PAK-FA and FGFA: News & Discussion - June 2014

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 16 Sep 2014 18:33

wasnt IAF initially for a single seater ??

or was that for PAK-FA ??

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Sep 2014 19:30

krishnan wrote:wasnt IAF initially for a single seater ??

or was that for PAK-FA ??

FGFA, i.e. Indian PAK-FA MKI, was originally envisioned as a two-seater combat aircraft with a requirement of around 200-250 units. Then there were work share issues with the Russians, who didn't give HAL much design work or scope for change; prices were escalated. There were reports that the IAF had revised order downwards to just 144 units and selected single-seater more or less in line with the Russian PAK-FA version. Now, it seems two-seater FGFA is back with larger work share for the Indian team.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Sep 2014 19:43

This cheese has too many holes.

Wanna bet this is more about getting Indian funds. The rest is all fluff.

My feel: The Indian groups are not communicating among themselves. MEA seems to be more interested in announcing something while the leaders meet in a few months. Getting to be like any other Indian contract with the Russians, talk now, write later and then pay a huge price.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Sep 2014 04:42

Apparently the definitive PAK FA configuration will fly in 2019 and become operational only by 2023.

“In 2016 we will start receiving the first T-50 planes,” the Air Force Commander, Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev, adding that everything was going according to plan and the flight personnel of the 929th Chkalov flight test centre retrained for the T-50 aircraft also known as the Prospective Airborne Complexes of Frontline Aviation (PAK FA).

According to Bondarev, the pilots have already started flights on one plane, and the second one is being readied. The first PAK FA aircraft will perform its first flight in 2019.

“In 2019, the plane is to perform the first flight, and in 2023 its tests will be completed and delivery to the troops will be carried out,” Bondarev said.

ITAR-TASS

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2014 05:23

Me am telling you (again!): No panam/daabbu.

My sense - as always - reading the tea leaves: India is not happy and is not backing the project in its current state.

Pakalam.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2014 14:17

The Limits of Stealth Dr Igor Sutyagin

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Sep 2014 18:23

Well,if the report is accurate,good news,esp. that PM Modi is taking extra interest in our defence preparedness.This is very evident-that India's defence and security is topmost in his mind from the manner in which he has visited IN warships in recent times and his swift response to the Chinese aggression in Ladakh.I think that though it may take some mote time for the aircraft to materialise in IN colours,it will give us a quantum advantage over the Chinese during the next decade.I still don't understand the IAF's obsession with a twin-seat stealth bird when even the US operates its F-22s and JSFs with a single pilot.Don't we have enough twin-seat MKIs in the IAF's inventory?

This good news however does nothing to plug the existing widening chasm of lack of numbers in the IAF's fleet.When Mr.Putin comes-a-visiting in Dec,.it would be good to have an announcement of "more of the same" of either Sukhois or MIGs as an interim solution,which will put even more pressure upon the French to reduce the absurd cost of the Rafale.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 23 Sep 2014 19:02

Bhaisahab,

Time will tell, but I am betting that it is going to be the other way round. You cannot convince IAF for taking up a single seat version. The kind of sensor support that will be required in future, a two seater will become an absolute necessity for providing effective defense. Actually twin-seat versions, may be beneficial even in the scenario envisaged by IAF (DRDO poster - deep penetration).

Amerikhans are doing it single-seat because they have the money for going the full auto route. Chinese are going to be even bigger chors/rich, than the Amerikhans, so they are going to go single seat too. Two seat means two brains working in close coordination and ultimately it will again be the Russians who will get convinced about Indian Jugaad just the way Su30MKI convinced them to tryout the Su 30SM route.

Russians have a TFTA behaviour of their own and right now they are probably working under the belief that they will be able to chase the Amerikhan while maintaining lead over Chinese.

Personally I am greatly relieved that the twin-seat version is back on.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2014 11:48

Viv S wrote:Apparently the definitive PAK FA configuration will fly in 2019 and become operational only by 2023.

“In 2019, the plane is to perform the first flight, and in 2023 its tests will be completed and delivery to the troops will be carried out,” Bondarev said.

ITAR-TASS

[/quote]

The tass report that Bondarev quoted is the PAK-DA Bomber schedule and not for PAK-FA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Sep 2014 11:53

ravi_g wrote:Bhaisahab,

Time will tell, but I am betting that it is going to be the other way round. You cannot convince IAF for taking up a single seat version. The kind of sensor support that will be required in future, a two seater will become an absolute necessity for providing effective defense. Actually twin-seat versions, may be beneficial even in the scenario envisaged by IAF (DRDO poster - deep penetration).

Amerikhans are doing it single-seat because they have the money for going the full auto route. Chinese are going to be even bigger chors/rich, than the Amerikhans, so they are going to go single seat too. Two seat means two brains working in close coordination and ultimately it will again be the Russians who will get convinced about Indian Jugaad just the way Su30MKI convinced them to tryout the Su 30SM route.

Russians have a TFTA behaviour of their own and right now they are probably working under the belief that they will be able to chase the Amerikhan while maintaining lead over Chinese.

Personally I am greatly relieved that the twin-seat version is back on.

No matter how sophisticated an aircraft gets , its the Human in the Cockpit which is the weak link , For long range mission that ranges for many hours 6-7-8 that Su boys do often , a single pilot mission would not just be tiring but also stressful , having two pilot is advantageous in sharing the workload and pilots can also take rest for long hour mission , having two pair of eyes in cockpit is also advantageous.

Considering IAF uses Heavy Multirole Fighter as long range tactical bomber for long mission with refuelling ,building FGFA in two seater version is definately a big plus.

I just saw this article http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 21689.aspx

Su practice 9 hour plus mission and they talk of 12-15 hours mission in future.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 25 Sep 2014 10:08

Austin wrote:I just saw this article http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 21689.aspx

Su practice 9 hour plus mission and they talk of 12-15 hours mission in future.

I am glad you bought this up...i had read this old article and was amazed about the sheer endurance of the fighter... Khan does the same with its large Bombers like B1B, B2 or B52...or it surveillance birds like U2 but doing this with a Fighter is out of the world.

I have scoured the maps of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands but not able to find any Bombing site which is mentioned in the article

"The fighters dropped air-to-ground ordnance for the first time on an uninhabited island in the Andamans. We want to exploit the location of these islands to train fighter pilots for extreme missions."

if it is not too sensitive a topic, can any guru share this info??? Even environmentalist have not kicked and screamed about this when they raised a ruckus over running a diesel genset in one of the islands where there are SIX horn-bills.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2014 15:59

JANES Analysis: Expectations for deployment of fifth-generation fighters

The entry into service of the US F-22 Raptor in 2005 marked the unofficial arrival of the era of the fifth-generation fighter. In the coming years, as the American F-35 Lightning II and foreign competitors such as the Sukhoi T-50 and Chengdu J-20 enter the market, the fifth-generation fighter will become an important element of the global fighter market. With revolutionary advancements such as reduction of radar and infrared visibility and supersonic cruise capability, fifth-generation combat aircraft will provide an impressive boost to any nation’s air force.

However, according to analysis by IHS, the development and deployment of fifth-generation fighters is accompanied by various costs.

Between the significant procurement price and the particular set of missions for which such aircraft are suited, nations with limited budgets for defense spending should carefully think through their options before committing to purchase these next-generation aircraft.

As with most complex procurement decisions, a number of factors will define the market size and direction; in some cases, less expensive and older aircraft – including retrofitted models and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – may constitute a more sensible choice.

Already, expectations for purchases of fifth-generations have fallen. Original projections were for around 5,000 of these advanced planes to enter service. So far, only 430 – or less than one-tenth – of the expected total have been committed to or paid for by various countries. While many more are expected to be purchased in the coming years, demand has a long way to go before it fulfills the original projection.

Fifth-Generation Features

It is useful to define the core characteristics of a fifth-generation fighter that distinguish it from predecessor generations. IHS Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft: Development & Production analysts highlight five key features that typically characterize a fifth-generation aircraft:

> A reduced radar cross section, and reduced visibility to infrared sensors

> Sensor fusion with scanned array radar

> Linked electronics to share data with other aircraft

> Supersonic cruise capability

> Advanced avionics and engines

These new capabilities, when combined together in one platform, provide a significant improvement in establishing and maintaining air supremacy in the early stages of a conflict. Fifth-generation aircraft are therefore considered invaluable to a leading power like the United States and its primary allies – as well as other states such as Russia and China – that require the ability to establish air dominance against peer competitors.

According to the most recent IHS forecast, the United States alone is projected to purchase 2,616 fifth-generation aircraft; a mixture of F-22s to be used by the Air Force and F-35 variants for the Air Force, Marines and Navy. NATO allies, specifically the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Turkey and Canada, are forecast to purchase more than 600 of these advanced planes. Other U.S. allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia are also on track to procure approximately 300 such planes.

Rounding out the likely future purchases, Russia, China and India are expected to acquire more than 1,500 fifth-generation aircraft, intended to replace the Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29 models, along with other indigenous aircraft.

Diminished Expectations

It is striking to compare these updated projections with older outlooks because the forecasts for purchases of fifth-generation aircraft have declined in recent years. Several years ago, the United States was projected to purchase around 3,200 fifth-generation aircraft, but controversies over F-35 production and an escalating unit cost have led the Obama administration to reduce these orders by more than 500 planes.

Similarly, non-NATO allies at one time were projected to purchase around 350 fifth-generation aircraft, but the forecast now stands at 304, an approximate reduction of 15 percent.

Fifth-Generation Expectations Fall to Earth

Despite the tremendous capabilities a fifth-generation combat aircraft brings to the table, IHS assesses that the threat environment facing the majority of nations for the foreseeable future may not justify the risk and considerable expense of procuring a fifth-generation-model aircraft. There are three main reasons for this.

First, the number of nations operating extensive air defense networks requiring a sophisticated capability to penetrate and establish air dominion will not significantly expand beyond existing levels. Accordingly, it is unlikely that many nations will find themselves in a position where they will be required to operate their aircraft at the high end of the operational spectrum.

Second, the majority of missions most combat aircraft will fly in future exigencies will involve lower-order operational requirements, facing limited air defense networks and using existing munitions and targeting capabilities.

Third, despite claims from industry, the prevailing view is that fifth-generation fighters will prove significantly more expensive to operate per hour than previously estimated. Those nations that choose to devote a significant share of their procurement budgets to fifth-generation aircraft may find that these planes have been specially designed for missions that, in most cases, they may never be required to carry out, introducing a significant opportunity cost.

The Fifth Element

This surplus of capability will matter less to some states than others. The United States, NATO and major non-NATO allies as well as Russia, and China, are all likely to hedge on the side of excess, even if it significantly raises their procurement costs. These leading powers cannot afford to be choosy when it comes to falling behind in the airpower race.

Although the odds of a great power conflict involving significant air-to-air combat may not be high, the downside of failure to invest in the appropriate capabilities and being caught shorthanded in the early stages of a crisis are too significant for a leading power like the United States or Russia to risk. These states will proceed with purchases of fifth-generation aircraft, even though they too are not immune from cost concerns, leading to reduced order numbers when compared with older forecasts and legacy fighter fleets.

To further complicate such procurement calculations, the smaller number of fifth generation fighters ordered, the higher the likely unit and operating costs.

Fourth Generation Option

Other, smaller states face a different proposition. Excess capabilities relative to their likely requirements in future conflicts will not be viewed as a necessary hedge, but instead as an unwarranted luxury when equally viable but lower-cost replacements are available elsewhere.

In particular, fourth-generation aircraft, including F-16s and Typhoons, can serve as equally reliable stand-ins, especially when they can be purchased at significantly lower prices.

When the most common operational requirements for multirole fighters, as assessed by IHS, include such missions as ISTAR, combat air patrol, and short-range strike missions, the cutting-edge capabilities offered by fifth-generation aircraft offer limited benefits over older designs, particularly when contrasted against the greater acquisition and operating costs. This particularly applies for missions pursued in the context of asymmetric warfare, an increasingly common form of conflict.

Finally, in those instances where a state must turn to airpower to strike at enemy bases or troops in the face of basic air defenses, a fourth-generation aircraft — or an advanced UAV — can successfully undertake most combat operations almost as well as a fifth-generation model.

This overmatch of fifth-generation capabilities against likely operational threats is likely to raise significant questions among lower-tier would-be operators, for whom this opportunity cost will be the highest. The funds devoted from limited defense budgets to the procurement and support of fifth-generation combat aircraft could instead be used to purchase ships for coastal patrols, invested instead in the necessary modernization of tanks and armored vehicles, or be plowed into enhanced training and professional development for troops.

Paying for an aircraft that is rarely used for the missions that it was intended is a very expensive approach to defense planning and is unsustainable in the long run.

US Heavyweight

How do these disparate sets of needs and requirements impact individual forecasts for the expected procurement of fifth-generation aircraft on a nation-by-nation basis? As noted earlier, the United States will remain the heavyweight in the global market, driving the long-term upgrade and production of F-22s (all now delivered) and F-35s with a steady procurement of the latter over the next decade and beyond, ultimately totaling more than 2,500 orders of both aircraft.

Crucially, this also means that, unlike the F-16 and Typhoon, the F-35 will probably remain in production into the late 2030s and beyond. By this point, few fourth-generation or forth-plus generation aircraft such as the Korean KF-X or Turkey’s TF-X or are likely to be available.

Select NATO allies are expected to procure more than 600 such aircraft, which is in fact a very slight increase over original forecasts. At the same time, the Chinese are likely to invest in two models—an approximate buy of 200 to 300 J-20 units along with more than 400 J-31 fifth-generation aircraft.

The Russians, for their part, will proceed with investing in approximately 200 PAK FA and over 300 LMS aircraft that are envisaged to replace the MiG-29 fleet. Meanwhile, the Chinese J-20 (which appears to incorporate some illicit elements from Lockheed Martin’s development work), may be purchased in a strength of several hundred alongside the newer J-31 aircraft that has been revealed recently.

Among other states, it is notable to highlight India’s work on an indigenous [possibly] fifth-generation aircraft, while cooperating with Russia on the T-50. Finally, Japan is proceeding with the development of the Mitsubishi ATD-X while preparing to purchase almost 50 F-35 aircraft.

History lesson

It is useful to remember that expectations of the future course of military conflicts and the related utility of specific weapons systems never unfurl in the anticipated manner. During the period between World War I and World War II, many touted the continued advantages of biplanes, which offered certain advantages in climb and maneuver over monoplanes. Yet as World War II unfolded, biplanes were mostly shot out of the air and the advantages of the monoplane became quickly apparent.

A similar dynamic played out during the Vietnam War, when advanced U.S. aircraft with air-to-air missile capability failed to exert significant superiority over smaller and lighter aircraft.

There are a large number of such honest but erroneous assumptions about the ‘future’ of aerial warfare that were disproved in a subsequent conflict and therefore it is likely that some of our own predictions from will be similarly found wanting. The simple fact is that we do not know the specific contours of the next aerial conflict, or which capabilities will ultimately be required.

Some states, particularly major military powers, believe that they cannot afford to do anything but hedge against all risks, and will thus invest in fifth-generation aircraft.

Other states, with more constrained defense budgets, will likely have to pick and choose, recognizing that the unique mission capabilities attributed to fifth-generation aircraft may prove costly and unnecessary for the actual operational requirements that they face.

This delicate balancing act will define the near-term future of the fifth-generation aircraft and the extent of its penetration of the global markets.

Edward Hunt is a Senior Defence Consultant at IHS Aerospace, Defense & Security, and contributes insight on aerospace and airborne defense and security matters for IHS Quarterly.

IHS Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft: Development & Production draws specialist air platforms data and information from the IHS Jane’s Defence Equipment & Technology Intelligence Centre.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2014 13:52

Deputy General Director for R & D EW equipment Concern "Radio-electronic technology" (KRET) Yuri Majewski gave an interview on Russian systems, electronic warfare, and philosophy of development and improvement of the correspondent of "Heathcliff".

http://vpk.name/news/118356_kompleks_hi ... atsya.html

Complex "Khibiny" continues to improve

- How well do we imagine the possibilities of modern Western radar and guidance systems?

- We work in advance. We are required to predict the development of systems with "the other side", to build on this all their work. Acting on the program in 2025, we need to know how the enemy may be in the 2030 m. There are various methods of forecasting and developing its advanced systems, we model as an opponent is the possibility of conditional 2030. Of course, there remains some uncertainty, and we lay in our complexes the excess capacity that can fend off this uncertainty.

Opportunities verified in practice. We are creating a system, check them, are working, take into account the error, recreate, etc. And the operation is very important for us both in Russia and abroad, in places where we deliver our equipment because the conditions are very different: the geographical, and the potential enemy.

This is the only reliable guarantee, we constantly check in practice, how it works.

- What are the key parameters for EW today?

- We have moved to digital methods of processing and signal generation. Thanks to the miniaturization of the system can be done, covering the whole operating range of communication and radar systems - previously had to produce specialized systems for each range.

In addition, there was the concept of non-energy interference. Modern means of detection and treatment allow an accurate representation of signals. And we can form their similar signal by changing the parameters that we need, for example in its structure. Now, do not necessarily apply forceful suppression, noise close full screen. Sometimes it is easier to get a signal, disassemble it, change something and come back.

- What is the role of EW systems in an increasingly "digitalization" battle management?

- Each control system - a defined set of relations. Our task, the task of EW - find these links, some break off in some, not interrupting, slip distorted information. Figuratively it can be compared to tossing a coin to the cashier accountant, who will have all night to count to find out what was going on.

Although the problem is. How to identify the most important goal, not to spend the extra resources? I'm getting a signal flow between different objects, and we have of these objects to select those that are most important to me - it does not matter whether it is about detection, control, communications, etc. Our methods allow it, and while "on the side" improve controls, we are improving electronic warfare.

- How EW equipment can compensate for the lag in the development of control and communication systems, or, for example, in firepower?

- The effectiveness of the control we consider through a conflict between the two systems. The task for each hand - the destruction of the opposing factions, the strength of which is largely determined by the control system. We should focus on those tools that will allow us to quickly locate and identify the target, faster to sight and will destroy it.

And if the enemy, say, a good intelligence system, with its high range, then our task - to reduce this distance to the point in time to first. If the opponent is better system to disseminate information, then we must act on it so that it was late, and we again would be the first. EW allows us to solve such problems.

We have made good progress and the number of concurrent trends impact and level algorithms. Otherwise, it is impossible. We have to learn to counteract the development of the system of management and communication, to create tools that can compensate for the success of the opponents. As fate makes us do the appropriate level of complexes.

I am sure that in the conceptual design, to concepts and ideas we come, on the implementation - where as, but in a number of complexes, and aviation, and land category, ranks fairly high. This is confirmed by including a foreign operation. Customers often use our system against the objects about which we knew nothing, and the results are very good.

- How is the process of developing complex electronic warfare?

- It is a continuous process, with a constant exchange of information - from the Academy of Sciences applied to structures in different directions. The basis of everything - Forecasting and testing. Stop the process impossible. Crucial feedback from the Ministry of Defence: we provide the technical basis for ensuring that it is no worse than your opponent, but the complex is operated by specific people, and we need to understand how they cope with it. Often fighting officers impose such a requirement: proper complex needs only one button - on / off. Well, we're trying to do it. Finally, often operating experience allows you to expand the boundaries of opportunities inherent in the design.

If we talk about your opponents, of course, it's not just the United States. Britain, France, Italy, Israel ... Everyone has their strengths. Israel, for example, is developing a great suppression of homing of different types - radar, infrared, combined ...

The United States to create a complex group protection by suppressing means AEW opponent. Market is sufficiently developed, competitive, but we do have their advantages. We were able to create an integrated structure - KRET, a center of competence in the development of electronic warfare, combining the company at all levels. We have excellent manufacturers of parts and assemblies, excellent designers.

A very important step for us was to acquire "Aviapribor holding", the largest manufacturer of aircraft avionics. This allowed us to greatly improve our modular system: aviapriborostroiteli actively apply these technologies in their work - we are in his. Association with "Aviapribor" much easier for us to work, including the accessories - ultimately we are using largely similar sets of parts, just differently-assembled for different tasks.

- What can you say about the system EW "Khibiny", which is set, in particular, the Su-34, as well as electronic warfare systems, complex T-50?

- "Khibiny" - a serial system designed to protect aircraft from the group SAM. But he continues to improve, including through miniaturization. Staying in the same size, with the same mass and energy parameters, the complex can get a lot more opportunities.

Another aspect: moving to a new generation of electronics, we reduce the weight and size, making it easy to plane. We must understand that there is no electronic warfare itself. If a perspective plane differs markedly reduced, it is possible to implement a range of reduced energy potential that opens up broad prospects for further improvement. This also applies to the T-50. The new generation of solid-state electronics, reduction of weight, dimensions, more compact on the plane ... Although general solutions are not so many, for each specific type of aircraft being developed something of their own, subject to the limitations on weight and dimensions, the thermal regime. Take a complex with the same type of aircraft and put on the other will not work. The problem is solved anew each time.

Published online Rosteha

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 09 Oct 2014 16:37

Not directly related but things like this counts in the arena of larger relationship between India and Russia and can have a positive spin off effect on other aspects on relation including Military one.

Russia offers India stakes in Siberian oilfields- sources -- UK Reuters

Rosneft offers ONGC 10 pct stake in Vankor - sources

* Offers up to 49 pct stake in Yurubcheno-Tokhomskoye- sources

* Putin plans New Delhi visit in December

By Nidhi Verma

NEW DELHI, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Rosneft has offered stakes in its two east Siberian oilfields to India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp, two Indian sources with direct knowledge of the matter said, as the sanctions-hit Russian company looks beyond Western firms to develop its vast resources.

The sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and Europe to punish Moscow for its incursion into Ukraine, have cut Rosneft's access to Western financing and technology.

Rosneft has offered an up to 49 percent stake in Yurubcheno-Tokhomskoye and 10 percent share in Vankor field to the state-run ONGC, said the source familiar with the discussions.

"They need money and want to hire partners. They want to demonstrate to the U.S. and Europe that there are partners available for them," said one of the sources.

ONGC would firm up its decision on participation in the two projects before the planned visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to Delhi in December, this source said, adding the two fields are in geologically challenging areas.

The European Union has imposed sanctions on Russia's finance, defence and energy sectors and has frozen the assets of some 140 Russian and Ukrainian individuals and companies over Moscow's role in Ukraine.

The sources declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Rosneft declined to comment.

Rosneft's chief Igor Sechin, a close ally of Putin, has been on the U.S. sanctions list since April. Rosneft itself was added to the list in July.

Production at Yurubcheno-Tokhomskoye will start in 2017. The field is to supply Asian markets via the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline and feed a yet-to-be-built petrochemical plant in Russia's Far East.

In a major about-turn, given the Kremlin's long resistance to allow its powerful neighbour access to such deposits, Putin last month said he welcomed the idea of China joining the prized Vankor field.

Vankor project is vital for Rosneft to meet its growing commitments to supply Asian markets, above all China.

Rosneft is preparing to more than double oil exports to China to over 1 million bpd, seeking to secure market share and billions of dollars in pre-payments. (Additional Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin in MOSCOW, editing by William Hardy)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Oct 2014 20:47

Some newest pics of PAK-FA among other types

http://sergey-lutsenko.livejournal.com/ ... tml#cutid1

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Oct 2014 18:36

Looks like the IAF, HALs tough stance may have paid off..
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 482524.ece

On the Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) or Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF), a fifth-generation fighter being developed by India and Russia, he said work is going on as per schedule and there are no complaints about the designing work. "The work is going as per schedule and there are no complaints about the designing work carried out by the Indian and Russian scientists. There were some negotiations on the share of designing work. India has accumulated experience in designing aricraft that is why we were planning to do it 50-50.

But this has to be specified and elaborated on paper," Kadakin said.

Lauding Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his keeneness to enhance strategic ties with Russia, Kadakin said "he (Modi) is a precise person, result-oriented. He is like Putin. They met in Fortaleza on the sidelines of BRICS summit and have got good chemistry working between them."

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Oct 2014 18:51

Looks good and fair as we are jointly funding on 50:50 basis so sharing design , workshare , IPR and profit from future sales on equal basis would be fair thing to do. Hope they can formalise this on paper soon.

Russia's fifth-generation fighter receives first sets of new electronic warfare system

The unique air system increases fighter jet’s jamming resistance and damage tolerance, as well as neutralizes enemy’s signature control systems

The Radio Electronic Technologies concern provided the Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation (PAC FA) T-50 with the first batch of Himalayas electronic warfare systems.

“We are currently testing it,” General Director Nikolay Kolesov told TASS.“T-50 prototypes are already equipped with the Himalayas onboard defense system. The system is used in plane tests,” Kolesov said.

The unique air system increases fighter jet’s jamming resistance and damage tolerance, as well as neutralizes enemy’s signature control systems. It also helps decrease aggregate weight of the PAC FA.

The Himalayas are integrated into the jet fighter system to the extent it functions as a so-called smart cover. “In other words, we are not producing some separate blocks, but parts of a plane with add-in electronic devices,” Kolesov stressed when talking about fifth-generation jet fighters’ electronic warfare characteristics.

The Himalayas EW system was developed by the Kaluga Scientific Research and Radio Technology Institute and is manufactured at the Signal radioplant in Stavropol. They are both part of the Radio Electronic Technologies concern.

The concern is Russia's largest electronic industry holding company. It was established back in 2009 and is now part of the Rostec State Corporation. It specializes in development and production of systems and commercial avionics, position-radar station of air basing, identification and electronic warfare systems, measuring apparatus for various purposes. The concern includes 97 scientific research institutes, a development laboratory and production facilities.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Nov 2014 09:54

via keypub

PAK-FA 117 Engine : 3 LPC, 7 HPC, 1 HPT and 1 LPT

AL-31F (and derivatives) are 4 -stage LPC & 9 -stage HPC

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 04 Nov 2014 10:50

Austin wrote:Looks good and fair as we are jointly funding on 50:50 basis so sharing design , workshare , IPR and profit from future sales on equal basis would be fair thing to do. Hope they can formalise this on paper soon.

I agree with you regarding the sharing. This should be an equal partnership with all tech transfer but I am sceptical if Natasha will share future profits from the sale of this plane in the world market. I hope I am wrong and you are right so lets see what they can formalise on the contract.

member_28640 · Post by **member_28640** » 04 Nov 2014 11:17

Are they using F120-esque Geared turbines for greater envelope of operations.. The Kaveri tried out variable inlet guide vanes.. Can we sell this know-how/idea to the russians..this latest engine seems quite a work of art

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 05 Nov 2014 21:45

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/f ... 565069.ece

Sources in the Air Force have said that the differences have been sorted out and the deal is expected to be inked in December during Mr. Putin’s visit. A final agreement will clear the way for full development and production.

PHEW! This is much needed in the long run

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Nov 2014 23:08

IMHO we should wait for a bit ............ Dec is not that far. Let the dust settle and then we can get to know the details - single/dual seater, etc.

Will · Post by **Will** » 06 Nov 2014 00:03

NRao wrote:This cheese has too many holes.

Wanna bet this is more about getting Indian funds. The rest is all fluff.

My feel: The Indian groups are not communicating among themselves. MEA seems to be more interested in announcing something while the leaders meet in a few months. Getting to be like any other Indian contract with the Russians, talk now, write later and then pay a huge price.

Well its a given that Russian aftersales and logistics suk. But this pay a huge price later might not be all it seems. Payment has to be made for all the secret critical stuff that India receives from the Russians and this might just be a way.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 06 Nov 2014 01:12

Good news! Wishing IAF to master the jet quickly and well and Su-30MKI experience will go along way and this will be a force multiplier.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 06 Nov 2014 05:19

I wouldn't get that excite just yet. I will look to see the actual sign off happening and on what terms.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 06 Nov 2014 11:11

Great news !! I hope this is a true and an equal partnership deal with full tech transfer not just an MKI style deal, lets see the final contract.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Nov 2014 21:28

This infoGrpahic has the cost now at $6 billion.

Gone are the days of 5 billion, eh? And the 5.5 billion.

Russia and France seem to be the bait-n-switch variety.

Also says twin-seats.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Nov 2014 21:36

Nov 6, 2014 :: India’s quest for advanced stealth fighter yet to emerge from doldrums

India is not likely to get a futuristic stealth fighter anytime before 2024-2025. Technical and price wrangles continue to bedevil the joint project with Russia to develop the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA).

India, in fact, has conveyed its deep concerns to Russia about being denied "full access" to the FGFA project despite the fact that it is supposed to be an equal partner in financing it. The "continuing problems" in the project has meant India and Russia are still to ink the full final design or R&D phase contract for the FGFA, throwing revised timelines into yet another tailspin.

Earlier this year, officials were also shocked to find that India's work-share in the FGFA project had been reduced to just 13% from the earlier envisaged one of 50%. "Russia is yet to clear our lingering technical doubts about the project. But with President Vladimir Putin coming to India in December, there might finally be some forward movement," said a source.

India and Russia had inked the $295 million preliminary design contract in December 2010, as per which the under-development Russian 5th Gen fighter called Sukhoi T-50 would be tweaked to Indian requirements for its "perspective multi-role fighter".

But the final R&D contract, which was to be signed by 2012, is still to be finalized. Under it, India and Russia are supposed to chip in with $5.5 billion each towards the cost of designing, infrastructure build-up, prototype development and flight testing, as earlier reported by TOI.

All the 127 single-seat fighters that India hopes to induct are to be built at the Ozar facility of Hindustan Aeronautics in Nashik. In fact, the first Indian FGFA prototype was earlier slated to reach Ozar by 2014, with the second and third following in 2017 and 2019.

"But this obviously cannot happen now. The project's full R&D phase will also be pushed back to 2021-2022, only after which HAL will begin manufacturing the fighters," said the source.

India has repeatedly rebuffed overtures made by the US for joining its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or the F-35 'Lightning-II' programme. Now, having sunk in a lot of time and money into the FGFA project with Russia, it has no option but to pursue it.

But it has reduced the required numbers from an earlier 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat 5th Gen fighters to just 127 single-seat ones. It was felt that the twin-seat option would reduce the stealth features and add weight as well as make the fighter much more expensive.

Is he implying that there are those in India that may still speak of the JSF?

Also, haunting similarities to the Vicky. Sink enough to make it difficult to pull out.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 07 Nov 2014 00:08

^^^ Don't your posts contradict each other? One of them can be a plant?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Nov 2014 19:24

Nov 6, 2014 :: Russia and India continue negotiations on fifth-generation fighter development

Russia’s Sukhoi company continues negotiations with India on the fifth-generation fighter development contract, the company’s deputy marketing director Alexander Klementyev told TASS on Thursday at the Indo Defence 2014 exhibition.

“We conduct negotiations with India under the aegis of Rosoboronexport (Russian arms exporter) on signing another development contract,” Klementyev said.

Earlier, the contract on the fighter’s front-end engineering design was successfully fulfilled.

Klementyev refused to comment on progress of negotiations.

Media reported in early 2014 that the Indian Air Force command criticised the joint project within the FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) program. In particular, Russia was accused of non-fulfilment of its promises. The Russian side said it hadn't received official claims from the Indian partners, adding that the work was going on schedule.

First published by TASS.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Nov 2014 22:58

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:^^^ Don't your posts contradict each other? One of them can be a plant?

Neither one's plant. The first one's just an amateurish ~~product~~ piece (the twin seat option is NOT being revived contrary to its claims).

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 07 Nov 2014 23:20

An amateurish product that is probably the second best in the whole world - seems the world has already entered era of star wars.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Nov 2014 00:43

vishvak wrote:An amateurish product that is probably the second best in the whole world - seems the world has already entered era of star wars.

Amateurish article/graphic. From the Indian Express, I think.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 08 Nov 2014 10:15

I don't find too many overtures made to India on the F 35. I think the US State department has sent out feelers, but the IAF has not been to hot on it.

The F 35 totally changes their fighting philosophy to something closer to a videogame. They prefer more seat of the pants flying.

I'm supporting the F 35 for the IAF. If Rafale like conditions can be met, and the ToT is going to be much lesser , I believe we should go for it.

It will change the face of our defence thinking, as well as help ADA for the AMCA.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 08 Nov 2014 18:03

Since F-35 is OT here this is an OT post. Indians should never bother to be tied with American systems that come loaded with American policies. In fact, people have been selling idea of litigation too along with. It is nothing but quagmire outside wishes of USA who has shown bipartisan behavior consistently against Indian politics as also supported terrorist munna pakis just across the border.

member_28756 · Post by **member_28756** » 08 Nov 2014 18:11

vishvak wrote:Since F-35 is OT here this is an OT post. Indians should never bother to be tied with American systems that come loaded with American policies. In fact, people have been selling idea of litigation too along with. It is nothing but quagmire outside wishes of USA who has shown bipartisan behavior consistently against Indian politics as also supported terrorist munna pakis just across the border.

Yeah good luck getting source codes for those F-35 from them and I think it was a Turkish f-16 that crashed a while ago and they found tracking device on the wreckage.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 08 Nov 2014 18:18

OT.
LoL no one talks of such minor issues since they have to take route of litigation process - very clearly - only. Not sure if the Turks went through motions. In fact, Iraq paid for fighter jets and never got it delivered in the first place. Not much scope of litigation there to begin with. Come to think of it, where did the litigation machinery go when, allegedly (note the word) the Chinese stole tech and even source codes.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 08 Nov 2014 23:11

The US's weapons SURROUND the Panda, in Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia.

They shit bricks when they are faced with such weaponry. Its time to cage them from all sides now.

wig · Post by **wig** » 10 Nov 2014 08:40

Fifth-gen fighter: India asks Russia to resolve tech-sharing, costing

In what could be a sign of fatigue in a long-lasting military relationship, India has conveyed to Russia that it cannot carry on with the proposed project to jointly develop and manufacture the next generation of fighter jets till Moscow addresses concerns about technology sharing and costing.

India and Russia are on the verge of inking one of the biggest defence manufacturing deals to develop and produce the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). Its research and development (R&D) will cost $11 billion (Rs 66,000 crore) with India paying half of it. This will be followed by a potential $30 billion deal to make some 200 planes for the Indian Air Force. As negotiations have dragged on for four years since the FGFA was first announced, India has raised issues of technology; its transfer; New Delhi’s role in development of the plane and the actual per-unit cost of the plane.

Top sources said there have been no answers from Russian delegations at routine talks — the last one being a few weeks ago — and it probably needs political intervention to sort it out. The matter will be slotted for discussion when Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in New Delhi for the annual summit next month.

Under the existing terms, it is pointless to even think of signing the R&D contract. There are some key sticking points for the IAF that are holding up its decision, said top sources.

New Delhi says since it is paying 50 per cent of the cost, it should be doing half the work on the FGFA. At present, the Defence Ministry-owned public sector undertaking Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) — under the proposal — is mandated to do only 13 per cent of the work.

India has asked Russia to convey the tentative cost on per-plane basis. Since six prototypes are flying, this would not be a problem. But so far, there has been no answer, a source said. The intellectual property rights of the plane would be held by Russia, which has so far, refused to fit HAL-supplied pieces without certification, meaning if India has to re-fit its own pieces, it will need the nod from Moscow

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141110/main4.htm

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Nov 2014 09:19

In what could be a sign of fatigue in a long-lasting military relationship, India has conveyed to Russia that it cannot carry on with the proposed project to jointly develop and manufacture the next generation of fighter jets till Moscow addresses concerns about technology sharing and costing.

This should squash all the notions about the FGFA being 'back-on-track'. I was pretty skeptical since all the 'all-is-well' statements seemed to originate almost exclusively from Russian commentators.

Fact is, the FGFA is based on the PAK FA which is already at an advanced stage of development. The airframe has been tested, the radar is in testing, the EW is in testing and so on. The aircraft goes into production in 2016 and the Russian will continue to make refinements, with the definitive version entering service in 2022.

So lets be clear, India's $5.5 billion share is not for developing the aircraft, its for reimbursing the Russians who've already done most of the work. 13% is most likely India's work-share in the aircraft's production, not its development (which would require big markups on Indian input amounting to accounting fraud). In which case, we're better off spending that cash to buy the aircraft off-the-shelf (or assemble it under license) rather than simply gifting it to the Russians in return for whatever level of access to technology they deign to transfer.