Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 02 Aug 2015 14:51

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 797 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2014 21:08 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12875
Link To Previous Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 04:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
PAK FA’s Emergency Landing

Quote:
Interfaks-AVN reported yesterday that a PAK FA on a test flight from Zhukovskiy made an emergency landing.



The original in Russian

Quote:
When performing a test flight on Tuesday promising aviation complex tactical aircraft (PAK FA), also known as the fifth generation fighter aircraft made an emergency landing at the airport Gromov Flight Research Institute in Zhukovsky.


Seems like the plane encountered problem prior to landing.

The damage too is on top of the plane, not quiet related to the air intake system.

?????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 05:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3168
Image

NRao wrote:


A source told the military news agency that bort number 055 received “insignificant damage” from a fire that was quickly extinguished. The pilot was unhurt.

Quote:
Interfaks-AVN reported yesterday that a PAK FA on a test flight from Zhukovskiy made an emergency landing.


"During landing the aircraft received minor damage. caught fire fighter that duty service was quickly eliminated. pilot is not hurt, "-" Interfax-AVN, "a source familiar with the situation.

:shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 07:48 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
^^^^^^

File it under PR.





OK, on a more serious note, there are couple of Russian notes that claim it is beyond repair.

Seems like a more likely end for the 055.


BTW, did come across one poster claim that the plane's engine fan blade fractured, the engine was shut down and plane landed (on the other engine). The pilot - he claims - actually jumped out without the assistance of a ladder.

IF it is an engine related issue, then they have a long night ahead. This is the 117S, to be replaced by the 117, which should provide a new set of challenges.

They will "induct" it, for sure. But the plane itself will have a long way to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 10:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3168
Same message on the Sukhoi website.



Sukhoi's message over the incident with the T-50 aircraft

Moscow, June 10. Today at the airport Flight Research Institute. Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow after the regular test flight landing aircraft T-50 observed smoke above the right air intake, then there was a local fire. It was quickly extinguished. The plane is to be repaired. There were no injuries. In the Sukhoi Design Bureau, a commission that will investigate the causes of the accident. This incident will not affect the timing of the test program T-50.


http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5451


Edit: According to the Russian commentators on the Keypub that's a translation error. 'The plane is to be repaired' is apparently what it actually means.

Though it might just be cheaper to cannibalize the -5 and build a new aircraft than do a customized repair job. The underside looks to be in bad shape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 13:24 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
NRao, Su-35 has the 117S. The current T-50 has the 117.

Per reports, the fuel from ruptured lines pooled below the aircraft and caused most of the visible damage, when burning.
The actual cause is on the top & within - the engine which had an issue.

Impressive redundancy in systems design though, that it kept flying without even the FBW getting knocked out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 13:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 38655
Location: P8I based in Socotra
that airframe is unlikely to fly again. some undamaged parts can be recovered and reused. the whole middle of the aircraft looks badly burnt and skin panels melted away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 19:03 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
+1, makes little sense to rebuild the plane.

Also, this airframe was supposedly the last of a series build which differs from the next series of prototypes which represent series units more closely. Makes better sense to shift there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 19:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Quote:
Su-35 has the 117S. The current T-50 has the 117.


You sure? Of course you follow this far more closely than I do, but, my impression was that the current PAK-FA is based on the 117S and the production one will host the 117. Latest I was expecting the 177 was in the next batch (056-058).

????

Quote:
Per reports, the fuel from ruptured lines pooled below the aircraft and caused most of the visible damage, when burning.
The actual cause is on the top & within - the engine which had an issue.


So, the source of this problem is the engine?

Also, I recall 2011 MAKS being the first time that an engine posed an embarrassment. Has there been a similar incidence in-between?

Quote:
Impressive redundancy in systems design though, that it kept flying without even the FBW getting knocked out


Should be quad. Everything is quad now-a-days. No brownie points there.


But, good to see the pilot escaped and then the damage was not extensive.






Man, how I wish that the FGFA was a reality. The loss of these two years will star hurting. I have no idea what goes through the minds of Babus/Netas/etc. Strange set.

Also, my hopes were riding very, very high on the AMCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 19:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2318
These things are a part and parcel of development. Just goes to show how tough being a test pilot is, you are literally treating every mission as if it were your last.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 20:51 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
NRao wrote:
You sure? Of course you follow this far more closely than I do, but, my impression was that the current PAK-FA is based on the 117S and the production one will host the 117. Latest I was expecting the 177 was in the next batch (056-058).


Current one is 117, next one's designation is not decided. It is still called an "Article" - i.e. development project.



Quote:
So, the source of this problem is the engine?

Also, I recall 2011 MAKS being the first time that an engine posed an embarrassment. Has there been a similar incidence in-between?


Per media/observer reports, so its not confirmed by Sukhoi yet. First issue was due (reportedly) to FADEC, this could be something different or not even the engine.

Quote:
Impressive redundancy in systems design though, that it kept flying without even the FBW getting knocked out


Quote:
Should be quad. Everything is quad now-a-days. No brownie points there.


Thing is, its not quad FBW alone which allowed the plane to fly, but redundancy in other systems - hydraulic and mechanical which kept power flowing to the FBW system allowing the plane to fly and be landed safely.
Quad FBW allows for redundancy when it comes to issues with the data channels & software being isolated & the plane to continue.
Here, the issue was physical in nature.

Quote:
But, good to see the pilot escaped and then the damage was not extensive.


The fire after landing (thanks to the fuel on the tarmac) probably damaged as much of the airframe (or more) than the initial fire itself.

Quote:
Man, how I wish that the FGFA was a reality. The loss of these two years will star hurting. I have no idea what goes through the minds of Babus/Netas/etc. Strange set.


Rafale & Super 30 will compensate for the delay.

Quote:
Also, my hopes were riding very, very high on the AMCA.

Will still come about. New Govt has Defence R&D from DRDO as a priority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 21:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Aug 2012 15:48
Posts: 656
Quote:
Super 30 will compensate for the delay


Sorry OT , but this Super 30 part is confusing me. Heard a lot about it but can't find some information(not the generic ones) which talks about specific details about Super 30, features, the numbers and the timeline for the first roll out of it.
Could someone please enlighten me. TIA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2014 22:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Sep 2008 13:35
Posts: 557
PAK-FA work in progress according to IAF :

http://idrw.org/?p=38674


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 02:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17
Posts: 2521
Location: जो हिंदू हित की बात करेगा वही देश पर राज करेगा !!!
arthuro wrote:
PAK-FA work in progress according to IAF :

http://idrw.org/?p=38674


Somehow i can't copy paste from the article, so typed this bit from there:

Quote:
It might not be officially out but IAF sources has confirmed to idrw.org that PAK-FA deal with Russia has taken back seat over disagreements on workshare of project with HAL India and russia's refusal to provide technical data of the fighter jet.


Same "Eta Secret" (its a secret) disease that gorshkov project also suffered from. Russians have to shape up otherwise they'll end up selling their junk to porkis-n-lizard only.

What was the 'Eta Secret' about half-burnt 70s cruiser carrier that they kept japping this 'Eta secret' mantra? And now same for FGFA pak fa, for which we're paying cash upfront? :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 09:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2318
Dhananjay wrote:

Somehow i can't copy paste from the article, so typed this bit from there:



Here you go (just use OCR for such website - http://www.free-ocr.com )


Quote:
It might not be Ofiicially out But IAF sources has confirmed to idrw.org that PAK-FA deal with Russia has taken Back Set over disagreements on workshare of Project with HAL India and Russias refusal to provide Technical data of the fighterjet .
IAF and Indian Negotiation team have been asking Russians to provide Technical Details and Flight performance results , But
Sources says Russians always have been reculent on this request. Russia claims that Pak-Fa is Superior to American F-22
Stealth fighter and Exceeds in performance have failed to convince Indian team , IAF ofiicials believe PAk-FA in its current form
will have tough time fighting a F-35 which is considered lesser stealthier than F-22.Pak-Fa has failed to impress Indian Team over every Department. whether it is Engine , Avionics Package or Weapons Package everything is work in progress and will take another decade before aircraft can be Certified for Combat and put in Production say the source. Interestingly IAF has asked Russian team to allow a Indian Team to Evaluate Pak-Fa in Russia But Russians have
yet to allow that .

Another Section of Senior official in IAF consider Joint venture on FGFA a customised Pak-fa variant for India will not lead to any
local technical know how of complex 5th generation fighter aircraft technology nor it will help Indian Scientist develop AMCA a
5th generation fighter aircraft program which India plans to develop after work on Tejas MK-2 is over .
Russians have been trying to convince Indians to sign $6 billion to co-develop the FGFA But IAF which is still not convinced
about Russian assurance over technical transfers or capability of the aircraft. Technology for FGFA is still in drawing boards and
will become reality only when Indian funding is provided and time required to recertify them will delay it further.
some senior IAF official are mooting idea of dropping Joint venture and Buying Russian variant of Pak-fa and then go for partial
customisation locally in India which will see little deviation from Russian variant of the fighter jet. By doing this India will save the
cost of Joint venture which might be required in developing technology in almost every Department of the fighterjet .
Russians in past have been trying to Rope in Brazil and Malaysia in the Pak-fa program but have not been able to do so till now .
Heavy Indian investment in Customisation variant of Su-30MKI and success of the project allowed Russia to sell Sukhoi-30
variants to half a dozen countries and Russians are again counting on same countries to follow up later with Pak-fa orders has a
replacement to Sukhoi-30s .



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 10:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Posts: 347
So, the strategy is to use Indian funding for emulating the MKI model and use it as a launch pad for selling the PAK-FA to other countries.

Of course, although we will have funded the program but will have absolutely no say in exports of PAF-FA in the guise of another variant (MKM, MKK ring a bell here). I am now getting increasingly convinced to buy this off the shelf and redirect the money to AMCA.

On another note, if we don't pump the money in, does Sukhoi have funding lined up to complete this in next 5 years or whatever time frame they are telling right now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 10:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3168
*Russian claims that Pak-Fa is Superior to American F-22 Stealth fighter and Exceeds in performance have failed to convince Indian team , IAF ofiicials believe PAk-FA in its current form will have tough time fighting a F-35 which is considered lesser stealthier than F-22. Pak-Fa has failed to impress Indian Team over every department, whether it is Engine , Avionics Package or Weapons Package*

*Another Section of Senior official in IAF consider Joint venture on FGFA a customised Pak-fa variant for India will not lead to any local technical know how of complex 5th generation fighter aircraft technology nor it will help Indian Scientist develop AMCA a 5th generation fighter aircraft program which India plans to develop after work on Tejas MK-2 is over.*


If this isn't going to result in local technical know-how or give a fillip to the AMCA program (and its not), may as well introduce a little competition in the mix.

'Tough time fighting the F-35'... it'll be interesting to hear how the Russians think the PAK FA will do against S-300/400 class systems, i.e. the ones that the Russians themselves claim are 'anti-stealth'.

The worrying thing is that the IAF has been refused access to the PAK FA, while the FGFA nonsense continues to blow around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 11:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2318
What I am interested to know is why there is reluctance to involve us 100% in the testing phase of the program. Not only should we be allowed to monitor the testing phase of the program, but also be allowed to have our pilots, maintainers, logistical staff etc be absorbed in the test and development team as is standard practice with joint development bi-lateral or multi national projects. Let our auditors work alongside Russian auditors to monitor the progress and testing. This can be taken and applied to our own programs for the future. They are asking for 6 billion dollars in development. Just for comparison, Britain (Level I) , Italy (LII) and Netherlands (LIII) paid just under 4 billion dollars as their contribution to the JSF program for a projected order of around 300 aircraft. In return these nations got industrial participation for a program that aims at 3000 fighter serial run and Italy got a final assembly line that will most likely extend beyond the italian F-35s. They are also a major maintenance hub for european f-35's for decades to come. Members from the partners are absorbed into the program including test pilots even during the prototype stage (x-35). The Eurofighter development program also saw participation of industry and Personnel from the development partners.

I am sure that the new government will assert itself more and earn a better participation for the IAF and the indian defense industry in the program. If the russians are going to procure 500 T-50's, let them offload some of the component production to the indian defence industry. Otherwise let them come up with the 6 billion dollars out of their own pocket and we'll pay them to deliver the PAKFA's and set up a line with HAL. We'll spend our 6 billion on the AMCA and crafting our own MKI version for the future PAKFA. Their budget is large enough to spare 6 billion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 12:08 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12875
Quote:
What I am interested to know is why there is reluctance to involve us 100% in the testing phase of the program. Not only should we be allowed to monitor the testing phase of the program, but also be allowed to have our pilots, maintainers, logistical staff etc be absorbed in the test and development team as is standard practice with joint development bi-lateral or multi national projects.


As per HAL http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece
Quote:
HAL is to get three Russian prototypes for re-design and testing in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and will hand over the first series produced aircraft to the IAF in 2019, Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

The FGFA project will take the Indian expertise in aviation technologies to a much higher level.

“We’ve moved from license production and technology transfer to co-design and co-development,” Mr. Subrahmanyan said. He pointed out that India supplies avionics for Su-30 Russia is building for Malaysia and Indonesia.

“Co-design offers far greater scope for knowledge sharing compared with license production. In co-design projects all Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are jointly held by parties involved,” Mr. Subrahmanyan added.

India is currently working on two co-design defence projects with Russia – the FGFA and the Multi-role Transport Aircraft, which is already in detailed design stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 12:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2318
Austin wrote:
Quote:
What I am interested to know is why there is reluctance to involve us 100% in the testing phase of the program. Not only should we be allowed to monitor the testing phase of the program, but also be allowed to have our pilots, maintainers, logistical staff etc be absorbed in the test and development team as is standard practice with joint development bi-lateral or multi national projects.


As per HAL http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece
Quote:
HAL is to get three Russian prototypes for re-design and testing in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and will hand over the first series produced aircraft to the IAF in 2019, Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

The FGFA project will take the Indian expertise in aviation technologies to a much higher level.

“We’ve moved from license production and technology transfer to co-design and co-development,” Mr. Subrahmanyan said. He pointed out that India supplies avionics for Su-30 Russia is building for Malaysia and Indonesia.

“Co-design offers far greater scope for knowledge sharing compared with license production. In co-design projects all Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are jointly held by parties involved,” Mr. Subrahmanyan added.

India is currently working on two co-design defence projects with Russia – the FGFA and the Multi-role Transport Aircraft, which is already in detailed design stage.


I've read these reports, but the latest points to something that is rather confusing.

It might not be Ofiicially out But IAF sources has confirmed to idrw.org that PAK-FA deal with Russia has taken Back Set over disagreements on workshare of Project with HAL India and Russias refusal to provide Technical data of the fighterjet .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 12:26 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12875
Well the news its self tells you how much truth is in there , Its not official and its quoting source versus quote from HAL MD.

IDRW is just a junk website that rehashes news from every where , Quoting any news for any issue on IDRW is not worth it , they just copy it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 13:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 686
@ Austin Ji , Also Highlight What IAF said .


Quote:
“We have a major opportunity in the FGFA program,” Indian air force (IAF) Deputy Chief Air Marshal S. Sukumar says. However, “at the moment it is not very much in favor of Indian development. We are flagging it through the government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability.”
Quote:


Article Dated Oct 21, 2013

Deputy Chief Air Marshal S. Sukumar says FGFA workshare is unfavorable and Better work on AMCA

http://aviationweek.com/awin/india-conc ... are-russia


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 13:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Posts: 347
We will see how much work comes our way in lieu of $6Bn. I can say for sure it wont be meaty work, just some other form of screwdrivergiri if statements from Sukhoi chief are anything to go by.

How can IAFs lack of enthusiasm be explained with the numbers being trimmed down from initial 240 to 144? Surely, Russians cant expect us to first pay them the amount and then tell us what will be the extent of our participation in the program.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 14:04 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12875
HAL/MOD will have to negotiate work share with Sukhoi that in line with their expectation , Eventually there would be some give and take on this and it will move on.

If IAF have concern then they have done the right thing flagging it to MOD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 14:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53
Posts: 686
We are already in middle of 2014 and we still have no agreement with Russians , So how will India get Pak-Fa Prototype in 2015 ??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 15:19 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 12875
Viv S wrote:
'Tough time fighting the F-35'... it'll be interesting to hear how the Russians think the PAK FA will do against S-300/400 class systems, i.e. the ones that the Russians themselves claim are 'anti-stealth'.


SAMS are the most tough nut to crack if its mobile , the crew are well trained and can maintain their discipline and constantly innovate and change tactics in the thick of war.

The best performance of SAM in recent war has been Kosovo , where inspite of having AD which was 2-3 Gen lower than what they were facing viz-viz NATO , their strict discipline and tactics made even NATO commander conceed that the enemy AD remained by and large intact after the war.'

Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... mbeth.html

Having same SAM and even Western system the Iraqi could not do better with AD and got decimated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 17:14 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
Austin wrote:
Well the news its self tells you how much truth is in there , Its not official and its quoting source versus quote from HAL MD.

IDRW is just a junk website that rehashes news from every where , Quoting any news for any issue on IDRW is not worth it , they just copy it.


+1. Judging by its reports, IDRW is run by a bunch of drunk monkeys getting high on crack (as the alcohol alone was clearly not enough). They can't even get a single person to write their reports properly, which says it all about their credibility, and accuracy. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 17:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Article from Aug, 2013:

Austin wrote:
As per HAL http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece
Quote:
HAL is to get three Russian prototypes for re-design and testing in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and will hand over the first series produced aircraft to the IAF in 2019, Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

The FGFA project will take the Indian expertise in aviation technologies to a much higher level.

“We’ve moved from license production and technology transfer to co-design and co-development,” Mr. Subrahmanyan said. He pointed out that India supplies avionics for Su-30 Russia is building for Malaysia and Indonesia.

“Co-design offers far greater scope for knowledge sharing compared with license production. In co-design projects all Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are jointly held by parties involved,” Mr. Subrahmanyan added.

India is currently working on two co-design defence projects with Russia – the FGFA and the Multi-role Transport Aircraft, which is already in detailed design stage.



Rehashed information. PR material. That info has not changed since 2010/11ish.

Written by a Russian?

And, then a month or two later )Oct, 2013) comes the Deputy Chief Air Marshal S. Sukumar statement.

IDRW (like Shukla?) is not the best site, true. But, the content of this report, even if poorly written, is supportable.

It is the articles like the one from the Hindu (above) that are suspect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 18:15 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
News sources are reliable when they quote credible folks and are at least consistent. You can disagree with what the HAL gent says above. But what you don't have a doubt is whether the HAL guy said what he did. That part is credible. In the case of IDRW, nothing is credible. All that poorly written stuff of "he said, she said" could be written by any two three teenagers surfing the net and picking stuff off from BR and then adding mirch and masala. Which BTW is how those jokers running the site seem to be coming up with their stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 18:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Well, let us see

So, from that article itself:

Aug 30, 2013 wrote:
“The use of composites will reduce the plane’s weight and give it lower signature. Our version will also have more advanced Indian-made avionics,” Mr. Subrahmanyan told The Hindu at the Moscow Air Show-2013. He is leading a HAL delegation to the biannual air show being held this year from August 27 to September 1


From India to Use Russian Avionics For Future Fighter - UAC Boss, none other that Mr. Sukhoi, Mr. Pogosyan:

Feb 6, 2013 wrote:
BANGALORE (India), February 6 (RIA Novosti) - India is to equip its Perspective Multirole Fighter (PMF) variant of the Russian T-50 fifth-generation combat aircraft with avionics similar to Russia’s version of the plane, United Aircraft Corporation President Mikhail Pogosyan said on Wednesday.

“The future plane (PMF) will have not only the same airframe, but also an integrated system of onboard equipment,” Pogosyan said, stressing this was a requirement of the Indian Air Force


Perhaps Mr. P's memo did not reach the HAL person - a full 7 months after? Or is HAL Source or Mr. P a bad source?

(It looks like, from teh second article, that the russians are running teh show.)


I do not doubt that IDRW is bad, just that the content of that one report - IMHO - supports the situ(ation).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 19:03 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
NRao, both those reports are correct. Take the Su-30 MKI as an example. The Su-30 MKI "core avionics" are Russian with Russkaya Avionika controlling the integration. The WCS (IIRC) is "Rif" including the IRST, weapons computer, with the radar "Bars/N011M" integrated into it. Rif takes data from the INS/GPS - which on Su-30 MKI/MKM/MKA/MKRussian - is the Sigma95N. Displays are common. However, on MKA/MKM - Israeli HUD/DMG are replaced with French ones. RWR (sensitive tech) was not exported by India and so Pastel L150 is on MKA/MKM/Russ variant.

Point is overall integration will be led by Russia with Indian involvement. Doesn't rule out extensive customization on the Indian side.

BTW our deal with Russia is we can continue to modify our Su-30s as we see fit and we have more leeway than the others(A, M etc), hence mission computers and RWRs on our Sukhois keep getting updated.

However, core avionics like Radar, IRST and overall architecture will continue to be led by Russia with Indian input. Ditto for PAKFA. Reason being we are still behind in FCRs and IRST etc and architecture wise, we will do it together - implementation of subsystems can be customized to each countries requirement. Overall, lot of commonality between both aircraft, which makes sense from development and also support perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 19:24 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26
Posts: 640
I think Russian sources are reliable only when they say that the PAK-FA project is beset with massive problems.

Similarly, Indian sources are reliable only when the cast doubts about India's involvement in the project or the PAK-FA's capabilities. The rest is all hot air PR giri.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 20:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Ah.

KM,

I think I have found the "gap" (if there is one).

I do not see the "FGFA" in the same light as the "MKI". There was a clear need to get to the next level, where Indians would learn from teh Russians - thus the need for the $11 billion "R&D" - *and* then go on their own (AMCA). IF India were to rely on the Russians for "core avionics" (as you claim), this break would not be possible in the AMCA, or the learning curve would be long/steep.

Although India would lean on the Russians, India was seeking a clear break (at some point int the near future) from being reliant of anyone out there. At the end of this deal, India should be the Russakaya Avionika + Pastel + etc + etc. (It would be a travesty if it was anything less my friend.)

That is my understanding. This is not the typical 1990s "MKI" effort.

???? Comments?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 20:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3168
Austin wrote:
The best performance of SAM in recent war has been Kosovo , where inspite of having AD which was 2-3 Gen lower than what they were facing viz-viz NATO , their strict discipline and tactics made even NATO commander conceed that the enemy AD remained by and large intact after the war.'

Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... mbeth.html

Having same SAM and even Western system the Iraqi could not do better with AD and got decimated.


Training and tactics are important but so is the hardware you're employing for SEAD/DEAD.

The highly evolved Su-35S, that supposedly features 'fifth generation technology', still doesn't match up to its older-by-a-decade European peers, when it comes to SEAD and strike. Granted stealth, while not a 'silver bullet' solution, is a huge enabler but just as important is the aircraft's EW/support suite. The PAK FA will certainly bridge the gap with Eurocanards, though to what extent remains to be seen (both the SPECTRA and DASS have been through fairly thorough upgrades). The F-35 however is in a different league altogether in terms of EW and much stealthier to boot.

At the core its matter of operational requirements/doctrine. Until the end of the Cold War, both sides (i.e NATO & WarPac) had a balanced focus on air defence and SEAD/DEAD. If anything, NATO put a greater priority on anti-air defences as the most heavily war-gamed scenario involved a full scale Soviet invasion.

(BTW worth a read - Air War in Europe)

That philosophy underwent a dramatic change after the end of the Cold War. The NATO evolved into an expeditionary force and hugely improved its SEAD capabilities over the next two decades (though the ABM effort continued) while the Russians addressed their material deficit by investing in newer ICBMs for deterrence and advanced long range SAM systems for air defence (both arguably superior to their US analogues). The availability of the latter on the export market (particularly sales to China), further incentivized the West (mostly the US) to develop durable counters to it.

While the RuAF learned from the bloodying Chechen campaigns and an underwhelming performance during the brief South Ossetia conflict (and its effectiveness in strike roles will continue to improve), fact is, the it does not face the kind of SEAD/strike challenges that the US and its allies in the Pacific do. And the PAK FA is after all, an aircraft designed and developed to meet the requirements of the Russian Air Force. (Question for us is, does our threat scenario mirror that of Russia?)


Quote:
SAMS are the most tough nut to crack if its mobile , the crew are well trained and can maintain their discipline and constantly innovate and change tactics in the thick of war.


Very true. Which is also why shoot-and-run ARM tactics are far from adequate for SEAD/DEAD against a first-rate military. You need something that can persist (if not loiter) within hostile airspace and build up a picture of the enemy IADS in real-time... especially important when the IADS is tied in with an airborne C4I network. As a result, even the US while continuing to keep its ARM inventory updated (read: AARGM) is diversifying its SEAD/DEAD tactics and increasing reliance on more 'flexible' engagement options (read: SDB II, JSOW-ER).


Last edited by Viv S on 13 Jun 2014 22:52, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 21:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1497
When the PakFa first took flight I remember reading that the Russian government had not invested one single rubbel in to the programme, it was completely funded by fighter sales (a large chunk from India). I am afraid that if we today ditch the FGFA and the 6 billion dollar commitment and instead buy a MKI version, the Russians will still extract the full amount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 21:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 3168
NRao wrote:
I do not see the "FGFA" in the same light as the "MKI". There was a clear need to get to the next level, where Indians would learn from teh Russians - thus the need for the $11 billion "R&D" - *and* then go on their own (AMCA). IF India were to rely on the Russians for "core avionics" (as you claim), this break would not be possible in the AMCA, or the learning curve would be long/steep.


I was initially looking at the PAK FA development and drawing (unjustified?) parallels to the F-22 and F-35 programs. The level of sensor fusion that is built into the F-35 means that swapping out components is not practical (aside from those that are built to be modular eg. ICP). It can be done, but its not worth the time and effort. There are provisions for add on equipment though - which will be employed on Israeli and possibly Japanese units.

In the PAK FA's context, one would assume the higher the degree of sensor fusion that's built into the aircraft, the more expensive and time-consuming it will be to customize. For the time-being one would like know what is the type of 'open-architecture' employed (in theory the F-22 employed OSA as well, in practice...). The vendor seems rather quiet on that aspect, though it was talked up for Su-30/34/35 and MiG-29K.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 22:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 May 2013 09:05
Posts: 513
Location: Strong Defense needs 500 LCA MK I, 500 LCA MK II, 1000 Arjuns I+II, 2000 Dhanush+Kalyani, 500 LCH
Open architecture comes after building a few architecture's, i.e. maturity. Russians have not shown any prowess in software in commercial or defense sector...absolutely zero (not counting hacking and building viruses)

Boys, 6 billion $ is a HUGE price to pay for learning exercise bullsh*t. Indian's over fascination with learning and education is showing through.

How much learning came from the Russian for LCA? And why are we learning from those who are learning themselves? Funding other people's education is maha Chutiy*pa when 300 million Indians do not have access to a toilet.

Just buy 50 F-35's for the same price (no offset crap to delay) and learn (reverse engineer) from working machines, not early stage prototypes!

I mean buying F-35 now takes care of next 15 years and buy Pak-Fa when it gets ready (likely 15 years away). We will save money and lower our Risk significantly. Meanwhile we start on our own Stealth aircraft development....

But we still want to break dance with dressed up old hag Rafale and tee-totter PAKFA, leaving prime age F-35 on the sidelines ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2014 22:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 May 2014 00:15
Posts: 2318
Viv S wrote:
NRao wrote:

The level of sensor fusion that is built into the F-35 means that swapping out components is not practical (aside from those that are built to be modular eg. ICP). .


Have replied to this in the JSF thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2014 01:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 12286
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Quote:
In the PAK FA's context, one would assume the higher the degree of sensor fusion that's built into the aircraft, the more expensive and time-consuming it will be to customize.


Indians expected their FGFA to be superior to the PAK-FA - a *lot* more advanced. It is all there in the earlier articles.

As an example, the PAK-FA does have 360 coverage, but, India wanted 360 AESA coverage. A substantial difference.

Composites was another area where the Indians were very confident that they could make the FGFA a superior plane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2014 02:04 
Offline
BR Mainsite Crew

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 8222
NRao wrote:
Ah.

KM,

I think I have found the "gap" (if there is one).

I do not see the "FGFA" in the same light as the "MKI". There was a clear need to get to the next level, where Indians would learn from teh Russians - thus the need for the $11 billion "R&D" - *and* then go on their own (AMCA). IF India were to rely on the Russians for "core avionics" (as you claim), this break would not be possible in the AMCA, or the learning curve would be long/steep.

Although India would lean on the Russians, India was seeking a clear break (at some point int the near future) from being reliant of anyone out there. At the end of this deal, India should be the Russakaya Avionika + Pastel + etc + etc. (It would be a travesty if it was anything less my friend.)

That is my understanding. This is not the typical 1990s "MKI" effort.

???? Comments?


What you are referring to is basically India leading the effort and even owning entire swathes of it when it comes to avionics etc. Three challenges with this
1. We joined the program late, we sat around and debated while they kicked it off and did the PD phase - we literally lost years in the process. After that, doubtful we'd get to redesign the whole thing, when our own resources are not at the level of (say) a US, able to work on a dozen programs at the same time.
2. Our experience level (as perceived by Russians) is not upto the level wherein they'd give up program leadership; even if it were , they still wouldn't but thats another story(point 3). Basically, we lag in weapon guidance systems and are also developing our own capabilities in sensor fusion etc (with Mk2). So again, from the Russian POV, some amount of cowork is possible but giving us leadership would be difficult
3. Russia wants to own everything - same as the US, same as the French, same as everyone we work with. Every country wants max share for its own MIC. So there is that.

Anyhow, this time around, for PAKFA, I expect MKI++, in that more avionics systems will be sourced from India, and our involvement in the program will be more complex. I.e. Indians writing mission avionics software and such. However, I don't expect a LCA type story, wherein we handle 90% of the avionics by ourselves and entirely define and architect the product roadmap, and whatever goes into it.

Which is why the AMCA(IMO) is crucial and will still come about. It is what will allow us to do our own thing in entirety and also own the systems like FCR, EW completely. In FGFA it will be co-owned.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 797 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dwaipayandhar, Exabot [Bot], Kakarat, ritesh, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group