India's First Stealth Fighter To Fly In 4 Months 611
xmpcray writes "Less than four months from now, India's first stealth fighter will fly for the first time. It is called the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, or FGFA, and is being developed in Russia by Sukhoi. Several of the technologies being developed for the stealth fighter have evolved from those used in the Sukhoi 30 MKI. Considered the most maneuverable fighter in the world, the Sukhoi 30 MKI uses thrust vectored engines, which deflect the exhaust from its engines to extreme angles, enabling the jet to pull off violent maneuvers like a flat spin — where the jet literally spins around on its axis."
In Flight School (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No thanks. (Score:3, Informative)
I thought his head smashings against the cockpit canopy was what killed him.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:2, Informative)
Might as well say first fighter (Score:5, Informative)
Almost all new fighter jets (and indeed most military vehicles) incorporate stealth elements. It's one of the considerations you have when designing a combat aircraft these days. It would be unusual for an aircraft to be designed that WASN'T stealthy. "Stealth Fighter" is really just a term used by the media.
Re:In Flight School (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
An F-16 pilot friend refers to this as "getting stuffed", and they train to counter the technique. It would be foolish to assume that it's like in "Top Gun" where "slamming on the brakes" totally surprises an opponent.
In air to air combat, killing your opponent before they get anywhere close to you is the goal. Aviation Week wrote years ago about the ratio of losses "at the merge" (i.e. when the two opposing forces actually pass each other and engage at close range). The goal of the F-22 is to end the battle before the merge. Launch radar guided missiles from well outside the opposing force's missile range, clean up the remnants with infrared missiles at closer range, and not need to deal with a messy knife-fight. All the while, your stealth prevents the opponent from getting a good missile shot.
Re:Vectored exhaust (Score:5, Informative)
I hate when people mention amazing feats captured on video, which may or may not exist, and then force others to find [youtube.com] them [youtube.com].
Wrong headline (Score:5, Informative)
What the headline should say:
India will fly it's first Russian stealth fighter in four months.
Re:Good for US overall (Score:3, Informative)
Well it all starts with Indian Independence, at first they make do with leftover British stuff, but then they want their own, better stuff. But really don't have the capacity to make it. So they ask around. The US stuff costs too much so the they go with mostly Russian stuff that they can afford, and repair themselves. The also let Russian advisors in (just to teach them what they need to know, that was it), which really pisses off the US, enough for the US to become all buddy buddy with Pakistan and supply the Pakistanis with our stuff.
Big mistake. I'd rather the US be more closely aligned with India than Pakistan any day. They're a hell of a lot more trustworthy and reliable than Pakistan is.
Re:Stealthy? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Might as well say first fighter (Score:2, Informative)
The F-117, at its debut in combat, had a radar signature the size of a 3/4" ball bearing floating around in the sky. It was truly invisible. F-22's and this new Indian fighter may be stealth-ish and stealth elemvents may be required of all combat planes these days, but don't forget some planes are *true* stealth fighters.
Re:Stealthy? (Score:5, Informative)
Me, I've been hearing about the PAK-FA for years, and I had almost given up hope of ever seeing it fly.
Re:Huts and dirt roads and India needs a fighter? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Might as well say first fighter (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:4, Informative)
That's the urban legend - but not only is that virtually impossible, it was never done in the Falklands.
Jointly developed by Sukhoi and HAL (Score:1, Informative)
The Sukhoi Su-30 MKI[1] (NATO reporting name Flanker-H) is a variant of the Sukhoi Su-30 jointly-developed by Russia's Sukhoi Corporation and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF).
This is common knowledge in many circles.
Re:Argenties are bad pilots? (Score:5, Informative)
The British shortened the runway with a Vulcan bomber sent from the UK. I doubt that the runway could have been kept operational for any length of time.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:3, Informative)
I recall reading about it at the time. The pilots called it "VIFFing".
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
VIFF is the correct term, and yes it was widely bandied about during the Falklands war... But postwar research hasn't discovered a single instance of it being used in combat during the war.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:2, Informative)
Would the US let Lockheed export the F35? I don't think the US allows exports of stealth planes.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:5, Informative)
The F35 is a global project with several countries footing the development bill, and many US allies purchasing it for their own air forces...
Re:Saw it Coming (Score:1, Informative)
The switch was also labeled "black sheep wall". If anyone knew about it, the Australia would be banned from WW3.
Re:Argenties are bad pilots? (Score:2, Informative)
The HMS Sheffield was sunk (basically) by an Exocet fired from a distance 20 - 30 miles. Not a dumb bomb.
The Argentines had five Exocet missiles. One sank the Sheffield, one sank the Atlantic Conveyor, which was actually a major disaster for the British since it deprived them of most of their heavy helicopter fleet. The rest of the air launched Exocet missiles missed their targets although one shore launched missile hit the HMS Glamorgan causing a major fire. Now what do you think the rest of those Argentine strikers we watched for weeks as they attacked the RN battle group were carrying? Paveway PGMs? NO, the were carrying US made Mk.80 series dumb bombs with mechanical delay fuzes which saved a number of RN ships from destruction or very serious damage.
Radar analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Most SAM systems use a different radar to "identify" that a target exists in their missile engagement zone (you can identify these by their constantly rotating nature) and a different radar to actually track & lock a target. The tracking radar does not spin but rather follows the locked target as the target flies. Depending on the SAM system and technology, you CAN use multiple tracking radars for better triangulation and/or to combat ECM or other anti-tracking technologies. You can even use multiple fire batteries if they are spread far enough for even better than better triangulation. The caveat is that of all the fire batteries interconnected, only the Master battery can do this, the slaves can't. Additionally, the slave fire batteries must not be currently tracking and/or engaging other targets for this to work.
The importance of stealth technology is to remain unseen by the radar that identifies a valid signature in the sky and then passes the target to the tracking radar. If you are identified as an aircraft but can't be tracked by the tracking radar, then usually the target is assigned to airborne forces to intercept or ground small arms (including stinger missiles and manual tracking flak cannons). Remaining completely undetected is what stealth technology is all about.
Re:Interesting stuff (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:1, Informative)
A carrier battle group's air defenses could likely bring down a nuclear-armed cruise missle, it appears most R&D for anti-ship, short-ranged missles are geared towards behavior similar to a ballistic missle. An example of this is the Chinese Silkworm missle, which has a pop-up capability where when it gets within a specified range of a target, it "pops" up into the air, still remaining outside of the range of any naval defense. After it has gained its appropriate altitude, it dives down onto its target, acting somewhat similar to a ballistic missle in its approach.
Those that think about carrier deployment for a living do have some familiarity with probable weapons used against carrier groups. But due to the culture among some naval cabals, in addition to some conservative mindsets on the idea of a surface fleet, the improvements that are needed are slow to come. Google "Millennium Challenge 2002" for more info on the vulnerability of carrier groups.
Re:Dangerous Thinking (Score:3, Informative)
The US had no real risk of invasion and warm-water ports on two oceans. It therefore could become a real two-ocean navy (and, with the use of British and Australian ports, a global one) and built accordingly.
The US doesn't have a better military because we're smarter or cooler. We have a better military because we can afford it.
Re:And more to the point (Score:1, Informative)
May I point out the fact that socialists necessarily have to be totalitarians if they want to further their agenda? I mean, for the "socialist" option, there's no "go ahead guys, but I'll remain a free person, free-market guy and keep my belongings". It all comes down to the question of "What do we do with the one last dissenter?". In a capitalist state, the answer is: leave him alone. In a socialist state, it's "take his stuff, reeducate him" (and you KNOW what that means!). I live in a softly-educated state, where any kind of dissent leads to ad hominem strategies against you. Some examples:
"global warming? I doubt that we should sink bazillion Euros into the Kyoto protocol. Climate has always changed, mankind has always adapted",
"socializing health care even more? But I already pay (a government-set rate of) 14.5% of my income before taxes on health care, and I still die 5 years earlier that US Americans!",
"Outlawing light bulbs? Although they only make for 1.5% of household energy consumption, and the forced alternative contains lethal mercury!"
Any of the statements leads to weird looks on peoples faces, and they will try to make you "understand" without mentioning any fact-based arguments. And I even omitted the freedom/private property issues in the above list.
btw, I live in Germany, proud part of EUDSSR. Discussions with members of the party "Die Linke" (former GDR party, then-called SED) simply make you want to throw up.