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

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Sep 2014 07:16

abhik wrote:T-50 PAK-FA fighter jet project with Russia hits turbulence
...
New Delhi is particularly miffed with the fact that despite being an equal partner in the FGFA project in terms of financial contribution, Moscow is not keen to share technical details about its next generation stealth fighter PAK-FA, on which the Indian version of the combat jet will be based.

...
But much to the surprise of an Indian team present at the site, they were not allowed anywhere near the aircraft. India wanted to know the reasons for the fire but details were never shared, said sources. India has paid $295 million (Rs.1,785.19 crore) for the preliminary design, which was finalised last year, and it is only logical that Indian officials feel concerned about the status of the PAK-FA programme. The Indian side was not satisfied with the preliminary design and raised questions about maintenance issues, the engine, stealth features, weapon carriage system, safety and reliability. Sources said there could not be any progress until these issues were resolved.

But the queries remain unanswered even after a round of discussions between the two sides this month. The Russian side's common response to New Delhi's concerns has been: "Don't get emotional." Any further push on these issues results in talk of price escalation, sources said. For instance, the Indian Air Force had made it clear last year that it was not satisfied with the engine of the new fighter, which was based on the power plant for the Sukhoi-30. A change has been promised at an additional cost.

No Indian expert or pilot has had a long hard look at the PAK-FA jet to date. The Russians are not allowing Indian pilots to fly the aircraft, claiming foreign pilots are barred from flying in their airspace.

Bolded part is what the difference is between Western and Russian methodology for building a combat aircraft. In Western methodology, lifecycle costs are integral part of the design and testing/validation whereas Russian methodology, to reduce R&D costs, focuses more purely on performance parameters and far less on serviceability and other lifecycle costs. These costs are left for after induction. One can see that in the IAF's serviceability experience with the Mirage-2000 vs MiG-21/23/27/29 and Su-30MKI. The IAF and ADA have adopted Western methodology in the development of the LCA as well as in the MMRCA requirements. So from this angle, expect major delays on the Indian PAK-FA variant as well as cost escalation. Most of the Indian budget and effort would probably go into making the aircraft reliable.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 08:19

Whatever be the methodology, philosophy, etc, communications cannot be neglected. IF we are to believe these reports (and this one certainly backs up what Shukla reported), there is only one way communication (and payment).

This project cannot be delayed much longer and talks about Rupee-Rouble, etc are only canards.

Seems to me that things are going to come to a head. And, with precedence set on Paki and China front, same can be expected with this project too. I sense some sort of an ultimatum (for lack of a better word - sounds harsh) will arise by Dec, 2014. And, if not resolved by Jan, the project will be shut down with the $400 mil written of.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 08:32

I wonder why these reports keep posting the same thing when HAL has clarified on the prototypes that India will get and India would be flying a customised FGFA

To quote HAL

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece

“While the Russian version of the FGFA is all-metal, ours will have wings and empennage (vertical and horizontal stabilisers) made of composite materials,” said S. Subrahmanyan, Managing Director of MiG Complex at HAL.

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

“Thanks to these improvements we will get a better and more powerful platform,” Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

The FGFA is going to be India’s biggest and most ambitious defence project and the largest joint venture with Russia. Earlier this year the two sides completed the preliminary design of the FGFA and are now negotiating a detailed design contract. Mr. Subrahmanyan said he hopes the contract could be signed before the end of the current year.

Four Russian prototypes of the fifth-generation fighter, codenamed T-50 or PAK-FA, have performed more than 200 test flights since January 2010. The Russian Air Force plans to begin inducting the plane in 2015.

HAL is to get three Russian prototypes for re-design and testing in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and will hand over the first series produced aircraft to the IAF in 2019, Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

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

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

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

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 08:41

So if HAL is going to get the jet next year what is the point of having a team in Russia? What exactly is that team doing and if there are reports out there that show dissatisfaction within that team, why should they be ignored just because HAL said something last year?

The Indian side was not satisfied with the preliminary design and raised questions about maintenance issues, the engine, stealth features, weapon carriage system, safety and reliability. Sources said there could not be any progress until these issues were resolved

Whats the purpose of this "indian side" ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 09:14

I wonder why these reports keep posting the same thing when HAL has clarified on the prototypes that India will get and India would be flying a customised FGFA

There are recent quotes from Sukhoi's CEO that make no sense. The one on a new contract.

There are other quotes from him that are very disturbing and have contradicted Subrahmanyan.

A lot more to this story than that HAL quote.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 09:38

brar_w wrote:So if HAL is going to get the jet next year what is the point of having a team in Russia? What exactly is that team doing and if there are reports out there that show dissatisfaction within that team, why should they be ignored just because HAL said something last year?

The Indian side was not satisfied with the preliminary design and raised questions about maintenance issues, the engine, stealth features, weapon carriage system, safety and reliability. Sources said there could not be any progress until these issues were resolved
Whats the purpose of this "indian side" ?

None of those are direct quotes but Authors sources , The one I gave was HAL Direct Quote.
Even recent statement from UAC chief says what HAL has quoted.

Unless you expect HAL to release statement every month on FGFA program.

Recent interview from DRDO Chief also mentioned that they would be contributing to FGFA program , The interview could be found as some one posted it.

I am not surprised though that these articles are just based on author sources thats easy way to write what they want to without having to quote any one.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 09:52

A more recent article quoting Sukhoi Deputy Director on FGFA program

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/08/04 ... 37151.html

Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer plans to sign another contract with India in the framework of the joint project for the construction of a fifth generation multipurpose combat jet, Alexander Klementyev, a Sukhoi deputy director general told Itar-Tass.

“We hope the contract [for experimental design works] will be signed soon,” he said.

The intergovernmental agreement on this project was signed back in 2007. Three years after, the sides inked a general contract on joint design and production and then the first engineering development contract. Works under this agreement were completed in 2013. “Since then, we have been working on the second contract for experimental design works,” Klementyev said, adding that this was a unique project aiming at long-term cooperation.

“We have never had such a format of cooperation before,” he said. “There used to be licensed production in China and in India, but now it will be joint designing and production of a new combat aircraft.”

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Sep 2014 10:35

HAL has been consistently lying and trying to conceal that it has practically Zero role in research and it will continue to do screwdrivergiri in manufacturing of PAKFA. IAF chief was right in firing Hal for surrendering its share. HAL management always had reputation of signing one sided contracts in favor of foreign vendors. Most of the time Hal negotiation team would be helping foreign vendor rather than serving Indian interest.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 01 Sep 2014 10:57

HAL is to get three Russian prototypes for re-design and testing in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and will hand over the first series produced aircraft to the IAF in 2019, Mr. Subrahmanyan said.

That being the case, why has the Indian team not been allowed near the current prototypes? How will the design be modified (re-design is an another discussion) if we are not allowed near them, forget disclosing design details?

These are very natural questions that come up, nothing too fancy.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 12:07

vic wrote:HAL has been consistently lying and trying to conceal that it has practically Zero role in research and it will continue to do screwdrivergiri in manufacturing of PAKFA. IAF chief was right in firing Hal for surrendering its share. HAL management always had reputation of signing one sided contracts in favor of foreign vendors. Most of the time Hal negotiation team would be helping foreign vendor rather than serving Indian interest.

HAL will mostly front end it as it a production agency to its core and not a R&D one. DRDO would be contributing to FGFA program , I am not sure if ADA will.

Much like for MKI program HAL does the building part but the Core Avionics Architecture/MC/EW etc was done by DRDO/DARE.

HAL will get involved in building FGFA and its engine much like the do right now for MKI program.

But since HAL Front Ends it the revenue will be shown on HAL Account and would would see pictures of HAL Chairman presenting to MOD its fat pay cheque every year

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2014 12:47

why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 13:02

mahadevbhu wrote:why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA?

Coz we need both , Note the DRDO statements and operating radius of both.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg

PAK-FA is equivalent to what Su-30 is today and AMCA is what M2K/Mig-29/Jag is for IAF

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 01 Sep 2014 13:32

Austin wrote:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece

“While the Russian version of the FGFA is all-metal, ours will have wings and empennage (vertical and horizontal stabilisers) made of composite materials,” said S. Subrahmanyan, Managing Director of MiG Complex at HAL.

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

An all metal platform being called 5th generation is a farce, while we have 4 generation Tejas, ef2k & rafale with more that 60% composites, not to mention all composite jsf.

What are russians thinking making just a "dibbaband" (closed-boxed) su-30 and calling it 5th gen PAK FA?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 01 Sep 2014 13:43

mahadevbhu wrote:why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA?

Commit the HF24 mistake again and lose all what we have gained from the LCA program?

I have another POV, why dont we cancel the ~~AMCA~~ PAK FA and focus on the ~~PAK FA~~ AMCA?

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 01 Sep 2014 14:08

http://defense-update.com/20130207_pmf- ... -cost.html

Apparently the first of the protoypes, the PMF is supposed to come to HAL at 2015. This is still 2014, it's a bit early to get worried. I think hedging the risks of aircraft development is a smart choice. If AMCA fails, we have PAKFA. And vice versa. That way we are not exposed in case of failure to one program.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 Sep 2014 14:21

You cannot hedge the AMCA with PAKFA. Look at the 'Typical Strike Scenario for Combat Aircrafts' image from DRDO. Completely different goals - FGFA would be outside any long range sensor protection, much heavier warload, bypassing considerable SAM opposition etc. Unless there is something to suggest otherwise, you can safely presume that DRDO has displayed whatever it has, based on the inputs it received. You want to forgo FGFA you have to get F-22 for yourself. Alternatively forget about flying deep penetration against China when there actually is an opportunity to do that and remain content with flying deep penetration against Pakiland for which you will never require anything beyond the Jaguars.

Hedging AMCA would require JSF.... which would be OT here.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Sep 2014 15:53

Austin wrote:
mahadevbhu wrote:why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA?
Coz we need both , Note the DRDO statements and operating radius of both.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg

PAK-FA is equivalent to what Su-30 is today and AMCA is what M2K/Mig-29/Jag is for IAF

do we have the money for all of amca, pakfa, mmrca AND the uav programs that are necessary now and in the future?

no.

what goes?

my vote is for the mmrca.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Sep 2014 16:22

mahadevbhu wrote: do we have the money for all of amca, pakfa, mmrca AND the uav programs that are necessary now and in the future?

no.

what goes?

my vote is for the mmrca.

AMCA program will come in 2nd half of next decade , FGFA late this or beginning of next , same for UAV.

MMRCA is more pressing need so this will come this decade.

Yes we can fund them all just that we wont be doing all at the same time and the same level.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 01 Sep 2014 17:35

ravi_g wrote:You cannot hedge the AMCA with PAKFA. Look at the 'Typical Strike Scenario for Combat Aircrafts' image from DRDO. Completely different goals - FGFA would be outside any long range sensor protection, much heavier warload, bypassing considerable SAM opposition etc. Unless there is something to suggest otherwise, you can safely presume that DRDO has displayed whatever it has, based on the inputs it received. You want to forgo FGFA you have to get F-22 for yourself. Alternatively forget about flying deep penetration against China when there actually is an opportunity to do that and remain content with flying deep penetration against Pakiland for which you will never require anything beyond the Jaguars.

Hedging AMCA would require JSF.... which would be OT here.

If the US and Russia can get by with just a heavy and light fighter, so can we. Europe is skipping manned platforms altogether and relying on UCAVs like the Dassault Neuron. I'm not sure we need as many platforms as what is currently planned.

The DRDO Aura removes the entire need for any deep penetration missions. UCAVS make much more sense for that mission than PAKFA ever did. We have a lot of hardware with overlapping roles, some rationalization of aircraft types is needed. I'm with the Europeans. Expensive manned fighters like the F-22 and JSF are already obsolete. The PAK-FA only stands a chance because it is for air to air missions, which UCAVs don't do currently.

I would also favour missiles like Nirbhay over fighters for that mission. We have the Light Combat Helicopter, and Nirbhay and supersonic cruise missiles. The relevance of an expensive manned fighter to conduct such missions is questionable.
I would also ask you. Can you give even one example where we even used aircraft against China? So where does this "deep strike mission" against China come from? And you have to be realistic and consider it's a hell of a lot easier for China to do a deep strike mission against us than vice versa.

In Kargil our aircraft didn't even go 2 km over the LoC. Deep strike is a mission dreamed up by US marketing. I'd be happy to see a shallow strike. You can come back with deep strike when we see attacks on training camps in Kashmir.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Sep 2014 17:42

If the US and Russia can get by with just a heavy and light fighter, so can we. Europe is skipping manned platforms altogether and relying on UCAVs like the Dassault Neuron. I'm not sure we need as many platforms as what is currently planned

This is a myth that has been propped up by some sections in the media. In actual fact based reality Europe has acquired a sizable number of Gripens, Typhoons and Rafales (All 8000 hour airframes) and will acquire a sizable number of F-35's (another 8000 hour airframe). Nothing coming from a UCAV at the moment will be a substitute for the fighter jet beyond one or two mission sets. These air forces will continue to operate 4th, 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft and develop UCAV's to augment their strike fleets just as the rest of the world.

The DRDO Aura removes the entire need for any deep penetration missions. UCAVS make much more sense for that mission than PAKFA ever did

Just show me how the Aura will be survivable in an A2AD environment?

I'm with the Europeans. Expensive manned fighters like the F-22 and JSF are already obsolete. The PAK-FA only stands a chance because it is for air to air missions, which UCAVs don't do currently

The europeans did not have the money or the risk-apetitte for 5th generation and as a result will be flying 4th and 4.5 th generation aircraft against 5th generation threats. They have no real need to create a UCAV for extreme A2AD requirements since IAD for them is a Libya like conflict. The IAF on the other hand has a very capable A2AD enabler at its eastern border that is gearing up to defend against USAF and USN penetrators and that is likely to hand over these denial tools to the Pakistanis.

I would also favour missiles like Nirbhay over fighters for that mission. We have the Light Combat Helicopter, and Nirbhay and supersonic cruise missiles. The relevance of an expensive manned fighter to conduct such missions is questionable.
I would also ask you. Can you give even one example where we even used aircraft against China? So where does this "deep strike mission" against China come from? And you have to be realistic and consider it's a hell of a lot easier for China to do a deep strike mission against us than vice versa

So the ability to penetrate the front lines and take out IAD's and airfields has no strategic value for a nation looking to build up its capabilities against the Chinese threat? I think a letter to the IAF is on order here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 19:06

Quotes are great, but selective quotes are not.

I agree with the following "quote":

Austin wrote:A more recent article quoting Sukhoi Deputy Director on FGFA program

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/08/04 ... 37151.html

Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer plans to sign another contract with India in the framework of the joint project for the construction of a fifth generation multipurpose combat jet, Alexander Klementyev, a Sukhoi deputy director general told Itar-Tass.

“We hope the contract [for experimental design works] will be signed soon,” he said.

The intergovernmental agreement on this project was signed back in 2007. Three years after, the sides inked a general contract on joint design and production and then the first engineering development contract. Works under this agreement were completed in 2013. “Since then, we have been working on the second contract for experimental design works,” Klementyev said, adding that this was a unique project aiming at long-term cooperation.

“We have never had such a format of cooperation before,” he said. “There used to be licensed production in China and in India, but now it will be joint designing and production of a new combat aircraft.”

They are riding on hope. Rest, in that quote, is fluff.

Then, the presence of an Indian team, when the PAK-FA caught fire, is a quote by itself. One that was officially not acknowledged. For some reason?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 19:57

Back to quotes:

India to customise Russia's FGFA planes

We have:

“While the Russian version of the FGFA is all-metal, ours will have wings and empennage (vertical and horizontal stabilisers) made of composite materials,” said S. Subrahmanyan, Managing Director of MiG Complex at HAL.

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

And, then:

India to use Russian avionics for future fighter – UAC head

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

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

And, of course, to go with the "stressing this was a ........":

Indian fifth generation fighter aircraft will be equipped with avionics similar to the Russian version of the plane. Analysts say India's choice of Russian avionics is a logical step and in line with previous joint programmes.

Very reassuring.

India calls their plane "FGFA" and the Russians force a "PMF". What is a PMF?

And, whatever happened to the 40-45 modifications that was a quote?

Like I said, we have no clear idea of what is going on, but there is an apparent loss of communications. From what the Russians have published (their quotes) they seem to be imposing some ideas on India - this new contract being the latest. Right there in quotes.

?????

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 19:59

the point being any reporter can write anything. That is true.

But, it also could apply to officials too. Seems to apply to Mr. P here.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 01 Sep 2014 20:28

Austin wrote:
mahadevbhu wrote:why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA?
Coz we need both , Note the DRDO statements and operating radius of both.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg

PAK-FA is equivalent to what Su-30 is today and AMCA is what M2K/Mig-29/Jag is for IAF

Actually that's only DRDO PR, we don't need AMCA in IAF anytime soon, in fact we only need it around 2030 - 35, to replace MKIs, because till than all kind of classes, roles and capabilities the IAF want or needs are covered. FGFA and AURA will be the prime stealth aircrafts, covering air superiority and offensive strikes beyond our borderlines and only because they have long range, doesn't mean we need another aircraft with similar capabilities only for mid range attacks.
The mid range is even covered quiet well with MMRCAs and MKIs, which will form the second line if you want in A2A and A2G, leaving the low end work (air policing, CAS, recon) to LCA and drones like Rustom H.

There is simply nothing that AMCA would bring IAF, other than another type of fighter, which is why they don't show any interest in it. Former Air Chief Browne stated, that wants to wait and see when it is available, if it is 5th generation or not and recent statements of IAF, urging HAL to focus on FGFA not AMCA made it clear once again, where the IAF sees it's future.
The only reason why DRDO / ADA is pushing AMCA is, because they are only the 2nd tier in the FGFA project and can't contribute anything important to it (I also think that ADA is not included as you said). So they only want to show that they can do something similar too, but after failing even on core areas of LCA, IAF surely have not more confidence in DRDO / ADA promises.
Instead of opening another project, they should focus on the once they have and getting them done! LCA, Rustom H and in future AURA will be key projects for India and we can't afford to waste time and resources on another fighter project that is born without any operational need or industrial benefit. If at all, they should develop AMCA as a carrier fighter for the navy, which actually would make a difference and scrapping the pointless N-LCA MK2 development. But DRDO and ADA might focus more on proving themselfs against HAL and FGFA, rather than offering fighters that are really needed.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 20:35

The AMCA team was assigned to the LCA and was supposed to go back to their efforts once the LCA attained IOC.

So, there should be no conflicts as far as resources are concerned.

Besides the AMCA effort has been going on for long - on slow boil.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 01 Sep 2014 21:08

NRao wrote: Like I said, we have no clear idea of what is going on, but there is an apparent loss of communications. From what the Russians have published (their quotes) they seem to be imposing some ideas on India - this new contract being the latest. Right there in quotes.

?????

Not necessarily, it depends on what Mr Pogosyan meant with "integrated system of onboard equipment", the author of the article interpreted it as similar (Russian) avionics, but the Mr Pogosyan made clear that it was IAF's requirement but former IAF Chiefs and other Indian officials always confirmed that the FGFA avionics will be customized. You also have to keep in mind that RIA Novosti is the original source and that they always tend to look at things more from the Russian side. Not to forget that the statements of the HAL officials came later that year, at the Maks Air Show, so just as you said, reporters can say or interpret things as they like, important is what the officials say and be it HAL or IAF officials, they always insisted on custom avionics and EW for FGFA (btw, FGFA and PMF is the same).

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 01 Sep 2014 21:16

NRao wrote:The AMCA team was assigned to the LCA and was supposed to go back to their efforts once the LCA attained IOC.

So, there should be no conflicts as far as resources are concerned.

Of course there is a conflict, since that team could be used more efficiently to further develop LCA to MK2 and beyond, to develop Rustom H and the armed version, let alone AURA UCAV. All projects that IAF actually wants and where they are urging DRDO / ADA to work properly, while they don't need AMCA or AWACS India now. So spreading man power to as many project as possible like DRDO does it, without getting anything done can't the way to go! Instead focusing anything they have on the important things, to finally deliver something according to the needs of the forces and the timelines of the projects should have importance!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 21:33

Oh boy, here we go again!!!!

You also have to keep in mind that RIA Novosti is the original source and that they always tend to look at things more from the Russian side.

So, you agree that there are sides. *THAT* Sir, is what I have been meaning all along. This is *not* the fun loving, great friendship that we saw in the MKI era.

Not to forget that the statements of the HAL officials came later that year, at the Maks Air Show, so just as you said, reporters can say or interpret things as they like, important is what the officials say and be it HAL or IAF officials, they always insisted on custom avionics and EW for FGFA (btw, FGFA and PMF is the same).

OK, so how about a quote from 2012?

May 23, 2012 :: India clarifies the requirements for the fifth-generation fighter

* first of all, 2012: "Delay", this was while the first phase was still in progress I guess
* quote:

"For us it's important to get one-seat FGFA for Indian Air Force. We will remake Russian one-seat fighter into our version, in which substantial part of the avionics will be Indian. A two-seat variant configuration will depend on the outcome of the TAP development", — said the former head of the Indian Aircraft Corporation HAL, Mr. Ashok Nayak.

Trying to escape the noose will not help. Indian Labs had from day one stated that they needed to make 40-45 changes in the PAK-FA. I am *not* trying to paint the Russians in a bad color - just trying to document what I read (and come to my own conclusions) - not about Russians vs, someone else.

So, no matter what Mr. P sya sor does, it really does not matter. He wants his $, that is all he is concerned about (because I bet, just like the Rafale, the GoRu has told him to find funds via exports. True of the IL-476 too I bet)

Not necessarily, it depends on what Mr Pogosyan meant with "integrated system of onboard equipment", the author of the article interpreted it as similar (Russian) avionics, but the Mr Pogosyan made clear that it was IAF's requirement but former IAF Chiefs and other Indian officials always confirmed that the FGFA avionics will be customized.

Yes, Mr. P will always make it clear - as long as he gets his %5.5 billion. Why would he not?

But, he is not talking reality - he is trying to make up stuff - as can be seen.

The Indians have been consistent with their 40-45, avionics, lighter, better, etc FGFA.

But the Russians have to come up with PMF, our airframe, our avionics, .......... yada, yada, yada, . followed by ........ That is what the IAF wants.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 Sep 2014 21:39

Well many things said but I am replying on only the ones that concern me.

Rien wrote: If the US and Russia can get by with just a heavy and light fighter, so can we. Europe is skipping manned platforms altogether and relying on UCAVs like the Dassault Neuron. I'm not sure we need as many platforms as what is currently planned.

Even Uropains are not relying on nEUROn. They perhaps may go in for something useful based on tech derived from it. They are not like the nouveau-riche Amerikhan. They generally take time – perhaps the reason why they got Amerikhans to do their bidding even when they never come to the aid of the Amerikhans when the Amerikhans need them the most. They do come in on sure things like Libya where they are assured of the glory of an easy win.

Re. Heavy+Light :
I was probably unable to say it clearly so kindly bear with me.

There is nothing heavy and advanced on offer except the FGFA. Even if you get it you will most likely be asked to put on mortgage much more than just your sovirginity. You have a surfeit of short legged offerings, again with appropriate controls needed for world peace.

Furthermore we are SDRE only - We have different requirements in different time frames with different budgeting constraints and completely different strategic goals. People will try to frighten you with the China bugbear but rest assured Chinese are still going to remain busy on their east for the foreseeable future. They basically bet that Pakis can keep us tied down for as long as is their need. I sincerely think we should allow them to believe that.

Chances of J-20s flying in to bomb the Indians aren’t still strong enough. We can afford to go slower. And yes in the appropriate term we shall have as much money as we need. You forget we have a NaMo multiplier working in the economy.

The requirement of ~150 longer legged FGFA is quite a reasonable one esp. if we can get the AMCAs, LCAs etc. to complement it over the full range of requirements. Essentially their MMRCA is our HMRCA and we need the really long-legged, really heavy multi-role FGFA only for a very limited set of requirements. We are not ameirika that we must have thousands of 75 million USD

5th gen plane.

Rien wrote:The DRDO Aura removes the entire need for any deep penetration missions. UCAVS make much more sense for that mission than PAKFA ever did. We have a lot of hardware with overlapping roles, some rationalization of aircraft types is needed. I'm with the Europeans. Expensive manned fighters like the F-22 and JSF are already obsolete. The PAK-FA only stands a chance because it is for air to air missions, which UCAVs don't do currently.

I would also favour missiles like Nirbhay over fighters for that mission. We have the Light Combat Helicopter, and Nirbhay and supersonic cruise missiles. The relevance of an expensive manned fighter to conduct such missions is questionable.

Rien ji, UCAVs do nothing currently. Except on even more paper than a JSF program office churns out. Nobody yet knows what they want to do with UCAVs. All they have done is release a few missiles aimed at some poor camel borne threat to world peace. Oh & off course they have also released another trial balloon saying we can code ‘n million’ lines hence everything can be automated hence all missions can be done & hence pilot is useless. It follows that Indians should fight their wars based on the manuals these egg-spurts lay out for us. It does not matter to them that Chinese and Pakis do not agree with their manuals. Ok man whatever! what can I say, after all the Amerikhans save my sorry SDRE donkey from a new alien threat every Friday night. But I have a strong suspicion that maintaining distance is a better bet. These Amerikhans, also have a habit of saying ‘new/improved/latest/bestest’ after every release of autumn/fall collection on parisian catwalks.

Look, merely because all available experiments look alike, it does not follow that all of later developments will bind themselves to that one hexy development path. In any case I am not such a big believer in UCAVs. I restrict myself to UAVs and that is it. Somehow I cannot get rid myself of my fantasy for sensors, tracking and targeting. Personal preferences ji, no accounting for it.

Moving on to Nirbhays, I am clear in my head and you cannot budge me from here - missiles are not a substitute for a plane.

Rien wrote:I would also ask you. Can you give even one example where we even used aircraft against China? So where does this "deep strike mission" against China come from? And you have to be realistic and consider it's a hell of a lot easier for China to do a deep strike mission against us than vice versa.

In Kargil our aircraft didn't even go 2 km over the LoC. Deep strike is a mission dreamed up by US marketing. I'd be happy to see a shallow strike. You can come back with deep strike when we see attacks on training camps in Kashmir.

I beg to differ again - deep strike is not a dream. There are fair number of examples to show it is not.

But yes the essence of your concern is right in that a political authority that cannot muster courage to hit back at smaller levels will never need anything bigger. They can sue for 'Peace' & 'be happy’. Be that as it may, kindly realize we are not stuck in time. Successive stages of Indian political manhood has been in the works and these things will become useful in time. Furthermore you fail to realize the full implication of your arguments. For example nobody has used nukes after 45 and nuke subs have never even been seen in use much less being actually used. Should we then give up those items too. What about the Indian Navy - in 71 the navy chief was almost begging the PM to allow him some measure of glory. So I guess Indian navy is also out. We don't need Indian navy for things like Maldives. Motor boats and dingy should suffice.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 21:39

Of course there is a conflict, since that team could be used more efficiently to further develop LCA to MK2 and beyond, to develop Rustom H and the armed version, let alone AURA UCAV. All projects that IAF actually wants and where they are urging DRDO / ADA to work properly, while they don't need AMCA or AWACS India now. So spreading man power to as many project as possible like DRDO does it, without getting anything done can't the way to go! Instead focusing anything they have on the important things, to finally deliver something according to the needs of the forces and the timelines of the projects should have importance!

The MCA has been talked about since the late 90s.

The AMCA research started around 2005ish.

Was there a MKII/Rustom then? May be I missed something.

Cancel the FGFA. No need for it.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 01 Sep 2014 22:30

NRao wrote: So, you agree that there are sides...

Of course there are sides of reporting, but official quotes are the important parts and our officials haven't change the content so far. All that has changed in their statements, was the order and the config / seats of the version, not that it is meant to have different materials, avionics or weapons. And ignoring that, only because you sense some concern doesn't help, just as base your concern on "sided" media reports.

Btw, your bias toward the fighter is obvious by the post on the last page, where you stated it isn't a true 5th gen fighter, so that doesn't make these kind of conclusions that surprising.

You are sticking to changes not coming, although there is not a single Indian official source so far, that has confirmed that we would go for Russian avionics. The only official change so far is the single seat config, which as confirmed by former Air Chief Browne as a cost and time saving measure for the project, but even he stated that our version will be different including different avionics and weapons. But that's a long shot till then, what we do now is, jointly develop the FGFA tech demonstrator / prototypes, while the final version (called PMF) will be the one that will include all changes for the first version. The later versions will include changes too, like the twin seat config, but the details about the changes and the versions are still under negotiation and not fixed yet. So jumping the gun now, because we don't know much about the details of the contracts yet and based on same hyped media reports, is not getting you to anywhere.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 01 Sep 2014 22:34

NRao wrote:
The MCA has been talked about since the late 90s.

The AMCA research started around 2005ish.

Exactly, a lot of talk and premature concept studies of ADA and DRDO, that now are begging IAF for requirements and the governments for funds. But as said, there is a big difference in what IAF wants and what DRDO and ADA dream of!

NRao wrote:Cancel the FGFA. No need for it

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2014 23:22

Btw, your bias toward the fighter is obvious by the post on the last page, where you stated it isn't a true 5th gen fighter

* For one I have explained "your bias". If you had read the entire post (what I will grant you is I could have written that post better). So, if you find a flaw in the explanation then it is fine, we can perhaps further discuss the matter. But, bias ................... that is in your mind/head.
* As a FYI only, since you do not tend to read all posts, I have *also* suggested that the IAF stop buying any more MKIs and switch over to the PAK-FA (NOT the FGFA)

Exactly, a lot of talk and premature concept studies of ADA and DRDO

Nope!!

The AMCA prototype is expected in 2018-20. That is a "lot of twalk". (IAF could have a preliminary IOC by 2022-25. Doable. With a proper engine - this time around)

(Aside: BTW, whatever happened to your proposal for the AMCA?)

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 01 Sep 2014 23:28

Probably we need FGFA more than MMRCA, though Rafale is a fantastic plane indeed. Are there any substitutes for FGFA in terms of set of requirements it can fulfill? (other than yet unproven and still believable UCAVs).

There is nothing heavy and advanced on offer except the FGFA. Even if you get it you will most likely be asked to put on mortgage much more than just your sovirginity. You have a surfeit of short legged offerings, again with appropriate controls needed for world peace.

;

also at "world peace" when in fact we are the most peaceful and still having to face China & pakis - and still undecided whether to dismantle project pukistan (supported by fourfathers including USA).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2014 01:48

The final configuration of AMCA hasn't even been finalised.All we've seen is a model at the last Aero-India,with the concentration in getting the LCA Mk-1 's FOC and later the MK-2 flying and into series production.With HAL/DRDO's scant human resources,AMCA progress is expected to be begin only after the LCA is fully perfected.This will take at least another decade,2025 before AMCA starts test flights.The FGFA/PAK-FA is already flying,has been for a few years,with Russian service entry expected sometime in 2017.How the AMCA will substitute for it when its size is even smaller and will have lesser weaponry,etc.,is incomprehensible. I would rather that we proceed asap with our UCAV programme and develop our own Taranis class equiv. by 2025,leapfrogging another manned stealth fighter.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Sep 2014 05:24

Sancho wrote:
Austin wrote:quote="mahadevbhu"]why dont we cancel the AMCA and focus on the PAK FA? /quote]

Coz we need both , Note the DRDO statements and operating radius of both.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T ... 0/1111.jpg

PAK-FA is equivalent to what Su-30 is today and AMCA is what M2K/Mig-29/Jag is for IAF
Actually that's only DRDO PR, we don't need AMCA in IAF anytime soon, in fact we only need it around 2030 - 35, to replace MKIs, because till than all kind of classes, roles and capabilities the IAF want or needs are covered. FGFA and AURA will be the prime stealth aircrafts, covering air superiority and offensive strikes beyond our borderlines and only because they have long range, doesn't mean we need another aircraft with similar capabilities only for mid range attacks.
The mid range is even covered quiet well with MMRCAs and MKIs, which will form the second line if you want in A2A and A2G, leaving the low end work (air policing, CAS, recon) to LCA and drones like Rustom H.

There is simply nothing that AMCA would bring IAF, other than another type of fighter, which is why they don't show any interest in it. Former Air Chief Browne stated, that wants to wait and see when it is available, if it is 5th generation or not and recent statements of IAF, urging HAL to focus on FGFA not AMCA made it clear once again, where the IAF sees it's future.
The only reason why DRDO / ADA is pushing AMCA is, because they are only the 2nd tier in the FGFA project and can't contribute anything important to it (I also think that ADA is not included as you said). So they only want to show that they can do something similar too, but after failing even on core areas of LCA, IAF surely have not more confidence in DRDO / ADA promises.
Instead of opening another project, they should focus on the once they have and getting them done! LCA, Rustom H and in future AURA will be key projects for India and we can't afford to waste time and resources on another fighter project that is born without any operational need or industrial benefit. If at all, they should develop AMCA as a carrier fighter for the navy, which actually would make a difference and scrapping the pointless N-LCA MK2 development. But DRDO and ADA might focus more on proving themselfs against HAL and FGFA, rather than offering fighters that are really needed.

Sounds like the LCA saga all over again ... step-motherly treatment of the AMCA

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 02 Sep 2014 07:28

If you want true co-development, you need engineers embedded with Sukhoi now. There shouldn't be any need for further communications or explanations, because the 'insiders' already know everything.

Letting Russia do its thing then toss over a prototype and saying 'have at it' is nonsense.

At that point you should just save the drama and wasted time/money and buy the standard Russian version.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Sep 2014 07:55

PAK FA has to seen not as 5th generation but at the most a little bit more than silent eagle version of su-30. That's all !

As posted earlier:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 075134.ece

“While the Russian version of the FGFA is all-metal, ours will have wings and empennage (vertical and horizontal stabilisers) made of composite materials,” said S. Subrahmanyan, Managing Director of MiG Complex at HAL.

Says it all that a fighter a/c being developed in 2014 to be deployed in 2022 is an all metal frame is in itself a proof of the kind of tech going in this platform.

Compare that to others like Tejas, ef2k , rafale which have more than 60% composites. While our FGFA will have wings made of composites.

So it shouldn't be made out to be something exotic. Comparing it first to some super-capable brocure planes will only create problems for the project. Its like Shiv ji had pointed out that "Bharat is called first a superpower in making......... only so that later we can be condemned on variety of issues like toilets etc."

So russians can't match sensor fusion ( means supercomputer which gets all the info from different sensors and comes up with best response in seconds like the most genius human brain on earth would have come up in few hours )

Russians may start matching up in availability front compared to what some other country is making their 5th generation with single engine; the engine that burnt up last month.

The thing is on the war front in Bharatiya Subcontinent (not american propaganda of South Asia for White House project 'Breaking India') the biggest 4 most potent jets we'll face be in this order:
1.) Su-35 chinese
2.) Su-30 mkk
3.) F-16
4.) J-20 (last and least dangerous)

For these threats FGFA will do nicely, there is no need to label it as a 5th generation otherwise all the brochure buckets of other country's single engine 5th generation plane will be emptied here proving how inferior russian jet is.

Fine!

So some posters will continue with this theme of:
- cancel PAK FA / FGFA
- cancel MMRCA

naturally if we commit this blunder in couple of years more as the urgency compounds we'll be buying single vendor C-17 kind of deal from a 'true 5th gen single engine a/c'.

Si haan ji maaf karo, but we don't want your superior 5th gen jet, we'll manage with garibon ka rajesh khanna, navin nischal.
---------------------------------------------

As for AMCA, my feeling is the biggest blunder we've done is to constraint it in size. As making it smaller than FGFA makes it impossible for designer's to put in all sort of things in a dibba-band platform, which even americans and russians are finding difficult to do!

If the designers are allowed to design same size AMCA as FGFA then you'll see a true 5.5 generation jet which will put to shame the russians! But alas the constraints on our desigeners are too much.

As it'll have rafale kind of fusion, composites, GaN and its skeleton will be as strong as Rafale which can carry more weight than 42% bigger SH.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Sep 2014 08:01

We've to be prepared that russians are going to get super nasty from here on. As they are anyway nasty SoBs which we saw during buying of gorshkov everytime our navymen being trained asked a question they were slapped by russian ba$tards with "Eta Secret" its a secret! What secret on a pathetic burned down neither cruiser - nor carrier platform?

As US has replaced them as biggest supplier, they'll going back on promises even more shamelessly then T-90 gun barrel deal or many others!

But what to do? We need it, and we should take it as a last deal with russians!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Sep 2014 08:59

given our threat scenario, there is no dire necessity of pak-fa.
jsf and f22 to land with pakies is way far fetched.
chinese ones might, but we can easily handle with amca (perhaps with help from japan and france/with ge engines).