Military & Aerospace

Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft for the Indian Air Force
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
46 votes cast
Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft for the Indian Air Force, 6.7 out of 5 based on 46 ratings
Issue Vol. 28.2 Apr-Jun 2013 | Date : 25 Dec , 2014


The IAF has decided that there is a pressing requirement to have a stealth fighter with multi-role capabilities in its inventory to cater for future threats. It is also evident that this technology cannot be wholly developed in house. For this reason as well as to reduce both costs and shrink the time frame from design to induction, some form of joint development is required. The best choice was with the Russian PAK-FA stealth fighter programme.

Indian Air Force Fighter Inventory

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is on a modernisation drive to replace the MiG-21 variants and the MiG-27s. The Su-30 MKI and the MiG-29 upgraded version are already in service with the Mirage 2000 fleet being upgraded. The long delayed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is likely to join the fleet soon. Acquisition of 126 French Rafale fighters with 18 to be delivered directly from the manufacturer Dassault in a flyaway condition and the balance 108 to be built by the joint venture partner Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to meet the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement is supposedly imminent, provided the usual wrangling over the final contract is sorted out.

The IAF does not have a combat aircraft with stealth and high speed in the non-afterburning capabilities…

The latest bone of contention is about who, between Dassault and the HAL, is to guarantee delivery schedules and product quality for the aircraft to be built in India. Force multipliers such the Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft based on the IL-76 platform (IL-76 A50 EI) and the Embraer 145, along with the IL-78 tanker aircraft have already been inducted and integrated. Negotiations for acquisition of six Airbus A-330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft are to begin in the near future.

Stealth Fighters

Going forward, the above acquisitions still leave a gap in the inventory. The IAF does not have a combat aircraft with stealth and capable of flying at high speed without the use of afterburners i.e. with super cruise capability. Such aircraft are needed to operate in dense air defence environments to achieve air dominance. The longer combat ranges, smart weapons, passive and active sensors and data-link capabilities of these aircraft are needed to counter airborne and surface-based Air Defence (AD) systems that are being fielded by India’s potential adversaries. Precision attacks on high-value ground targets defended by modern AD systems require stealth aircraft capable of sustained flight at high speeds and armed with stand-off long range weapons. Reconnaissance missions also require stealth aircraft.

LCA Tejas

The US has the F-22 air superiority fighter and the B2 bomber, both with stealth characteristics and already in service. Their ambitious F-35 multi-role stealth fighter programme seeks to deploy multi-role variants including the F-35A with conventional take-off and landing capabilities, the F-35B with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities and the F-35C for operation from aircraft carriers. All these aircraft have ground attack, reconnaissance and air defence capabilities with stealth features. The project has run into issues of cost overruns, sub-optimal performance in all roles and resultant delays. The Chinese have stealth fighters under development with the J-20 and the smaller J-31 being flight tested. Japan is developing the Mitsubishi ATX-D as a technology demonstrator, with the first flight planned for 2014. Russia is developing the PAK-FA with the T-50 prototypes already in the flight-test phase. All the above are single-seat, twin-engine aircraft. The forerunner of the USAF F-22, the F-117 Nighthawk, which is primarily a ground attack aircraft with stealth features, was used effectively in the Gulf War of 1991 to penetrate the very dense AD environment around Baghdad and also in the Balkans later, thus somewhat validating the stealth concept.

Only the US and Russia have the capability  to develop such aircraft with associated weapons, sensors and engines…

It is evident that only the US and Russia have the capability to develop such aircraft with associated weapons, sensors and engines as of now with the Chinese certainly lagging behind especially as far as engine development is concerned. The Japanese venture is still in the concept stage.

FGFA for the IAF

The IAF has decided that there is a pressing requirement to have a stealth fighter with multi-role capabilities in its inventory to cater for future threats. It is also evident that this technology cannot be wholly developed in house. For this reason as well as to reduce cost and shrink time frame from design to induction, some form of joint development is required. The best choice was with the Russian PAK-FA stealth fighter programme.

Based on a requirement first formulated in the late 1980s to replace the MiG-29 and SU-27 in the Russian Air Force, the Sukhoi SU-47 and the Mikoyan Project 1.44 was mooted. In 2002, Sukhoi was chosen to lead the design team for this new fighter with stealth capabilities. The firms for the avionics suites and the engine design were nominated in 2003 with a consortium of various entities for the former and NPO Saturn for the latter. This aircraft was designated as a Fifth Generation Fighter and called the PAK-FA or the T-50.

Funding was a problem and it was evident then itself that while the Russian Air Force needed such an advanced fighter, foreign participation was necessary to finance the project and foreign orders essential to make costs of acquisition affordable to the Russian Air Force. Since collaboration with the US was most certainly ruled out and with European countries not likely at all for strategic and political reasons, the options were very limited since almost all other nations did not have the financial strength to contribute to the project or to join the project for developing such an aircraft from the inception stage. Once in production, some nations may buy the aircraft as has been the case with the SU-30 variants. In 2004 and in 2007, China was invited to join in the programme; but declined in favour of developing the J-20 and J-21 indigenously. Although there were expressions of interest from both sides, it was only in the late 2010 that the Indo-Russian joint venture began in earnest.

The first flight of the prototype was scheduled for early 2007 but finally took place only in January 2009, followed by the second aircraft undertaking maiden flight in March 2011. These were bare-bone prototypes without radar and weapons control systems. The aircraft was first displayed at the 2011 MAKS air show. The third prototype flew in November 2011 and flight trials with an AESA radar started in August 2012. The fourth prototype got airborne in December 2012. The AL 41F1 turbofan engines on the prototypes have 147kN (33047 lbs) thrust each. The production versions will have 157kN+ (34620+ lbs) thrust and these are supposed to be the standard fit on the Russian Air Force production models. These engines have super cruise capabilities at supersonic speeds without afterburner, Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and full three dimensional thrust vectoring independently for each engine in pitch, roll and yaw with built in Infra Red (IR) and Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction features. A newer engine, (NPO Saturn/FNPTS MMPP Salyut of 107kN in cruise and 175kN thrust with afterburner) with improved performance, reduced weight and life cycle costs, is on the cards with testing reportedly scheduled for 2014. On paper, the T-50 has performance capabilities that exceed those of all existing aircraft worldwide including those of the US armed forces, both in service and under development.

During Aero India 2013 at Bangalore in February 2013, Mikhail Pogosyan, President of the United Aircraft Corporation of Russia, stated at his press conference that variants for both Russia and India have common major systems but customisation would be done to meet Indian requirements including development of a two-seat variant. The Russian preference is for a single-seat. Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, Chief of the Air Staff, stated at his press conference at the same venue that the R&D phase was on and the development aircraft would be brought to India for testing, the first scheduled to arrive in 2017 and the second a year later. Performance parameters will then be checked to firm up the IAF’s requirements. Production is planned to commence in 2022.

Indications are that the IAF has a requirement for longer combat range and possibly different avionics and sensors. The IAF philosophy tends to prefer two-seat aircraft for these types of combat roles, the SU-30 MKI being an example. The numbers required are changing frequently and will ultimately be constrained by costs.

The IAF has a requirement for longer combat range and possibly different avionics and sensors.

The roles envisaged are air superiority, strike, special weapons delivery including nuclear weapons, precision air to surface weapons delivery at long ranges and reconnaissance. A true multi-role capability is required unlike the sole air superiority role of the F-22 class of aircraft. Ability to penetrate dense AD environments situated deep inside enemy territory at high speed, using stealth to evade detection and deliver stand-off weapons which have autonomous guidance, are essential pre-requisites if the aircraft is to be successful.

Stealth is a relative term and its effectiveness is degraded by the power of enemy acquisition radars, distance from such radars, variations in RCS because of external stores, changes of aspect because of maneuvering, changes in configuration due to opening of weapon bays and even environmental factors such as icing on the airframe. Finally, if the aircraft do not stay well out of visual range, no amount of stealth design will prevent acquisition by visual means, thus negating all advantages of stealth. Daylight operation was avoided by F-117s in combat and the B2 bombers also operate by night to avoid visual acquisition. Weapons release will illuminate the aircraft since weapons themselves are generally not stealthy and will be picked up by radar indicating the presence of the launch aircraft. All forms of radiation from active sensors used by the aircraft will compromise stealth. The same is the case with weapons guidance systems used by the aircraft to control weapons post launch. Communications used by the aircraft will also pinpoint its location.

Stealth aircraft will be an important part of the inventory but the stealth mantra cannot replace everything else. Stealth imposes a penalty on performance, controllability, maneuverability, weapons carrying capacity, range and other operational factors. Special surface materials on these aircraft in service have proved difficult to maintain and some aircraft like the B2 require climate-controlled hangars and support facilities that have restricted their operational bases to the continental USA. Stealth aircraft will be confined to some specialist roles. As an example, aircraft operating in daytime in support of ground forces will be picked up visually and so design features such as low radar cross section will not make them immune to acquisition. Here, armour protection, weapons carrying capability and agility are more important. Eventually, prohibitive unit costs of stealth aircraft will restrict their use. High costs result in fewer numbers and hence reduced availability.

Stealth aircraft will be an important part of the inventory but the stealth mantra cannot replace everything else.

Similarly, in relatively low AD threat areas, the advantages of stealth will not be a deciding factor. These aircraft are optimal for precision delivery of powerful weapons against very high value targets located deep within heavily defended areas. Nuclear weapons delivery against strategic targets is a prime role and the deterrent threat posed by this capability is even greater than the capability itself. In the air superiority role, airspace dominance by eliminating enemy fighters and AWACS from well beyond visual ranges is a tailor-made role. The moment ranges shorten, the stealth element decreases and at visual ranges the aircraft may be at a disadvantage because of reduced agility and bigger size. Suppression of ground-based AD infrastructure including radars and missile sites is another role, again most effective at longer stand off ranges. Reconnaissance is yet another area.

This capability has to be paired with suitable precision weapons and guidance systems for the aircraft as well as the weapons themselves. In does not make much sense if the launch aircraft negates its stealth capability by having to use active sensors for navigation, target acquisition and illumination and for weapons guidance post launch. We have a history of acquiring aircraft and pairing them with weapons of a bygone era.

Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Challenges of Joint Development

Despite advanced R&D capabilities and an industrial base which has produced outstanding aircraft, the Russian programme has had major slippages and cost escalation because of the demands of stealth, associated engine and sensors technologies. Do we have the capabilities to match such demands? Will we have the infrastructure in place in time to produce such aircraft? The problem between Dassault and the HAL on the production of the Rafale in India is an indicator of likely conflict areas. As it is, we are looking at a time frame that extends to over 11 years from now. What will be the state of manned fighter aircraft then? Is it possible that the F-35 class could be the last of the high-technology manned fighters? Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are already proving their worth in reconnaissance and air-to-ground precision attack roles. Stealth technology is already being envisaged for these vehicles.

We cannot develop the capability alone and we do have a need for this weapon system…

The FGFA project is in the early development stage unlike previous acquisitions which were of aircraft already in production with verifiable performance figures. The US F-35 programme is an indicator of ambitious performance requirements not being met. Our LCA saga should be kept in mind. The other side of the coin is that we cannot develop the capability alone and we do have a need for this weapon system if the IAF is to remain viable in the future.

Integration of Command & Control

By its very nature, stealth makes it difficult for own command and control systems such as AWACS and ground radars to locate friendly aircraft. This adds to the confusion of war and the danger of fratricide by friendly fire is enhanced. In past conflicts, limited numbers of stealth aircraft operated independently at night to reduce such risks and even then controlling AWACS platforms had limited information on the positions of own stealth aircraft. In a more intense conflict in the future with both sides using such aircraft, control can very easily be lost. It will therefore be necessary to evolve new procedures. Like all new weapons, stealth is not a cure for all and brings its own problems. In our context, integration of forces, command and control and joint operations have been weak areas because of lack of understanding, ego clashes, difference in systems of communication apart from other issues. It is wise to keep in mind that technology has to be harnessed and used properly lest it turns on the owner.

India’s manufacturing capability is a worrying factor.

Final Thoughts

India has embarked on a project of a magnitude not attempted before. Technologies in structures, engines and avionics that are required are at the cutting edge of development. Integration of equipment from two countries to start with and multiple vendors from other countries as the project progresses is a big challenge. Considering the ever-accelerating pace of advancements in technology, it is likely that what is very stealthy in 2013 will not remain so in 2024 when the aircraft enters service that is, if there are no delays. Most performance parameters have yet to be validated and the true indication of stealth will only be available during trials against a variety of acquisition systems.

A lot of the requirements contradict each other by their very nature – aerodynamic agility and stealth requirements are often contradictory. India’s manufacturing capability is a worrying factor. Out-of-the-box thinking would be necessary to find solutions for effective utilisation of these aircraft. It is hoped that we do an accurate assessment of our capabilities, learn from previous errors in development projects and refrain from making demands for capabilities that cannot be met. Completing the project on schedule is crucial. Delays will nullify the advantages of stealth technology as it exists now since aircraft detection technology is not to be at a standstill either. India certainly should not end up with an obsolescent technology demonstrator 25 years hence.

Rate this Article
VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
46 votes cast
Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft for the Indian Air Force, 6.7 out of 5 based on 46 ratings
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Gp Capt B Menon

Gp Capt B Menon, former fighter pilot, IAF

More by the same author

Post your Comment


2000characters left


18 thoughts on “Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft for the Indian Air Force

  1. Sir, I believe the requirement of air superiority and air interdiction cum strategic bombing aircraft should not be expected from a single platform. The air superiority can be achieved only in a limited area over enemy air-space. This requires a stealth capability to engage enemy aircraft at a chosen point with see-first-shoot-first tactic. However, for deep air strike missions (DAS), i believe speed and high altitude flight to be better alternatives.
    Thus for a DAS or strategic bombing mission, an aircraft along the lines of an SR-71 would be better than a F-35 or a Su-FGFA. Though SR-71 was a reconnaissance platform, a new aircraft with a different mix of capabilities (addition of a few forward looking stealth features, a weapons bay and sensors while compromising a few of the reconnaissance sensors and the long range of the aircraft) would be a more capable aircraft for nuclear strike roles. The aircraft will close in by exploiting advantages of forward looking stealth and high altitude flight, then engage the target after dropping altitude and speed. Later it can climb back to higher altitudes and regain high speeds (Mach 3+) to evade enemy SAM by either outrunning the missile or exceeding its surface ceiling.
    Some strike roles (Close-air support and a few DAS) would have to be carried out by 4.5th generation multirole aircraft of the likes of Dassault Rafael.
    The air superiority domain should however should be taken care of by a fighter meant purely for that particular role. The best example would be F-22 (with a gun/cannon for dogfights).
    Trying to make an all-rounder aircraft instead of a tailor-made specialist aircraft for each role may lead to incompetency and a system that reaches obsolescence faster than is desirable. F-35 JSF is a living example of such an attempt that failed in certain areas.

  2. Russian Pakfa which India initially agreed as a 50% partner was a wrong route to take due to very large gaps in our present combat strength. We are having problems with al31 engines of sukhoi which requires servinging after 700 hours instead of 1000-3000 hrs. Tejas have not left the nest and the Rafale deal us static. Prudence demands that India should abandon the stealth fighters project because they are 10 years away with both China and Russia struggling their stealth engines radar and weapons system. India must concentrate on Rafale which is arguably the most lethal combat fighters. The deal will ensure that platform as an excellent benchmark to progress to stealth fighters in future.

    • You want India to spend new bucks on a technology that is soon going to be OBSOLETE (in the face of the new 5th gen fighters)?
      You are right on the account that stealth projects are still at development phase and will take a few more years in the making. However, even if we consider that current designs will enter production 10 years hence, and assuming that we spend all this time spending big bucks on a 4.5 gen aircraft (mind you its a multirole aircraft and not an air superiority aircraft), 10 years down the line, China would be inducting a 5th gen fighter and we would be stuck with obsolete fighters that we bought just 10 years ago.
      Now “PRUDENCE” would demand that we buy the (now developed and entering production) Su-FGFA from Russia.
      So your narrative is that we step down from joint development to some more of the LETS BUY FOREIGN EQUIPMENT crap?
      In the meantime, you expect DRDO to come up with an AMCA design that rivals those made by Sukhoi?
      But you just asked them to step down from a much needed joint production program that could offer them some much needed experience (as these are state-of-the-art technologies that require a certain background and history in designing such equipment since its very inception)

      How on god’s green earth will buying SOON TO BE OBSOLETE foreign equipment act as a benchmark for “future” 5th gen fighter devolopment???????????
      Plz do answer. I want to know what you are thinking.

  3. The achievement of ISRO with the all Indian team that took the nation to the technology advancement levels where it has never been before, proves that given the focus and support, a fifth generation fighter of Indian design is not a pipe dream. India does not need to pursue other countries to part with their secrets. It is time the model of ISRO group is replicated through other critical sectors of India’s defense system without delay. A fifth generation fighter is nothing more than a collection of problems that must be solved based on scientific principles well known to those experienced in the art of designing fighter aircrafts. Similar challenges are awaiting in other areas, namely, nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, advance drone designs and operation, anti-ballistic missile systems, and many other critical technology areas. The challenge to the Modi leadership is to prioritize and harness these enormous capabilities at the door steps of India. ISRO leadership has earned the laurels and should be part of the first level advisory team to the Prime Minister. For those who are still doubtful about Indian mindset, take a note of the fact that Indian brainpower has a respectable share of the technological backbones behind the largest defense contractors and corporations in US and Europe that are producing the leading edge defense products.

    • Totally agree with you dude. :)
      Its just that some people are stupid enough to believe that a devoloping nation that pays ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE on research in undergraduate colleges would suddenly produce a weapon system that is 100% indigenous and better than western systems.
      These fools forget to fathom the importance of EXPERIENCE that is required to design such equipment.
      example: ARJUN MBT
      I saw a number of posters on a number of forums criticizing the tank and the scientists that worked so hard to design it. They compared it with designs like Challenger II and Leopard MBTs. What they failed to notice was that Challenger II is a tank from a country that gave the very concept of tank( during World War 1 ) and tank warfare( that the Germans adopted in WW2 ). They have been devoloping these systems ever since. However, the DRDO did this with absolutely no experience in designing such a platform. Even if there were timeline violations or cost overruns, Arjun MBT is not such a bad first attempt. I would like to bring forth the fact that the scientists working on the Arjun had a tough time dealing with the anti-research pro-TOT government of India long before they had to deal with the actual problems of design itself.
      For these good for nothing posters ( “like Suren Singh Sahni” above ) to insult such amazing DRDO scientists is just outrageous.
      You rightly stated that ISRO should be a role-model for our indigenous defence industry. However, ISRO scientists have only had a limited set of goals or tasks to excel at. DRDO scientists on the other hand are looked upon for various projects ranging from tanks, planes and small arms to researching the correct calorie intake for our troops in various terrains. I would say that they are understaffed as well as underfunded. Given the conditions, Arjun MBT is as a jewel.

    • Follow these steps to cure your insanity:-
      1. Read my reply to Mchand.
      2. Understand the importance of EXPERIENCE.
      3. Dare make another one-line statement that insults DRDO or its brains.

  4. The problem with the JV of India and Russia is the technical part which is not being shared by Russia. And Russia says that India does not have the capability of providing the high technology. Then comes the question once the aircraft is ready and shared to India for joint production, where is the scope of learning in terms of technical design and using the same into development of similar planes. Unless and untill India plays hard ball, Russia cannot make any further production. As India is a 50% parnter in the venture. This is unfortunate that Indian govt., was very reluctant and complacent when it comes to bullying of foreign powers.
    We should understand that India has potential and can act boldly to counter them. We should learn from the past experience.

  5. UAV’s share characteristics with cruise missiles. India’s Brahmos can already manouvre to its target. So I think that India should use its knowledge of cruise missiles and rockets to develop UAVs that include the technology behind cruise missiles, rockets and perhaps with a hypersonic engine. This can be done in parallel with plans for stealth fighters because as technology improves, the day may come when manned vehicles are not necessary.

    • Concept of UAV and Cruise missile are totally different one is destructible in nature only meant for a single life cycle(Cruise) whereas the other one is meant for multiple life cycles.Making a UAV is not a problem (even school kids can make it) but making a UAV suitable to the mission needs is the requirement ,even though they are not directly manned but still their function is same as that of a manned one in the modern warfare they need to stay stealth,agile with higher working hours and endurance,pin point accuracy equipments,state of the art communication systems and reliable firepower.All these feature could be incorporated when the 5th gen tech is developed.

    • Brahmos is soviet era yakhont missiles. It only allows India to produce. It seems to more like India assembles Russian spare parts. Indian technical institutions are corrupt by back door recruitment for their political leaders family or money under table. So they install fake ones. Real talented people are jobless or going abroad to find job. It is true these people form a lion part of the group developing technologies in the west. I am glad our poisonous regime is gone for while.

  6. plz make some new assult rifle with night vision,900 mtr range effective bullet,make arjun tank highi capacity composit armour,heavy fire power ,fast movement thermal image highi quality.plz traind our iaf pilots to move there jet highe speed some dangerous stunt they look like lasy pilot.plz improve our tezas plane in danger machine and told our nsg comondo look like active. unki guns niche ki tarf hoti hai,aur vo asse dikahi dete hai jaasi wo thake se hote hai voh danger or active nahi dikhte.woj sust lagte hai plz unko samjao ki active ho kar khadde ho plz meri baat ko samjo

  7. I am very happy to here that INDIA is taking a close interest in devoliping new and latest technoligy in defence equeptments and stealth fighter by HAL, this not only reduces the cost but it helps INDIA to stand firm and inderpendent in preparing their own home made equeptments, we will be 100% sure that all equeptments prepared in our country will be good quality and durable one. In the past days I read a lot of articles about HAL and its development and from the bottom of my heart I salute the industry and proud to say that INDIA stands one of the strongest country in the world amoung the world power. Developing a stealth fighter will also raise questions by our nebouring country Pakistan and China. We need to be strong and show them our power. JAI HIND.

  8. Aircraft development is seemingly a continuous process. The difference between the Soviet and the U. S. armaments development model, was seemingly that the Soviet development model was in-house govt. organizational development, and the U. S. allowed the developer of the required concept, to make the evaluator discover the requirement that was specified, and to appreciate the development. But, this doesn’t appear to be so.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments