PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 02 Oct 2012 14:34

I think they have learnt the mistakes that Americans made in clean sheet designs. The order of F 22 restricted to 187 was purely due to price constraints. At a defence budget less than 1/8th of America's, they will maximise the existing tech. Even the external design of PAK FA displays its pedigree. The engine is supposed to be 150 kN IIRC. We can get a 140 kN walla on our MKIs too.

The current price of the FGFA for India is $150 million including research costs. The same for F 22 is in excess of $300 million. I hope this project does not go the Gorshkov way and it seems that Russia is ensuring it won't.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2012 20:33

Singha wrote:I thought the 5th gen engine was a total cleansheet design..a radical departure from the AL31 , but the above link makes it sound like a EDE variant + less weight.
is 117S the IOC engine of PAKFA or the 5th gen engine is another project ?

The Dimension of 2nd Stage 5th Gen Engine has been kept similar to AL-31 so that in future both Flanker series and PAK-FA/FGFA series can use these engines as part of upgrade for the rest these are different breed of engine in all cardinal parameters.

117 is the IOC engine or first stage engine for PAK-FA , 117S is the engine for Su-35S

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2012 21:54

when you mean first stage engine, you mean first version?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2012 08:14

The current engine 117 fitted on PAK-FA is the first stage engine the one under development is 2nd stage

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 03 Oct 2012 11:34

Austin wrote:The current engine 117 fitted on PAK-FA is the first stage engine the one under development is 2nd stage

IIRC, the final engine is going to be different and was supposed to be a new engine Al 41.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Oct 2012 12:12

alexis wrote:IIRC, the final engine is going to be different and was supposed to be a new engine Al 41.

Al-41 is the designation of engine developed for Mig-1.44 they reused the hot parts of Al-41 in 117S and 117 engine . the new 5th gen engine under development does not have a designation yet atleast not known in public.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 15:36

How good is this source?

IAF decides on 144 Fifth Generation Fighters

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has decided the number of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFAs) at 144, down from an earlier estimate of about 200.

Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne told India Strategic in an interview on IAF’s 80th Anniversary that all these aircraft would be single seaters, the same which the Russian Air Force will have but some components like onboard computers and systems would be different as in the case of SU 30 MKIs.

Now designated PMF, or Perspective Multirole Fighter by Russia, the Indian aircraft would be made in India with Russian assistance, he said adding that discussions with the Russian Government are already on.

India's HAL, which will manufacture the Indian version of the aircraft, has already earmarked US$ six billion for initial expenses in joint development with Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which will provide the super cruise engines and certain stealth technologies.

India and Russia had signed an agreement in this regard 21 Dec 2011, to set up a 50:50 joint venture on the lines of BrahMos Aerospace and share development work. HAL will be aided by DRDO.

Indian scientists are keen to pool in Research and Development (R&D) effort, and the agreement calls for joint development, particularly in design, guidance systems and onboard software. That means India will also have a proprietary share on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The exact costing is yet to be worked out but inclusive of the development costs, the figure could be around USD 30 billion, according to HAL sources.

Notably, a figure of 200-plus of two-seater version for India was considered earlier with possible induction from 2017 with an initial lot from Russia. Development in that time frame however is not happening.

The previous no of 250 was supposed to cost US$ 35 billion including R&D. That puts it at the same price point as the Rafale. Too good to last. The revised price might have been one of the reasons to cut down the nos. Or perhaps this is the initial order and we could expand it like we did with the MKI?

Going by the target of 42 squadrons, this was expected since Rafale + Tejas + FGFA would have crossed 45 sq mark including the retiring of older planes. It seems they are actually limiting themselves to that figure of 42.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 20:08

wtf? this is price gouging .. reducing the number of a/cs and keeping the total estimated cost same. Now, I am more concerned on this perennial evergreen corruption.

else, they would go FU, and they have other nations to sell to. I say, let them sell to chippanda. let them go free on this... we have to define our design to needs first. the khaans are trying to show some interest here too. why not capitalize just to get some leverage here.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 20:49

It is a more realistic assumption. The previous price was too low IMHO. Sukhoi had plans to sell 1000 of these with Russia & India buying 250 each. They might want to get more realistic numbers.

China is not getting Al 41 engines for its J 20. The PAK FA will not be shared with the Chinese. Khaan's humongous costs for the F 35 has already allowed Russia to price their wares higher. The only real leverage is the AMCA. Nothing comes close. I believe IAF has realised the writing on the wall. Even the French are not pricing their Rafales cheap. At US$ 20 billion for 126 planes, it is higher than the previous cost of the FGFA. Get the ECO core if Kaveri doesn't work out. At least it will make LCA / AMCA sanction resistant.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 21:12

^please to explain "more realistic assumption". of course you can take a "less realistic assumption" as "your assumption".

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 21:15

Simple maths onlee saar

Rafale will cost US$ 160 million, FGFA would have costed US$ 150 million. Not realistic IMHO.
The new cost of US$ 210 million is more realistic.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 21:20

so, for all mujahid-math purpose, it is like saying Rafale > FGFA, so not realistic. Make it FGFA >> Rafale, to make it realistic! sounds like nice logic.

legend:
> slightly greater than
>> much more greater than

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 21:27

The cost has less to do with the capabilites of the plane. The super Sukhois are supposed to be better than Rafales. But Russia is not sleeping at the wheel. They have seen that India can pay US$ 160 million for a 4th gen plane. It makes no sense to price your 5th gen plane so low. The only real competitor (F 35) is going to be priced similarly. Traditionally, India has paid double the price to US compared to munnas (Harpoon, C 130 etc). Russia is following these developments closely. It is better to price the hardware higher initially than to raise it later and leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth. Business 101.

It is a seller's market and India's defence budget will only increase. Russia have learnt from their mistakes and seeing that India has been quite happy with its recent American purchases must be following a similar strategy.

Considering their quality is better than the competitors (downgraded F 35), it makes good business sense to price your wares in accordance with the prevailing market prices.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 21:35

lot of assumptions here.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 21:37

^^^

Please clarify. I know that I have made a lot of assumptions since there has been no official release and don't expect one on such an issue. However, I am willing to learn.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 21:53

one of the biggest assumption you have made is USA == Russia. They are poles apart in tech. You can't just equate there.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 21:59

The difference is much less when you compare the export versions. This is not comparing PAK FA with F 22. It is a comparison between down graded F 35 for India & customized FGFA for India as well. The margin is considerably less especially when you consider that FGFA trumps it in range, payload, ToT, customization, independence. Of course F 35 will win when it comes to avionics, maybe stealth & sensor fusion. I don't want to say FGFA is better or F 35 is better since it is quite subjective.

Anyway, they are better than French overall. That is what the Rafale price is based on.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 22:23

And what % of technology that Russia is providing us compared to our participation? I think you are assuming also that India will accept a scaled down raptor or f-35 should that be a choice.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 22:28

The participation is solely restricted to FGFA. The PAK FA is purely Russian. FGFA is a 50-50 venture on paper but of course it will be less in real life.

India is not getting the raptor. No one outside US is. F 35 will be downgraded for all allies. The top version is again US only. Ultimately it is America's call & India can't force them to sell. IOW, we don't have a choice.

The only choice is a downgraded F 35. There have been no indications of USA offering anything better. For comparsion, the UK (Tier 1 partner) & Israel (closest ally in ME) had to do a lot of haggling for access to codes. Dunno why India will get anything better. Even the old teens were facing problems regarding ToT. Nothing is going to change in that department for the time being.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2012 22:46

Why are you assuming that we should settle for a degraded F35? USA will never enter Indian market with that mindset. Did you read policy changes happening with Indo-US collaborations? they are talking about technology sharing that they have not done to anyone in the world yet. So, hold on there on that assumption.

We are not going to settle for less. Why would we want degraded offensive systems? be it Russia or America. India will advance better on technology sharing than buying. That is the sole reason, we have FGFA tie up, where it would be entirely HAL design and needs. We have only seen a model, but we have no idea what is going in there with Indian contribution.

I am expecting at least the minimum on these tech:
1. mission computing - vetrivel++
2. AESA radar - this is where, we are looking ahead for LCA Mk2 and AMCA as well. It could be also with radar computing.
3. Stores and extra weapons that needs to be delivered - it can't be MKI --. Integration from other missile suppliers are important for FGFA.
4. Avionics and other sensors - like we have already done for MAWS, Siva pod, etc.. more integrated.

On stealth, we have no clue what is PAKFA's RCS.. the same airframe we are using for FGFA. It would be an assumption again that it is better offer than American skins and airframe.

Engines, they are still way behind a super cruise one yet., let alone low signature.

So, lot of questions. how can we put a price on something we have no measure about?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 09 Oct 2012 23:01

My post was based on the information available so far. The Indo US strategic partnership has been only on paper. They continue to arm Pakistan, lower ToT (MMRCA) & put DRDO in their black list. If they have changed, there has been nothing on ground so far except for their claims.

We can't settle for less or more. Do you think that we could have the FGFA if Russia wouldn't want us? They can build a PAK FA on their own and sell it to us. Again, they did it for financial reasons which is not applicable to the same extent for the USA. USA has the option to not sell us without a great financial setback. The MMRCA deal showed us that the American firms will do 10x the business from the US itself. They don't need our dollars as badly as others do.

MMRCA was a competition with old fighters (compared to 5th gen F 35). Yet Boeing had to go thru State Dept everytime unlike Dassault & Mig who were quite open with sharing tech with us.

FGFA can supercruise. I believe that LCA can as well. It is a function of engine power & FGFA will have 300 kN engine power available. Even the Rafale can do it at 150 kN.

We have seen in the past the greater flexibility allowed in the Su 30 MKI with the Russians compared to US hardware where even the night vision equipment on the Jalashwa needed to be inspected. At the end of the day, we should judge them by their past actions as they have not shown any indication to change, yet, all diplomatese aside.

The current price of JSF is 125 million & climbing. The same for FGFA is 210 million. Traditionally, US has charged us more. No surprise that IAF chose to go with Sukhoi instead of Lockheed Martin in spite of the latter already having developed the raptor. If the US decides to open up, it can do so. The ball is in their court.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Oct 2012 23:49

nakul wrote: FGFA can supercruise. I believe that LCA can as well. It is a function of engine power & FGFA will have 300 kN engine power available. Even the Rafale can do it at 150 kN.

I won't get into your discussion. Just marking out factual errors.

1. The ability to super-cruise is not based on solely power.
2. The numbers you are quoting for power of Rafale/FGFA is available power with afterburner. Supercruise by definition is cruise speed without the use of afterburners.
3. LCA MK I can't supercruise. They have not advertised that feature for LCA MKII either.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 00:01

^^^

Thanks for the correction. The good thing about BRF is that many people know more and are happy to share the info.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Oct 2012 03:04

nakul wrote:Khaan's humongous costs for the F 35 has already allowed Russia to price their wares higher.

As of now, the price of the F-35 is comparable to the Rafale. Also, with its huge order book, its price is likelier to remain stable once its enters full scale production. The same may not apply to the PAKFA.

Traditionally, India has paid double the price to US compared to munnas (Harpoon, C 130 etc). Russia is following these developments closely. It is better to price the hardware higher initially than to raise it later and leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth. Business 101.

Its the other way round. Dealings with the US are usually transparent especially since the DPPs went into effect, and the 'double price' usually includes reliable support offered throughout the lifetime of the aircraft. With the Russians on the other hand, traditionally the support agreements were negotiated piecemeal and have proven to be irksome in both pricing and delivery. You will not for example find the C-130J or C-17 sorties curtailed because of a tire shortage. That sort of reliability and serviceability pays off in wartime.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Oct 2012 03:31

nakul wrote:India is not getting the raptor. No one outside US is. F 35 will be downgraded for all allies. The top version is again US only. Ultimately it is America's call & India can't force them to sell. IOW, we don't have a choice.

The only choice is a downgraded F 35. There have been no indications of USA offering anything better. For comparsion, the UK (Tier 1 partner) & Israel (closest ally in ME) had to do a lot of haggling for access to codes. Dunno why India will get anything better. Even the old teens were facing problems regarding ToT. Nothing is going to change in that department for the time being.

The UK and Turkey were haggling on codes because they would like the ability to independently customize the aircraft while the US is committed to maintaining the security of its aircraft (as well as those of its allies) by ensuring their secrecy. So yes, in terms of ToT particularly related to electronics/avionics, the F-35 is a non-starter though some technology in terms of say.. composites may still be had (and translated to the AMCA program).

As far as downgrading goes, I doubt any such thing will occur. The F-15 entered service with the USAF in 1976, IsAF in 1977 and Japan in 1981, all without any downgrades. The same goes for the F-16. Point is they have no incentive to downgrade the aircraft vis-a-vis India, unlike Saudi Arabia who posed some degree of threat to Israel. And that's best illustrated by the P-8I which will be received by the USN and IN at nearly the same time.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2012 03:49

The possibility that India will face a raptor/rapotriski in the distant future is certain. It is important that LCA MK2+, Rafale, and FGFA jointly help produce AMCA. Like how LCA helped MKI LRUs, we will have to ensure that plus more.. AMCA components in FGFA is what should make it a killer a/c for the world to fear. Lots to do, and lots to achieve. By the time we receive these puppies at ozar for dev testing, we should have at least contributed significantly for as many LRUs as possible. I hope, our ears will hear music soon.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Oct 2012 07:29

er P8A != P8I.
stuff like the library of submarine signature collected over decades is certainly not for sale with P8I. however means will be there for us to upload our own dataset in the onboard library

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Oct 2012 07:59

Singha wrote:er P8A != P8I.
stuff like the library of submarine signature collected over decades is certainly not for sale with P8I. however means will be there for us to upload our own dataset in the onboard library

Any comm equipment that comes under CISMOA restrictions is also removed. And you can be sure that some of the bleeding edge tech available on the P-8A will be replaced with other stuff on our version.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Oct 2012 08:11

I believe the SAR/ISAR land attack mode has also been deleted per a old report posted in BR.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 12:00

The UK and Turkey were haggling on codes because they would like the ability to independently customize the aircraft while the US is committed to maintaining the security of its aircraft (as well as those of its allies) by ensuring their secrecy. So yes, in terms of ToT particularly related to electronics/avionics, the F-35 is a non-starter though some technology in terms of say.. composites may still be had (and translated to the AMCA program).

As far as downgrading goes, I doubt any such thing will occur. The F-15 entered service with the USAF in 1976, IsAF in 1977 and Japan in 1981, all without any downgrades. The same goes for the F-16. Point is they have no incentive to downgrade the aircraft vis-a-vis India, unlike Saudi Arabia who posed some degree of threat to Israel. And that's best illustrated by the P-8I which will be received by the USN and IN at nearly the same time.

A google search for export version of F35 throws a no of links. I am listing a few
http://defensetech.org/2011/06/23/how-s ... your-f-35/
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not ... 04532.html
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.in/2011/ ... issue.html

US Ambassador Bob Schieffer told the Australian parliament in 2004 that Australia would get "the stealthiest airplane that anybody outside the United States can acquire. ...Having said that, the airplane will not be exactly the same airplane as the United States will have."

In 2006, Lockheed Martin was saying that Schieffer's "public comments two years ago should not be judged as reflective of relevant program configuration information today" but that "partner countries will receive airplanes that are compliant with their requirements".

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 3b42a17b93

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2012 17:17

nachiket wrote: And you can be sure that some of the bleeding edge tech available on the P-8A will be replaced with other stuff on our version.

which should be imho., and this is where we get out strengths done.

e.g.: CLAW for LCA Mk2 after sanctions. I dunno what else to say.. one can't consider a strategic and defence equipment seller, especially the khaans to provide you everything as if they are providing to defend their nation. impossible indic wishes. Even russkies will not provide you if they have without sucking the hell outta you.

I would like us to consider such challenges from DRDO, and take up projects to meet them.. and not ever lasting 'yes sir' as you say firang sir mentality. I am all for such restrictions, and thus acts as preconditions to many of our projects.

Especially on such projects, we need to devote more money and investments.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 10 Oct 2012 18:30

Singha wrote:I believe the SAR/ISAR land attack mode has also been deleted per a old report posted in BR.

This was done to protect Uncle's Munna!!!

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 18:39

^^^

People still wonder why US will downgrade tech shared with India. Sigh!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2012 19:15

Just imagine somewhere down in the future, that SL, BDs and Pakis could potentially be our customers. We never know.. so, that is when you think you are wearing unkill hat. Please don't see this as an example that unkill is treating us like how we treat pakis.. it is an hypothetical but likely situation for your analysis. No nation will provide everything to every one.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 19:24

Wear the russi hat and experience what a difference it can make. No sanctions, no intrusive checks & political support. Here is my take on unkil's takleef

1> They ignored us (Early cold war)
2> Then they tried to suppress our development (Pressure on nukes, Agni)
3> Then tried to sell to us (BMD, F 16 etc)
4> Then they want to co operate (Tech sharing, co development)

IMHO we must treat the 4th stage as we did with the first 3. No one would want any other country to overtake them. This co-op is just another step in the game. Play on.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2012 20:56

All said and done, it is imperative to show our strengths than weakness., and come out of the weakness stronger than we were. For this to happen, we have to be very clever in the jump start and process where we get opportunities.

For example:
1. if unkill provides us joint projects on next gen stealth skins
2. AlGaN AESA modules
3. Netcentric distributed systems
4. passive tracking etc.

anand_sankar · Post by **anand_sankar** » 10 Oct 2012 21:57

LiveFist: Master! I have... it's very bad news!
Master Oogway: Ah, LiveFist. There is just news. There is no good or bad.
LiveFist: No 5th generation fighter for the IAF till 2020.
[pause]
Master Oogway: That IS bad news.

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/10/ind ... ly-by.html

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 22:01

^^^
Too many errors in that article.

There is only going to be single seaters
The last prototype will arrive in 2019. So how can it be possible before 2020?
The date was supposed to be 2022 to account for changes in the prototype.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2012 22:05

can't HAL come out of this paki shell by providing a nice 360* pics of the model? where is our ddm?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Oct 2012 22:08

Its not ready yet. Even IAF doesn't know what it looks like. Its the same as Russian PAK FA now.

On a different note, your mention of 360* reminded me of IAF's recommendation of 360* radar coverage for the FGFA. It will carry an L band radar for detecting other stealth fighters. Stealth J xx problem solved!