PAK FA

Sukhoi PAK-FA on first public flight

(This article is about the aircraft that has just being introduced by public and thus many of the details are still unknown/classified and much of the article is written based provided information/speculation by defense analysts and are only relevant to a limited time frame)



Sukhoi PAK-FA (Perspektivny aviatsionny kompleks frontovoy aviatsii, literally "Future Frontline Aircraft System) is a new multirole fighter aircraft developed by Sukhoi Corporation for Russian Air Force, with first public flight was held on January 29,2010. A fifth generation aircraft, it is designed as a direct response to the US fifth-generation fighter,the F-22 Raptor. PAK-FA is expected to replace bulk of older variant of MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker in the future. The aircraft is expected to have supercruise capabilities, extreme maneuverability, and above all, stealth technology.

PAK-FA program originated in the late 1980 when the then Soviet Union is searching for new aircraft design to replace their older fighter aircraft, although it is only started in 2002 when Sukhoi Corporation is chosen to design and developed a new fifth-generation multirole fighter for Russian Air Force. Work began to develop the design,avionic suit and sensors for the aircraft. Currently the program reached final development stage and is expected to enter serial production stage in near future.

Being dubbed as Russian Raptor-ski (since the aircraft is designed to counter F-22 dominance), some military analysts deemed such assumption is quite inaccurate, since PAK-FA is designed with different doctrine and requirement in mind. For them (and the author himself), PAK-FA, in general, has closer role to the Flanker family than the Raptor, that is a multirole fighter, but with stealth technology as an added advantage (rather than an all-aspect stealth air supremacy fighter).Though it has some superficial resemblances to Northrop YF-23(another American fifth generation fighter prototype, before being beaten by YF-22), it is in fact quite a nonsense, since Sukhoi doesn’t have any access to the prototype. The design is quite conventional, at least for a fifth-generation fighter, reflecting the mindset of Russian designer when designing an aircraft, which is by doing it safe(by using something that works and refine it, rather than creating a totally new concept).The project cost, quoted at USD 10 billion, is significantly lower than the F-22 project, mainly because some features(TVC-capable engine, AESA radar, new weapon) is already being developed in parallel, and some of the technology being used by its front line fighter(such as MiG-35,Su-35 and chiefly the money-making Su-30), and the technology basis (Su-47 and MiG-1.44) is already exist before the project is even being started. Early PAK-FA version will use existing equipment, and more advanced equipment can be retrofitted later. It has more hard points than the Raptor(which is located both internally and externally) and can carry both existing and future Russian weapon system, including the future “AWACS killer" R-37 AA missile.

The most conventional figure of price per aircraft is around USD 50 million each (though maintenance/support/weapon/spare-part will add more in the price tag), around the same price tag of most front-line 4.5 generation fighter, making it the cheapest fifth generation fighter around (with F-22 costing more than USD 200 million each and F-35, with many setback skyrocketed the cost), would attract customers. And more importantly, it doesn’t have export ban, unlike F-22. Other than India (which will produce their own variant of PAK-FA,the FGFA or “Future Generation Fighter Aircraft”),prospect customer includes all countries that have operated Su-30 including Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, and some Middle-Eastern countries, provided Israel doesn’t protest such acquisition.


Malaysian Prospect

It is unlikely for Malaysia to acquire PAK-FA in the near future. A fifth generation aircraft is a significant leap to any countries operating them, thus requires extensive upgrade in term of infrastructure, training and even the doctrine employed.

However, speaking about further time frame,(around 2020 and beyond), it is become more possible to see PAK-FA in RMAF inventory. F/A-18D will eventually be replaced and it is unlikely that Malaysia will go for another 4.5 generation fighter, which is deemed as obsolete then,especially when Singapore will induct it’s own fifth generation multirole fighter, F-35 JSF (Singapore is among partners in the program).Our doctrine, the so called “silver bullet” requires us to have the most advanced weapon system to compensate the relatively small(around 18-24 units) acquisition made. But it is also noted that other countries will also going to produce their fifth-generation fighter, especially China and their J-XX program. Russia may also produce their own version of F-35, a lightweight fifth-generation attack aircraft, which will be made by Mikoyan Corporation.



edit:the article is dedicated to a friend who is not in his best shape after some incident.The author wishes him speedy recovery.

Malaysian Indigenous MBT?

PT-91M Pendekar

Malaysia has inducted its first Main Battle Tank (MBT), the Polish-made PT-91M Pendekar into service few years ago as part of significant expansion and modernization program. Though equipped with the most sophisticated equipment available (such as French optronic, communication system and FCS, new generation ERA blocks,German tank tracks, better engine, not to mention steering wheel instead of throttle stick), many people (including some MAF personnel and military pundits) criticize the procurement to be unwise, to say the least. Their opinion is based on misjudged performance of PT-91 predecessor, the Soviet-made T-72, in both Gulf War and Chechnya conflict, where it performed terribly to both users; Iraq and Russia. Singapore, in response, has acquired second-hand German-made Leopard 2A4 and people began to make direct comparison between PT-91M and Leopard 2A4.

However, as misinformed as the Malaysian are, ironically, they are right.PT-91M,like other T-72 variant, did inherited its weaknesses; cramped interior, the location of the ammo dump(thus the “cook-off” problem), the autoloader(the author, for one, doesn’t quite fond to autoloader actually, although it is safe to assume that modern autoloader has incorporated some upgrade to solve the problem of its predecessor) and relatively weak base armour (thus the reason why ERA blocks being slapped heavily on the hull and turret).The author is sure that Mindef and the top brass know about it, and PT-91M is used as medium of familiarization to develop Malaysia’s own set of tank doctrine before buying a more advanced tanks.

But as the title said, can we build our MBT specially designed for our own doctrine and need?


Making a Tank

A MBT, in essence, is just a tractor with big gun and steel armour. No big deal whatsoever, right?

^That’s kinda an oversimplification (a sarcastic one), but although building Malaysian own MBT is a tall order (considering our level of defense industry and expertise), it is not an impossible task. Building a tank doesn’t necessarily making it from scratch and several heavy-industries companies (like Deftech, Proton, etc) can establish a joint cooperation, under initiative from the Government, in building our own MBT.

For starter, we need to have a set of tank doctrine we would employed before designing our future MBT, which is based on our geography, demography, geo-politic, neighboring countries’ military doctrine, etc. Israel for example, put heavy priority on its soldier survivability and the doctrine is mirrored in the design of their front line MBT, the Merkava. It has heavy armour, extremely steep armour angle, and even the engine is placed in front of the tank (contemporary tanks usually has engine in the rear), thus increasing the chances of tank crew survivability, at a price of its speed and mobility. IDF is mainly a defensive force so mobility is not quite a priority. American Abrams had emphasis on cross-country capabilities (which is useful in European front during Cold War era), thus having a speed in excess of 40 miles/hour (around 65 km/h).In a more recent development, Japan has develop a new generation of MBT weighing less than 40 tonnes, in order to comply with their public road regulation. Failing to acknowledge the doctrine and the project may become a failure. Indian Arjun, for example, face many setbacks that makes the Indian Army not to acquire more of them and instead opting for another newly designed MBT based on T-72.

After the doctrine has been developed now we can continue to the actual part of building a MBT. In author’s opinion, it is better to acquire old MBT tech (either from reverse-engineering or ToT from other countries) and develop, modify and upgrade it according to our need.
Think this is a bad idea?

-Israel upgraded M4 Sherman, the M50 Super Sherman, participate in numerous conflict with neighboring Arabs countries and their Soviet-made MBTs and was in active duty from early 50s to 1980s.
-South African Olifant (Afrikaans for “elephant”), which is one of the most advanced MBT in African region, is actually derived from late World War II to Cold War-era Centurion Tank. It has more armour, bigger gun, new engine, suspension system, FCS, etc.
-Turkish M60T “Sabra” (derived from US-made M60A3 Patton) is considered to be at par with Israeli Merkava Mk 4
-Every tank in China’s PLA inventory can trace their genetics from Type-59, which is derived from Soviet T-54/55 (they have modified the chassis over time, which includes elongated hull, added another pair of wheel, redesigned hull and turret, newer engine, etc)
-Iranian “Zulfiqar” MBT incorporated features from earlier US-made M48, M60 and Soviet T-72, adding a few modern twists in the process, such as M1-style turret and hull design.
-UK Challenger 2 MBT is based on Chieftain MBT design, which in turn, is based in earlier Centurion tank design.

IDF Super Sherman

SADF Olifant

Perhaps the most difficult part is to develop the armour. The cheapest way is to use steel alloy and put ERA blocks on top of it. But if the ERA is breached the base armour will provide insufficient protection to the crew, especially against modern anti-tank weapon. One answer is to develop our own ceramic composite armour but doing that will take years of R&D and tons of resource and no country will share their own secret of making composite armour to us. So we are left alone in this part

Like the author mentioned earlier, making a MBT doesn’t necessarily means building one from scratch, since there are some equipment that is beyond our current expertise, such as the main gun or FCS system. We can either just buy the equipment from foreign supplier or by acquiring manufacturing rights and produce it locally.

One thing that needs to be considered is the overall program cost (from R&D to manufacturing part) and the logistic. Using existing equipment can save money since the R&D part is skipped and one can have a proven system. A cheap, competent MBT might even attract exports. The equipment should also be standardized to reduce logistic problem, such as using the same gun that fire the same round,(the 2A46 125mm gun is used by PT-91M),interchangeable spare-parts, up to the padded track and bolt and nut. It might not seem much but in the battlefield we need everything we can get and that can also includes cannibalization of captured or different system. Thus standardization is crucial in time of need.

If the cost proves too much we can also opt for cheaper (but no less potent) alternatives, and that is by developing a light tanks (such as Argentinean TAM tanks, French AMX-10 or CV90120).

Considering our military level right now developing a new MBT may seem unlikely, but there’s no need to rush for that, as we still new in MBT deployment tactics. Good things don’t come overnight and the author prefers the development to take gradual advance till it is mature enough to be produced.