PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 20 Aug 2012 22:34

without china, it seems difficult to complete 600 export order.

but why would china will buy it they are developing their own stealth aircraft's.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. will be the potential customer.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Aug 2012 23:04

ldev wrote:For the $35 billion India is going to invest, is there any assurance that Russia will not export either the complete aircraft or key technologies to China? Or will we see key technologies from the FGFA in the J-20? Is China part of that 600 export order market?

Much like we cannot stop Russia from selling Flankers or French from selling Rafales because we bought it in same way we cannot stop russia selling PAK-FA to any one it wishes.

We can ofcourse have a veto on IAF version of FGFA which will retain significant Indian IP in it and can permit or deny export to 3rd country.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 20 Aug 2012 23:24

Russia will of course peddle a watered down PAK-FA to China. The question IAF and GOI need to ask is simply if it is worth $ 35 bil to get a customized FGFA and what does India gain? If like MKI saga India gains nothing then pull out and focus on MCA. The Kaveri with even 75 KN thrust can power a twin engined MCA as long as the empty weight is kept below 10 tonnes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 01:45

Neither Russia nor USA can stop China to beg, borrow or steal. Even if Russians deny and defy chinese stealth works, china has ways to get them copied.

I think the meager look at Kaveri is a problem that is about to come in the near future.. It is not enough to look at Kaveri from single use alone. The 120kN wala should begin design in a re-organized setup soon, and parallel work started asap.

New test facilities are required.. I think this is where Eu/Russia and the khaans can be approached for partnering.. to establish facilities in desh. however, only when we are sure, that we can't get that done by ourselves.

There is a big weakness in understanding our capabilities.. our maturity is not revealed to the right clout.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 21 Aug 2012 02:16

SaiK wrote:Neither Russia nor USA can stop China to beg, borrow or steal. Even if Russians deny and defy chinese stealth works, china has ways to get them copied.

I think the meager look at Kaveri is a problem that is about to come in the near future.. It is not enough to look at Kaveri from single use alone. The 120kN wala should begin design in a re-organized setup soon, and parallel work started asap.

New test facilities are required.. I think this is where Eu/Russia and the khaans can be approached for partnering.. to establish facilities in desh. however, only when we are sure, that we can't get that done by ourselves.

There is a big weakness in understanding our capabilities.. our maturity is not revealed to the right clout.

you seem to suggest that we are not getting any engine tech from either the Rafale or PAK FA deal....is this correct.....
from my understanding either of the deal has the potential where we can have a custom built 120kN engine with complete tech...
Like the ex...u gave of China....similarly why always strive for indigineous tech..when we have other means to meet our objective....
and i suspect of snecma co-operating on kaveri....and we should have our own engine by 2018....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 02:52

No.. per whatever we have read on the open edits and DDM news, there is no indication that we are getting core technology.. and no transfer shall be given by any nation on the planet that is like blue-print for you to go an reproduce. So, all these are screw drivers, but a bit more with Russia in the sense, like API, source code, etc. However, they are not transferring tech, but might provide details how to integrate home grown tech with pak-fa/mki/rafale etc.

Even the MMRCA deal is like that, where ToT is screw driver ++, an advanced version of screw driver technology. more documents as to how to use and integrate components etc. [all these are just to make sure, during war times, we have our own factories producing and providing parts, rather depend on third nation to choke us down].. now you can think how much heck they charge more for screw driver, just because we have this fear of choking us down.. yeah! we have an universal policy being non aligned and seeking to be a global player...we (our DDMs) always compare every achievement against P5 nations or the India as arrived etc.. so, you have to spend for that.

We have to develop technologies ourselves because, that is the only way to advance for AMCA. Kaveri is very very very very important step for independence.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Aug 2012 04:17

I think things could have been better, but the current arrangement is the best that India has ever faced, WRT the FGFA. Ideally India should have joined the Russian effort up front. That, for whatever reason, did not happen. The 50-50 distribution of scientists and knowledge base is far better than what I can recollect. As some in the HAL, etc community have stated the biggest aspect that India needs and will gain is testing very complex assemblies. That, although leave something to be desired, is FAR from screw driver thinking. I would expect it to impact/reflect positively on the AMCA effort.

On the Rafale, I am not too sure, but I feel it is more than a Rafale. The French I suspect have a far larger deal and understanding. I would not be surprised if they have dotted the i and crossed the t on things like the "Kaveri", etc. A package deal is what I expect with the French. What that package consists of I am not certain.

My feel is that the IAF, in particular, will see a golden era starting in 2025ish.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 06:54

^If I am alive by then.. I would only think, the enabling technology dependence platform would be LCA, and LCA++ technologies, and nothing else even including MKI. MKI can be grounded in seconds (example-flight controls or fbw), and none can be blamed.. not so with LCA., so comes with risk, the rewards of blaming one's own wife for the other's wife being a beauty.. but at the EoD, it is she who is going to serve you. LCA is like that for IAF... It might not look hep and arriving from a white skinned nation, but it will serve IAF far far far more than what they can even think.

For example, MKI is MKI now, because of enabling technologies from LCA - MAWS, Vetrivel, Avionics, SHIVA, mission computer etc.

I would say, on the same note, unless we are challenged, we would continue to be sourcing firang maals. It is high time our r&d fellas are engaged with life or death situation, [like that happened when the khaans sanctioned us after pok-2 testing], that we we came out with a brilliant FBW and control laws software even when raytheon confiscated OUR OWN equipments and source code.

We should have gotten now, all rights to make our own AESA and slam it into MKI. Why have not done it?... there are certain things we are not funding and managing it better.. it is not entirely because of technical capabilities. Proper organization structure and right job to right people should have gotten us where we want to be.

bottom line, we can do Kaveri, and Stealth.. but, with heightened deadline situation and such threats, projects can start as failures. So, it needs caressing and support selectively, and ensure niche products are in our hands.

Engage our lab boys.. and that should be the larger goal especially for big time $multi-billion investments. With failures, comes the learning.. provided it is managed correct.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 21 Aug 2012 07:43

The LCA in the last phase is being delayed due to stringent testing , we do not have a database for in-numerable parameters. To build up this database takes time or u must be willing to take risks.
The FGFA will give us this database for a larger airframe. The shortcuts the russian takes while testing and why. This is far fm screwdriver tech and will hasten product development down the line. It is not coming cheap, but will help us leapfrog hurdles later on.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 08:48

^You are telling me in abstract terms, where there is nothing specific we are actually investing in for? which database are they willing provide us for that money?.. are you sure, they will give you the database? or is this your wish? any links ?

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 21 Aug 2012 09:06

What other equivalent technology ToT is available with no strings attached ?

This is moaning for moanings sake.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 21 Aug 2012 09:08

Just looking at the way an experienced guy handles issues and results of flight and ground testing is worth more than anything else. Technology is present in the form of books and documents, but being able to interpret the data is invaluable. It is here that we need the russians, french or even retired indian engineers from HAL/DRDO. My opinion is that, this russian venture will surely benefit HAL since most of our problems start in the flight testing phase and we sort get stuck there. I am skeptical about it being of any use to anyone else outside of ARDC though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 09:29

that was supposed to be the gain from the EADS being called in to verify the Tejas flight test program?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Aug 2012 09:48

According to some older Ajai Shukla article HAL will get 25-30 % of workshare in FGFA development mostly in areas of composites and electronics,cockpit etc

India, Russia to ink Gen-5 fighter pact
India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 Aug 2012 13:53

I think that PAKFA is becoming glorified import. Initially HAL was stating that PAKFA will have India specific (i) Engines (ii) Radar and (iii) refined shape. The all this was dropped in favor of 2 seater version of PAKFA. Now we are just going to import Russian version of single seater PAKFA. The order is also coming down from speculated 300-350 to 214.

It is also not clear whether we will be involved in R&D of New Engine, AESA Radar etc?

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 21 Aug 2012 16:41

PMF/FGFA will have new engines and the avionics will be indian. R&D for engine does not mean that they'll tell us how they arrived at the materials used etc, that's what our engineers/metallurgists have to discover through indigenous research which needs money and time. Everyone knows how an AESA radar works or how it is made and again what matters is what goes inside and this needs indigenous research.
Its like you're given an amplifier circuit in college (TOT) for a lab session and are also taught how it works. But its up to your hard-work,ingenuity and skill to work further on it continuously and come up with better designs based on the basic design(research).
TOT helps us in getting whats current and that is all it does. You get SCB tech for engines GaN MMIC for AESA etc. Using these things, WE chose to just keep building licensed copies without ever bothering to know how and why, because that's what our user wants. If the user were far sighted he would've asked us to form one team to just study the design while the other team is involved in production. This takes money, a lot of it but its not a sunk cost. Infact Dr Kota was one such genius and thanks to him today we have the LCA and his knowledge of the MiG-21 helped us make the LCA the best suited bird for OUR pilots. If the IAF had such people in its technical branch and if it had initiated another project after the marut, then perhaps te jaguar would've been our last imported/licensed manufactured aircraft.
Even if tomorrow the private sector is somehow magically brought on par with HAL/ADA in terms of capabilities, as long as the user/govt loathes spending on research, then all reliance or TATA would be doing 30 years from today is build either the F-50/Su/MiG-60/Nadal etc but of-course some people would be charmed but the nation's aerospace industry will remain where it is today.
(Sorry for the long post, maybe part of it is OT)

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Aug 2012 17:13

raghuk ... If possible any update on LCA, seems like program has hit another blocking issue discovered during latest weapons trials. I know it is better to hit these issue sooner then later. But wants to have some update in LCA thread.

Thanks

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 17:33

raghuk wrote: You get SCB tech for engines GaN MMIC for AESA etc. ..)

that is news.. are you suggesting that pak-fa jumped into GaN? that is a leap. and you are right about hardwork that we have to do by ourselves.. no ToT will provide technology blue-prints with documents how to build, why it is designed so, for what parameters, and what if the parameters were extended, and how much it can be extended..etc. We have to invest for this.. and our GoI/MoD is not aware of this basic fact, means it is the fault of DRDO and MoD to an extent. The importance is not given means it is always the kid that is not crying for more milk.

We need Grumov setup in desh.. we need advanced engineering setup for going Kaveri++ [GTRE can't handle this by themselves though.. needs reorg]

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 21 Aug 2012 18:23

raghuk wrote:PMF/FGFA will have new engines and the avionics will be indian. R&D for engine does not mean that they'll tell us how they arrived at the materials used etc, that's what our engineers/metallurgists have to discover through indigenous research which needs money and time. Everyone knows how an AESA radar works or how it is made and again what matters is what goes inside and this needs indigenous research.
Its like you're given an amplifier circuit in college (TOT) for a lab session and are also taught how it works. But its up to your hard-work,ingenuity and skill to work further on it continuously and come up with better designs based on the basic design(research).
TOT helps us in getting whats current and that is all it does. You get SCB tech for engines GaN MMIC for AESA etc. Using these things, WE chose to just keep building licensed copies without ever bothering to know how and why, because that's what our user wants. If the user were far sighted he would've asked us to form one team to just study the design while the other team is involved in production. This takes money, a lot of it but its not a sunk cost. Infact Dr Kota was one such genius and thanks to him today we have the LCA and his knowledge of the MiG-21 helped us make the LCA the best suited bird for OUR pilots. If the IAF had such people in its technical branch and if it had initiated another project after the marut, then perhaps te jaguar would've been our last imported/licensed manufactured aircraft.
Even if tomorrow the private sector is somehow magically brought on par with HAL/ADA in terms of capabilities, as long as the user/govt loathes spending on research, then all reliance or TATA would be doing 30 years from today is build either the F-50/Su/MiG-60/Nadal etc but of-course some people would be charmed but the nation's aerospace industry will remain where it is today.
(Sorry for the long post, maybe part of it is OT)

This brings back memories of Dr. Kota, sitting in front of his Tektronix terminal desktop, glued to it. At HAL Nashik. Connected to the mainframe and the mainframe used to churn out reams of punched tape for use on the shop floor to try out a modification for the MiG21. Verily, a conscientious man who spent hours learning about the MiG21 and suggesting ways that he could retrofit equipment to make it a meaner machine.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Aug 2012 19:25

We need more kotas and quotas for such men.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 19:56

>> It is also not clear whether we will be involved in R&D of New Engine, AESA Radar etc?

well since tikhomirov isnt even sharing much of the Bars RF side with us, its a stretch they will share the next gen radar tech and manufacturing. same holds true even more for the engine which is the enabler and crown jewel that drives the airframe design, performance and payload as the root node. NOT having such a engine is why the J20 is bulkier and chubbier than it needs to be.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 21 Aug 2012 21:50

Could anyone please explain what does 100% TOT means.....if no tech for Radar and Engine then what r we going to get
in terms of meaningful TOT for both the Rafale and FGFA....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Aug 2012 22:18

it seems those who know are not telling, and those who are telling dont know...

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 21 Aug 2012 23:07

TOT helps you make and maintain/service things without(much) the help of the OEM. Its like HAL/Soviet way of the R&D centre designing stuff and handing it over to the production agency and also make them self sufficient (like having their own DLE/R&D unit). Nothing more nothing less.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Aug 2012 01:33

Austin wrote:Fifth Generation Fighter is a two horse race US with JSF on one side and Russia with PAK-FA on the other.

The other leading aerospace nations like French , Europe/EADS and Sweden did not take the risk to develop a fifth generation fighter and focused on 4 plus gen fighter and then move to UCAV/UAV.

Indian Fifth Gen Fighter MCA/AMCA has not left the drawing board and IAF is probably sticking its neck out waitng for LCA Mk2 to get delivered first.

With such Monopoly on fifth gen fighter any business man will tell you in the monopoly business it the company and not the customer that calls the shot.

Which is all good and fine. But why should India subsidise the development of the PAK-FA if all we get is some small development workshare for which capability already exists in India, and a share of the manufacturing (which we'd get with license production as well). Why shouldn't India have followed the MKI program and done the same with the FGFA? It doesn't seem like there is much going on as far as design and development work on the PAK-FA in India, and we've already paid out $295 million towards the PD of the FGFA. The next tranche of money for detail design is a far larger amount, and it had better be for just the customization of the FGFA (and the corresponding IP should be shared in the same percentage as the money spent) and not for development of a PAK-FA which the Russians will claim all IP for.

As for the monopoly, there is an AMCA program out there. If all we get for paying billions of $ is a slightly customized PAK-FA variant and 5-10% of the program's technology, then its a big waste of money. India could've instead roped in other design houses into the AMCA program and paid millions of $ or even hundreds of millions of $ for consultancy and co-design/development and owned the IP. Instead of spending lavishly on our own home-grown fighter effort, we're paying out to subsidize some other nation's fighter program and then being told that its the best we can get anywhere? I don't buy that argument.

Considering how UK a Tier 1 partner had to beg to get its wish fullfilled and a close strategic allay had to rub its nose at Unkils feet to get EW stuff inside the JSF , getitng a customised fighter with source code to fit in 3rd party system and TOT with JSF was a distant dream , considering IAF would not even get a Tier 1 status but more like Tier 3.

The solution isn't to spend billions of $ in a "partnership" that basically means nothing- we spend a major portion of the development funds and they develop the technology and own the IP. If India is only spending money on the customized FGFA and owns a proportionate IP and technology and has proportionate workshare in all FGFA's exported and maintained, then its fine. I'm alright with that. If not, then we're being ripped off big time.

PAK-FA is in early stage of development and though IAF formally joined the program very late i.e after the first flight in 2011 , it can hope for access to Software Code , Lic Manufacturing and some agreed TOT giving it freedom of operation , although most of the systems like engine , radar ,weapons will be outrightly imported as its unlikely Russia would share all critical technologies.

In which case, India shouldn't fund any of the critical technologies that Russia won't part with. Only fund those technologies that it will part with and the rest we can spend on the AMCA program to develop it in a partnership with a firm like Dassault/Snecma/EADS/Eurojet.

In the end its a question of which deal gives you most and not what TOT will i get since fifth gen is a sellers market and tightly restricted to two players on a global scale.

Again, it was in Russia's own interest to get a customer (I won't call them partners since it appears that they really aren't that). A production run of 220 is more than what even the RuAF will likely get and certainly more than 8-10 other nations of the world that are likely to order Russian fighters will order in total.

Besides, other options existed- for instance, the AMCA being developed with complete funding provided and the PAK-FA following the program of the MKI. Or India partnering with South Korea on the KF-X before its design phase began and ensuring that the design met its requirements. There, we'd have another nation that was on the same footing and we could get a large chunk of the design/development work as well as manufacturing workshare. As a back up to all these plans, if things didn't work out, India could always order around 126 PAK-FAs and simply license manufacture them.

As of now, I don't see what the big gain we're getting. Either people don't know what exactly is the true benefit or are exaggerating how much India is paying into the program for development. I wish there was 1 good article that explained the actual scope of the work, the amount being paid, and the future sales/marketing agreements.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 22 Aug 2012 01:53

SaiK what i spouted above is more of an informed guess, no links It will take time for this sort of to be in the public domain.
We are getting an aircraft in 2014, this will be a pre production model where there is room for tweeking, We would need to know how far progress was made in the testing in what sphere
We will hopefully get a whole whack of data. (As Raghuk said happened for the Migs.)Our industry is maturing fast and if we ask for the right info it will be given at a price.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 22 Aug 2012 01:57

I am no expert but I believe that the schedule of the PAK FA's arrival in India indicates that we will get a lot of hands on experience in testing and ironing out inconsistencies. The first plane is scheduled to arrive in 2014 followed by the next one in 2019. Five years is a lot of time for just trials.

It may involve understanding LO techniques, use the right kind of radars to avoid detection apart from incorporation of changes in the basic PAK FA in order to make it into our FGFA. Perhaps Sukhoi intends to share some expertise in areas where India has no experience or very little experience (we have only ~2000 flights compared to god knows how many for USSR/Russia). This could cut down AMCA testing time. Moreover, we have the core technology to make a plane thanks to LCA. Incorporating new components to make a 5th gen fighter is probably what we are paying for.

We have seen that the IAF does not buy indigenous maal until its fully developed unlike other forces. This might mean that DRDO would have to use foreign maal in indigenous fighters to make it acceptable to the IAF. Once IAF starts flying the aircraft, substitutes for foreign components can be developed. Perhaps this foreign + indigenous combo during development that is unique to India is something that needs to be perfected first.

We have a cushion in the form of a PAK FA that can be acquired in case of teething troubles with FGFA. This also gives us a large room to customize and mix and match to our heart's content. I don't think Sukhoi would be too bothered if we make major changes as long as we do it ourselves. Perhaps that is what we are paying for. Freedom. Even the French maal we obtain carries a higher price tag for the same reason.

The argument for this is of course that AMCA would be an apt plane to experiment. OTOH, IAF can't boss Sukhoi like it can command ADA. This is why we have a young developer (India) willing to pay extra dollars to tag along with an experienced partner (Russia). The AMCA is still years away and lacks the safety net that Russia brings along in expertise.

I agree that it is a large price to pay but if it helps us keep PAK FA/FGFA tech away from the Chinese (I hope) and shaves off a few years in the AMCA development (since it can use the tech developed for FGFA), it might be a worthwhile investment. This will probably avoid fiascos where we have to wait for Sukhoi to deliver us tyres. Even the most pessimist won't argue that this has far greater ToT than Su 30 MKI project.

If Russia/India export FGFA in large quantities we might have a share in royalties. Hopefully by 2040 India has enough balls to offer 5th gen aircraft to countries willing to ally with us.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 22 Aug 2012 02:02

Well said Kartik....completely support ur analysis.....

wiki suggests F 22 program cost at $66 billion ....which includes the know how..production setup ...and around 190 planes....
here we are talking of $35 billion for 214 planes....which works out to be around $163 million per aircraft( may be the life cycle
cost could be more)...and no info on the TOT for engine, radar and other critical components (we don;t need just the knowhow for
producing these components...HAL has been license manufacturing aircrafts for the last 50 years).....

one thing still amazes me...we say such a country analyzed a crashed aircraft and based on that built its own stealth technology ...where do we lack that even after so many years of license manufacturing we don;t get an insight on some critical tech.. which we can use for our own
aircraft development.....

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Aug 2012 02:11

Bheeshma wrote:Russia will of course peddle a watered down PAK-FA to China. The question IAF and GOI need to ask is simply if it is worth $ 35 bil to get a customized FGFA and what does India gain? If like MKI saga India gains nothing then pull out and focus on MCA. The Kaveri with even 75 KN thrust can power a twin engined MCA as long as the empty weight is kept below 10 tonnes.

I agree.

They will peddle technologies, and possibly even offer a slightly dumbed down PAK-FA to the Chinese, although I don't see why the Chinese would be interested.

And Indian pressure won't work as we've seen with the RD-93 engines of the JF-17. They'll go ahead and do what they want. Which is fair, if they spent their own money to develop the PAK-FA they should decide who can or cannot be offered it. So, we shouldn't be looking to buy their allegiance and a say in their sales, but looking at our own interests and judging whether or not it makes sense to acquire the PAK-FA at all. Considering the Su-30MKI experience, its well worth it for the IAF. But, from the aerospace industry pov, there will be precious little to gain it seems since there is very little cross-pollination of the technologies that are gained for license manufacture.

Point being, there is nothing like having to do the work ourselves. the AMCA should have been the primary program. The PAK-FA will go on irrespective of Indian involvement (but slower for sure without the funding that India could provide), so the aim should've been to keep our involvement to the minimum required for a customized variant- the FGFA. The FGFA should've been ordered in more modest numbers, perhaps 126 or so and the primary focus should have been the AMCA.

But the IAF being what they are, an armed service whose primary concern is that they be well equipped to handle threats, will be more confident in a PAK-FA based FGFA seeing service and meeting their requirements than an AMCA. the Su-30MKI vs LCA experience makes it quite obvious that this will be the case. But the MoD must see it from a more strategic view- that the AMCA is quite possibly the best chance India has of getting it right. And that the future of India's aerospace industry could hinge on what technologies are developed for the AMCA. funding for that program must never be an issue.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Aug 2012 02:24

raghuk wrote:PMF/FGFA will have new engines and the avionics will be indian. R&D for engine does not mean that they'll tell us how they arrived at the materials used etc, that's what our engineers/metallurgists have to discover through indigenous research which needs money and time. Everyone knows how an AESA radar works or how it is made and again what matters is what goes inside and this needs indigenous research.
Its like you're given an amplifier circuit in college (TOT) for a lab session and are also taught how it works. But its up to your hard-work,ingenuity and skill to work further on it continuously and come up with better designs based on the basic design(research).
TOT helps us in getting whats current and that is all it does. You get SCB tech for engines GaN MMIC for AESA etc. Using these things, WE chose to just keep building licensed copies without ever bothering to know how and why, because that's what our user wants. If the user were far sighted he would've asked us to form one team to just study the design while the other team is involved in production. This takes money, a lot of it but its not a sunk cost. Infact Dr Kota was one such genius and thanks to him today we have the LCA and his knowledge of the MiG-21 helped us make the LCA the best suited bird for OUR pilots. If the IAF had such people in its technical branch and if it had initiated another project after the marut, then perhaps te jaguar would've been our last imported/licensed manufactured aircraft.
Even if tomorrow the private sector is somehow magically brought on par with HAL/ADA in terms of capabilities, as long as the user/govt loathes spending on research, then all reliance or TATA would be doing 30 years from today is build either the F-50/Su/MiG-60/Nadal etc but of-course some people would be charmed but the nation's aerospace industry will remain where it is today.
(Sorry for the long post, maybe part of it is OT)

Raghu, since you are an HAL insider, you're probably the best person to answer the following questions:

1) What did HAL do in the PDP phase of the FGFA? What will HAL do during the Detailed Design Phase?
2) You spoke of a new engine for the FGFA- does any design agency in India work on it or are we simply paying for the R&D on a new engine and getting a ready-made product (like the AL-55I on the HJT-36)?
3) Is there any collaboration on the radar or is it just a Russian design with some new modes developed and some other customization for the IAF?

You're of course right about the IAF's lack of strategic and long term vision for the nation's aerospace industry- they have but one focus- operations. The bad blood between HAL and IAF has blighted cooperation in the past, but the AMCA is one opportunity to put it all behind and finally involve private industry as well for a public-private partnership akin to those that the IN has for its warship and nuclear submarine programs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Aug 2012 05:52

Avarachan wrote: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/05/ ... an_16.html
A key IAF requirement is a “360-degree” AESA (airborne electronically scanned active) radar, rather than the AESA radar that Russia has developed. Either way, India would pay Russia extra: either in licence fees for the Russian radar; or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, for developing a world-beating, 360-degree AESA radar. .

My question would be this.. for HAL/DRDO.. what is their design plan for 360* AESA radar.. and hopefully if it is GaN ~~(courtesy: raghuk).~~

Now, assuming this can be only achieved by distributed panel system, I expect two side lobes in addition to the normal radome, and then rearward facing somewhere between the two AL41F engines. Should be able to house an array of about 128 T/Rs or perhaps less, depending on tech maturity in miniaturization.. I am sure, the range may not exceed 100km rearward., with an array of 64 t/rs. To complete the 360*, they might need on top and/or one on the bottom to cover any missing angles.

The point is there can't be 360* with a single panel, so we need a high power radar computing or if optic fiber is thought off, could have the mil std 1773B bussed to directly embed multiple processors catering to each panel, and integrate them with a federated radar processor, or else, you would expect radar gurus complaining t/r interference problems etc.[Dileep ji, pl help]. So, are we ready for this to take it head on, when we haven't really gotten the LCA one done yet?

Q: Are we aiming too high even with PAK-FA? I would strongly urge, to not fall into having too optimistic and massive plan rather look from integrating from smaller projects so that the grand whole plan could be an integrated system at our controls.

AMCA and PAKFA can have common technologies, but that has to come from LCA Mk2++. Of course looking at our investment plan, our tech sellers would be only interested in the moolah than anything else.. what interest us, is what should matter the most.. not the marketing stuffs.

member_22605 · Post by **member_22605** » 22 Aug 2012 08:21

@SaiK Sir, i never confirmed GaN and i am not saying otherwise either

, please do not quote me, it was a metaphor and lets leave it there.
@kartik I am not in that division which deals with the PMF and therefore all my info is from my batch mates working there and they tell me most of the info is classified. I can just tell you that there has been an HAL team in russia for an year or so now.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Aug 2012 08:49

Thank you raghuk.. corrected.

But, I would expect {jingo-giri} GaN for FGFA, as we would have attempted the GaAs waala with our AESA MMR.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2012 09:31

the JSF I believe which will enter FOC around 2020 is content with a 360' spherical MAWS using some form of TV/IR detectors. it does not even have side panels , let alone rear. the F22 does not have spherical MAWS (iirc) and no side/rear radar.

where will the additional power needed for all these distributed panels come from. almost seems like we need a third small dorsal Orpheus engine to power the electronics.

I vote its better to keep it simple with side panels for long wave anti-stealth radar, main radar with swatchplate to give azimuth of around 180' and depend on AWACS with its far powerful radar to give early warning of rear and side attacks.

plus radar being emitter, a DPSA a/c flying out of AWACS cover emitting in all directions will give away its location all the more.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Aug 2012 11:14

JSF has a very powerful engine of 180 Kn and perhaps some internal turbine ram generator for some additonal power generation. So it wont be much challange to power these MAWS and other stuff with some reserve power left.

Most of the new gen electronic would need far less power to make it work compared to 90's stuff that would have gone in F-22 , JSF has all the latest gen electronics that are smaller and would use less power to do the same job.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Aug 2012 19:20

Especially the JSF naval variant with VTOL turbofan [while not in VTOL ops] was planned to use to power additionally for enhanced AESA ops [especially for jamming ].

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 22 Aug 2012 19:20

Photos from Ru-AF's 100th Anniversary Celebrations few days ago:

Many more > http://www.flickr.com/groups/sukhoi_t-50/pool/

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Aug 2012 19:24

nice. any pics showing the inlets? as deep as possible but clear and not doctored?

VishalJ · Post by **VishalJ** » 22 Aug 2012 19:30

SaiK wrote:nice. any pics showing the inlets? as deep as possible but clear and not doctored?

I think this one has been here on the forum before but anyways, its the closest out there.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 22 Aug 2012 19:37

1. Are there any case studies that show how dogfights and other fights inthe air to air regime have gone in the past? Some analysis of DACTs , red flags, cope indias, in detail?

2. How does one get a job as a material science-metallurgy guy in HAL? I believe I have the answer to single crystal turbofan blades