Fifth Generation Fighter Pics 1

Mistral blowback. India forgets France’s $22 billion Rafale fighter jet deal and pivots to Russian 5th generation fighter jet, $25 billion deal

The Times of India is reporting that India is ready to seal a big project with Russia for the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).

By alexrpt @redpilltimes Mar 09, 2015

 

With each passing day, France’s blockbuster $22 billion Rafale fighter jet deal with India dies another death.

Western main stream media says very little about the blowback from Hollande’s disastrous Mistral pullback with Russia.
Their silence may have to do with the fact that Hollande’s decision to break off, the paid in full, Mistral ship deal with Russia has not only lead to India’s hesitation to do business with France’s Military Industrial Complex, but the country that will now be handling India’s massive fighter jet order is non other than Russia. Karma!
How big of a loss is this for Hollande, and how big of a win is this for Putin…let’s put it into perspective.

• By not delivering the Mistral ships, France will have to return the $1.45 billion (already paid for) back to Russia.
• France’s reputation as a trusted military arms provider has been irreparably damaged. Hollande cowered to pressure from Washington and failed to honor a contractual business agreement.
• India, seeing that France cannot be trusted to conduct business in good faith and with sovereignty, is now pulling back from a massive  $22 billion Rafale fighter jet deal with France.
• The money allocated to the French industrial complex will now go to Russia’s military industrial complex.

Russia may have lost two Mistral Helicopter ships, but it will get it’s $1.45 billion back from France, plus another cool $25 billion deal with India. Who is isolated again?

ITAR TASS Reports…

“Faced with continuing deadlock in the mega deal to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters, India is now pressing the throttle to seal the even bigger project with Russia for the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA),” the newspaper wrote.
“India will overall spend around $25 billion on the FGFA project if it goes ahead with its plan to induct 127 such fighters, as earlier reported by TOI.
Meanwhile, India is ready to forego the earlier plan for a 50:50 design and work-share agreement with Russia on its under-development FGFA called PAK-FA or Sukhoi T-50.”
The PAK FA – “Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation” – is a fifth-generation fighter program of the Russian Air Force. The T-50 is the aircraft designed by Sukhoi for the PAK FA program. The aircraft is a single-seat, twin-engine jet fighter, and will be the first operational aircraft in Russian service to use stealth technology. It is a multirole combat aircraft designed for the air superiority and ground attack functions. It combines supercruise, stealth, manoeuvrability, and advanced avionics to overcome previous generation fighter aircraft along with many ground and maritime defences.
The PAK FA is intended to be the successor to the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian Air Force and serve as the basis for the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) being co-developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force. The T-50 prototype first flew on 29 January 2010 and production aircraft is slated for delivery to the Russian Air Force starting in 2016. The prototypes and initial production batch will be delivered with a highly upgraded variant of the AL-31F used by the Su-27 family as interim engines while a new clean-sheet design powerplant is currently under development. The aircraft is expected to have a service life of up to 35 years.

References:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/781741

Fifth generation fighter crosses mileston

• Vladimir Radyuhin

India and Russia have crossed the first milestone towards the development of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), completing the preliminary design of the plane.

“The preliminary design contract (PDC) for the Russian-Indian fifth generation aircraft has been executed,” Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft company announced on Wednesday.

The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) signed the $295-million PDC contract in December 2010 with the Sukhoi company, which is responsible in Russia for developing the PAK-FA (perspective aviation complex-frontline aircraft), as the FGFA is called in Russia.

“The aircraft design has been fully developed,” Sukhoi said in a press release. “Both parties have agreed upon on the amount and division of work during the research and development (R&D) stage. A contract for the R&D is being prepared. It is to be signed this year.”

Under the PDC contract Sukhoi has also trained Indian engineers and provided HAL with the data and software needed to create a single working environment. A team of HAL engineers and IAF experts has been working at Sukhoi’s design bureau in Moscow, while Russian engineers have been assigned to HAL.

Four T-50 aircraft, the Russian prototype of the fifth generation fighter, have already performed more than 200 test flights since January 2010.

The customised FGFA version will have “some differences” from the Russian prototype to meet “specific requirements of the Indian Air Force,” the Sukhoi announcement said.

Russian experts said the FGFA will differ in “mission hardware and software,” as well as weapons. India has dropped its initial plan to redesign the single-seat T-50 into a twin-seat version.

Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne told reporters at Aero India-2013 that India is to receive from Russia the first prototype of the fifth-generation fighter in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2018. The FGFA is expected to go into series production by 2022.

This is India’s biggest-ever defence project and its largest defence deal with Russia. It is expected to cost India more than $30 billion. However, last year India scaled down its original plan to acquire 214 planes by one-third, to 144 aircraft, citing time and cost factors. Russia plans to induct 60 planes at an estimated price tag of $100 million per aircraft. 

 

 

Keywords: Russia, Sukhoi, Fighter aircraft, Fifth generation fighter, Prototype

 


 
















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exposed: Why Is Britain's Military Back in the Pacific?

Dave Majumdar

January 9, 2016

inShare1

While the sun may have set on the British Empire, the United Kingdom is once again ramping up its presence in Asia with the announcement of new military cooperation with Japan. The renewed British focus on the region comes even as London makes efforts to build greater economic ties with Beijing.
According to the UK Ministry of Defense (MOD), the British would like to increase defense industrial cooperation with Japan. The UK also wants to pursue joint exercises with Japan—which could include a 2016 Royal Air Force (RAF) deployment of Eurofighter Typhoon air superiority fighters to the island nation.
“Japan is our closest security partner in Asia and I want to significantly deepen defense cooperation between our two nations,” British defense secretary Michael Fallon in a Jan. 8 statement. “We will do that through joint exercises, reciprocal access to our military bases, military personnel exchanges and cooperation on equipment, including a new air-to-air missile.”
Britain and Japan are most interested in cooperating on cyber-warfare and developing a new long-range air-to-air missile that would be a generation ahead of the MBDA Meteor or the AIM-120D AMRAAM. The aging AMRAAM—which is used by both countries—is soon going to be outranged by China’s PL-15 and is very vulnerable to enemy digital radio frequency memory jamming.
“Following the success of the first round of talks on the Co-operative Research Project on the Feasibility of a Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM), the Ministers confirmed discussions would move to the second stage,” the MOD statement read. Japan has also had some discussions with U.S. defense officials and industry about developing an AMRAAM successor.
On the cyber-warfare front, Japan and Britain are strengthening information sharing and cooperation. “It was also confirmed that the two nations intend to conduct a joint research project in 2016 with UK-U.S.-Japan military cyber analysts and are aiming to conduct joint cyber exercises with Japan,” the MOD statement reads.
The British government also believes that it could also cooperate with Japan on mine hunting, improving amphibious capability and improving counter-Improvised Explosive Device capabilities. The UK also welcomes increased Japanese participation in NATO exchanges and joint exercises, the MOD stated.
At the same time, the British government affirmed its support for Tokyo’s recent efforts to reinterpret its pacifist constitution to permit a wider definition of self-defense. “The UK welcomed Japan’s recent Legislation for Peace and Security, and supported Japan playing a more proactive role in securing global peace, stability and prosperity through its policy of ‘Proactive Contribution to Peace’ based on the principle of international cooperation,” reads the MOD statement.
The Japanese, for their part, expressed their relief that Britain is once again playing a more active role in the Asia-Pacific region.
“Last year, the UK published the SDSR [Strategic Defense and Security Review]. In this, the UK reaffirmed its commitment to its presence as a global power,” said Japanese minister of defense Gen Nakatani in a statement. “The SDSR highlighted Japan as the closest security partner in Asia, and I highly regard this statement. In the same year, we have reformed our legislation concerning peace and security. Through these processes, our two nations have confirmed the further commitment of the stability of the world.”
It’s not clear how China will react to the news of this cooperation, but given the antipathy between China and Japan, it is not likely to be openly welcomed.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/SAC Scott Lewis/MOD.

Revealed: China's Lethal Low-Cost Fighter Goes Global

Dave Majumdar

January 8, 2016

inShare54

Beijing and Islamabad have officially signed on their first export customers for the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) JF-17 Thunder—which is also known as the FC-1 Xiaolong in its native China. Nigeria and Sri Lanka are set to become the first customers for the Chinese jet.
According to Nigeria’s Punch, the oil-rich African nation expects to buy three JF-17 in 2016. “Giving details of the weapons to be acquired for the operation of the Navy, the fiscal document states that the sum of N5bn ($25 million) is budgeted for the procurement of three JF-17 Thunder multirole combat aircraft,” the paper reported citing a leaked budget document.
Meanwhile, Defense News reveals that Sri Lanka has sign on to buy an initial eight JF-17 jets during Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif's three-day visit to Colombo. News of the deal is likely to be met with fury from India, which has been actively discouraging its neighbor from forging stronger defense links with Islamabad and Beijing. The JF-17 would be used to replace a portion of Sri Lanka’s existing fleet of Chengdu F-7s, Israeli Kfirs and Soviet-built MiG-27 strike aircraft.
The JF-17’s success on the export market thus far reveals that there is demand for a low-end, low-cost fighter aircraft that is build without U.S. components—which are subject to Washington’s export controls. It’s a part of the fighter market that has largely been ceded by Western manufacturers who are focusing their efforts on extremely expensive high-end combat aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale.
Even most current Russian offerings such as the Sukhoi Su-30SM and Su-35S are too expensive for many nations. Meanwhile, the only semi-affordable Western offering is the Saab Gripen—which has an American-built engine, and therefore is subject to the same export controls. That means for a nation like Sri Lanka—with its developing economy that is subject to U.S. export restrictions—an aircraft like the JF-17 is ideal.
The JF-17—especially the early Block 1 model—is a basic low-cost fighter aircraft. A Russian-made Klimov RD-93 engine producing roughly 19,000lbs of thrust powers the aircraft, which gives it a max speed of Mach 1.6. The airframe offers an eight g-force capability, which combined with the PL-9C high off-boresight missile gives the aircraft decent capability within visual range. It is equipped with the Chinese-built KLJ-7 radar, which is compatible with the PL-12 active radar-guided missile and affords the jet beyond-visual-range capability.
The improved Block 2 version of the jet has in-flight refueling capability and improved avionics. A third Block 3 variant is also under development, allegedly with a Chinese-built active electronically scanned array radar, helmet-mounted cueing system, an infrared search and track system and a host of new weapons. The improved variant might also replace the Russian-made RD-93 with a Chinese Guizhou WS-13—assuming China manages to complete development of that engine.
The Chinese are developing the jet incrementally—upgrading the plane over time with new avionics and weapons—which is a smart move. But the JF-17 will never be a world-beating fighter. It may not even be a good fighter—it’s designed for the low-end of the market. But it is designed to be “good enough” for nations that need decent capability that won’t break the bank. But the jet is in production after a relatively quick development cycle, it is being built in significant numbers and is more than competitive with its nearest potential adversary. In that respect, the program is a success, especially if China can find more buyers. AVIC anticipates a market for at least 300 JF-17 Thunder fighters.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Eric Salard.

The U.S. Navy’s Bold Plan to Unite F-35s With Refueling Drones

Dave Majumdar

February 5, 2016

inShare21

The Pentagon has ordered the U.S. Navy to convert its Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft into a robotic ship-based aerial refueling tanker. The new unmanned tanker program is the Navy’s solution to extend the range of its carrier air wings to strike deep inside heavily defended airspace—such as sites in Russia, China and elsewhere deep within Eurasia.
While the Pentagon’s move quashes the dreams of many in Congress, Washington think tanks and the defense industry who had hoped for a new long-range unmanned carrier-based stealth bomber, the new Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) program had been foreshadowed for at least three years.
Indeed, in late 2013, the U.S. Navy’s director of air warfare, Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, had explicitly told me that the UCLASS would be optimized to extend the range of the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter. “We’re going to put a refueling capability into them and they’ll have an endurance package in them,” Manazir said. “They’ll be able to give away something like 20,000 lbs. of gas and still stay up for seven-and-a-half hours.”
At the time, Manazir had said that the UCLASS would be very large aircraft—about the size of a Grumman F-14 Tomcat interceptor—that would be able to fly for more than fourteen hours. “We’re talking about a 70,000- to 80,000-pound airplane,” Manazir had said. “We’re talking [Grumman F-14] Tomcat size.”
As such, the basic premise behind the unmanned CBARS program is that it would be able to extend the range of the carrier’s air wing. Right now, the Navy’s carrier air wings have to rely on the U.S. Air Force’s “big wing” tankers like the KC-135 or KC-10. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets can also be used as “buddy refuelers” when loaded up in a so-called “five wet” configuration—however, that eats up the jet’s airframe life quickly. The CBARS would free the Super Hornets up for their strike fighter role while reducing the air wing’s dependence on Air Force assets.
While the Pentagon has not explicitly come out and said it, the CBARS—or a variant of that airframe—might also be used as a missile caddy to help defend the carrier under the Naval Integrated Fire Control–Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct similar to the Pentagon’s arsenal plane. Indeed, Manazir had suggested that the UCLASS could be used as a flying missile magazine for the Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye or a F-35C flight leader. “Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,” Manazir said. “So this unmanned truck goes downtown with—as far as it can go—with a decision-maker.”
As such, it might also be used to haul long-range networked weapons within the NIFC-CA construct alongside the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Growler. Under Manazir’s plan, the stealthy F-35C—whose range would be extended by the CBARS/UCLASS—would fly deep inside enemy territory and act as a flying sensor node. It would use its sensors to identify targets, rely that data back to the shooters (F/A-18E/Fs, EA-18Gs, surface warships and submarines), and then provide terminal-weapons guidance and battle-damage assessments using an advanced tactical datalink. “Let’s say we’re in an anti-access environment and we’re going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside,” Manazir had said. “He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us.”
Effectively, Manazir described in detail back in 2013 what is transpiring in the Navy’s plans now. No one should have been surprised that the UCLASS has morphed into a tanker, or that the Pentagon is buying more F-35Cs or F/A-18s—Manazir spelled out the plan more than two years ago in detail.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Flickr/U.S. Navy.

Revealed: How to Kill a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Dave Majumdar

February 23, 2016

inShare77

The United States has poured ten of billions of dollars into developing fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, relatively simple signal processing enhancements, combined with a missile with a large warhead and its own terminal guidance system, could potentially allow low-frequency radars and such weapons systems to target and fire on the latest generation U.S. aircraft.
It is a well-known fact within Pentagon and industry circles that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and track low-observable aircraft. It has generally been held that such radars can’t guide a missile onto a target—i.e. generate a “weapons quality” track. But that is not exactly correct—there are ways to get around the problem according to some experts.
Traditionally, guiding weapons with low frequency radars has been limited by two factors. One factor is the width of the radar beam, while the second is the width of the radar pulse—but both limitations can be overcome with signal processing.
The width of the beam is directly related to the design of the antenna—which is necessarily large because of the low frequencies involved. Early low-frequency radars like the Soviet-built P-14 Tall King VHF-band radars was enormous in size and used a semi-parabolic shape to limit the width of the beam. Later radars like the P-18 Spoon Rest used a Yagi-Uda array—which were lighter and somewhat smaller. But these early low frequency radars had some serious limitations in determining the range and the precise direction of a contact. Furthermore, they could not determine altitude because the radar beams produced by these systems are several degrees wide in azimuth and tens of degrees wide in elevation.
Another traditional limitation of VHF and UHF-band radars is that their pulse width is long and they have a low pulse repetition frequency [PRF]—which means such systems are poor at accurately determining range. As Mike Pietrucha, a former Air Force an electronic warfare officer who flew on the McDonnell Douglas F-4G Wild Weasel and Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle once described to me, a pulse width of twenty microseconds yields a pulse that is roughly 19,600 ft long—range resolution is half the length of that pulse.  That means that range can’t be determined accurately within 10,000 feet. Furthermore, two targets near one another can’t be distinguished as separate contacts.
Signal processing partially solved the range resolution problem as early as in the 1970s. The key is a process called frequency modulation on pulse, which is used to compress a radar pulse. The advantage of using pulse compression is that with a twenty-microsecond pulse, the range resolution is reduced to about 180 feet or so. There are also several other techniques that can be used to compress a radar pulse such as phase shift keying. Indeed, according to Pietrucha, the technology for pulse compression is decades old and was taught to Air Force electronic warfare officers during the 1980s. The computer processing power required for this is negligible by current standards, Pietrucha said.
Engineers solved the problem of directional or azimuth resolution by using phased array radar designs, which dispensed with the need for a parabolic array. Unlike older mechanically scanned arrays, phased array radars steer their radar beams electronically. Such radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. The necessary computing power to accomplish that task was available in the late 1970s for what eventually became the Navy’s Aegis combat system found on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. An active electronically scanned array is better still, being even more precise.
With a missile warhead large enough, the range resolution does not have to be precise. For example, the now antiquated S-75 Dvina—known in NATO parlance as the SA-2 Guideline—has a 440-pound warhead with a lethal radius of more than 100 feet. Thus, a notional twenty-microsecond compressed pulse with a range resolution of 150 feet should have the range resolution to get the warhead close enough—according to Pietrucha’s theory.
The directional and elevation resolution would have to be similar with an angular resolution of roughly 0.3 degrees for a target at thirty nautical miles because the launching radar is the only system guiding the SA-2. For example, a missile equipped with its own sensor—perhaps an infrared sensor with a scan volume of a cubic kilometer—would be an even more dangerous foe against an F-22 or F-35.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Lockheed Martin.

 http://nextbigfuture.com/

Russia has engine tests for PAK-DA strategic stealth bomber and see delays in first flight to 2021

The prototype russian PAK DA stealth bomber may hit the skies before 2021. Russia is trying to spin this as a good thing.

The National Interest notes that his is a two year delay from a prior plan to fly in 2019.

“The maiden flight should be performed in 2019. State tests and supplies will be completed in 2023,” Russian Air Force chief Col. Gen. Bondarev told RIA Novosti in May 2014. Under the previous plan, the bomber had been expected to become operational in 2025. However, that timeline was always optimistic. With the first flight delayed, the rest of the PAK-DA’s schedule is likely to shift to as well—with operational testing and operational capability being delayed by several years.

The PAK-DA is expected to be a subsonic flying-wing aircraft that is roughly analogous to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and the U.S. Air Force’s forthcoming Long Range Strike-Bomber. Flying wings lend themselves well to low observable characteristics—particularly against low frequency radars operating in the UHF and VHF bands—but manufacturing could still be an issue. The PAK-DA will likely feature advanced avionics—including a new radar, communications suite and electronic warfare systems. Meanwhile, the PAK-DA’s engines, which are being developed by the Kuznetsov design bureau, are an advanced derivative of the Tu-160’s NK-32 turbofans.

The PAK-DA will not be a small aircraft. It is expected to have a maximum gross take-off weight of about 250,000lbs—about the size of a Boeing 757 airliner.

Field tests of the first prototype engine of the PAK DA long-range aviation aircraft were undertaken successfully recently, engine maker JSC Kuznestsov said. This marks another milestone in the development of the aircraft.

By 2014, the project reached development stages: the developers identified and formed the tactical and technical data of the PAK DA, including an approximate weight of 125 tons (with a combat load of 30 tons), a range of 12,500 km, and subsonic flight.

SOURCES - Russia and India Report, Sputnik News, National Interest, Wikipedia

http://www.defenseone.com

 

U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Siuta B. Ika

This Is The Most Important Technology On the F-35

January 19, 2016 By Patrick Tucker

Cognitive EW, today in its infancy, may one day help justify the Joint Strike Fighter’s enormous cost.

Author

Patrick Tucker is technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future: What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move? (Current, 2014). Previously, Tucker was deputy editor for The Futurist for nine years. Tucker has written about emerging technology in Slate, The ... Full Bio

 

While the specifics of the jet’s electronic warfare, or EW, package remain opaque, scientists, program watchers and military leaders close to the program say it will be key to the jet’s evolution and its survival against the future’s most advanced airplane-killing technology. In short, cognitive EW is the most important feature on the world’s most sophisticated warplane.
“There are small elements of cognitive EW right now on the F-35, but what we are really looking toward is the future,” Lee Venturino, president and CEO of First Principles, a company that is analyzing the F-35 for the Pentagon, said at a recent Association of Old Crows event in Washington, D.C.“Think of it as a stair-stepper approach. The first step is probably along the ESM [electronic support measures] side. How do I just identify the signals I’ve never seen before?”
To understand what cognitive warfare is, you have to know what it isn’t. EW makes use of the invisible waves of energy that propagate through free space from the movement of electrons, the electromagnetic spectrum. Conventional radar systems generally use fixed waveforms, making them easy to spot, learn about, and develop tactics against. But newer digitally programmable radars can generate never-before-seen waveforms, making them harder to defeat.
A concern that U.S. EW was falling behind the challenges of today’s world prompted a 2013 Defense Science Board study that recommended that the military develop agile and adaptive electronic warfare systems that could detect and counter tricky new sensors.
“In the past, what would happen is you’d send out your EA-18,” the military’s top-of-the-line EW aircraft, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said last month in an event at the Center for New American Security. “It would find a new waveform. There was no way for us to do anything about it. The pilot would come back, they would talk about it, they’d replicate it, they’d emulate it. It would go into the ‘gonculator,’ goncu-goncu-goncu-gonculatoring, and then you would have something, and then maybe some time down the road, you would have a response.”
That process is far too slow to be effective against digitally programmable radars. “The software [to defeat new waveforms] may take on the order of months or years, but the effectiveness needs to programed within hours or seconds. If it’s an interaction with a radar and a jammer, for example, sometime it’s a microsecond,” said Robert Stein, who co-chaired the Defense Science Board study.
Read “interaction” in that context to mean the critical moment when an adversary, perhaps a single lowly radar operator, detects a U.S. military aircraft on a covert operation. That moment of detection is the sort of world-changing event that happens, literally, in the blink of an eye.
Just before the study came out, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, established the Adaptive Radar Countermeasures program to “enable U.S. airborne EW systems to automatically generate effective countermeasures against new, unknown and adaptive radars in real-time in the field.”
The goal: EW software that can perceive new waveforms and attacks as quickly and as clearly as a living being can hear leaves rustle or see a predator crouching in the distance, then respond creatively to the threat: can I outrun that? Can I fight it? Should I do anything at all? It’s a problem of artificial intelligence: creating a living intelligence in code.

Applying the Brain Algorithm to EW Warfare

There could be no cognitive electromagnetic warfare without cognitive radar, a concept fathered by electronics researcher Simon Haykin in his prescient 2006 paper “Cognitive Radar: A Way Of the Future.”
Cognition is an act we attribute to living things, defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “knowing, perceiving, or conceiving as an act.” Haykin suggests that echo-location, which allows bats with nut-sized brains to detect, identify, and engage targets, is a type of cognition built on deep information processing. “How then does the bat perform all these remarkable tasks? The answer to this fundamental question lies in the fact that soon after birth, the bat uses its innate hard-wired brain to build up rules of behavior through what we usually refer to as experience, hence the remarkable ability of the bat for echo-location.”
Haykin proposed that it’s becoming feasible to build a bat-like computer, thanks to radars and phased-array antennas that allow rapid scanning of waveforms and ever-shrinking, ever-more powerful computers.
At the root of this cognitive processing is Bayes’s theorem:
P (A | X) = p ( X | A ) p ( A ) p ( X ) P in the theorem means probability. A is the answer and X is a condition that will influence the probability. Thomas Bayes published the theorem in 1764, but it’s only in recent decades that it’s gained real popularity among statisticians, computer scientists, and machine learning experts. Bayesian algorithms don’t necessarily provide the most accurate answer the first time you use it. But as new information and data become available, you run the formula over and over again to get answers in which you can have more and more confidence.
The advent of the Network Age, with its massive amounts of continually streaming data, has made Bayesian analysis more useful than some more traditional types of statistical analysis, especially for helping machines to learn. The human brain, too, learns both imperfectly but continually on the basis of streaming stimuli, as opposed to outputting a single value after crunching a big package of information.
Applied to radar, Haykin imagined a Bayesian algorithm working like this:
“For a given search area, radar returns are collected over a certain period of time. 2) For each range-azimuth resolution cell in the search space, the probability that the cell contains a target is computed. 3) With the evolution of target probability distribution resulting from the recursive computation of step 2 over time, target tracks are detected, and corresponding hard decisions on possible targets are subsequently made.”
Haykin’s paper helped spark the Defense Department’s interest in cognitive EW and machine learning. BAE Systems and Raytheon are among the defense contractors that have emerged as key players. Today, Bayesian statistical methods are at the core of virtually every effort to apply machine learning to EW.
“I would say, generally, Bayesian algorithms are a core to machine learning and we certainly apply them across a wide range of domains that we operate in,” said Josh Niedzwiecki, who directs BAE’s sensor processing and exploitation group.
BAE provides the F-35’s EW package.
Niedzwiecki’s 200-person group includes PhDs from top universities with backgrounds in machine learning, physics, statistical signal processing, and computational neuroscience among other fields, all working to apply machine learning algorithms to radar energy, video image processing, acoustic signal processing, and more. “They understand how the brain works, how we learn,” Niedzwiecki says of the group. Bayesian statistical methods are the foundation of all of that.
But machine learning algorithms can’t learn without data, lots of it. While Facebook can access records from a billion-plus users, getting data from adversaries about the unique waveforms that they’re experimenting with is a more challenging task. The military can’t just ask China to opt-in to an information-sharing agreement.
Generally, the best information is gathered on real-world missions, but this has its limitations. “There are certain tactical scenarios where that becomes very difficult because my mission might preclude me from hanging around for very long. I might be in a platform or in a mission scenario where I have to get in and get out,” says Niedzwiecki. “The way you take advantage of that is to learn over time. So I’m recording this data, I’m building my model, and given the data that I’m seeing and the hypothesis I’m testing during that mission, I’m seeing something about how to change the model to be more accurate next time. I want to take that data and use that for the current mission and the next mission. Those are some of the things that are starting to be thought about.”

Adversary EW is advancing far faster than U.S. military acquisition programs can keep up. That’s why the Pentagon wants cognitive systems that can evolve on their own.

For the United States, EW dominance will be a matter not just of designing more exquisite sensors or writing smarter algorithms. It will require the disciplined execution of data collection processes — something that has to happen military-wide every time a radar operator encounters a new waveform, but doesn’t, the Defense Science Board study found. “In those places where we do have recorders, operators tend to turn them off. Because sometimes they create issues with the equipment with which they’re embedded,” said Stein. But, he continued, “last night, in some conflict, some place, unexpected things happened. What are we going to do about it? We better have the tapes, the digits, that recorded what went on last night. Let’s peel it apart. Let’s see why what happened, happened. We tend not to do that.”
When F-35 pilots have to slip past the programmable radars of the future, their success is going to depend on a lot of data collection that happens off the plane.

The EW Arms Race

For a peek at the future of plane-killing technology that the F-35 may go up against, look at the Nebo-M, Russia’s premiere programmable radar system. The Nebo-M consists of three radars on separate trucks: a VHF that does the wide scanning and higher frequency UHF and X-Band that do the more precise triangulation. The system fuses the data from these three data streams to draw a bead on even stealthy aircraft.
“The radar is designed to automatically detect and track airborne targets such as ballistic missiles, stealth aircraft, or drones, as well as hypersonic targets. In the circular scan mode the complex is able to track up to 200 aerodynamic targets at a distance and at altitudes of up to 600 kilometers. In sector scan mode, Nebo-M can track to 20 ballistic targets at ranges of up to 1,800 kilometers and at an altitude of up to 1,200 kilometers,” Russian-State media outlet RT claimed back in February. The Russian military planners in October to extend radar coverage across the entirety of Russia by 2020, according to RT.

If the United States, Russia, or China were ever stumble into a hot war, the F-35 and air defense systems like the Nebo-M would likely face off against one another. It’s yet more indication that EW, like cyber, is emerging as the next great arms race. But unlike previous arms competitions, adversary EW is advancing far faster than U.S. military acquisition programs can keep up. That explains, in part, why the Pentagon is interested in cognitive systems that can adapt and evolve on their own.
“Right now, we know that these machines are going to be able, through learning machines … to figure out how to take care of that waveform in the mission while it’s happening,” Work said at CNAS. The subject of his talk was the Third Offset Strategy, the Pentagon’s $13 billion moonshot program to re-secure its technological advantage. The fact that cognitive EW made its way into the speech says a lot about its importance to the Pentagon’s plans.
The F-35 is supposed to reach initial operating capability, or IOC, with the Air Force next year. It may be deployed soon after. “When you’re at CENTCOM, you don’t request a specific jet, you request the capability,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office, said at the Air Force Association’s Air and Space Conference, as reported by Air Force Times. “When we declare IOC, the F-35 will be on the list of capabilities that will be available.” That means the jet could go to war against ISIS or the Taliban by this time next year.
The Joint Strike Fighter program, on track to cost $400 billion according to an April 2015 Government Accountability Office report, may never quite justify its enormous price tag. But if the F-35 can truly learn and adapt to its electromagnetic environment, evolving in lifelike response to changing circumstances, it could live up to some of the many promises that its backers have made on its behalf, waging war in the EW space as intelligently as living soldiers fight on the ground.
“It’s certainly architected to do that,” said Stein. “The skeletal framework is there to be able to do that … I’ll let you know five years from now if it really was exploited.”

 http://www.northropgrumman.com/

AN/ALQ-218 RWR/ESM/ELINT Sensor System

Northrop Grumman's AN/ALQ-218 Radar Warning Receiver / Electronic Support Measures / Electronic Intelligence (RWR/ESM/ELINT) Sensor System is the U.S. Navy's choice for airborne situational awareness and signal intelligence gathering. 

A passive, high performance SIGINT sensor system, the AN/ALQ-218 protects the warfighter by detecting, identifying, locating and analyzing sources of radio frequency (RF) emission.

The AN/ALQ-218 family is currently in production and installed on both the EA-18G and P-8A Poseidon ASW/ASUW aircraft.  New spiral initiatives are positioning the AN/ALQ-218 as the ESM system of choice for future Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and subsurface applications.

The AN/ALQ-218 is the world's only receiver system proven to provide high Probability of Intercept (POI) under "Look-Through" operations, enabling DF & Geolocation, parameter measurement and Intentional Modulation on Pulse (IMOP) detection while simultaneously supporting enemy radar threat jamming. The AN/ALQ-218 also supports Specific Emitter Identification (SEI) characterization.

The AN/ALQ-218 utilizes a unique combination of short and long baseline interferometer techniques along with a patented passive ranging algorithm to provide precision Geolocation of all ground-based emitters.

ELINT signal analysis software is easily provided via the NGC PASS (Parameterizer & Analysis Software System) tool which receives signal data from analog or digital sources and provides measurement tools for analysis in either pre-detected or Pulse Descriptive Word (PDW) domain.

AN/ALQ-218 system features:

• Broad Radio Frequency Range: Bands 0, 1, 2 and band 3
• Signal Types: Radar (Pulsed & CW) with optional COMMs support
• High Sensitivity and Dynamic Range
• Dynamic Tuning in sparse signal environment (Jamming)
• Passive Precision Geolocation expandable to targeting accuracies
• Specific Emitter Identification (to USG MISPE standards)
• Commercial Interference Mitigation (in bands 0 & 1)
• Enhanced Fine Frequency Measurement supporting Jamming
• Latest generation Frequency Domain Digital Channelized Receiver
• TRL 9 Technology  (Hardware and Software)

Beam Battles: The Return of Great Power Electronic Warfare

James Mugg

March 2, 2016

inShare

The Battle of the Beams was a period during World War II concerning German attempts to harness radio navigation for night bombing in the UK and the resulting British countermeasures. The British eventually managed to jam or distort all three iterations of German radio signals, making it more difficult for the bombers to hit their targets. That episode dramatically illustrates the ephemeral nature of advantages in electronic warfare, especially when operating against an agile and sophisticated foe.
Since the end of the Cold War and the onset of the War on Terror, the principal targets of Western military power have been relatively low-tech groups in the Middle East. Electronic warfare platforms like the U.S. Navy’s EA-6B Prowler were used to jam enemy communications during operations, and the relatively low tech of the enemy limited their ability to counter. But the constant threat to ground troops from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) led to the development of counter-IED jamming systems, and a new “invisible war” emerged. As quickly as vehicle-mounted jammers could be reprogrammed, insurgents made use of a variety of commercial technologies—cell-phones, key-fobs, door remotes—to adapt.
The focus of electronic warfare understandably changed to deal with the threat of the day, but a focus on counter-IED systems has had consequences for wider development. For example, the ALQ-99 jamming pod used on the Prowler, and on the new EA-18G Growler, was first used as far back as the Vietnam War and its successor is still years away.
A lack of new developments in electronic warfare since the end of the Cold War has led to a closing of the technological gap between the United States (and allies such as Australia), and potential adversaries such as Russia or China. This trend has been especially clear since Russian EW capabilities were used in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian land-based Krasukha-4 jamming system proved too much for the Ukrainians to handle, and was described by Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army units in Europe, as “eye-watering” in sophistication.
Last year, Russia deployed the Krasukha-4 to Syria in support of its operations there, along with its S-400 radar-guided missile system. The S-400 uses AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar to track multiple aerial targets out to 600km, and can fire supersonic missiles up to 400km. Russia is exporting the S-400 to China and India, and its predecessor platform, the S-300, is operated by several countries including China and Iran. Because of this proliferation, any conflict with Russia, China or even Iran is likely to involve a substantial electronic warfare component.
The Australian Defence Force will need new and advanced tactical EW capabilities to contribute in the event of conflict with an adversary that’s technologically capable. There are systems “on the way,” but there are a few things that strategists and observers should be aware of when considering the future of Australia’s EW capability.
First, the Australian government announced in 2013 that it would purchase twelve new-build Growler aircraft from the United States to complement the twenty-four F/A-18F Super Hornets already in service. Former RAAF Air Marshal Geoff Brown said that the Growler “will have the biggest strategic effect on the ADF since the F-111 in the 1970s.” They’ll still operate the obsolescent ALQ-99 jammer pods, but the ADF will likely seek to acquire the U.S. Navy’s Next-Gen Jammer (NGJ) when it arrives sometime after 2021. Essentially, the new jammer is “a move from dumb jamming to smart jamming,” and it’s being designed with Growler compatibility as a priority. The RAAF Growler will also field the ALQ-218 electronic intelligence (ELINT) system, used to detect and analyse signals in the operating environment.
Second, the F-35 Lightning-II will have an exceptional AESA digital radar system that will also be a capable electronic warfare system. It will be able to function as a jammer and generate false targets. It’s not clear if the F-35’s EW capability will be as substantial as the NGJ’s, since the F-35 radar is “optimized to be a targeting radar,” and is limited to X-band frequencies. However, the F-35 development program will continue to evolve a “cognitive EW” capability, which will allow the F-35 to adapt its electronic detection and emissions with increasing agility.
Third, electronic warfare needn’t be restricted to electronic attack or ELINT capabilities. In fact, maintaining a technological edge in those capabilities is the bare minimum that the U.S. Armed Forces and the ADF should be doing. The outcomes of conflicts of the future are being determined in the research labs of today. Electromagnetic spectrum capabilities include a growing role for microwave technology, such as high-power microwave weapons that can disrupt or even destroy the electronics of enemy vehicles and drones. Also of note are developments in non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons and offensive lasers.
Australia is well positioned to reap the capability benefits of U.S. electronic warfare development, which has the added benefit of improving interoperability, but the ADF should investigate opportunities to contribute to future research in the field. The Defence Science and Technology Group already employs a team of world-class radar specialists to work on the Jindalee Operational Radar Network.
Finally, the U.S. Navy will continue to bear the brunt of testing Australian platforms’ networking capabilities, as they are the primary operators of the Super Hornet and Growler, as well as the P-8 Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton platforms which Australia is planning to acquire. The ADF should also seek to confirm the F-35 and NGJ’s networking compatibility with the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail and Gulfstream 550, and the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer and future frigates and submarines. The ADF will need to align its structure and EW doctrine to capitalize on the capability provided by networked EW and signals intelligence collection systems.
In the event of conflict, Australia should be able to employ modern electronic warfare platforms, either independently or in concert with allies. Otherwise we could end up on the wrong side of the next Battle of the Beams.
James Mugg is a researcher at ASPI. This article first appeared in the Strategist.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Navy.

 

Lethal Duo: America's New Two-Fighter Plan to Take on Russia

Dave Majumdar

March 1, 2016

inShare29

The United States will need forces that are able to defeat to Russia’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities in the event of a war in Europe. Once those Russian A2/AD capabilities have been breached, U.S. forces would have to move quickly to reinforce allied defenses in Europe as they move eastward.
“We need to be able to rapidly reinforce—that sounds very straightforward. It is not,” U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 1. “Remember Russia has created a very dense pattern of A2/AD—access/area-denial. We need to be investing in those capabilities and capacities that allow us to enter into an A2/AD environment and be able to reinforce.”
Those capabilities would include the stealthy duo of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—which are better able to tackle modern Russian-built advanced integrated air defense systems like the S-300 and S-400. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force has started to rotationally deploy the F-22 to Europe while F-35s will be permanently based in England starting in 2021.
“I would love to have both the F-22 and the F-35 in Europe. They are that complementary. But we don’t have no plans nor have we discussed anything about forward basing any F-22s because we do it via a rotational basis,” Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) told Defense News on February 26.
Eventually, the B-21—the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)—might also play a role, but the new warplane will act in a capacity akin to a B-2 Spirit. “I think in the end it will be what the B-2 delivers, only better. More reliable. And the capability of that aircraft obviously with its stealth characteristics opens up a lot of targeting capability. To the extent that they can, I wouldn’t mind seeing some of the improvements in whatever you can do to contribute to the ISR mission,” Gorenc told Defense News. “There are not a lot of details on it to be perfectly honest. But that is what I am expecting for it. I need it to be more persistent. I need it to be more long range. I need it to be mission capable at a very high rate.”
Meanwhile, Breedlove reiterated that Russia continues to ramp-up its undersea activity. As during the Cold War, when NATO worried about Europe being overrun at the same time Soviet naval forces cut the lifeline to the Americas, the renewed Russian submarine activity raises the specter of U.S. forces being cut off from reinforcements in the event of war. “We are challenged to be able to watch all this activity,” Breedlove said. “And the Russians understand the utility of those submarines and have invested heavily in those submarines and it does challenge our abilities.”
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
Image: Lockheed Martin.

Revealed: Russia's Lethal Seventh-Generation Fighter Jets?

Dave Majumdar

March 2, 2016

inShare12

Even before its first fifth-generation stealth fighter completes development, Russia has embarked on developing sixth and even seventh-generation follow-ons to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. Indeed, Sukhoi has already presented initial concepts for a new sixth-generation fighter to the Russian government.
"They have really come up with the designs for the creation of the sixth-generation fighter,” Russian deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told the Moscow-based TASS News agency on Wednesday. “I’m referring also to new design concepts briefly presented by the Sukhoi design bureau and by the general designer appointed for all aircraft systems and armaments.”
Meanwhile, most of Russia’s aircraft development efforts are focused on testing the PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter. Like the Pentagon, the Russian military plans decades ahead. In many ways, the Russian sixth-generation concept is akin to the U.S. Air Force’s F-X Next Generation Air Dominance effort to replace the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX program.
Like the United States, Russia too is exploring concepts like manned-unmanned teaming. “It [the plane] will be modified in both versions,” Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces told TASS. However, there are very few additional details available about the new Russian effort.
Moscow has embarked on an ambitious rearmament plan—which includes numerous new developmental efforts. Among those are new tanks, ships, submarines and several new aircraft including a new stealth bomber. However, how the Kremlin expects to pay for those developments is an open question given the state of Russia’s economy and the persistent low price of oil on the global market.
Nonetheless, Russia is not just aiming to develop a follow-on to the PAK-FA, Moscow is looking far beyond the current horizon. “"If we stop, we will stop forever,” Bondarev said. “Therefore, the work is going on—on the sixth and perhaps the seventh (generation) fighters.”
Neither Bodarev nor Rogozin provided a timeline, but according to Russian state-owned media, work on the program will start in the next few years.
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Toshiro Aoki (www.jp-spotters.com)

Revealed: Russia's Lethal Seventh-Generation Fighter Jets?

Dave Majumdar

March 2, 2016

inShare12

Even before its first fifth-generation stealth fighter completes development, Russia has embarked on developing sixth and even seventh-generation follow-ons to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. Indeed, Sukhoi has already presented initial concepts for a new sixth-generation fighter to the Russian government.
"They have really come up with the designs for the creation of the sixth-generation fighter,” Russian deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told the Moscow-based TASS News agency on Wednesday. “I’m referring also to new design concepts briefly presented by the Sukhoi design bureau and by the general designer appointed for all aircraft systems and armaments.”
Meanwhile, most of Russia’s aircraft development efforts are focused on testing the PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter. Like the Pentagon, the Russian military plans decades ahead. In many ways, the Russian sixth-generation concept is akin to the U.S. Air Force’s F-X Next Generation Air Dominance effort to replace the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX program.
Like the United States, Russia too is exploring concepts like manned-unmanned teaming. “It [the plane] will be modified in both versions,” Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces told TASS. However, there are very few additional details available about the new Russian effort.
Moscow has embarked on an ambitious rearmament plan—which includes numerous new developmental efforts. Among those are new tanks, ships, submarines and several new aircraft including a new stealth bomber. However, how the Kremlin expects to pay for those developments is an open question given the state of Russia’s economy and the persistent low price of oil on the global market.
Nonetheless, Russia is not just aiming to develop a follow-on to the PAK-FA, Moscow is looking far beyond the current horizon. “"If we stop, we will stop forever,” Bondarev said. “Therefore, the work is going on—on the sixth and perhaps the seventh (generation) fighters.”
Neither Bodarev nor Rogozin provided a timeline, but according to Russian state-owned media, work on the program will start in the next few years.
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Toshiro Aoki (www.jp-spotters.com)

Despite having a 5th-generation jet 'in name only,' Russia is pushing ahead for a 6th-generation plane

By Jeremy Bender 3 hours ago

(Wikipedia Commons) A prototype of Russia's fifth-generation jet, the PAK FA. In spite of criticisms and concerns that Russia's fifth-generation is actually fifth-generation "in name only," the Kremlin is pushing ahead with plans for its sixth-generation jet. 

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Wednesday that Sukhoi has delivered plans for its new sixth-generation fighter, TASS News reports. 

"I’m referring also to new design concepts briefly presented by the Sukhoi design bureau and by the general designer appointed for all aircraft systems and armaments," Rogozin told reporters, according to TASS.

"They have really come up with the designs for the creation of the sixth-generation fighter."

And, as TASS reports, Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces Viktor Bondarev told reporters on Wednesday that the potential sixth-generation jet will be produced in both manned and unmanned versions. Meaning, essentially, that the new jet will be planned to be able to function in some conditions as a drone aircraft. 

However, beyond that hint, the Kremlin delivered few other details about its new potential jet. The plans for the new jet comes as Russia is continuing to test its fifth-generation PAK FA fighter. Although, as the National Interest notes, it is not uncommon for militaries to begin testing and designing the next generation of aircraft decades in advance. 

Currently, Russia's PAK FA is expected to enter into service sometime in the next six years. However, the aircraft has been called fifth-generation "in name only" due to a host of complaints affecting the aircraft's radar cross signature, its avionics, and its engines. 

NOW WATCH: The US Navy has launched its new 387-foot combat warship

http://www.ibtimes.com

Russia Unveils 6th Generation Fighter Jet Designs To Compete With the US

By Christopher Harress @Charress On 03/02/16 AT 11:10 AM

A Sukhoi T-50 flies during a display at the opening of the 2011

MAKS International Aviation and Space Salon at Zhukovsky 

airport outside Moscow. Photo: REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin

Russian military designers presented the first blueprints for a sixth-generation fighter jet Wednesday that they say will be ready for service around 2025, even though the Kremlin’s PAK FA fifth-generation fighter jet is not yet in service. Moscow is being pushed into action by the United States, which has been operating the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet for more than 10 years and began making plans for its own sixth-generation fighter jet in 2012.
"They have really come up with the designs for the creation of the sixth-generation fighter," Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told reporters after a meeting on military aviation development, according to Tass, a Russian state news agency. "I’m referring to new design concepts briefly presented by the Sukhoi design bureau and by the general designer appointed for all aircraft systems and armaments.”
The sixth-generation aircraft is expected to incorporate many of the same weapons programs and advanced stealth as it predecessor, but is likely to have manned and unmanned versions, said a Russian commander who also spoke with Tass.

Russian Military Expenditure Over Time | FindTheData

The race for air superiority had heated up in recent years, since Moscow began a $700 billion, 10-year defense modernization program designed at achieving parity with the U.S. military. While it’s clear that Moscow is unable to spend as much as Washington on defense, setting aside $52 billion in 2016 compared with $575 billion by the U.S., it has generally been able to push out weapons, tanks, ships and submarines that compare favorably with American versions.
However, given the extreme costs and expertise involved with advanced jet fighters, Russia has always lagged behind. For example, Russia could never match the near $1 trillion costs involved in the development of the U.S. military’s F-35 multirole fighter. Its fifth-generation jet fighter, also known as the T-50, has experienced funding and operational issues that experts say will keep it far behind the F-22 and the F-35.
The T-50 is expected to come into service in the next year or two, with manufacture up to speed by 2020. However, disagreements with its partner country India over work and cost share, aircraft technology, as well as the number of aircraft to be ordered, could set the warplane back years. The two countries signed an agreement in 2010 to invest $6 billion each.

New Northrop bomber to be designated B-21 -U.S. Air Force

By Andrea Shalal February 26, 2016 3:16 PM

An artist rendering shows the first image of a new Northrop Grumman
Corp long-range bomber B21 in this …

By Andrea Shala

Related Stories

1. U.S. agency rejects Boeing protest of Northrop bomber contract Reuters
2. U.S. agency rejects Boeing protest of Northrop bomber contract Reuters
3. Air Force replaces arms buyer over disclosure issue on Northrop Reuters
4. Boeing weighs options after losing U.S. bomber protest-sources Reuters
5. Lockheed to offer T-50A in race for Air Force contract Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Air Force Secretary Deborah James on Friday unveiled the first image of a new Northrop Grumman Corp long-range bomber and said it would be designated the B-21, as losing bidder Boeing Co said it would forego further challenges.
James revealed the first artist's rendering of the secret bomber, an angular flying wing, at the Air Force Association's annual Air Warfare Symposium. She said the name of the new warplane would be chosen in a contest among service members.
The program has been shrouded in secrecy since its inception for fear of revealing military secrets to potential enemies, and to avoid giving the losing bidders any details before their formal protest was rejected last week.
Northrop won a contract worth an estimated $80 billion in October to develop and build 100 new bombers, but work on the plane was delayed for months while federal auditors reviewed a protest by Boeing and its key supplier, Lockheed Martin Corp.
Boeing said on Friday it would skip any further protests with the U.S. Government Accountability Office or in the federal courts. The Air Force, under pressure from lawmakers and retired Air Force officers, has promised to release more information about the new plane in March.
Although the program has now survived the legal protest process, it still faces hurdles in Congress.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain said on Thursday he would block the Air Force's use of a cost-plus type of contract for the long-range bomber since it would hold the government responsible for cost overruns.
The Air Force says that only the engineering and development phase of the program, valued at $21.4 billion, is structured as a cost-plus contract with incentive fees.
Production of the first five sets of new bombers, usually the most expensive planes in a new class of aircraft, would be structured with a firm, fixed price, the service said.

Analysts say the program will be worth around $80 billion in total, providing a boon to Northrop and its key suppliers, but the Air Force has said only that it expects to pay $511 million per plane in 2010 dollars.

John Michael Loh, a retired four-star U.S. Air Force general, has urged the Air Force to name Northrop's suppliers to shore up support in Congress, and avoid a rerun of the B-2 bomber program, which was scaled back from 132 planes to just 21, which drove the price of each plane sharply higher.

(Editing by Bernadette Baum and Matthew Lewis)

 

Revealed: Pentagon’s Plan to Defeat Russian and Chinese Radar With A.I.

Dave Majumdar

February 29, 2016

inShare6

The Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is working on a new generation of electronic warfare systems that are based on artificial intelligence (AI). If the program were to prove a success, the new A.I.-driven systems would provide the United States military a way to counter evermore-capable Russian and Chinese radars.
“One of our programs at DARPA is taking a whole new approach to this problem, this is an effort we refer to as cognitive electronic warfare,” DARPA director, Dr. Arati Prabhakar, told the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on February 24. “We’re using artificial intelligence to learn in real-time what the adversaries’ radar is doing and then on-the-fly create a new jamming profile. That whole process of sensing, learning and adapting is going on continually.”
Current generation aircraft—including the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35—have a preprogrammed databank of enemy radar signals and jamming profiles stored in a threat library. But if those warplanes encounter a signal that has not previously been encountered, the system registers the threat as unknown—which means the aircraft is vulnerable to that threat.
“Today, when out aircraft go out on their missions, they’re loaded up with a set of jamming profiles—these are specific frequencies and waveforms that they can transmit in order to jam and disrupt an adversaries’ radar to protect themselves,” Prabhakar said. “Sometimes when they go out today, they encounter a new kind of frequency or different waveform—one that they’re not programmed for, that’s not in their library, and in a time of conflict, that would leave them exposed.”
During peacetime, the Pentagon usually deploys a signals intelligence aircraft like the RC-135V/W Rivet Joint to collect data on a new waveform. That data is then sent to a laboratory to be analyzed so that a new jamming profile can be created. Those new jamming profiles are then incorporated into a jet’s—F-22, F-35, F/A-18 or any other fighter—operational flight program updates. “Eventually, months—sometimes years—later our aircraft finally get the protection that they need against this new kind of radar signal,” Prabhakar said.
In the years prior to the digital revolution when radar waveforms were rarely altered, that slow process might have been adequate. In the current era where a new waveform can be created very quickly with minor software tweaks, the current process leaves American forces vulnerable. “That slow moving world is now gone,” Prabhakar said. “It’s not that hard to modify a radar system today. If you think about, the same technologies that have brought communications and the Internet to billions of people around the world, those are the same technologies that people are now using to modify radars.”
It’s a problem that has cropped up in many different regions around the world, Pabhakar said. Right now, the only U.S. combat aircraft that have some capacity to analyze enemy waveforms in real time are the Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler—which is still serving with the Marines—and the Navy’s Boeing EA-18G Growler. While both the Growler and Prowler have pre-programmed onboard threat libraries, both jets carry electronic warfare officers (EWO). Those EWOs can recognize and analyze the unknown enemy waveforms and—based on their experience—figure out a way to jam them in real time to an extent. However, it’s far from perfect because it relies purely on the skills of an individual EWO.
If DARPA’s new AI-based electronic warfare system works, it would save the Pentagon time, money and potentially even save the lives of aircrew if they encounter a new enemy surface-to-air missile system or fighter radar. “So what all of that means is that our aircraft in the future won’t have to wait weeks, months to years, but in real time, in the battlespace, they’ll be able to adapt and jam this new radar threat that they get.”
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Navy.

 

America's Lethal New B-21 vs. the B-2 Stealth Bomber

Dave Majumdar

February 29, 2016

inShare23

With the U.S. Air Force revealing concept art and a designation for its shadowy Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) last week, there are many details that we can now glean about the new warplane.
First and foremost, the new B-21 looks very similar to its B-2 Spirit predecessor. In fact, the new aircraft look startlingly similar to the original Advanced Strategic Penetration Aircraft (ASPA) and the later Advanced Technology Bomber concept from the 1980s that ultimately resulted in the B-2. But the Spirit was redesigned late in the game to operate at low altitudes after Dr. Paul Kaminski’s—current chairman of the Defense Science Board—Red Team cautioned that the B-2 might have to resort to low-level penetration as the Soviets built new, more capable radars—as legendary Aviation Week journalist Bill Sweetman points out in his book “Inside the Stealth Bomber.” The redesign caused a decrease in range and payload, as well as a larger radar cross-section.
If the current B-21 design is truly representative of the direction the Air Force is taking, the new aircraft will take the B-2’s all-aspect stealth design to the next level. Particularly, the B-21’s low observable design will be more effective against low frequency radars operating in the UHF and VHF bands, which are increasingly coming into vogue as a means to counter stealth aircraft. Indeed, as then Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee in 2012, even the B-2 is starting to lose its ability penetrate hostile airspace. “The technology on which they were designed with respect to signature management . . . is ‘80s vintage,” Schwartz told the committee, adding, “the reality is that the B-2 over time is going to become less survivable in contested airspace.”
The B-21 design—which is similar to the original high-attitude optimized B-2 design—is built to counter the low frequency radars that can detect and track tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft. Unlike an F-22 or F-35, which are designed to operate in an environment where the enemy might be aware of their presence, the B-2 and B-21 are designed to avoid detection altogether. Basically, the B-21 (and B-2 to an extent)—with its large flying-wing design—reduces its low frequency radar cross-section to the point where it blends in with the background noise inherent to those UHF/VHF band systems. That’s similar in concept to how a submarine hides in the background noise of the ocean. But—like all stealth aircraft—it will not be invisible. Stealth is not a cloak of invisibility, after all. Stealth technology simply delays detection and tracking.
While the Air Force’s rendering of the B-21 gives us some clues as to the configuration of the new aircraft, most of its other parameters remain unknown. The B-21’s size and payload will largely be determined by whatever propulsion system is readily available to power it. Given that the LRS-B is slated to enter into service in the mid-2020s, the aircraft will necessarily have to use an existing engine design. Moreover, that engine must have a profile conducive to a stealth aircraft.
That would almost certainly rule out a commercial airliner engine derivative with a large bypass—such an engine would have an extremely large diameter even if it is highly efficient.
A more likely choice is a derivative of an existing military engine that is already in production. Possible choices could include unaugmented derivatives of the F-15 and F-16’s Pratt & Whitney F100 or General Electric F110. The F110, though an aged design, would give the LRS-B commonality with the Rockwell International B-1 Lancer and Northrop B-2 Spirit, both of which use engines from the same lineage. The B-1’s F101 was derived into the F110, which in turn was derived into the B-2’s F118 motors.
An F110 derivative does have its advantages, but the most likely candidate to power the LRS-B is an unaugmented version of the Pratt & Whitney F135, which in its current state offers roughly 28,000lbs of dry thrust. With some tweaks, such as an increased bypass ratio, a version of the F135 could probably produce more than 30,000lbs of thrust while potentially increasing fuel efficiency. With two such engines, an LRS-B would have less than the roughly 70,000lbs of thrust available to the B-2, but there are indications that the B-21 is smaller than the Spirit.
While the LRS-B might be provisioned to accommodate whatever engine ultimately comes to fruition from the Air Force’s adaptive-cycle engine program—variously called ADVENT, AETD and AETP—if the service is serious about an initial operational capability date around 2025, the new bomber will necessarily use an existing propulsion plant. It takes a long time and large sums of money to develop a new turbine engine. It’s also not an endeavor without risk—look no further than China’s frustrated efforts to develop an indigenous jet engine.
If one accepts the premise that the B-21 will be powered by twin unaugmented F135 engines, one can then assume that the new bomber will be larger than a Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle or General Dynamics F-111 but smaller than the B-1 or B-2. Given the types of threats from low frequency radars that are projected to be out there in the future and the limitations of current low observables materials, B-21’s subsonic flying wing design will be large enough to counter low frequency radars.
A tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft must be optimized to defeat higher-frequency bands such the C, X and Ku bands as a simple matter of physics, but a strategic bomber like the B-2 or LRS-B can be larger to counter lower frequency radars. There is a “step change” in a stealth aircraft’s signature once the frequency wavelength exceeds a certain threshold and causes a resonant effect. Typically, that resonance occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin—is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That means a bomber like the B-21 has to have allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface or the designers are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they optimize the aircraft to operate in. As such, to defeat low frequency radars operating in the L, UHF and potentially the VHF bands (this is easier said than done—and could in fact be impossible), a flying wing design is in effect, mandatory.
There are also indications that the Air Force is planning on building significant electronic attack capability into the B-21 airframe (and the LRS family). Electronic attack capability is necessary to counter low frequency radars operating in the VHF band, which are nearly impossible to defeat with airframe shape and low observable materials alone. The fact is that despite the Air Force’s public narrative that aircraft like the F-35 can go into a high threat zone alone and unafraid, the service’s own experts at the Air Force Warfare Center recognize the value of jamming. Stealth and electronic attack always have a synergistic relationship because detection is about the signal to noise ratio. Low observables reduce the signal, while electronic attack increases the noise.
“An improvement would be to include that presumably these platforms would be used in coordination with other platforms and weaponry so as to increase the noise from which to hide within,” one Air Force official with stealth aircraft experience told me. “Who wants to sort through a pile of hay for a needle when there are plenty of obvious needles that one should concern themselves with outside of the haystack?”
If the LRS-B is somewhat smaller than the B-2, the designers have to pick between range and payload. Former Air Combat Command commander Gen. William Fraser, a former B-52 pilot, told me few years ago when the program was in its infancy that  “a combat radius of between 2,000 and 2,500 nautical miles is sufficient, which equals a 4,000-5,000 nautical mile range. All points on earth are within about 1,800 nautical miles from the closest body of water.” Thus, one can assume that the LRS-B will have at least that much range with whatever space leftover being dedicated to its payload. The LRS-B doesn’t necessarily need to carry the same amount of weaponry as the B-2, it just needs to carry the biggest available weapon—maybe just one GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) instead of two.
In terms of avionics, the Air Force appears to be doing something smart. The aircraft will apparently use an open architecture computer system, which means that the LRS-B won’t be hamstrung with antiquated avionics and ponderous processes to integrate new weapons and hardware—like what happened with the Lockheed Martin F-22, for example. The aircraft will also be nuclear-capable from the get go, though it won’t be certified to perform that mission until later. That’s not surprising—and had been reported as early as 2011 during Gen. Norton Schwartz’s tenure as Air Force chief of staff. The service also plans for the LRS-B to be optionally manned, however the chances of operating a $550 million aircraft without a pilot onboard are laughably small.
The bottom line is that the LRS-B is shaping up to be exactly what it was expected it to be.
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Department of Defense.

 

 The Buzz

Cold War-Era Alternatives to the Navy’s Carrier-Based Drone

James Hasik

February 7, 2016

inShare

Turning the U.S. Navy’s next carrier-based drone into a tanker, as the service announced this week, is probably a reasonable idea. For some time, buddy-tanking F-18 Hornets has been a questionable use of other Hornets, but one completely necessitated since 2009 by the full retirement of the Lockheed S-3 Viking. The drone-tanker also makes for a modest start. On the USNI blog yesterday, Commander Salamander called it a “Choice of Prudence,” questioning whether the hardware and software needed for autonomous combat aircraft were really ready for the hardest missions. As I have argued previously, this also allows the Navy to build operational experience with carrier-based drones before it proceeds with plans for a penetrating, stealthy, unmanned bomber. Pumping jet fuel through a drogue hose at altitude is a task that doesn’t clearly require an aircrew, and that doesn’t create a killer robot. But rather than questioning whether the carrier-based drone should first be a tanker, we might also ask why the fleet’s aerial tanker should be carrier-based. Then, we should ask what other questions are going unasked.
To extend the range of carrier-based fighter-bombers, jet fuel needs to be delivered at altitude. The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Marine Corps have KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-130s for this mission, but the land-based tankers don’t quite accompany the fleet. Fuel is thus needed from the sea, but why lift it off a carrier deck, or even from a carrier at all? Every carrier underway is accompanied by an oiler, currently of the Henry J. Kaiser class, and eventually of the John Lewis class. From that ship, fuel flows into the carrier’s tanks during an underway replenishment, and later from the carrier’s tanks to the aerial refueler’s tanks. So here’s an alternative, suggested by Commander Phil Pournelle of the Office of Net Assessment: trail the carrier group with aerial refueling seaplanes. Refueling the tanker directly from the oiler (through a hose trailing astern) skips a step, frees deck space and cycle time on the carrier, and brings more fuel to altitude faster.
Of course, it’s reasonable to ask whether the U.S. Navy needs another full-scale developmental aircraft program right now. Frankly, it needn’t need one, because there already two plausible options.
In the mid-1950s, the Glenn L. Martin Company built fourteen early production models of the P6M Seamaster, a twin-engine, jet-powered seaplane that was a bit larger than a Lockheed Martin C-130. In its bureaucratic competition with the U.S. Air Force, the Navy had planned these as part of a nuclear-armed “Seaplane Striking Force”. The P6Ms may have made at least as much sense as aerial minelayers, a mission the USAF has long since undertaken with B-52s. Martin’s twin turboprop P5M Marlin was more successful as a program, serving in the Navy from 1952 to 1967. The Seamaster, though, had some considerable advantages—particularly its payload, akin to that of a modern Hercules. The aircraft did have a troubled development, including a fatal crash, but the basic concept has since been proven. Today, nine Beriev B-200 twin-jet seaplane water bombers fly fire-fighting missions for the Russian Emergencies Ministry. Building updated P6Ms—and with drogue hoses—would be an undertaking, but most of the design was done half a century ago.
Another candidate is already in service with an allied military. Since 2007, the 71st Squadron of the Japanese Air Force has been operating four Shinmaywa US-2 turboprop amphibious aircraft (that is, which can land on land or water) for search-and-rescue. An earlier model, the US-1, was also a submarine hunter, rather like Lockheed's S-3. In the 1960s, Shinmaywa was even overhauling the U.S. Navy’s P5Ms. (James Simpson wrote a compact history of the business for War Is Boring last year.) For the past several years, the company has been trying to sell a squadron to the Indian Air Force for service in the Andaman Islands, but as with all things in Indian military procurement, this is taking longer than it should. Part of the attraction of the four-engined US-2 is its meaningful payload—around half that of a C-130.
There are clear limitations to this approach. Ampibiosity isn’t free: boat-like fuselages aren’t the most efficient for forward flight. Water-landing aircraft can’t undertake rough-water rescues like helicopters. In high seas, they can’t take fuel from oilers. Thus, they’re clearly not a total replacement for either rotary- or fixed-wing shipboard aircraft. But when sea conditions are reasonable, they can supplement shipboard aircraft in many missions, with greater payload at greater range. And there’s already a precedent in the sea services.
In the early 1950s, as Commander BJ Armstrong of Kings College London recently wrote in “The Answer to the Amphibious Prayer,” the USMC thought that seaplanes might offer a more dispersible alternative to large ships for assault over the beach. Seaplanes' runways can’t be cratered, and they’re not such tempting targets for cruise missiles. They can deploy from any sheltered bay or cove, as long as a tender accompanies them. If that’s not mobile enough, note how the USMC uses its land-based KC-130s in all sorts of roles: aerial tanking, transport, surveillance and even ground attack with the Harvest Hawk combat package. With all that functionality, it’s no surprise that every shipborne Marine Expeditionary Unit is followed around the world by two KC-130s, making use of friendly landing facilities where they can. But as with USAF's tanker-transports, that's not fully expeditionary, and “expeditionary” is the highest of compliments in the Marine Corps.
The broader point is that the Navy, the Marine Corps and many other military organizations often have unconsidered options. Seaplanes might seem like yesteryear’s technology with circumscribed possibilities, but the math for getting fuel into fighter-bombers at altitude doesn't favor aircraft designs which must fit onto ships. So as we charge forward with all the man-machine interfacing of the Third Offset, it’s worth asking what existing, proven concepts we can cost-effectively dust off.
James Hasik is a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. This article first appeared in the Defense Industrialist.
Image: Flickr/Ken H.

 

Exposed: Behind the U.S. Navy's Killer Drone Strategy Shift

Dave Majumdar

February 12, 2016

inShare37

The U.S. Navy has chosen to develop an unmanned carrier-based aerial refueling tanker, instead of a robotic stealth bomber in a decision that, in effect, kills two birds with one stone.
Firstly, it gives the service a chance to learn how to operate a drone from a flattop. Secondly, the Navy needs an organic carrier-based aerial refueling capability to extend the range of its stealthy Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. As an added bonus, it also takes some of the pressure off the hard-ridden tactical fighter fleet.
“I want to get something on the deck of an aircraft carrier—unmanned—as quickly as we can with a legitimate role to play because there is so much we have got to learn there,” Adm. John Richardson, U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute on February 12. “So many unexplored questions.”
That is why the Navy has changed its strategy. While in previous years, the service had hoped to develop a modestly stealthy Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft to afford the carrier air wing an organic persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and light strike capability, the new effort—called the Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS)— is a much more modest effort. Moreover, it’s a far cry from the ultra-stealthy, ultra long-range deep strike capability that many in Congress and the Washington think-tank community had originally wanted.
The Navy is choosing to follow a path of incremental evolution because the service does not yet fully understand how operate an unmanned air vehicle from a carrier. There are fundamental issues such as command and control, due regard and a host of other problems that need to be ironed out. The CBARS will help the Navy to create the fundamental infrastructure to develop and field more a sophisticated unmanned aviation capability from a carrier somewhere down the line.
The Navy is, Richardson said, “looking at something that can get us there, has a legitimate role—tanking and I would say ISR is on the table for sure—we’ll free up tactical aircraft by virtue of taking on that mission.
“But even more important,” he added, “we’ll learn how to integrate unmanned aircraft into our air wing.”
Despite the impressive results of the Northrop Grumman X-47B demonstrator, carrier-based unmanned aviation is its infancy. “There is just so much to learn now, and I want to get after that,” Richardson said. “In the meantime, the decisions that we make now, we’ll do our very best not to preclude increasing the platform’s capability in other areas as technologies come available, as we learn those lessons and we kind of grow into that.”
Meanwhile, don’t get too attached to the CBARS name—it’s a placeholder. “We’ll come up with something better than that,” Richardson said.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Flickr/U.S. Navy.

 

Flash Point: America’s Lethal F-22 vs. China’s Fiery HQ-9

Dave Majumdar

February 18, 2016

inShare10

Even though tensions are running high after China deployed its powerful HQ-9 air and missile defense system to the disputed Woody Island in the South China Sea, war is unlikely to break out. But in the event of a conflict, the United States has one asset in the region that can effectively counter the HQ-9—the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
The HQ-9 is a very capable weapon that fuses the best qualities of the Russian-made Almaz Antey S-300P (SA-10 Growler) and the U.S.-made MIM-104 Patriot—which Beijing acquired thanks to Israel. But it also has features that most U.S.- and Russian-made surface-to-air missiles (SAM) systems don’t—such as an active electronically scanned array radar. A single HQ-9 battery can engage six targets simultaneously out to 120 miles at altitudes up to 90,000ft. Moreover, some versions of the HQ-9’s interceptor missiles are thought to be able to engage targets as far out as 150 miles. In effect, the weapon is powerful enough to create a de facto no-fly zone for conventional aircraft within that bubble.
The stealthy fifth-generation F-22 Raptor is the U.S. Air Force’s best counter to the HQ-9. Though the F-22 was originally conceived as a dedicated air superiority fighter, the Raptor has proven to be remarkably versatile aircraft. Indeed, in recent years, in addition to air superiority, the Raptor’s primary role has been to “kick down the door” for Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bombers as part of the Global Strike Task Force concept because of its formidable ability to shred enemy air defenses. More recently over Iraq and Syria, the F-22’s powerful sensor suite has seen the Raptor being used as a reconnaissance and even a command and control asset.
The Air Force already as an expeditionary squadron of Raptors deployed to the region from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson’s 3rd Wing in Alaska. The 3rd Wing’s jets—which tend to be first in line for upgraded equipment—are in the latest Increment 3.2A configuration. That means that in addition to being upgraded with synthetic aperture radar mapping, geo-location capabilities and Small Diameter Bomb (SBD) capability, those jets feature much improved combat identification ability and a Link-16 feed that is fused with the rest of the Raptor’s sensor data.
It’s not clear if the jets that are currently in theatre are equipped with the Raptor’s Upgrade 5 software—which was scheduled to be released in October 2015—but those aircraft could also feature a rudimentary capability to launch the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120D AMRAAM, as well as feature an automatic ground collision avoidance system, if so equipped. Upgrade 5 allows Raptor pilots to exploit new weapons such as the AIM-9X high off-boresight dogfighting missile (Upgrade 4 in the case of the AIM-120D) using “rules of thumb”—but it does not display the correct symbology for the new ordnance. Full integration of the AIM-9X and AIM-120D will be fielded in 2018 along with much improved geo-location capabilities with the Increment 3.2B upgrade—which includes a new stores management system.
The Raptor—with the geo-location capability added in the Increment 3.1 upgrade—is a lethal weapon against enemy surface-to-air missiles like the S-300 and S-400—or HQ-9, as the case may be. With it synthetic aperture radar and geo-location ability, the Raptor can locate the highly mobile SAMs and engage them from relative safety using a combination of blistering speed and stealth. Indeed, the F-22 can sustain Mach 1.8+ without afterburners and has a radar cross section the size of a metal marble. That means it can get close enough to an HQ-9 site to engage it with a 250lbs SBDs or 1,000lbs JDAM satellite-guided bomb without being exposed for too long.
China’s HQ-9 deployment to Woody Island might allow Beijing to ward of the air forces of neighboring countries, but the arrival of the F-22 Raptor to the region means that the U.S. Air Force still has free reign over the skies of the South China Sea.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Flickr/U.S. Air Force.

 

 The Buzz

U.S. Air Force to Arm Fighters with Superpowered SHIELD Lasers

Dave Majumdar

March 1, 2016

inShare27

The United States Air Force is developing podded defensive lasers to shoot down incoming air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. But there are many hurdles that have yet to be crossed.
“There is a lot of technology in beam steering and in power management and in thermal management that has to be worked in these that we are working under a considered S&T [science and technology] program with an eye toward transitioning on those to aircraft,” Dr. David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, told the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on February 24.
Air Combat Command and the Air Force Research Laboratory are working on a program called SHIELD—for Self-protected High-Energy Laser Demonstration—which would place a 30-kilowatt powered laser into an externally carried pod. As technology improves, the service hopes to grow the power output of the defensive laser.
The SHIELD-pod—which is currently just a demonstrator—is not being designed for fifth-generation stealth fighters like the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or the F-35. The externally carried pod would force those jets to sacrifice their stealth characteristics. Rather, the technology would help older aircraft and conventional fighters like the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle to better enable those jets to survive in contested airspace.
Initially, the Air Force is focusing on defensive lasers. But eventually—once the technology matures—the service hopes to develop offensive lasers. The Air Force Special Operations Command—working in conjunction the Navy—is examining the possibility of placing an offensive laser onboard an AC-130 gunship, Walker said. However, an AC-130—which is based on the Hercules airframe—is a much larger platform than a fighter. “I think we are on a good path to move to electric lasers,” Walker said.
While defensive lasers in the 100-kilowatt range might be fielded by the mid-2020s, it will take much longer to field long-range offensive air-to-air lasers. Those high-powered lasers would require a minimum of 300-kilowatts—according to Air Force sources—and might take decades to field.
Nonetheless, lasers will be among the technologies the Air Force will study for its Next Gen Air Dominance efforts to replace the F-22 and F-15C Eagle.
Dave Majumdar is the new Defense Editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.

Image: Flickr/U.S. Air Force.

 http://www.businessinsider.com/

This chart shows just how massive America's drone fleet is

• Jeremy Bender

As the varieties and utilities of drones quickly multiply, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has quickly mounted throughout the US Armed Forces.
From reconnaissance roles within the US Army to attack roles within the US Air Force, and with squadrons within both the Navy and the Marines, the proliferation of drones has touched every element of the US Armed Forces.
The following graphic, from CI Geography, shows just how widespread the use of drones is within the US. You can see a larger version of the poster here:

 
CI Geography

Currently, the US Air Force has the highest number of drone squadrons. The Air Force uses drones in reconnaissance, special operations, attack, and electronic squadrons.
 The Navy, conversely, only fields the MQ-8B Fire Scout in two squadrons. The MQ-8B is a helicopter drone that is primarily used for reconnaissance, situational awareness, and to provide fire control.
Altogether, according to the graphic, the US Armed Forces has 50 units that make use of UAVs in some capacity.

This chart shows the incredible cost of operating the US Air Force's most expensive planes

By Jeremy Bender and Mike Nudelman 5 hours ago

The US Air Force's unquestioned aerial dominance does not come cheap. 

For the Air Force's 10 most expensive planes, operating costs per hour start at $58,059, and it only climbs from there.
The following graphic, based upon the Air Force's cost per hour of flight estimations, lists the 10 most expensive planes to operate in descending order:

(Mike Nudelman/Business Insider)

The E-4 Nightwatch is far and away the most expensive military plane that the Air Force operates. The Nightwatch operates as a command and control aircraft that is meant to serve as a flying airbase for the president and members of cabinet in case of a national disaster. 

Designed as a doomsday plane, the Nightwatch is so expensive to operate due to both its size and its technical abilities. The plane is specially designed to survive electromagnetic pulses, with additional thermal and nuclear shielding. It also can refuel aerially and can fit up to 112 passengers. 

Surprisingly, the much maligned F-35 is actually only the seventh most expensive plane per hour that the Air Force flies. The F-35's costs are partially due to the lack of an efficient supply-chain for the aircraft, something that should be sorted out over the coming years.

Among the cheapest aircraft that the Air Force operates are Predator Drones and the A-10. These aircraft cost an estimated $1,500 and $11,500 per hour to operate, respectively. 

NOW WATCH: This is why US aircraft carriers are a force to be reckoned with

 

Get Ready, ISIS: America's Lethal B-52 Bomber Is Coming For You

Joseph Trevithick

March 7, 2016

inShare1

The Pentagon has few weapons as iconic and fearsome—not to mention as old—as the B-52 Stratofortress. Now the U.S. Air Force plans to send the bombers to strike the Islamic State.
Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, made the announcement at the Air Force Association’s annual Air Warfare Symposium on February 26. Lt. Gen. Charles Brown, in charge of the flying branch’s top headquarters for the Middle East, said he would help “bring B-52s to town,” according to Air Force Magazine.
The eight-engine aircraft will take over from the sleeker B-1 “Bone” bombers, which halted bombing runs in Iraq and Syria in January. The Air Force pulled the B-1s from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar to give their crews some much needed rest and to fit important upgrades to the aircraft.
Less than a month after the first air strikes against Islamic State in August 2014, observers spotted the Bones flying missions over Iraq and Syria. In December, the swing-wing jets supported the Iraqi army during an offensive to retake Ramadi.
“We’ve got B-1s in this fight, and when we find obstacles that we know we can hit, we’ll strike them from the air as well to try and disable them,” Pentagon spokesman U.S. Army Col. Steve Warren said in a December 24 interview on CNN. “B-1s are evolving into a very effective close air support platform.”
Despite the symbolism, these warplanes are not engaged in carpet bombing. Since the B-1’s entrance in the war, they’ve dropped precision-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions precisely onto Islamic State positions. When they arrive, the B-52s are likely to fly the same sort of missions.
On May 18, 2015, two B-52Hs conclusively demonstrated their ability to do just that in Jordan. The aircraft flew a non-stop round trip from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana to Wadi Shadiya and back for a training exercise, racking up 30 hours of flying time and traveling 14,000 miles in the process.
During the mission, the bombers dropped strings of JDAMs in a mock attack over a practice range.
Though they might seem smaller than the B-52s, the Bones can carry as much as 75,000 pounds of bombs—more than their 1960s counterparts. Able to fly tens of thousands of feet high, both bombers can easily stay out of range of the Islamic State’s small anti-aircraft guns and short range, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
The more vexing problem is coordinating with Iraqi and other friendly troops on the ground. With few American forces in the country, the Pentagon has had a hard time confirming that bombs and missiles are hitting their intended targets.
While safe from enemy fire, bombers flying high in the sky can have difficulty finding their mark. In June 2014, a B-1 accidentally killed five American commandos and an Afghan soldier in Afghanistan. Another Air Force pilot recounted a similar story where another Bone nearly killed a contingent of British troops in 2007.
Of course, the relatively fast-moving pace of aerial combat and the general confusion of battle can still cause problems for low-flying aircraft. On March 13, 2015, two A-10 ground attack planes killed at least four civilians in Iraq after mistakenly assuming they were Islamic State fighters. The Pentagon only investigated the incident after a survivor came forward seeking reimbursement for her destroyed SUV.
Even after the B-1s returned home, the Air Force was still unsure of whether the older B-52s would take their place. “A B-52 deployment is not part of the mix of B-1B substitutes being considered,” Air Force Lt. Gen. John Raymond, the service’s deputy chief of staff for operations, told Air Force Magazine on January 21.
Despite their age, the B-52s have received significant upgrades for their communications equipment, targeting gear and other systems. Despite being a half-century old, the combat-ready aircraft regularly appear in training exercises around the world.
Joseph Trevithick is a reporter for War is Boring, where this article first appeared.
Image: Flickr/U.S. Air Force.

http://www.businessinsider.com/

The most lethal combat aircraft in the world just got more capable

• Dario Leone, The Aviationist

 
Senior Airman Laura Turner and Senior Airman 
Garrett Hothan / US Air Force

On Mar. 1, 2016, the 90th Fighter Squadron (FS) belonging to the 3rd Wing stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska officially became the first combat-operational Raptor unit to equip an F-22 with the AIM-9X Sidewinder.
According to Chief Master Sgt. Chuck Jenkins, 3rd Wing Weapons Manager, the AIM-9X will increase the already outstanding Raptor’s combat capabilities. “This has been in the inventory for the Air Force and Navy for some years; it’s nothing new to the military, but to put it on the Ferrari of aircraft — the F-22, the most advanced aircraft we have — it gives the pilots more maneuverability, larger range, and it’s a much faster missile,” he said.
A claim confirmed by Lt. Col David Skalicky, commander of the 90th FS, who highlighted that, like the F-22 is a generation beyond the fighters that came before it, the AIM-9X is a generation beyond the previous variants of the Sidewinder missile: “Every aspect about this missile, it’s a huge capability increase in all facets, we can employ it in more scenarios, at greater range, and reach edges of the envelope we would have had a more difficult time reaching with the AIM-9M.”

 
TSgt. Michael Ammons, USAFAIM-9X/

The late arrival of the AIM-9X (already integrated in most of US combat planes since 2003) to the F-22 very well may signal a new era in Air Force airpower, since as told by Skalicky “this missile makes the most lethal combat aircraft the world has ever seen even more capable. It’s a giant enhancement to the already formidable F-22 arsenal.”
Noteworthy, the AIM-9X will not be coupled to a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) as the F-22 is not equipped with such kind of helmet that provides the essential flight and weapon aiming information through line of sight imagery (the project to implement it was axed following 2013 budget cuts).
With a HMD (like the American Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System — JHMCS), information imagery (including aircraft’s airspeed, altitude, weapons status, aiming etc.) are projected on the visor enabling the pilot to look out in any direction with all the required data always in his field of vision.
The HMD would enable the pilot to exploit the full HOBS (High Off-Boresight) capabilities of the AIM-9X and engage a target by simply looking at it.

 
Senior Airman Laura Turner and Senior Airman 
Garrett Hothan / US Air Force

However, the F-22 will probably fill the gap and benefit of the AIM-9X Block II, that is expected to feature a Lock-on After Launch capability with a datalink, for Helmetless High Off-Boresight (HHOBS): the air-to-air missile will be launched first and then directed to its target afterwards even though it is behind the launching aircraft.
Initial testing highlighted a problem though: whilst HHOBS in Block II worked pretty well, its performance was below the performance seen in Block I.

Read the original article on The Aviationist. Copyright 2016. Follow The Aviationist on Twitter.

 

The Buzz

Blast from the Past: Soviet-Era Tu-160M2 Is More Lethal Than Ever

Dave Majumdar

March 4, 2016

inShare53

Russia’s upgraded Tupolev Tu-160M2 Blackjack supersonic bomber is expected to make its first flight in 2019.
Moscow currently has sixteen of the original version of the Mach 2.0-capable bomber, which are the last surviving examples of the thirty-five aircraft built by the Soviet Union before its demise. Moscow hopes to build fifty new Tu-160M2 aircraft to upgrade its aging strategic bomber force.
“I believe that in 2019 this plane, upgraded and manufactured, will make its maiden flight,” Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces told the Moscow-based TASS News Agency on March 2.
Russia made the decision to extend the development of the Tupolev PAK-DA in favor of the Tu-160M2 in 2015. Serial production of the new Blackjack variant is expected to start in 2023. According to Russia’s deputy defense minister Yuri Borisov—as cited by TASS—the Tu-160M2 has been fundamentally upgraded with completely new mission systems and other improvements over the existing M variant. “This will be essentially a new airplane, not a Tu-160 but a Tu-160M2,” Borisov told RIA Novosti last year.
Details on the exact nature of the Tu-160M2 upgrades are scarce. Presumably, Tupolev has made long-overdue adjustments to the airframe that were supposed to have been implemented during the Blackjack’s original production run. However, those tweaks are likely to be fairly minor. The major upgrades are almost certainly going to be focused on the bomber’s avionics suite.
Russia’s Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) is working on developing the new avionics suite for the Tu-160M2. “Today we can say with confidence that the new aircraft will be constructed using the elements of integrated modular avionics (IMA),” the company told Russia’s state-owned RIA Novosti. “In the project to modernize the Tu-160, KRET will be creating new on-board systems, controls, a gimbal-less inertial navigation system, electronic warfare complex, fuel use monitoring systems, as well as weapons control systems.”
Some of the new avionics could find their way onto the PAK-DA, which is being developed in parallel to the Tu-160M2. “The resumption of production of the Tu-160 will mobilize all research and manufacturing facilities of concern in this area and create an ideology for a fundamentally new approach to be implemented in the framework of the project of creation PAK-DA,” KRET told the Russian outlet.
While much of the aircraft will be new, the Tu-160 will nonetheless retain its original nuclear deterrence mission. Unlike the stealthy Northrop Grumman B-2 or future B-21, the Russian bomber primarily relies on a combination of blistering speed and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles to deliver its doomsday payload.
Indeed, it’s probable—given Russia’s nuclear doctrine—that even the future PAK-DA stealth bomber will rely primarily on long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for the nuclear deterrence role.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Mod/MOD.

 

 The Buzz

America's 6th Generation Fighter: The F-22 Raptor Rises from the Ashes?

Dave Majumdar

March 8, 2016

inShare39

The Pentagon erred in prematurely terminating the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter program—having miscalculated how quickly the Russians and Chinese would develop new aircraft. While the Raptor is not likely to brought back into production, the Air Force and Navy have started work on a next generation air superiority capability.
The basic problem stems from a mistake that was made in the aftermath of the Cold War. During the 1990s and the early 2000s—with the Soviet threat evaporating—the Defense Department did not anticipate facing off against a near-peer threat in the foreseeable future. That assessment was wrong—as Russian and Chinese developments have shown.
“The department and the Congress made a decision that we would not see a near-peer threat within a number of years, and that decision also proved to be—and that judgment—also proved to be optimistic,” Lt. Gen. James Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 8. “We’ve seen both Russia and China develop airplanes much faster than was anticipated.”
Premature termination of the F-22 line at 187 aircraft has left the Air Force vulnerable to new Russian air defenses. Asked by Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) about the threat posed by advanced Russian-made defenses—especially the S-400—Air Force officials expressed caution. “I’m very concerned for our airmen against the advanced threats,” Lt. Gen. John Raymond, deputy chief of staff for operations told the committee.
Holmes added that air superiority in the context of modern air defenses is more than just pure air-to-air combat—aircraft have to be able to destroy systems like the S-400 or neutralize those threats with electronic warfare or cyber attacks. “We’ll have to continue to spend money to improve the capability of both the F-22 and the F-15 while we work our way through to a replacement,” Holmes said. On the gap between America’s superior capabilities and those of other nations, Holmes said, “We need to make that bigger again.”
So far, the Pentagon has not looked at the possibility of reopening the Raptor line because it would cost a lot of money. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a contractor might bid a modernized Raptor or F-35 for the Next Generation Air Dominance program that’s aimed at replacing the F-22 and F-15C. “The Air Force and the Navy have been collaborating on a future capability that was called the Next Generation Air Dominance platform,” Holmes said. “We’ve worked together in our studies, worked together on providing technology together.”
While the original plan was to start a joint analysis of alternatives for a next-generation air superiority machine, the Navy has already kicked off its study after the Air Force deferred its program. “We delayed a year because we wanted to take a broader look at the picture,” Holmes said. “We’ll move forward next year.”
But because the service needs a new fighter by the 2030s, the Air Force might not have the time to develop a completely new jet from scratch, it is possible that the a modernized F-22 might rise from the ashes. “Because we want to do it faster and we can’t afford to do another twenty-year development program for a host of reasons, we’ll try to go with technology that’s at a high readiness level now,” Holmes said. “I think it’s completely possible as we get to a requirement that there may be competitors that bid on a modification of an existing technology or platform like the F-22 and the F-35.”
Thus, the Raptor could one day—like the mythical Phoenix—rise from its ashes.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Image: Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed's Hybrid Wing Body Plane Will Fly This Year, in Model Form

Jay Bennett

Popular Mechanics

March 11, 2016

From Popular Mechanics

Lockheed Martin's Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) airlifter will fly sometime this year-or at least a four percent scale model of the aircraft will fly. The model has completed testing in a low-speed wind tunnel and is ready to be refurbished and flown for real.

Aerospace companies use low-speed wind tunnels-such as Lockheed's in Marietta, Georgia-to test models of the aircraft they are designing. Lockheed's 45-pound HWB model has a wingspan of 10-feet, and is capable of flying using 10-pound thrusters that are essentially ducted fans. The model's thrusters are not exactly to scale for the large-diameter turbofan engines that are planned for the full-sized aircraft, but the propulsion produced is the same.

The HWB is an appealing design, blending the wings into the body of the aircraft to make room for larger-than-normal engines and achieve high fuel efficiency. If it goes into production, it could ultimately replace large cargo aircraft used by the military. Design models and the wind tunnel testing suggest that the HWB could carry as much as the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, the biggest cargo plane used by the U.S. military (payload capacity 240,000 pounds), and burn 70% less fuel than the Boeing C-17 Globemaster, the most commonly used military cargo plane.

Rick Hooker, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works program manager for the HWB project, told Aviation Weekly that the model aircraft will be flown remotely "sometime this year."

Unlike flying-wing aircraft such as the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the HWB does not rely on any advanced control effectors, such as thrust vectoring, to maintain stability. In other words, it's designed to fly just like a normal plane. "It flies just like a tube-and-wing aircraft, using aileron, elevator and rudder," Hooker told Aviation Weekly.

In addition to the low-speed tests that were conducted on the model that will fly, Lockheed has also tested a heavy metal half-span model of the aircraft designed to withstand transonic speeds in the National Transonic Facility at NASA Langley Research Center.

If all goes smoothly during the model flight tests later this year, then we just might see Lockheed lay out some plans for the development of a full-sized airlifter.

Source: Aviation Weekly

 

Pentagon Mad Scientists Have Made the F-16 Even More Lethal

David Axe

March 11, 2016

inShare22

In the middle of June 2015, a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter took off from an air base in Alaska and flew over a military training range at 430 miles per hour. On command, something burst from the fighter’s flare dispenser—a drone roughly the size of a soda can and weighing just one pound.
The tiny, orange- and black-colored robot fluttered toward the ground trailing a parachute. After a few seconds, the chute separated from the drone, the robot’s wings—which had folded into the body for compactness—extended outward. An inch-wide propeller began spinning, propelling the diminutive machine forward.
The drone is called “Perdix.” It’s the latest product of the Strategic Capabilities Office, a secretive Pentagon organization, formed in 2012, whose job is to find new ways to deploy existing weapons.
One of the office’s ideas is to transform F-16s and other fast jets into high-speed launchers for swarms of small drones that could confuse enemy defenses or perform surveillance.
“Just imagine an airplane going in against an [integrated air defense] system and dropping thirty of these out that form into a network and do crazy things,” Bob Work, the deputy defense secretary, told trade publication Breaking Defense. “We’ve tested this. We’ve tested it and it works.”
The Perdix drones are 3D-printed out of Kevlar and carbon-fiber. Powered by lithium-ion batteries—the same kind you’d find in a cell phone—the Perdixes launch from a standard flare dispenser, like on the F-16, F/A-18 and other warplanes.
Toughness was a key design requirement. A Perdix must survive forceful ejection from a high-speed launcher and right itself in turbulent winds.
The drones were originally developed by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2011. The students tested the Perdixes from balloons and envisioned the small unmanned aerial vehicles supporting environmental monitoring.
But it was the military that was most interested in the tiny machines. The Virginia-based Strategic Capabilities Office—a twenty-six-person team led by William Roper, a physicist who previously worked for the military on missile defense—began experimenting with Perdix in 2014.
The Alaska sortie was the first in a rapid-fire series of flight tests. As part of the Northern Edge war game last June, fighters launched Perdix drones 72 times. After deploying, a swarm of potentially dozens of the Perdix robots connect via radio datalink—and pursue their objective.
“The specifics of what the mini-drones can do are classified, but they could be used to confuse enemy forces and carry out surveillance missions using equipment that costs much less than full-sized unmanned aircraft,” the Washington Post reported.
Fighter-launched robotic decoys are not new, per se. The F-16 was one of the first U.S. military aircraft to carry the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, a roughly 10-foot-long, radar-spoofing drone, starting in the late 1990s.
The difference is the swarm. While an F-16 might launch only a couple of MALDs, the same plane could deploy up thirty Perdixes—thirty is the flare capacity of the standard ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser—making the smaller drones much harder to destroy and potentially much more effective.
Not to mention cheaper. A single ADM-160B MALD costs more than $300,000. Two years of testing involving potentially hundreds of Perdixes has cost the government just $20 million, thanks in part to the initiative’s heavy reliance on existing technology.
“We don’t have to develop fundamentally new weapons,” Roper told The Washington Post. “But we have to work the integration and the concept of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don’t have to wait long at all.”
David Axe is a contributor to War is Boring, where this article first appeared.
Image: U.S. Air Force.

Lockheed Martin’s SR-72 Hypersonic Plane Could Be Built For Under $1B, Likely To Be Ready In 2030s

By Vishakha Sonawane @VishakhaNS On 03/16/16 AT 7:06 AM

An artist's impression of Lockheed Martin's conceptual hypersonic

 jet is seen in this undated photo. Photo: Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday it was on the verge of a technological breakthrough that would allow its conceptual SR-72 hypersonic plane to reach six times the speed of sound, or Mach 6, according to reports. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed, said that a hypersonic demonstrator aircraft the size of an F-22 stealth fighter could be built for less than $1 billion.
The company is working on an “aerodynamic configuration” that would allow the successor to the famed SR-71 Blackbird spy plane to fly at Mach 6 speed, Hewson said, according to Reuters. Such a plane would give the U.S. military a major advantage, allowing it to reach targets before the enemy could react.
Orlando Carvalho, head of Lockheed's aeronautics division, said the U.S. government's current plan was to manufacture and deploy a hypersonic weapon, before moving on to develop and deploy a hypersonic aircraft, Reuters reported. He added that the U.S. could make a hypersonic weapon by the 2020s, but a hypersonic aircraft like the SR-72 would be manufactured in the 2030s.
Carvalho also said that Lockheed has been working on an engine for the hypersonic aircraft with Aerojet Rocketdyne, a rocket manufacturer, Financial Times reported. He added that innovation was “much more rapid” now than in the past because of Aerojet’s engine work and Lockheed’s work on aircraft materials, the report added.
“That said, it’s going to require a significant amount of development work, investment and maturing of the technology,” Carvalho, according to the Financial Times.
Lockheed announced plans for the SR-72 hypersonic plane in 2013, billing it as an aircraft that would fly twice as fast as the SR-71 Blackbird.

http://nextbigfuture.com/

Lockheed confident they can fly demonstrator hypersonic missiles by 2018 and reusable hypersonic aircraft the size of an F-22 could be demoed in the 2020s

Lockheed CEO Hewson says Lockheed is now producing a controllable, low-drag, aerodynamic configuration capable of stable operations from takeoff to subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic, to Mach 6.

Hypersonic flight is defined as anything about Mach 5, meaning five times the speed of sound or 3,600 miles per hour. To put it into perspective, a jet flying at hypersonic speeds could cross the continental United States in about half an hour.

Lockheed is working on breakthroughs in new thermal protection systems, innovative aerodynamic shapes, navigation guidance and control improvements, and long-range communication capabilities.

Based on lessons learned from HTV-2, Lockheed is currently supporting two new customer efforts in hypersonics:

1. the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept, or HAWC, and
2. the Tactical Boost Glide vehicle

Lockheed’s secretive Skunkworks arms is working with Aerojet Rocketdyne to mature technologies for HAWC, a joint DARPA-US Air Force effort, according to Skunkworks executive vice president Rob Weiss. Lockheed’s HAWC uses a booster to get up to altitude and then fires a “scramjet” engine that funnels in oxygen from the outside air to reach upwards of Mach 5.

Lockheed will submit a proposal for the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept later this month, and expects a contract award in the middle of the year, Weiss said. A demonstrator aircraft will fly in the 2018 timeframe.

Marillyn Hewson said Lockheed's engineers are on the verge of making technology such as scramjet engines, which have been talked about for years, a reality. This illustration shows the design for the SR-72's engine. The plane will also have a 'warm structure' that will heat up during flight

Hewson also showed an image of a third hypersonic concept, similar to the HAWC but with a recoverable “turbine-based combined cycle” engine, Weiss explained. The HAWC’s booster is designed for a single use, he stressed. There is not yet a DARPA project for this capability, and Lockheed still needs to mature the propulsion technology, he said.

Lockheed estimates it will cost less than $1 billion to develop, build and fly a reusable hypersonic demonstrator aircraft the size of an F-22s than $1 billion.

Lockheed sees a hypersonic weapon capability in the 2020s, and a hypersonic air vehicle – manned or unmanned – in the 2030s

"The technology could also enable hypersonic passenger flights, and even easier access to space," she said. The question is whether there's an appetite for such an aircraft right now. "Now is the right time," Hewson insisted. "We know we must continue to disrupt ourselves before our competitors do."
 

After the F-35: The Time to Start Planning Is Now

Andrew DaviesJames Mugg

March 15, 2016

inShare2

The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is holding an inquiry into the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter). ASPI has had a keen interest in this project for over a decade, so we made a submission (available here).
The public discussion of the F-35 is a curious mix of diametrically opposed views—either the F-35 is the biggest folly ever to attract funding, or it’s a game-changing platform about to turn traditional notions of air combat on their head. It’s fair to say that the public submissions to the inquiry are heavily weighted towards the former. Those views can’t both be true (though they can both be wrong).
For a couple of reasons, we decided not to enter the debate about the merits of the F-35 as a platform in our submission. First, and in common with the most vociferous critics of the aircraft, we don’t have the data required to do so. Second, and more important, there aren’t a lot of options in any case. It’s either the F-35, or something from an earlier generation of combat aircraft design—an unappealing option for an air force looking to recapitalize an ageing fleet of 1980s built Hornets.
We note that some of the public submissions suggested that the answer lies in the USAF’s F-22 Raptor. While it’s impressive, it’s expensive to maintain (with costs per flying hour about the same as a B-52), suffers from low (but improving) availability, is long out of production and is not available for export. And if that’s not impossible enough, the RAND Corporation estimates that new build F-22s could cost US$276 million each (2019 dollars) compared to a projected US$90 million for an F-35 in 2019.
Having limited choices isn’t great, but it’s a direct consequence of Australia’s precipitous decision to go all-in for the F-35 back in 2002, shutting down a study into future air combat options that was in progress at the time. If it hadn’t been for then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson’s 2007 intervention—despite advice to the contrary from the RAAF—to buy an ‘interim air combat capability’ in the form of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, today’s RAAF’s air combat force would be much less capable, given that the F-111 was retired six years ago.
ASPI last looked at the F-35 acquisition in detail back in 2014, when the Abbott government approved the purchase of fifty-eight aircraft. At the time our best judgment was that the F-35 had put many (not all) of its development problems behind it. We judged that the timetable for an Australian acquisition had enough leeway to allow for a few more hiccups and still deliver before the A/B model Hornets reach the end of their lives in the early 2020s.
We still think that’s the most likely outcome, despite some disappointing observations from the Pentagon’s most recently released Directorate of Operational Testing and Evaluation report. Even a sympathetic reading of the report (and the predictably upbeat response from the F-35 program office) suggests that significant issues remain, and that further slippages in delivery of full operational capability are possible. That’s why our submission reaches these conclusions:

1) We don’t see any need to change Australia’s current plan at the moment. The F-35 remains the RAAF’s best choice for its future air combat capability.
2) Further delays to F-35 delivery could drastically limit [Australia’s] possible responses in the early 2020s, and a capability gap is a possibility.
3) As a prudent hedging measure we recommend that Defence gather data regarding the window of opportunity for future orders of an additional tranche of Super Hornets.

The idea of a second tranche of ‘interim’ aircraft will no doubt receive the same response from the RAAF as did the first. The RAAF has its eyes firmly set on the F-35 and probably won’t welcome any suggestion of deviating from that course. But we don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing, and it would certainly be better than running out of serviceable jets sometime around 2023.
As our colleague Malcolm Davis pointed out last week, it’s not too early to start thinking about what comes after the F-35. The F-35 would’ve been a world beater if it had been delivered to the USAF in 2007 as originally planned. It might still be a world beater, but there’s no doubt that the margin has narrowed as competitors have built their first stealth aircraft and develop counter-stealth technologies. The ‘lost decade’ will have consequences for the longevity of the F-35.
So instead of an all-in approach on the F-35 (that ship sailed when the Super Hornets were ordered anyway), we wonder if there’s another answer that’s more “future proof.” A mix of fifty Super Hornets and fifty F-35s, with the Super Hornets to be replaced around 2030 by fifty of ‘whatever comes next’, might be worth contemplating. In any case, some contingency planning is in order.
Andrew Davies is senior analyst for defense capability and director of research at ASPI. James Mugg is a researcher at ASPI. This article first appeared in the Strategist.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Department of Defense.

 http://www.ibtimes.com/

Russia Test-Fires Hypersonic Zircon Missiles For Nuclear Submarines, Weapons To Reach Mach 5 Speed

By Vishakha Sonawane @VishakhaNS On 03/17/16 AT 8:08 AM

A view of a Russian warship during celebrations of the Defender

of the Fatherland Day in Sevastopol, Crimea, Feb. 23, 2016.  

Photo: REUTERS/Pavel Rebrov

Russia began testing its navy’s new hypersonic Zircon cruise missiles, Sputnik News reported citing RIA Novosti Thursday. The cruise missiles are expected to reach five or six times the speed of sound (Mach 5 or Mach 6), the report added.
“The tests of the hypersonic Zircon missiles have begun using a ground-based launching site,” a senior Defense Ministry source told RIA Novosti, according to Sputnik News.
Once the tests are confirmed successful, the missile will reportedly be presented for state approval. It will reportedly be installed on Russia's newest fifth-generation Husky-class nuclear submarines, which are currently being developed.
Modern Russian anti-ship missiles, like Onyx, can reach up to Mach 2.6 (750 meters per second). The sea-based Kalibr cruise missile travels at a Mach 0.9 speed, but while approaching the target, its warhead speeds up to Mach 2.9.
The Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles will also be used for Russian battleship Pyotr Veliky, Tass news agency reported last month. The range of the missile is likely to be just over 248 miles.
"The Pyotr Veliky will start repairs in the third or fourth quarter of 2019. Repairs and upgrade are due for completion in late 2022, the ship to be equipped with Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles," a source told Tass at the time.

Fifth-generation jet fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Fifth generation jet fighter)

USAF F-22 Raptor launching an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile

A fifth-generation jet fighter is a jet fighter classification used around the world that encompasses the most advanced jet fighter generation as of 2015. Fifth-generation aircraft are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth-generation jet fighter. The exact characteristics of fifth-generation jet fighters are controversial and vague, with Lockheed Martin defining them as having all-aspect stealth even when armed, low probability of intercept radar (LPIR), high-performance airframes, advanced avionics features, and highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the battlespace for situation awareness.^[1]
Currently, the only combat-ready fifth-generation fighter is the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which entered service with the United States Air Force in 2005.^[2][3][4] The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Sukhoi PAK FA, HAL AMCA, TAI TFX, Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 are currently under various stages of testing and development.

Contents

• 1 Development
  • 1.1 USA and NATO
  • 1.2 Russia
  • 1.3 China
  • 1.4 India
  • 1.5 Japan
  • 1.6 Turkey
  • 1.7 Islamic Republic of Iran
• 2 Common design elements
  • 2.1 Software defined aircraft
  • 2.2 Advanced engines
  • 2.3 Situational awareness
  • 2.4 The limits of stealth
  • 2.5 The combat cloud
• 3 Critics and alternative definitions
• 4 Fifth-generation fighters in service or with flying prototypes
  • 4.1 General data
  • 4.2 Performance
  • 4.3 Armament and Avionics
• 5 Related development
• 6 See also
• 7 References

Development

USA and NATO

A F-35C Lightning II test aircraft flies in February 2011

Previous-generation stealth aircraft, such as the B-2 Spirit and F-117 Nighthawk, were designed to be bombers, lacking the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, low probability of intercept (LPI) data networks, aerial performance, and air-to-air weapons necessary to engage other aircraft.^[5] In the early 1970s, various American design projects identified stealth, speed, and maneuverability as key characteristics of a next-generation air-to-air combat aircraft. This led to the Request for Information for the Advanced Tactical Fighter project in May 1981, which resulted in the F-22.^[6]
The USMC is leveraging the USAF's experience with "fifth-generation air warfare" in the F-22, as they develop their own tactics for the F-35.^[7]
According to Lockheed Martin, the only fifth-generation jet fighter currently in operational service is their own F-22 Raptor.^[2][8] US fighter manufacturer Lockheed Martin uses "fifth generation fighter" to describe the F-22 and F-35 fighters, with the definition including "advanced stealth", "extreme performance", "information fusion" and "advanced sustainment".^[2] Their definition no longer includes supercruise capability, which has typically been associated with the more advanced modern fighters, but which the F-35 lacks.^[9] Lockheed Martin attempted to trademark the term "5th generation fighters" in association with jet aircraft and structural parts thereof,^[10] and has a trademark for a logo with the term.^[11]
The rapid development of the Sukhoi PAK FA and Chengdu J-20 may see a rival for the F-35 in the future. Russian and Chinese fifth-generation fighters are expected to enter further development/service in 2017, which is also the predicted year that the F-35 program will enter the same stages.^[12]

Russia

A Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) test aircraft

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union outlined the need for a next-generation aircraft to replace the fourth-generation jet fighters Mikoyan MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27 in front line service. Two projects were proposed to meet this need: the 4.5 generation fighters Sukhoi Su-47 and Mikoyan Project 1.44 (although the MiG-35 was later modernized to 4.5 generation status). In 2002, Sukhoi was chosen to lead the design for the new combat aircraft.
As the first post-Soviet fighter, the fifth-generation jet fighter Sukhoi PAK FA will incorporate technology from both the Su-47 and the MiG 1.44 and when fully developed is intended to replace the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the Russian inventory. It serves as the basis of the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA project being developed with India.^[13][14] The PAK FA is designed to compete against the American F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. It performed its first flight on 29 January 2010^[15][16] and the first production aircraft is slated for delivery to the Russian Air Force by 2017.^[17]
Russia is also constructing a lightweight stealth multirole fighter, the Mikoyan LMFS (MiG-1.27) by aircraft manufacturer Mikoyan. This jet fighter is based on the cancelled MiG-1.44.^[18]

China

The Chengdu J-20 aircraft

The Shenyang J-31 aircraft at the 2014 Zhuhai Airshow

By the late 1990s, several Chinese fifth-generation fighter programs, grouped under the program codename J-XX or XXJ, were identified by western intelligence sources. PLAAF officials have confirmed the existence of such a program, which they estimate will enter service between 2017–2019.^[19][20] Nevertheless, Robert Gates has claimed that the United States may possess as much as 20 times more "advanced stealth fighters" than China by 2020.^[21] By late 2010, two prototypes of the Chengdu J-20 had been constructed and were undergoing high-speed taxi trials.^[22] The J-20 made its first flight on 11 January 2011.^[23]
Another stealth fighter design from SAC started to circulate on the internet in September 2011.^[24] In June 2012, photos about a possible prototype of F-60 being transferred on highway began to emerge on the internet.^[25] This aircraft was named Shenyang J-31 later, and made its maiden flight on Oct 31, 2012.^[26]

India

HAL AMCA, India's fifth generation stealth fighter

India is independently developing a twin-engine fifth-generation stealth multirole fighter, called HAL Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). It is being designed by the Aeronautical Development Agency and will be produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Unofficial design work on the AMCA started in 2008 with official design work started in 2011. First flight of HAL AMCA is estimated to occur in 2023-2024.^[27] AMCA would be powered by K 9 or K 10 engine with Supercruise capability without afterburner. The main purpose of the AMCA is to replace the aging SEPECAT Jaguar and Dassault Mirage 2000.
Another project of India is the Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), which is a fifth-generation fighter developed together by India and Russia. FGFA is based on Sukhoi PAK FA which is being developed by Russia. FGFA will include a total of 43 improvements over the existing PAK FA design and will be able to carry many weapons of Indian origin, however the project is already four years delayed caused due to multiple issues.^[28][29] The cost of the project will be shared equally by India and Russia. The Indian Air Force plans to induct 130 FGFA fighters, down from an earlier estimate of around 220.^[28]
As of 2015, AMCA is under development and FGFA is under negotiation.^[30]

Japan

Mitsubishi ATD-X model 2

Japan is currently developing a prototype of a stealth jet fighter called the Mitsubishi ATD-X. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Japan, seeking to replace its aging fleet of fighter aircraft, began making overtures to the United States on the topic of purchasing several Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighters for their own forces.^[31] However the U.S. Congress had banned the exporting of the aircraft in order to safeguard secrets of the aircraft's technology such as its extensive use of stealth; this rejection necessitated Japan's development of its own modern fighter, to be equipped with stealth features and other advanced systems.
A mock-up of the ATD-X was constructed and used to study the radar cross section in France in 2009. ATD-X first prototype rolled out in July 2014 and its first flight will occur in first quarter of 2015. The Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin will enter service in JASDF in 2024 as Mitsubishi F-3.

Turkey

Concept design of the TAI TFX

In 2011 Turkish Aerospace Industries initiated a $20 million concept design phase for a fifth-generation air-to-air fighter, TAI TFX. During a State visit of the President of Turkey to Sweden on the 13th of March 2013, Türk Havacılık ve Uzay Sanayii AŞ (Turkish Aerospace Industries, TAI) signed an agreement with Sweden's Saab AB to provide design support services to Turkey for the TAI TFX program.^{[32][33][34][35]} Turkey is the only JSF member with a program of its own. Turkish Aerospace Industries has stated that the program will cost $120 billion (with engine development).^[36] Former Prime Minister Erdoğan has stated that Turkey has allocated the funds for development of the fuselage (less engine) and that it intends to have the TAI TFX fully operational prior to 2025.
On 8 January 2015, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu announced that the TFX program will be an entirely indigenous platform with no international support shelving any cooperation with Korea, Sweden, Brazil or Indonesia. On 13 March 2015 the Turkish Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) officially issued a Request for Information from Turkish companies which had the capacity "to perform the indigenous design, development and production activities of the first Turkish Fighter Aircraft to meet Turkish Armed Forces’ next generation fighter requirements", signalling the official start of the program.

Islamic Republic of Iran

The Qaher F-313 is an Iranian single-seat stealth fighter aircraft that was publicly announced on 1 February 2013. A press presentation about the project was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi on 2 February 2013, as part of the Ten-Day Dawn ceremonies. According to Iranian government sources, the F-313 Qaher was designed and is indigenously produced in Iran by the Aviation Industries Organization (AIO), a division of the Ministry of Defense, and IRIAF. Experts from the aviation industry have questioned the airworthiness of the aircraft; for example the aircraft cockpit is just too small for a pilot to effectively perform necessary tasks and the air vents are far too narrow to supply any air to the turbo jet thus, unable to lift off and sustain flight. It is strongly speculated that Iran does not have the necessary capabilities to design and develop a 5th generation fighter all by itself.^[37]

Common design elements

Giovanni de Briganti has defined the defining elements of a fifth-generation fighter to be:^[38]

• Stealth
• High maneuverability - Which tends to include short-field capabilities.
• Advanced avionics
• Networked data fusion from sensors and avionics
• Multirole capabilities

In order to minimize their radar cross-section (RCS), all fifth-generation fighters use chines instead of standard leading edge extensions and lack canards, though the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 has engine intake extensions that seem to function somewhat like canards and the Chengdu J-20 designers have chosen the agility enhancements of canards in spite of their poor stealth characteristics.^[39] They all have twin canted vertical tails (similar to a V-tail) also to minimize side RCS. Most fifth-generation fighters with supermaneuverability achieve it through thrust vectoring.
They all have internal weapon bays in order to avoid high RCS weapon pylons, but they all have external hardpoints on their wings for use on non-stealthy missions, such as the external fuel tanks the F-22 carries when deploying to a new theater.
All fifth-generation fighters have a high percentage of composite materials, in order to reduce RCS and weight.

Software defined aircraft

All revealed fifth-generation fighters use commercial off-the-shelf main processors to directly control all sensors to form a consolidated view of the battlespace with both onboard and networked sensors, while previous-generation jet fighters used federated systems where each sensor or pod would present its own readings for the pilot to combine in their own mind a view of the battlespace.^[40][41][42] The F-22A was physically delivered without synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or situation awareness infra-red search and track. It will gain SAR later through software upgrades.^[43] However any flaw in these huge software systems can knock out supposedly unrelated aircraft systems and the complexity of a software defined aircraft can lead to a software crisis with additional costs and delays.^[44][45] By the end of 2013 the biggest concern with the F-35 program was software, especially the software required to do data fusion across the many sensors.^[46]
Sukhoi calls their expert system for sensor fusion the artificial intelligence of the PAK-FA.^[47]
An automatic software response to an overheat condition apparently has contributed to at least one fatal crash of an F-22.^[48]
The F-35 uses Software-defined radio systems, where common middleware controls Field-programmable gate arrays.^[49] Col. Arthur Tomassetti has said that the F-35 is a "software intensive airplane and software is easy to upgrade, as opposed to hardware."^[50]
In order to ease the addition of new software features, the F-35 has adopted a kernel and app separation of security responsibilities.^[51]
Steve O'Bryan of Lockheed Martin has said that the F-35 may gain the ability to operate UAVs through a future software upgrade.^[52] The USN is already planning to place its Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike system under the control of a manned aircraft, to act as a flying missile magazine.^[53]

Advanced engines

Fifth-generation jet fighters use the newest generation of high performance jet engines and only the American Pratt & Whitney F119 is fully developed. The engines for the F-35 are still under development, the Chinese are dependent on Russian engines, and even the Russians are falling short in the development of the latest jet engines.^[54][55]

Situational awareness

Main article: Situation awareness

The combination of stealthy airframes, stealthy sensors, and stealthy communications is designed to allow fifth-generation fighters to engage other aircraft before those targets are aware of their presence.^[56] Lt. Col. Gene McFalls of the USAF has said that sensor fusion will feed into inventory databases to precisely identify aircraft at a distance.^[57]
Sensor fusion and automatic target tracking are projected to give the fifth-generation jet fighter pilot a view of the battlespace superior to that of legacy AWACS aircraft that may be forced back from the front lines by increasing threats. Therefore, tactical control could be shifted forwards to the pilots in the fighters.^[58] Michael Wynne, former Secretary of the United States Air Force, has suggested elimination of the Boeing E-3 Sentry and Boeing E-8 Joint STARS in favor of more F-35s, simply because so much effort is being made by the Russians and Chinese to target these platforms that are built to commercial airliner standards.^[59]
However, the more powerful sensors, such as AESA radar which is able to operate in multiple modes at the same time, may present too much information for the single pilot in the F-22, F-35 and T-50 to adequately use. The Sukhoi/HAL FGFA offered a return to the two-seat configuration common in fourth generation strike fighters, but this was rejected over cost concerns.^[60]
There is ongoing research to apply Track-before-detect across Sensor fusion in the core CPU to allow fifth-generation fighters to engage targets that no single sensor has by itself detected.^[61]

The limits of stealth

Main article: Radar cross-section

Even committed fifth-generation fighter users such as the Israelis concede that advances in sensors and computing will overcome a pure stealth configuration within a decade. This is why the Israelis insisted that the F-35 have defined interfaces so that the electronic warfare systems could be constantly improved to match the threat.^[62] All known fifth-generation designs have extensive electronic warfare systems, partly in response to an incident where the limited EW systems on an F-117 may have led to its loss in combat.^[63] Stealth is now seen as "part of the overall electronic warfare issue", in that a stealthy platform is easier to hide with the assistance of jamming.^[64]
Chinese state media has claimed that their UHF JY-26 radar has tracked an F-22 on deployment to South Korea.^[65]

The combat cloud

Main articles: network-centric warfare and Cooperative Engagement Capability

Gilmary M. Hostage III has suggested that fifth-generation jet fighters will operate together in a "combat cloud" along with future unmanned combat aircraft,^[66] and Manazir has suggested that this might come as quickly as loading a UCLASS with AMRAAMs to be launched at the command of an F-35.^[67]

Critics and alternative definitions

The definition of the term fifth-generation fighter from Lockheed Martin has been criticized by companies whose products do not conform to these particular specifications, such as Boeing and Eurofighter, and by other commentators such as Bill Sweetman:^[68] "it is misleading to portray the F-22 and F-35 as a linear evolution in fighter design. Rather, they are a closely related pair of outliers, relying on a higher level of stealth as a key element of survivability – as the Lockheed YF-12 and Mikoyan MIG-25, in the 1960s, relied on speed and altitude."^[69]
The United States Navy and Boeing have placed the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a "next generation" fighter category along with the F-22 and F-35,^[70] as the Super Hornet has a "fifth-generation" AESA radar, modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions and sensor fusion.^[71][72] A senior USAF pilot has complained about fifth-generation claims for the Super Hornet: "The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness. The point about fifth-generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere – even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you."^[73] Michael “Ponch” Garcia of Raytheon has said that the addition of their AESA radars to the Super Hornet provides "90 percent of your fifth-generation capability at half the cost."^[74] And a top Boeing official has called their newest 4.5 generation fighters "stealth killers".^[75]
In response to the use of the "fifth generation" term, Eurofighter has made a fifth-generation checklist placing different weights on the various capabilities, and arguing that the application of the label to strike aircraft such as Lockheed-Martin's F-35 is ill-advised, and even inconsistent with the aircraft's specifications. Meanwhile, Eurofighter adds "net-enabled operations" as a noteworthy requirement and de-emphasizes full-scope low observability as only one factor in survivability.^[76] In the same article Eurofighter GmbH appear to acknowledge the remarkable performance of Lockheed Martin's F-22 aircraft, while demonstrating that labels as simple as "fifth generation" may easily be devised to serve the interests of the writer.
Richard A. Bitzinger of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, a former consultant for the American RAND Corporation think tank, suggests that Western Europe's "failure" to develop a fifth-generation jet fighter may reduce these former leaders in the market to also-ran status as the world's attention shifts to the competition between the United States and Asian powers.^[77] Canadians Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss of the Center for Security Studies claim that Europe's failure to "keep up" with the F-35 may make the European jet fighter manufacturers close up shop.^[78] However, Europe may return with a trans-national 'sixth-generation' UCAV, assuming that the political entanglements can be evaded.^[79] The European Defence Agency has warned that the European $60 billion industry could collapse by 2020.^[80]
The Russian Defense Ministry defines fifth-generation as including "stealth technology, supersonic cruising speed, highly-integrated avionics, electronics and fire-control systems".^[81]

Flygsystem 2020

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Flygsystem 2020 ("Flight System 2020", abbreviated FS 2020), is an ongoing project by the Swedish Air Force to develop a stealth fighter by 2020.^[1] Little public information exists about the project, which might not be possible due to recent defense budget cuts; there are no official statements about the current stage of development, although a video claims to show a miniature prototype test.^[2] In 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Lars Helmrich of the Swedish Air Force asked members of the Riksdag to consider the development of a new jet fighter or to upgrade all present JAS 39 multirole fighters to the NG model, claiming the early versions of the aircraft will be useless by 2020.^[3]
The Saab/Linköping University Generic Future Fighter project^[4][5][6] is a testbed for its technologies.

Partnership with Turkish Aerospace Industries

During a State visit of the President of Turkey to Sweden on the 13th of March 2013, Türk Havacılık ve Uzay Sanayii AŞ (Turkish Aerospace Industries, TAI) signed an agreement with Sweden's Saab to provide design support services to Turkey for the TFX (Turkey) program.^{[7][8][9][10]}
However, the project is under pressure to be abandoned, due to Turkey's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program.^[11]

Mikoyan LMFS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LMFS
Role	Stealth fighter
Manufacturer	Mikoyan
Status	Under development
Primary user	Russian Air Force

The Mikoyan LMFS (Russian: Микоян ЛМФС) is a proposed Russian stealth, single-engine multirole combat aircraft, loosely based on the canceled Mikoyan Project 1.44. Recent images reveal a fighter design with substantially larger internal weapons bays. It is designed to replace the Mikoyan MiG-29.^[1]

Contents

• 1 Design
• 2 See also
• 3 References
• 4 External links

Design

Developed by the United Aircraft Corporation (OAK), this light fighter is believed to incorporate an engine based on the RD-33 engine, and manufactured at the Klimov factory. The engine is supposed to be fifth generation, utilizing the latest advancements in turbine and combustion chamber technology, and only receiving minor changes to the fan blades.^[2]

KAI KF-X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KF-X / IF-X
Role	Multirole fighter
Manufacturer	Korea Aerospace Industries Indonesian Aerospace
Designer	Agency for Defense Development Korea Aerospace Industries
Introduction	2025 (planned)
Status	In development[1]

The Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X/IF-X is a South Korean program to develop an advanced multirole fighter for the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) and Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU), spearheaded by South Korea with Indonesia as the primary partner.^[2] It is South Korea's second fighter development program following the FA-50.
The project was first announced by South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung at the graduation ceremony of the Korea Air Force Academy in March 2001. South Korea and Indonesia agreed to cooperate in the production of KF-X/IF-X warplanes in Seoul on July 15, 2010.^[3] The initial operational requirements for the KF-X/IF-X program as stated by the ADD (Agency for Defence Development) were to develop a single-seat, twin-engine jet with stealth capabilities beyond either the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon, but still less than the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The overall focus of the program is producing a 4.5th generation fighter with higher capabilities than a KF-16 class fighter by 2020.^[4][5][6] Quantities of the resulting fighter are planned at 120 for the ROK Air Force and 80 for the Indonesian Air Force.^[7] South Korea plans to procure it from 2023 to 2030.^[1]

Contents

• 1 Design and development
• 2 KF-X competition
• 3 Specifications
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Design and development

According to the Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University, the KF-X is intended to be superior to the KF-16, replacing South Korea's aging F-4D/E Phantom II and F-5E/F Tiger II aircraft, with production numbers estimated to be over 250 aircraft. Compared to KF-16, the KF-X will have a 50% greater combat radius, 34% longer airframe lifespan, better avionics including a domestically produced AESA radar, and better electronic warfare, IRST, and datalink capabilities. Operational requirements also specify approx 50,000 pounds of thrust provided by one or preferably two engines, high-speed interception and supercruise capabilities, basic stealth technology, and multirole capabilities. There are currently two competing designs for the KFX, the KFX-201 which has a three-surface layout with canards and a more conventional, Single Engine F-35 style KFX-101 design.
South Korea will fund 60% of the aircraft's development, and expects foreign partners to provide the remaining 40% of the development funding.^[8] South Korea possesses 63% of the necessary technology to produce the KF-X, and is therefore seeking cooperation from Indonesian Aerospace, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Saab, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin to develop the KF-X. About 120 KF-Xs would be built initially and more than 130 aircraft would be produced additionally after the first-phase models reach operational capability.^[9] The cost of each KF-X aircraft is estimated to be roughly $50 million +.^[10][11]
In October 2009 a retired ROKAF general was arrested for leaking classified documents to Saab. The general was to have been given a bribe of several hundred thousand dollars for copies of a number of secret documents that he had photographed in the South Korean Defence University. Saab officials denied any involvement.^[12][13][14]
On 15 July 2010, the Indonesian government agreed to fund 20% of KF-X project cost in return of around 50 planes built for the TNI-AU after project completion.^[15] In September 2010, Indonesia sent a team of legal and aviation experts to South Korea to discuss copyright issues of the aircraft.^[16]
On 7 September 2010, Maj. Gen. Choi Cha-kyu, director general of the aircraft program bureau at the Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that Turkey was interested in joining the program.^[9][17] On 15 December 2010, a senior Turkish procurement official said that "What we need is a true and equal partnership for the development of a fighter. The problem is that South Korea is not likely to agree to an equal partnership".^[18]
In December 2010 the program shifted from a F-16 class fighter to a stealth aircraft in order to respond to North Korean pressure.^[19]
On 20 April 2011, South Korea's Defense Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA) confirmed the signing of a definitive agreement between South Korea and Indonesia to jointly develop the Korean KF-X next-generation fighter aircraft.^[20]
On 2 August 2011, a joint research center was opened in Daejeon.^[21][22]
In a public meeting the Korean Institute for Defense Analysis revealed the development would cost more than 10 trillion won. Over the lifetime of the program the KF-X would cost more than twice as much as an imported aircraft. The institute openly questions whether the U.S. will be willing to help. Similarly in 2007, the Korean Development Institute reported that the KF-X was not viable. Lee Daeyearl, KF-X program director at the Agency for Defense Development, said the fighter would cost 6 trillion won in development, 8 trillion in production, and 9 trillion for operation over 30 years.^[23]
The Agency for Defense Development has prepared two series of designs, one for an aircraft with aft horizontal stabilizers, and with a canard stabilizer. The aft-tail series has run through the iterations C101, C102, and C103, all with two engines and a single seat. The C102 design was further broken down into three variants: C102E with one engine, C102I with internal weapons and C102T with two seats. Similarly, the canard series had the iterations C201, C202 (also with variants E, I and T) and the current C203 follow the same pattern. The agency proposes that either C103 or C203, whichever was chosen, would then advance through three design standards. Block 1 would be "reduced observable," which would be equivalent to the B-1B, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon. Block 1 would rely on fuselage and inlet shaping, edge alignment, radar-absorbing material, and semiconformal weapons carriage for reducing signature. Block 2 would carry internal weapons, have conformal antennas, and sensors would be "integrated". There would be minimal gaps and additional radarabsorbing coating on the canopy, and the structure of the aircraft. It would be as stealthy as the F-117. Block 3 would advance the aircraft to the level of the B-2, F-22 and F-35, but no details are given. All of this is a step beyond the previous concept. The aircraft is expected to be between the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle in size. The C103 design with two engines of 18,000 lb. thrust each. According to a 2009 external review of the program, the empty mass of the KF-X should be 10.4 metric tons.^[23]
A decision on the selection of either design lines was expected to be made in 2013.^[24] However Indonesian Defense Ministry spokesman Pos Hutabarat announced a year and a half suspension of the project in 2013. This delay was said to be caused by uneasiness in the new South Korean government over the expense of the program.^[25]
On 23 May 2013, EADS stated that if South Korea selected its Eurofighter Typhoon as the winner of the F-X Phase 3 fighter program, they would invest $2 billion into the KF-X program.^[26] The F-35A was selected in November 2013 with 40 planned and the possibility of a split buy for 20 other fighters. EADS has offered a split buy option for 40 Eurofighters and 20 Lightning IIs, and will keep the offer to provide funding to the KF-X program if the Eurofighter is bought.^[27]
In July 2013, the Indonesian government announced it intends to continue development of the KF-X. Indonesian Aerospace is getting ready to undertake the second stage of the aircraft's development.^[28]
In October 2013 at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition, two concept models for the KF-X fighter were displayed. KAI's model, the KFX-E, was designed by the company as a single-engine aircraft with most systems developed for the T-50 trainer and no internal weapons bays. Experience from the T-50, and support provided by Lockheed for that aircraft, was seen as a cost-effective approach, as KAI officials saw a smaller and cheaper proposal to finally get the program to launch and enter service around the mid-2020s. There are two versions of the KFX-E available, the standard one with a single fin and an optional one with two that would require more development work but has less radar reflection. Although the KFX-E was smaller than the F-35 Lightning II, it was heavier than both the T-50 and F-16, with a 14 percent higher internal fuel capacity than the F-16C Block 40 at 6.36 tons. Its larger wing compared to the F-16 would produce more drag and make it accelerate slower. The other model was designed by Seoul's Agency for Defense Development, who became a competitor to KAI when they judged the ADD design for a twin-engine plane requiring more domestic systems development as too ambitious. There are actually two ADD proposals, the C103 and C203, both weighing 11 tons empty. They propose initially fielding a low-observable aircraft, then later versions would have full stealth and internal weapons bays. The ADD designs have the advantage of being worked on with Indonesia, the main foreign partner. The C103 and KFX-E have similar tail-aft sections, while the C203 has forward horizontal stabilizers.^[7][29]
In September 2015, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said U.S. has refused to grant export license for key technologies for the program, including Active Scanned Electronic Array (AESA) radar, Infra-red Search and Tracking (IRST) system, Electro-Optical tracking system and next generation radio frequency jammers for indigenous production, delaying the development until at least 2025.^[30] The two countries agreed to set up "a working group for technology cooperation on the defense industry" instead.^[31]


On 5 January 2014, DAPA announced the approval of development of the KF-X after nearly a decade of attempts with the allocation of 20 billion won (US $19 million). With the start of development, the feasibility of designs and specifications began to be reviewed. The ADD concepts include the F-35-style C103 and the European-style C203 with canards in a stealth frame; both would be powered by minimum of two 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) engines. ADD claims an aircraft larger than the KF-16 has more room for upgrades; a KF-X Block 2 would have internal weapons bays, and a Block 3 would have true stealth comparable to the F-35 or B-2. The Air Force prefers a twin-engine fighter for safety and range. KAI's offering has been dubbed the C501, a concept with a single 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) engine based on the FA-50 with low-observable features and advanced avionics. The C501 is modeled for affordability and performance based on available technologies. Lockheed, who co-designed the T-50 jet trainer, supports the single-engine concept for being cheaper and quicker to develop than a clean-sheet aircraft, but says it will support whichever decision is made. The Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) also supports KAI, believing South Korea is not yet ready or able to compete with fighters made by U.S. or European companies; they expect the development cost of the program will be at least 10 trillion won ($927 million).^[1]
Bidding by manufacturers for the KF-X was to begin in April 2014. The desire to domestically develop a fighter is driven in part by the intention to export it to foreign buyers, something the country could not do with American-built aircraft. The design of the fighter was still not decided upon, with the ADD proposing the twin-engine clean-sheet C103, and DAPA favoring the single-engine C501 largely derived from technology from the FA-50. The ROK Air Force is interested in a twin-engine aircraft that, although more expensive, has a larger payload capacity, longer range, greater safety if an engine is lost, and better ability to incorporate future upgrades; the initial 4.5-generation C103 can be later upgraded to fifth-generation standard. Developing the C501 would result in a fourth-generation fighter that cannot replace the country's F-15 and F-16 fighter fleets in the future, and would be obsolete by the time it is planned to enter service around 2023 by advanced stealth jets fielded by South Korea's neighbors. Upsizing the FA-50 airframe into the C501 would be more expensive to redesign its aerodynamics and would lengthen development time. In November 2013, the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) calculated the single-engine C501 to be cheaper and faster to develop than the C103, 6.4 trillion won over 8.5 years compared to 8.6 trillion won over 10.5 years, and cost 1 trillion won less to operate and maintain. KAI believes the smaller C501 has better export potential as a medium affordable jet aircraft, possibly to take the place of the closing American F-16 production line; using two large engines may make the KF-X to big and expensive for most of the export fighter market. The Defense Ministry would decide which type of aircraft to proceed with, and the program will be mostly government-funded with limited company financial support.^[32]
Along with the final decision on 24 March 2014 to buy the Lockheed F-35 for F-X Phase 3, Seoul plans to ask Lockheed to assist in the development of the KF-X and shoulder 20 percent of the cost. The government is funding 60 percent of development, and Indonesia is taking up another 20 percent. As part of the F-35 deal, Lockheed has offered to provide "300 man-years’ worth of engineering expertise" to assist in designing the KF-X, along with more than 500,000 pages of technical documentation derived from the F-16, F-35, and F-22. Lockheed has had successful joint aircraft development with South Korea in the past; during T-50 jet trainer development, Lockheed covered 13 percent of costs, with KAI covering 17 percent, and the government taking the remaining 70 percent. However, the company is apprehensive about supporting the KF-X program as it may create a medium fighter that can be a competitor in the export marker against their own fighters.^[33]
The KF-X program is being accelerated, with required operational capabilities to be confirmed by mid-July 2014, and bidding to start as early as one month later. The ADD and ROKAF appeared to have chosen a double-engine airframe for greater payload, mobility, thrust, and safety; proponents for a single-engine design maintain that it would be cheaper, more appealing for export, and that modern engine technologies make engine failure incidents rare. Efforts to accelerate the program may be to address the "air security vacuum" that would occur by 2019, when all F-4s and F-5s would be retired and leave the Air Force 100 planes short.^[34] The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) met that month and officially set specifications and a schedule for the KF-X. The KF-X will be equipped with two engines to address future operational needs and keep up with neighboring countries’ aircraft development trends. Heated debates from KIDA, KAI, and the Korea Defense and Security Forum over the higher costs of developing a twin-engine fighter, the potential difficulty in selling it abroad, and that higher costs would block creation of indigenous avionics and force the adoption of foreign systems were countered by Air Force and ADD arguments that Indonesian support will lower costs during mass production, most technologies were already created independently, and that a larger aircraft has more room for upgrades. The initial design is to be a 4.5 generation fighter with a 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)+ payload, with the KF-X Block 2 having an internal weapons bay, and the Block 3 having stealth features comparable to the F-35 Lightning II or B-2 Spirit. Initial operating capability (IOC) is scheduled for 2025, two years later than previously expected.^[35]
DAPA issued a request for proposals on 23 December 2014. The finance ministry approved an 8.6991 trillion won ($7.9171 billion) budget for development of the ADD KF-X design, but parliament will not authorize that spending or launch full-scale development until it votes on the government's 2016 budget in December 2015. During that time, Airbus, Boeing, and Korean Airlines are attempting to propose a cheaper alternative to the ADD fighter design and deprive Lockheed Martin of an opportunity to provide technical assistance. The team is likely to offer a version of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as a base design. Because the U.S. limits certain technologies that can be transferred abroad, Boeing can provide stealth and radar knowledge through the European Airbus company.^[36]
On the 9 February 2015 deadline for submissions, the KAI/Lockheed Martin team submitted their bid but Korean Air and Airbus Defense failed to, the reason likely being more time needed for preparation. Since Korean law mandates at least two bidders for the auction to be valid, the deadline for a second auction was pushed to 24 February. Failure to get another bid in when required will likely delay the program's schedule. If another bid is not received by the third auction, the arms procurement agency is allowed to push forward with only one participant.^[37]
On 30 March 2015 KAI/Lockheed Martin was chosen for the KF-X contract over Korean Air and Airbus Defense.^[38]

Specifications

This aircraft article is missing some (or all) of its specifications. If you have a source, you can help Wikipedia by adding them.

General characteristics

• Crew: 1 or 2
• Length: 15.6 m (51.18 ft)
• Wingspan: 10.7 m (34.77 ft)
• Height: 4.5 m (14.76. ft)
• Powerplant: 2 × F414-GE-400K/EPE or EJ200 afterburning turbofan
  • Dry thrust: 13,000~13,500 lbf (57.8~60 kN) each
  • Thrust with afterburner: 20,250~22,000 lbf (90~97.7 kN) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.97

Avionics

• Datalink capabilities
• AESA radar
• IRST
• E/O Targeting System (EOTS)
• Radio Frequency Jammer^[30]

See also

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era

• HAL AMCA
• Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
• Mikoyan LMFS
• Mitsubishi ATD-X
• Saab Flygsystem
• Shenyang J-31
• TAI TFX

Sukhoi/HAL FGFA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from HAL FGFA)

Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) Perspective Multirole Fighter (PMF)
A Russian T-50, on which the FGFA is based.
Role	Multirole/Air superiority fighter
National origin	Russia India
Manufacturer	Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Designer	Sukhoi/Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Status	In development[1]
Primary user	Indian Air Force
Program cost	US$30 billion (projected)[2]
Unit cost	US$100 million (est.)[3][4]
Developed from	Sukhoi PAK FA

The Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) or Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF) is a fifth-generation fighter being developed by India and Russia. It is a derivative project from the PAK FA (T-50 is the prototype) being developed for the Russian Air Force. FGFA was the earlier designation for the Indian version, while the combined project is now called the Perspective Multi-Role Fighter (PMF).^[5]
The completed FGFA will include a total of 43 improvements over the T-50, including stealth, supercruise, advanced sensors, networking and combat avionics.^[6][7] Two separate prototypes will be developed, one by Russia and a separate one by India. Russia agreed to the demand of the Indian Air force that it must be a two-seater fighter. The Indian version will be a two-seater for pilot and co-pilot/Weapon Systems Operator (WSO).

Contents

• 1 Development
  • 1.1 Project changes and delays
• 2 Design
  • 2.1 Differences for FGFA
• 3 Specifications (PAK FA and FGFA - projected)
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Development

Following the success of the BrahMos project, Russia and India agreed in early 2007 to jointly study and develop a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) programme.^[8][9] On 27 October 2007 Sukhoi's director Mikhail Pogosyan stated: "We will share the funding, engineering and intellectual property in a 50–50 proportion", in an interview with Asia Times.^[10]
On 11 September 2010, it was reported that India and Russia had agreed on a preliminary design contract, subject to Cabinet approval. The joint development deal would have each country invest $6 billion and take 8–10 years to develop the FGFA fighter.^[11] In December 2010, a memorandum of understanding for preliminary design of the Indo-Russian fighter was reportedly signed between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), and Russian companies Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi.^[12][13] The preliminary design will cost $295 million and will be complete within 18 months.^[14] On 17 August 2011, media reports stated that the new fighter will cost Russia and India $6 billion to develop, and India will pay about 35% of the cost.^[15][16]
The Indian version, according to the deal, will be different from the Russian version and specific to Indian requirements.^[17] While the Russian version will be a single-pilot fighter, the Indian variant will be based on its own operational doctrine which calls for greater radius of combat operations. The wings and control surfaces need to be reworked for the FGFA.^[18] Although, development work has yet to begin, the Russian side has expressed optimism that a test article will be ready for its maiden flight by 2009, one year after PAK FA scheduled maiden flight and induction into service by 2015.^[19] By February 2009, as per Sukhoi General Director Mikhail Pogosyan, India will initially get the same PAK FA fighter of Russia and the only difference will be the software.^[20]
In 2010, a total of 500 aircraft were planned with options for further aircraft. Russian Air Force will have 200 single-seat and 50 twin-seat PAK FAs while Indian Air Force will get 166 single seated and 48 twin-seated FGFAs.^[21][22] At this stage, the Sukhoi holding is expected to carry out 80% of the work involved. Under the project terms, single-seat fighters will be assembled in Russia, while Hindustan Aeronautics will assemble two-seaters.^[23] HAL negotiated a 25 per cent share of design and development work in the FGFA programme. HAL's work share will include critical software including the mission computer, navigation systems, most of the cockpit displays, the counter measure dispensing (CMD) systems and modifying Sukhoi's prototype into fighter as per the requirement of the Indian Air Force (IAF).^[24]
Sukhoi director Mikhail Pogosyan projected a market for 1,000 aircraft over the next four decades, 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for other countries in 2010.^[25] Russian Trade Minister Viktor Khristenko said that the aircraft are to be jointly developed and produced with India and both countries will "share benefits from selling the plane not only on their domestic markets, but also on the markets of third countries."^[26] The Editor-in-chief of Natsionalnaya Oborona, Dr Igor Korotchenko, said in February 2013 that exports of the jointly designed fighter should help Russia increase its share of arms exports to the world.^[27]
In 2011, it was reported that IAF would induct 148 single-seat as well as 66 twin-seat variants of the FGFA. IAF plans to induct the first lot of aircraft by 2017.^[28] By 2012, this had been changed to 214 single seat aircraft.^[29]

Project changes and delays

In May 2012, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced a two-year delay in the project's development. The then Defence Minister A K Antony had said that the FGFA would join the Indian Air Force by 2017. However, his deputy, M M Pallam Raju, told the Parliament that the fifth generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019, following which the series production will start.^[30] Ashok Nayak, who spoke on the record as HAL's chairman before retiring, explained that the IAF have required 40-45 improvements made from the PAK-FA to meet Indian needs. These changes were then formally agreed upon between India and Russia.^[30]
There is apprehension that the FGFA would significantly exceed its current $6 billion budget, because this figure reflects the expenditure on just the basic aircraft. Crucial avionics systems would cost extra. The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to purchase about 250 FGFAs, at an estimated $100 million per fighter for an $25 billion total, in addition to the development costs.^[30] By October 2012, India had cut its total purchase size from 200 to 144 aircraft. India's initial investment had grown from $5 billion to $6 billion, and the estimated total programme cost had grown to $30 billion.^[2]
In 2013, it was revealed that the Russian and Indian fighters would be using the same avionics.^[31] Alexander Fomin said that "Both sides involved in this project are investing a lot into it, and on equal terms."^[32] Russia later admitted to huge delays and cost overruns in the project.^[33] The first prototype delivery has been delayed by one or two years. The contract has not be finalised, and the IAF has accused HAL of giving away up to half of India's share of the development work.^[34][35] India contributes 15 percent of the research and development work, but provides half the cost.^[36]
India has "raised questions about maintenance issues, the engine, stealth features, weapon carriage system, safety and reliability".^[37] After repeated delays in the fighter's design and workshare arrangements Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in January 2015, "We have decided to fast-track many of the issues."^[38] The HAL is to receive three Russian prototypes, one per year from 2015 to 2017 for evaluation.^[39]
On 9 March 2015, media outlets reported that the countries agreed to reduce the aircraft delivery time from 92 months to 36 months with the signing of the final agreement. India is also ready to forego a 50:50 work share to prevent further delays from absorption of a new technology; both countries agreed to manufacture the first batch of aircraft in Russia and for subsequent batches to be manufactured by HAL.^[40][41][42]

Design

Radar with APAA for the PAK FA/FGFA is provided by NIIP

APAA in the leading edge slats

Optical detection pod for the PAK FA/FGFA

Although there is no reliable information about the PAK FA and FGFA specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar. The PAK FA/FGFA will use on its first flights 2 Saturn 117 engines (about 147.1 kN thrust each). The 117 is an advanced version of the AL-31F, but built with the experience gained in the AL-41F programme. The AL-41F powered the Mikoyan MFI fighter (Mikoyan Project 1.44). Later versions of the PAK FA will use a completely new engine (107 kN thrust each, 176 kN in full afterburner), developed by NPO Saturn or FGUP MMPP Salyut.
Three Russian companies will compete to provide the engines with the final version to be delivered in 2015–2016.^[43]
Russian expertise in titanium structures will be complemented by India's experience in composites like in the fuselage.^[21] HAL is to be contributing largely to composites, cockpits and avionics according to company statements made in September 2008. HAL is working to enter into a joint development mechanism with Russia for the evolution of the FGFA engine as an upward derivative of the AL-37.^{[citation needed]} Speaking to Flight International, United Aircraft chief Mikhail Pogosyan said India is giving engineering inputs covering latest airframe design, Hi-Tech software development and other systems.^[44]
By August 2014, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) had completed the front end engineering design for the FGFA for which a contract had been signed with India's HAL in 2010. Preparation of contract for full-scale development is in progress.^[45]

Differences for FGFA

The FGFA will be predominantly armed with weapons of Indian origin such as the Astra, a beyond-visual-range missile (BVR) being developed by India. Although in keeping with the Russian BVR doctrine of using a variety of different missiles for versatility and unpredictability to countermeasures, the aircraft is expected to have compatibility with various missile types. The FGFA may include systems developed by third parties.^[46]
The completed joint Indian/Russian versions of the operational fighters will differ from the current flying prototypes through the addition of stealth, supercruise, sensors, networking, and combat avionics for a total of 43 improvements.^[6]
Russia agreed to the demand of the Indian Air force that it must be a two-seater fighter.^[47] The Indian version will be a two-seater that will, "accommodate one pilot and a co-pilot who will function as a Weapon Systems Operator (WSO)."^[38]

Specifications (PAK FA and FGFA - projected)

Most of these figures are for the Sukhoi T-50 prototype and not the finished HAL FGFA.

Data from Aviation News,^[48] Aviation Week,^[49] Air International^[50]

General characteristics

• Crew: 2^[38]
• Length: 19.8 m (65.0 ft)
• Wingspan: 13.95 m (45.8 ft)
• Height: 4.74 m (15.6 ft)
• Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft²)
• Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)
• Loaded weight: 25,000 kg (55,115 lb) typical mission weight, 29,270 kg (64,530 lb) at full load
• Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,160 lb)
• Powerplant: 2 × NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, izdeliye 30 for later production^[51] thrust vectoring turbofan
  • Dry thrust: 93.1 kN / 110 kN (21,000 lbf / 24,300 lbf) each
  • Thrust with afterburner: 147 kN / 176 kN (33,067 lbf / 39,600 lbf) each
• Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb)^[52]

Performance

• Maximum speed:
  
  • At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
  • Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
• Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic
  
  • 1,500 km (930 mi) supersonic^[51]
• Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling^[53]
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
• Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m² (65–91 lb/ft²)
• Thrust/weight:
  
  • Saturn 117: 1.02 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
  • izdeliye 30: 1.23 (1.41 at typical mission weight)
• Maximum g-load: +9.0 g^[54]

Armament

• Guns: 1 × 30 mm internal cannon
• Hardpoints: 6 internal, 6 on wings

Avionics

• Sh121 multi-functional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES)
  • N079 AESA radar^[55]
  • L402 Himalayas ECM suite built by KNIRTI institute
• 101KS Atoll electro-optical suite^[56]
  • 101KS-O: Laser-based counter-measures against infrared missiles
  • 101KS-V: IRST for airborne targets
  • 101KS-U: Ultraviolet warning sensors
  • 101KS-N: Targeting pod