Ruussia , India agree FGFA preliminary design

[Levina]

Different tactics/strategies. Americans and Russians have 1 pilot in the cockpit whereas we Indians as well as IsA F prefers 2 in the cockpit for new gen jets.

Thanks
But my question is why?
what is the difference in our strategy and theirs?
I know Russians prefer bombers but I just wanted to know why do we avoid using bombers? I just want to know the pros and cons of it.
or have I got it all wrong?

 

[greatone]

Hmm.I had heard something similar...so why dont we use bombers???
We had previously leased a few bombers from Russia isnt it?? whats the update now?




oh!
you both have given contradicting answers.

I think India may operate an extremely limited number of strategic bombers, on lease from Russia, but its all hush-hush.
IIRC we did use them in the past.
Edit: IN does operate a few Tu-22M bombers from AN islands, but they are quite long in the tooth, having first flown in 1970s.

IAF may or may not operate newer Blackjacks.I have heard rumors though...


Why India does not operate more bombers ?

Cost may be one reason.
Another may be technology control regime which basically means pressure by western countries on Russia to not give this technology to India.
IMO, IAF feels strat. bombers are not worth spending our limited geopolitical capital with western countries on.
We don't have any plans to bomb a US carrier group or Europe/Australia.
MKI and FGFA are sufficient for our needs.


Regarding the Pilot-WSO-Jet mating for life proposed by that guy, why would IAF do such a silly thing ?
An illness/injury to one pilot would incapacitate the other pilot and the machine itself, if what he says is correct

 

[Levina]

Cost maybe one reason.
Another may be technology control regime which basically means pressure by western countries on Russia to not give this technology to India.
IMO, IAF feels strat. bombers are not worth spending our limited geopolitical capital with western countries on.
We don't have any plans to bomb a US carrier group or Europe/Australia.
MKI and FGFA are sufficient for our needs.

sounds logical!!
Thank you!

 

[SrNair]

Hmm.I had heard something similar...so why dont we use bombers???
We had previously leased a few bombers from Russia isnt it?? whats the update now?




oh!
you both have given contradicting answers.

Hmm.I had heard something similar...so why dont we use bombers???
We had previously leased a few bombers from Russia isnt it?? whats the update now?




oh!
you both have given contradicting answers.

Yes Tupaloev .But it was leased for nuke like specific missions only .

Hmm.I had heard something similar...so why dont we use bombers???
We had previously leased a few bombers from Russia isnt it?? whats the update now?




oh!
you both have given contradicting answers.

Hmm.I had heard something similar...so why dont we use bombers???
We had previously leased a few bombers from Russia isnt it?? whats the update now?




oh!
you both have given contradicting answers.

Yes Tupaloev .But it was leased for nuke like specific missions only .

 

[rockstarIN]

Thanks
But my question is why?
what is the difference in our strategy and theirs?
I know Russians prefer bombers but I just wanted to know why do we avoid using bombers? I just want to know the pros and cons of it.
or have I got it all wrong?

We too need bombers for strategic weapon delivery by air and since our potential enemies nearby, we do not need large bombers. In fact we are to procure 40 jets (may be MKI or Rafale) for nuke delivery purpose which will be under strategic command. Russians need long range jets since their targets are far away.

 

[Abingdonboy]

1) if a Russian pilot can manage modern Sukhois on his own, why do we insist on a double seat variant?? I am sure they also take long missions.

As has been noted the RuAF have slightly differing tactics to the IAF and the IAF have created a very potent doctrine around two seat fighters. The RuAF are more interested in all out air to air missions for their PAK-FAs but the IAF is interested in an all rounder capable of air dominance and long range strike missions.

I think it is worth noting the IAF have been pioneers of this doctrine with regards to the Su-27/30 family. The IAF opted for the two seat version as their go to fighter, they could have opted for the single seat Su-27 and "MKIsed" that but instead they went for the two seat Su-30. The Malaysians followed. The Russians didn't seem to see the utility in such but they have now started to induct the two seat Su-30SM which is effectively the MKI without the Indian, Israeli and French avionics despite having the Su-35 available- quiet vindication of the IAF's doctrine.

Its about automation, we still not on standards of F-35, to keep the pilot relax,

Believe me, I follow the F-35 project quite closely and I have a feeling a lot of the pilots are going to wish they had a WSO in their F-35s. Yes there is a lot of automation (as on the FGFA) but there is a vast amount of information the pilot needs to deal with and an extraordinary number of things they must juggle to fight let alone just fly the thing!


The IAF aren't idiots, the more I read about the F-35 and look at the way next generation fighters will be employed the more it is clear the two seat 5th gen fighter is going to kick some serious a$$.

Regarding the Pilot-WSO-Jet mating for life proposed by that guy, why would IAF do such a silly thing ?
An illness/injury to one pilot would incapacitate the other pilot and the machine itself, if what he says is correct

What he said is correct, pilots and WSOs do generally stay as a pair throughout their career (never seen Top Gun? ) BUT, because of standardised training that doesn't mean any pilot can't work with any WSO, it does happen when circumstances dictate of course.

 

[greatone]

What he said is correct, pilots and WSOs do generally stay as a pair throughout their career (never seen Top Gun? ) BUT, because of standardised training that doesn't mean any pilot can't work with any WSO, it does happen when circumstances dictate of course.

Haha! Topgun is what got me interested in defense affairs even though I saw it more than two decades after its release.
I know Pilot-WSOs tend to stick together but they train with everybody in the squadron.
Which is not exactly what he was saying.

 

[sancho]

Thanks
But my question is why?

The Russians seperates their Flanker versions for different roles, the single seat Su 35 is mainly meaint for A2A although it's of course fully multi role capable, while the twin seat Su 34 is mainly meant for A2G, although it's of course fully multi role capable. India simply chose to have a single version, that is capable to do both in the most balanced way, that's why we chose the twin seat Su30 and improved it's A2A capabilities (more maneuverability, longer range radar).
Btw, there is no preference of twin seaters in IAF in general, that's only the case for the heavy class Su30 and FGFA, to increase their capabilities in certain roles, while all other multi role fighter types, have a majority of single seaters.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Believe me, I follow the F-35 project quite closely and I have a feeling a lot of the pilots are going to wish they had a WSO in their F-35s. Yes there is a lot of automation (as on the FGFA) but there is a vast amount of information the pilot needs to deal with and an extraordinary number of things they must juggle to fight let alone just fly the thing!

I think the idea is the computer will eventually be a full-fledged WSO.
It will call out targets. It will say to the pilot where to fly so IT can drop bombs.

Soon there will be no need for the pilot never mind a two seater.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think the idea is the computer will eventually be a full-fledged WSO.
It will call out targets. It will say to the pilot where to fly so IT can drop bombs.

Soon there will be no need for the pilot never mind a two seater.

I'm sure this is the long term ambition but I am pretty confident the technology isn't there for a "virtual WSO" todate, maybe in 10-15 years and certainly not ready on the F-35 today.

 

[Indo-guy]

I think the idea is the computer will eventually be a full-fledged WSO.
It will call out targets. It will say to the pilot where to fly so IT can drop bombs.

Soon there will be no need for the pilot never mind a two seater.

Yeh may be after few decades ...
although I still doubt if computers can really replace the human brain completely and effectively ...

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I'm sure this is the long term ambition but I am pretty confident the technology isn't there for a "virtual WSO" to day, maybe in 10-15 years and certainly not ready on the F-35 today.

I think they are probably pretty close. The radar already identifies air and ground targets with pattern recognition.
It wouldn't take much to have it say "should i bomb it" and have the pilot say "sure". It would do all the calculations and adjust any fuses.

I bet if a missile is near the computer will yell at him to eject.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think they are probably pretty close. The radar already identifies air and ground targets with pattern recognition.
It wouldn't take much to have it say "should i bomb it" and have the pilot say "sure". It would do all the calculations and adjust any fuses.

I bet if a missile is near the computer will yell at him to eject.

I think you are underestimating the level of article intelligence you would need in order to make such complex decisions. No doubt we are "close" but it is not ready for operational service to day and the F-35 is not going to be flying with such capabilities anytime soon. Until the technology is there then it makes sense to go for a human WSO and thus the IAF can feel vindicated in their pursuit of a two seat 5th gen platform.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I think you are underestimating the level of article intelligence you would need in order to make such complex decisions. No doubt we are "close" but it is not ready for operational service to day and the F-35 is not going to be flying with such capabilities anytime soon. Until the technology is there then it makes sense to go for a human WSO and thus the IAF can feel vindicated in their pursuit of a two seat 5th gen platform.

I'm just saying all a pilot has to do these days is put a crosshair on a target and pull the trigger. There's nothing stopping the computer from scanning for targets (which it already does), put a crosshair on it, pop the picture in the pilot's helmet, and say "fire".

 

[Abingdonboy]

I'm just saying all a pilot has to do these days is put a crosshair on a target and pull the trigger. There's nothing stopping the computer from scanning for targets (which it already does), put a crosshair on it, pop the picture in the pilot's helmet, and say "fire".

Like I have said, it is a bit more complex than that. The voice automated firing solutions are a capability that exists today, it is the independent functioning of the computer that I am saying doesn't exist today and won't for quite some time.

Taking the WSO out of the equation (as on the F-35) is putting the cart before the horse but then that is seemingly the mantra of the F-35 program that has more issues plaguing it than a leper.