PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by anand_sankar »

With experience of past programs and unforeseen challenges ahead, it would be wise to add +2 years to whatever date is quoted.

Actually I don't know if anyone has a bead on the two-seater single seater mix. I think there is still a lot of debate on that.

Now it looks even more inevitable that 2016-2020 will see a limited purchase/lease (like the Su-30K) of the Russian version PAK-FA, especially if the Chinese force our hand by deploying a similar 5th gen aircraft in that time frame. Don't think the IAF would risk a capability gap versus the Chinese.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Shrinivasan »

anand_sankar wrote:... Now it looks even more inevitable that 2016-2020 will see a limited purchase/lease (like the Su-30K) of the Russian version PAK-FA, especially if the Chinese force our hand by deploying a similar 5th gen aircraft in that time frame. Don't think the IAF would risk a capability gap versus the Chinese.
Actually the dragon breathing down our neck has made our babooze move faster then their glacial pace.. hopefully the same thing would work for FGFA as it does for most imports. wonder why it doesn't work for domestic products like Arjun or ellCeeYaay, the only domestic product for which it worked was the Akash SAM.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

Then, apart from the project to develop a "new-generation" hypersonic BrahMos cruise missile after the supersonic version being inducted in the Indian armed forces, India and Russia are poised to seal the full final design/R&D phase contract for development of the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

The R&D contract is pegged at $11 billion, with the two countries chipping in with $5.5 billion each. Each of this 5th Gen fighter - India hopes to induct 200 to 250 of them from 2022 onwards - will cost at least $100 million over that.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19699
If they fu(k-up, they will make sure we suck up the cost.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

The Chinese 5th gen fighter will be have to face AESA equipped Super Sukhois & Rafales. The 5th gen radars can be ported to 4th gen fighters. Early detection & long range missiles will alleviate most of our concerns. The only drawback of this plan is that our fighters can also be detected early by them. This will be largely neutralised with AEW&C. More than the FGFA, the AWACS India should be inducted sooner.

Its been a long time since we heard of the AWACS killer missile. It might have flown under the radar especially when the Russian version that was 400 km would clearly violate MTCR.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

I think, we need our labs to engage IITs and other institutions on a bumped and high visibility projects to get what we need.. Neither the Russians nor The khaans can provide or have to our needs.

What is in Raptor, will never come.. we have to do it., from first principles.
anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by anand_sankar »

Hoooohah... http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/10/iaf ... third.html
The Indian Air Force has scaled down its requirement for the proposed Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) by 70 aircraft -- it has not put down a requirement now for just 144 aircraft, down from 214 earlier stated (166 single seaters and 48 twin-seaters). In an interview to India Strategic magazine, IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne has said that all 144 of these will be single-seater aircraft
If this turns out to be true, confirms feelings I have had since this whole confusion of PAK-FA for them, FGFA for us thing started. The program is now getting a lot of clarity in terms of objectives and what is practically achievable.

1) I think the IAF and HAL have decided against modifications to the airframe that brings great added cost and development risk. Which has meant the two-seat idea is scrapped for good.

2) Also reading the India Strategic report in full, it appears the airframe configuration will be same as the Russians. General common sense has prevailed, clearly the Russians are better at this. http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... ghters.htm

3) We are going to wait for the final engine config to arm the first prototype itself. I am assuming this is what makes us wait till 2014 for the first prototype. The Russians are in a hurry, we are not. This decision will save a lot of money for us.

4) Lessons have been learnt in the SU-30MKI project that we are best in deciding the final avionics fit, cockpit ergonomics etc... Brilliant that lessons well learnt will be applied in this project too. Minimizes risk. And it is a tacit admission that with good sensor fusion that caters to our needs, the second pilot is superfluous.

Unfortunately, this has now left a hole wide open for a dedicated 5th gen strike aircraft. The PAKFA/FGFA config we are talking about now will be primarily for air superiority and selected Conflict Day One limited strikes. Two scenarios now emerge:

a) The indigenous AMCA has to fill this role. I do not see it competing for the same primary role of air superiority as the PAKFA/FGFA.

b) Sticking my neck out here... is room being made for the JSF?
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

a) The indigenous AMCA has to fill this role. I do not see it competing for the same primary role of air superiority as the PAKFA/FGFA.

b) Sticking my neck out here... is room being made for the JSF?
a) AMCA does not have the T/W of an FGFA. It will be strictly a stealthy AG bird with AA capabilities. Don't expect it to win against an FGFA type aircraft. Would not mind taking on the Chinese J xx with their poor aerodynamics.

b) We will have the IUSAV by then. I don't think IAF can afford FGFA + AMCA + IUSAV + JSF without breaking the bank. Add Rafale + Tejas to the list.

Russians do not require AG on PAK FA because they have dedicated strike birds (Su 34, Tu 22). We need AG on FGFA since we don't have dedicated bombers. That is why our aircraft would be more capable than its Russian counterpart.
anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by anand_sankar »

@Nakul

The more I read this decision, it appears that the IAF is trying to keep budgets and options open at 2020.

Even a die hard optimist would be hard pressed to predict that the AMCA will have at least IOC by 2025. The agencies involved have to move mountains literally. I think the IAF has adopted an attitude to this program -- 'if it happens, great'. Can't blame with past and current experience.

Meanwhile, by 2020, the JSF is going to be a running full steam production line, and there might be lots of spare capacity if budget cuts continue in the US and Europe. It will be a mature platform by then, at least the F-35A. Looks very attractive to buy ~90 aircraft with money saved in the PAKFA/FGFA cuts. Folks at Lockheed Martin are going to sit up after reading this decision, the door has been left a little ajar for them in India.

No one in the IAF hierarchy has ever said they don't like to operate multiple types :)
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

Sounds like some 20 years down the line, I could visualize MKI+PAKFA replacement project to be all indigenous efforts. If that can't be visualized for post AMCA activities, then I can only think bad things about the whole game plan, meaning most of these programs only satisfy certain pockets.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

anand_sankar wrote:@Nakul

The more I read this decision, it appears that the IAF is trying to keep budgets and options open at 2020.

Even a die hard optimist would be hard pressed to predict that the AMCA will have at least IOC by 2025. The agencies involved have to move mountains literally. I think the IAF has adopted an attitude to this program -- 'if it happens, great'. Can't blame with past and current experience.

Meanwhile, by 2020, the JSF is going to be a running full steam production line, and there might be lots of spare capacity if budget cuts continue in the US and Europe. It will be a mature platform by then, at least the F-35A. Looks very attractive to buy ~90 aircraft with money saved in the PAKFA/FGFA cuts. Folks at Lockheed Martin are going to sit up after reading this decision, the door has been left a little ajar for them in India.

No one in the IAF hierarchy has ever said they don't like to operate multiple types :)
IAF has said that its capital outlay for the next 10 yrs is 2 lakh crore (US$ 38b). More than one lakh crore will be consumed by the Rafale itself. The FGFA would consume half a lakh crore leaving little room for other birds. In such a situation it makes more sense to go for cheaper birds to fill in the numbers. Tejas & Rafale will alone contribute 350+ aircrafts to the IAF inventory. There will be little room for 250 FGFA as Mirage & Jaguar are expected to continue till 2030 if not more. The saved amount will be better spent in force multipliers such as AEW&C & mid air refuellers.

For the JSF to be viable, it should offer something better than the FGFA. Considering that the nos of FGFA have been cut so drastically, it seems unlikely that they want more aircraft. On the contrary it would much cheaper & easier to get more FGFA like we did with the additional orders of Su30 MKI.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

JSF is more suitable for IN than IAF, especially the F35B for sea harrier replacements. JSF still, I think has some interest for desh. Now, I would not even dream about any nation on the planet would succeed in building that P&W engine for vertical take off. It would take eons to get one perfected, and by that time, JSF would have advanced and corrected many of its defects.
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_22605 »

@Saik garu, P&W/F-35B was not the first, you probably forgot this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

It does seem like funds are being kept for any of jsf, rafale or amca depending how things shape up over next 8 yrs for jsf users, rafale record in iaf and amca development.

Whatever it is, has to be cheaper than a loaded fgfa.
member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_22906 »

^^
Could also be some bargaining chips we want to keep on a side so that the Ruskies dont completely shaft us
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

Russia is just trying to avoid Gorshkov redux. The earleir quote was ~250 for $35b. Its come down to 144 for $30b. The increased price would have influenced IAF's decision to cut down the no of fighters. It's a good thing that Russia is trying to learn from its mistakes.

We will do well to fund AMCA more generously. That is the only real bargaining chip we have.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Pratyush »

So while reducing purchase by 106 airframes, the IAF saves only 5 billion $. Am I the only one who sees some thing wrong with this picture?
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

^^^

That $35b would have become $50b with the same no of aircraft. I have been repeatedly saying that $35b was too small a no for such a large procurement.

With the Mirages & Jaguars around till 2030, we don't need the huge nos. By 2030, AMCA should be available.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Shrinivasan »

nakul wrote:That $35b would have become $50b with the same no of aircraft. I have been repeatedly saying that $35b was too small a no for such a large procurement.
if it would have balooned to 50B all the more reason for the IAF to reduce the quantum of purchase.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

costs for pakfa will go up for sure. once the 5th gen engine, new radars, new missiles and production setups is added. nobody has a real clue right now, only estimates.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by SaiK »

As long as the incurred cost on Russian accounting books is clear and not fudged a 50:50 joint venture sounds reasonable. From the expenses incurred so far, there should be a way to project an estimate with ballpark or within variance can be calculated with weighted costing on those that needs new r&d., based on future needs and resource availability.

From India's point of view, I think if this is all driven by Russian allocation and plans, then expect a gross chew rather a 50:50 allocations. , just because, they can always claim, that we Indians don't have any clue to say - AESA radar or Stealth skins., just for the heck of it.

we need more transparency in the complete project mgmt.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Expect PAK-FA deal to be like Rafale or MKI deal with TOT and eventual Lic production in stages with gradual manufacturing with locally sourced raw material.

TOT more in the sense that HAL/BRD could maintain the aircraft locally without running to OEM for every thing except design flaws ,integration needing flight testing and sourcing of some key black boxes and key components so as to better upkeep the aircraft

Eventually over the period of next 20 years from 2020 when FGFA will be inducted the average cost will float around $150 -200 million per aircraft taking account Military Inflation and the ever rising cost of components and material that goes into these aircraft.

Not to mention spares and rotables etc needs to be sourced in advanced to maintain these aircraft and upkeep them are also very expensive.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by alexis »

Viv S wrote:
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.
[/quote]

You can make a bet that there will be downgrading; the subsystems will be different even though the aircraft remains the same. Also fleetwise MLUs happen in USAF sooner than for foreign forces.

Nowadays, software determines capability - it is easy to tweak the same to downgrade a system. That is why Turkey, Israel etc wants software access for F35, so that they can tweak it to obtain optimum performance.
alexis
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by alexis »

FGFA is going to be like Su-30 MKI project. I dont expect more from that inspite of all the talk of partnership going around. if we can get the 5th gen engine technology we can use in AMCA from that, it should be ok.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Austin »

Sharing of technology does not help you make your own fifth gen engine but helps you maintain it better and lic produce it with local materials and perhaps with lower manufacturing cost.

The idea behind TOT is to maintain your existing product without running to OEM at the drop of pin or pay then huge cost to get the same work done there which you can do it here with the appropriate machinery/instrumentation , know how and technology purchased from OEM

Such TOT comes with their own IP's and set of rules that makes cross polinating technology to other platforms or indiginous program impossible ...so a Rafale TOT would make sure that it applied for better maintaining of that fighter and technology are not cross polinated to FGFA or AMCA not that its easier to cross pollinate technology say from Rafale M88 engine to AL-31 or other program the french will make sure technology agreements are strictly enforced so goes for other vendors.

But if we develop technology that fully owned and develop by us or if OEM in some cases allow us to use it for some other purpose paying them the appropriate lic fees then we can use it the way we want to beyond the platform for which these TOT are bought over.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Yogi_G »

nakul wrote:
Russians do not require AG on PAK FA because they have dedicated strike birds (Su 34, Tu 22). We need AG on FGFA since we don't have dedicated bombers. That is why our aircraft would be more capable than its Russian counterpart.
I slightly disagree here. They will definitely ensure a decent A2G on the PAK FA. the platypus and b-1sky cannot take on every theatre mission profile and when accompanied by fighters on long hops deep inside enemy territory, the entire force for the mission will be bloated with refuelers etc. It is to be seen what A2G capabilities mods the proposed stealth transport (if its for real) can accomodate. The Ruskies will have a few PAK-FA rigged to be completely A2G to be used in conjunction with the regular ones for special missions.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

They are certainly facing a problem regarding long strike missions. The interim solution is to use extremely long range missiles on existing platforms. There were news reports about 10000 km missiles capable of being launched from Blackjacks. Long term, the new bomber PAK DA will take the mantle of strategic bombing runs.

Like the Su 27 > Su 30 > Su 35 & Su 34 transitions have showed, they don't have a pressing need for multirole aircraft from day 1. VVS is quite happy with air superiority, like most air forces, initially and later transform the exisitng platform to a multirole one. This difference in behavior between IAF & other air forces has led to longer development times & higher capabilities. The LCA's extended development time is partly due to it being multirole from day 1.

With radar technology improving, we will have to look for similar alternatives for IAF. I am glad that they are taking Nirbhay & IUSAV seriously. Nirbhay should be later developed for longer ranges & greater payloads. Even the stealthiest aircraft is far more visible than their stealthy cruise missile counterparts. I am betting that the test facilities implemented for the FGFA program will benefit the development of IUSAV first & AMCA later. The lack of nos is another reason for the IAF to deploy technologically advanced weaponry.
anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by anand_sankar »

USAF targets long-range strike bomber
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-377597/

Russian's next-generation bomber takes shape
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... pe-377251/

Our requirements will never need aircraft like the above, simply because our 'pacifist' doctrine does not have the 'strike anywhere, anytime' requirement. But the problem is the Chinese are moving to counter these developments by increasing their anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) efforts. Unfortunately in a conflict scenario with the Chinese the IAF's small to medium level tactical efforts will be the casualty. This is what I feel is influencing the IAF's PAK-FA/FGFA decision.

Low-observable technology has been there for now almost 30 years since its development. While the USAF does possess the F-22, history shows the effort so far is credited to the B-2 and the F-117. While the F-22 might still prove to be a gamechanger, a conflict tomorrow against China will still see the B-2 make the first foray into China.

Realism is dawning in, you definitely need platinum-class air superiority in the form of the F-22 or PAKFA/FGFA, but there is a possibility of them being held up in a concentrated A2/AD effort by similar rival platforms or even inferior platforms used cleverly. Quoting from Vivek Ahuja's scenario --- A S-300, a KJ-2000 and a few Su27/30s on a tight leash, could tie up fleets of aircraft.

You need a game changer, at least for us in working on the limited tactical front. In the 2015-2035 time frame, in spite of all the upgrades, sending in Mirage-2000s or Jaguars into a A2/AD environment is going to be very costly. They are good platforms but are not going to be number one choice, their action will begin only after the initial softening up. The Rafale might be able to hold its own in a limited capacity. But there is a capability gap that the IAF faces critically in this time frame. The F-35 JSF is being geared to operate in this specific environment, the feeling is growing by the day that its case is getting stronger --- to play a limited and important role, but not be a mainstay in the fleet.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

the F-18 Growler version would be useful but not for sale(its mission systems).US keeps a tight leash on its SEAD stuff and neither is F-16CJ for sale.
higher end platforms like rivet joint and EP3 are again out of question. even the B52 and B1 mount a couple tons of EW gear each which is not shown on TV docus.

I am afraid we need a dedicated fleet of desi growlers preferably on a 2-seat VLO platform itself to make progress. the only candidate appears to be the 2seater version of PAKFA when it comes/if it comes. those internal bays could house pulldown and slideout racks of jamming gear powered by additional ram air turbines mounted in stealthy housings underwing or below the bays themselves.

Russia at present seems unable and unwilling to kit up for a high level conventional fight against powerful players like China, so such systems are not on their agenda at all.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

We already have them where we need them most - Tu 142. It's a naval version of the strategic bomber Tu 95. For the IAF, the enemies are just across the border which can be served by converting transports to cruise missile carriers. The An 32 comes to mind.

Our need in the near future is likely to be overflying water for distant targets. The replacement for Tu 142 is not out yet which is why we need to go with the P8I. The next long time recon/bomber for Russia might be a good idea if we want the same range & endurance as Tu 142. The P8I is not really a star performer and pales in terms of Tu 142. The Su 30MKI is already over loaded with 1 Brahmos missile & expecting it to carry heavier missiles is a big no-no. If required by IAF, they can incorporate missile launches in one of the JV for transport vehicles. The real oomph will be provided only with a strategic bomber. For the time being, we are focussing on ground launched cruise missiles since they will be carried from within Indian borders.

The PAK DA is more than a decade away. Hopefully, we get the IUSAV by the end of this decade which can be used in large nos. Like a carrier, a strategic bomber is a very big target and there is no point in having one if you can't protect it. Rightly, Russia is currently focussing on more powerful missiles since it can guarantee air superiority against its opponents. This strategy seems to suit India as well.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Singha »

unlike India, china has been persisting with the old Badger design and the improved An12 and converted atleast the former into a useful carrier for families of ALCMs while we are just talking of it. on paper IAF has no plan to get a industrial strength ALCM carrier for the nirbhay, there is not even a paper plan for nirbhay beyond a ground- and sea- version.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirbhay

The yindoos are going to make multirole as their motto. Whether it is ground, sea, sub or air, one can take it granted that Brahmos & Nirbhay will come in all flavors. We are secular onlee. We don't discriminate on the basis of launch platforms & payloads. With 24 spikes of the wheel, this will be another sudarshan chakra.

At subsonic speeds, the weight of a 2000-2500 km range missile equals the weight of a Brahmos. If a Su30 MKI can launch Brahmos, rest assured that it will be able to carry similar weighing subsonic ones unless the physical dimensions make it impossible. In that case, modify some of the MTA/Il 476 or whatever we are getting to Super MTA/Illyushin with bomb bays --- cheap & reliable onlee at no heart attacks in the neighboring capitals. When the eyes in the sky spot a load of transport planes on the tarmac, they won't be able to see the launcher in its belly with arrows of fire.
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.
The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by D Roy »

it's 117 and not 117S/C (cyrillic)

the latter is the su-35's upgrade engine.
member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_20292 »

SaiK wrote:I think, we need our labs to engage IITs and other institutions on a bumped and high visibility projects to get what we need.. Neither the Russians nor The khaans can provide or have to our needs.

What is in Raptor, will never come.. we have to do it., from first principles.
arrey...that is what hal drdo etc everyone does.

but then they get the tag of useless from armed services.
Amit J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Location: CLASSIFIED

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by Amit J »

nakul wrote:India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.
The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:

Does anyone see a possibility for the order nos for the Rafale increasing due this projected cut of the FGFA order size. There always has been a speculation that the order size for the MMRCA could go upto 200 over period of time, which would mean an additional order of 74 a/c over the 126 initial order size, then you all see that the FGFA order size has been cut down from 214 to 144 a decrease of 70 a/cs. Coincidence or probable additional orders for Rafale
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nakul »

My guess is that they are opting for a wait and watch approach. The current order of 126 Rafale / 144 FGFA is not expected to be completed anytime soon. By the time these nos are inducted in the IAF, the scenario might change. They want to keep the door open for extra orders without commiting to them beforehand. The threat perception in 2020, Tejas, AMCA & budget are unknown at this point in time. It makes sense to have the information before making a decision.
member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_22605 »

From what i've seen and heard it has always been 144 single seaters(PAK-FA MKI) PLUS 48 twin seaters (PAK-FA UB MKI). The 144 might be the number of single seaters only and not the total number and i expect eventually the number will be close to 250 like the Su-30MKI
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by srai »

Amit J wrote:[quote="nakul"India to Cut Stealth Fighter Order by Third
The original figure, of 200 aircraft, would have been possible if the aircraft was ready by 2017, with the first batch coming from Russian production lines. But India now wants to take on a greater share of development, pushing back the production date for the Indian variant, which is likely to be 2020 at the earliest.

India wants to produce some of the aircraft's computers, software, guidance systems and other systems, as it did for a similar project with Russia producing a locally-made variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI strike aircraft. Russia will provide the aircraft's Saturn 117S engines and some stealth technology elements for the plane.

A total cost for the program has yet to be worked out, but could total around $30 billion including development costs, HAL sources told India Strategic.

The two countries are in talks on the first research and development phase. After this agreement is signed, a first prototype will likely be delivered to India in 2014, followed by two more in 2017 and 2019. Series production aircraft “will only be ordered based on the final configuration and performance of the third prototype,” Browne said.

The downward shift in number may be indicative of the projected cost of the platform, although given that the aircraft is still likely a decade away from Indian service then the planned off-take number could well change," says Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies.
The author says the reduction is due to delayed timelines but the Londistani believes it is cost :?:[/quote


Does anyone see a possibility for the order nos for the Rafale increasing due this projected cut of the FGFA order size. There always has been a speculation that the order size for the MMRCA could go upto 200 over period of time, which would mean an additional order of 74 a/c over the 126 initial order size, then you all see that the FGFA order size has been cut down from 214 to 144 a decrease of 70 a/cs. Coincidence or probable additional orders for Rafale
Here is what I see:

FGFA/PAK-FA (IAF version) will enter squadron service around 2025 given the new timelines. And to productionize all 144 aircraft order will take at least 10 years. By 2035, the oldest Su-30 MKIs will be 30 years old. Depending on future strategy/plans, IAF will most likely order more FGFAs in batches to replace the MKIs nearing their service life.

As for the Rafale, it will take HAL till 2025 to fulfill delivering of 106 Rafales to IAF. By which time, 3 squadrons of MiG-29 UPG will be coming up for their retirements. This is when IAF will exercise its 60+ options on the Rafale.

Now with the LCA, it would seem that the 2 squadrons of Mk.1 will replace 2 squadrons of MiG-27 UPG in tactical support role; hence the emphasis on A2G validation first. The subsequent order for 5 squadrons of Mk.2 version will fill in the role left void by the upcoming retirement of 6 squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons.

AMCA will replace 2/3 squadrons of Mirage 2000-5 and 5/6 squadrons of Jaguar UPG post 2030. That's 200 aircrafts right there.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by nash »

srai wrote: Here is what I see:

FGFA/PAK-FA (IAF version) will enter squadron service around 2025 given the new timelines. And to productionize all 144 aircraft order will take at least 10 years. By 2035, the oldest Su-30 MKIs will be 30 years old. Depending on future strategy/plans, IAF will most likely order more FGFAs in batches to replace the MKIs nearing their service life.

As for the Rafale, it will take HAL till 2025 to fulfill delivering of 106 Rafales to IAF. By which time, 3 squadrons of MiG-29 UPG will be coming up for their retirements. This is when IAF will exercise its 60+ options on the Rafale.

Now with the LCA, it would seem that the 2 squadrons of Mk.1 will replace 2 squadrons of MiG-27 UPG in tactical support role; hence the emphasis on A2G validation first. The subsequent order for 5 squadrons of Mk.2 version will fill in the role left void by the upcoming retirement of 6 squadrons of MiG-21 Bisons.

AMCA will replace 2/3 squadrons of Mirage 2000-5 and 5/6 squadrons of Jaguar UPG post 2030. That's 200 aircrafts right there.
but by looking at IAF track record of up-gradation of older Aircraft i don't think IAF would so early retire MKI. Even Jags are upgraded to live upto ~2040.
member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Post by member_23370 »

Those are new Jags not the older ones. I don't see older Jags staying in service till 2040.
Post Reply