory, and Israel has expressed interest in doing the same thing.
The only stumbling block in exports seems to be the software code. The UK threatened to pull out of the program at one time because the US wouldn't completely share the source code. The Department of Defense thought the UK's export controls weren't strong enough, and that they'd end up sharing secrets with unauthorized countries.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I very much doubt that maneouverability will become irrelevant. The last time someone put all their trust in weaponry at the expense of maneouverability it did not go so well for them.
I've got an even more recent example for you of "technology X makes practice Y obsolete", and it also deals with fighter planes. In the late 50's, various eggheads in defense think tanks said that the era of dogfighting was over, that air to air missiles were all that mattered. They said turn rate, acceleration, energy manueverability, and guns were no longer factors. So the Navy didn't even put a canon in the F-4.
Ten years later, "obsolete" MiG-17's were shooting down F-4's, often armed with nothing more than a canon. Seems our missiles had a nasty habit of missing their targets, and then our pilots, with no dogfighting skills and no canons for close-combat, were getting chewed up by 20 year old fighters that had no missiles and no radar.
USAF put a canon in their version of the F-4, the Navy started Top Gun to teach dogfighting again, and in the wake of the Vietnam War, we took the lessons learned and produced the Teen series of fighters... the F-14, F-15, and soon after, the F-16 and F/A-18, the finest fighters ever made. The Vietnam experience also shaped the A-10, the best ground attack aircraft ever made, period.
And now... once again, we're tossing aside lessons hard-learned, and buying into the notion that a new technology will make dogfighting obsolete. The Navy and Marine Corps/Royal Navy versions of the F-35, once again, will not even include a built-in canon.
We never learn.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel