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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

I got that part, but does not it mean a very different meaning to BVR combat if PAK-FA has a very long range target detection, additionally radar homing missile with mid-course guidance + long flight range will add to BVR effectiveness.
The F-22 has long range detection as well. Janes reported in the late 90's that the Apg-77 has 2200 element AESA. The elements have already been upgraded once during production. They were cutting edge it really took the combined efforts of Raytheon and Northrop Grumman to pull the performance off. The AN/ ALR-94 itself is known to also be able to process information from emissions and guide a missile aiding the radar, from well past the radar detection ranges. The F-22 is also equipped with an IFDL data link for secure, LPI comms and cooperative engagement. Unlike previous generation sensor performance for VLO stealthy aircraft is more about how much they can hide away without giving there location away. Brute performance is only one aspect, LPI and the ability to network and exist in a complex Electro-magnetic environment while retaining survivability is the most important parameter that is looked at. The radar has also already demonstrated the ability to be used for ISR (passive) and communication. The EW modes are also a part of the 2017 increment and that capability is standard on the F-35. Beyond the next increment there are plans to switch/replace T-R modules of the F-22's radar with the F-35 T/R modules that are not only more advanced but the current standard out of the Maryland foundry.

You also have to take into account the fact that missiles have been upgraded in the west. The AMRAAM has gotten 3 separate upgrades since the Raptor was in design and all these have heavily focused on having it perform against better ECM. The ECCM capability has had the most invested followed by making it more accurate and increase in range. The C5 was developed, the C7 developed followed by upgrades to both the C5 and C7 and now finally the D is coming online. There won't be an E and once the final Delta is delivered they will switch to a new program. In contrast the Russians never really created an inventory R-77's nor had procured any other similar weapon. They are essentially creating an inventory. of The problem however for the future is not so much as targeting at extreme long ranges but getting high PK's at medium ranges. You aren't going to pick up VLO aircraft from 100nm, you need to effectively overcome countermeasures at medium ranges. Targeting legacy aircraft is where the extreme long ranges do come into play but then you want to sneak into enemy territory for NT-ISR and to increase the lethality of your legacy fighters behind enemy lines.

Brute sensor strength is only going to get you detected earlier by the EW system onboard. The innovation and cutting edge work is in making signals LPI/LPD and that's what eats into the cost of developing advanced 5th generation aircraft. LPI/LPD involves exercising restraint, not broadcasting yourself, limiting your radar modes when operating in LPI and LPD and having secure and LPI data links so you build SA by emitting the least amount possible. You do not want to be blasting RF all over the place off of a VLO airframe, it defeats the entire point of stealth.

All this has to be kept in proper context. The Raptor is fully operational with the entire fleet in service. The PAKFA as per the last report from yesterday, is going to have between 12 and 50 operational birds by 2020, with the new engine beginning flight trials around 2017. The latest increment on the F-22 is currently in development and will be fielded by end of next year. the next increment runs from 2017 to around 2019-2020. By the time you are going to have a triple digit fleet of Su-50's in the RuAF you will most likely have an F-22 MLU.
Last edited by brar_w on 26 Mar 2015 07:11, edited 3 times in total.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

vishvak wrote:From the above article,
stats of PAK-FA v/s F-22:
* Combat takeoff weight: 35,480kg v/s 38,000kg
* Maximum range: 5500km v/s 3,400km
* Maximum target detection range: upto 400km v/s upto 210km
Both comparisons are total BS. The PAK FA's 5,500km range refers to the ferry range with in-flight refueling as opposed to the regular ferry range for the F-22. Same for the radar range where the target RCS has conveniently not been specified. Given the performance of T/R modules currently in production (and development) in the US & Russia, and the T/R counts on both aircraft, the F-35's APG-81 will likely outperform the Byelka in terms of simple power output, to say nothing of the APG-77(v)1. And that's without going into the EW, LPI, SAR capabilities of both types.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

brar_w wrote:Back to the T-50, some more light on the serial production plans disclosed a few months ago that now (as per these reports) may face financial challenge -

Russia's Defense Ministry is not ready to buy PAK FA in large quantities - "Kommersant"

TSAMTO March 24. Deputy Defense Minister for Armaments Yuri Borisov said on March 23 that the military can buy a smaller number of fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) than planned in the state armaments program until 2020, writes "Kommersant".

According to the newspaper, the military zakontraktuyut only 12 fighters after their commissioning Decide how many aircraft of this type will be able to afford, although previously firmly expects to acquire 52 aircraft.

According to a source, "Kommersant" in the military, LG 2020 include the purchase of 52 units. T-50. "We even prescribed delivery schedule - told" Kommersant ". - In the period 2016-2018 gg. Russian Air Force would receive eight fighters each year, and in the 2019-2020 biennium. - 14 aircraft of this type. " These plans were actually feasible, he said, if it had not arisen in the country economic difficulties.
However many they are finally buy, it seems even the original target was been revised downwards from 60 units to 52 units.
The Russian Air Force will receive more than 60 fifth-generation fighters from 2015-16, the force commander said on Tuesday.

"The Air Force will start taking delivery [of fifth-generation fighters] in 2015-16. The preliminary number is over 60," Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said.

Sputnik News
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

Is there a definitive number on total test sorties or combined flight hours for the program?
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Avarachan »

It looks like India will be purchasing PAKFA/FGFA's instead of the Rafale. It seems that there will be PAK-FA's available for purchase.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/25 ... 42179.html
Borisov announced the likely reduction in the total purchases during a visit to the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant, adding, “the company is ready to start mass production of the fifth generation fighter starting in 2016”.

However, the Deputy Minister added, the Ministry of Defence reserves the right to revise the number of units purchased. “Given the new economic conditions, the original plans may have to be adjusted,” he explained. “It is better to have the PAK FA kept as a reserve, and later move forward, while squeezing everything possible for now out of the 4+ generation fighters (Su-30 and Su-35 – Kommersant).

Yuri Slyusar, President of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) told Kommersant that the Ministry of Defence has coordinated this position and consulted with his company.

According to Kommersant’s sources in the military, the State Armament Program until 2020 sought the purchase of 52 T-50 fighter jets. “We even created a precise delivery schedule,” said a source to Kommersant. “In the period between 2016 and 2018, the Russian Air Force was scheduled to receive eight fighter jets annually, and in the years 2019 and 2020, 14 such aircraft each year.”
These plans were actually feasible, he said, before the economic difficulties arose in the country. “We have now reached an understanding that, to begin with, we will sign a contract for a squadron of T-50’s (12 aircraft – Kommersant). After that, we will decide how many of them we still need – and how much we can afford,” the source said.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

^^ It isn't as simple as making up for the orders if there is a draw down. For starters the IAF wants its own changes (or wanted them as there are multiple reports that may suggest that the Indian specific version is dead or delayed). Secondly, you have to invest in the production machine to actually get to that level. When someone draws down their plans they proportionately also draw down the ramp up effort to produce X number of fighters by a particular date. If the Russians reduce the plan from 60 by 2020 to say 40 by 2020 they will most likely also delay the ramp up and maximize the cost-savings from such a reduction in orders. They aren't going to create a production machinery, supply chain for 60 aircrafts by 2020 and then only procure 40. Additionally you also have to see where the testing program stands at the moment and the level of funding and whether that effort is also being stretched out due to economic conditions and a lesser production obligation by 2020. Serial production of a cutting edge modern 5th generation fighter is not going to be trouble free, nor is the ramp up effort going to be easy. Expect it to be quite a learning curve for Sukhoi. I'd wait for a lot more information before I draw a conclusion that the IAF can pick up the difference if the RuAF decides to lessen its purchase over the next 5 years. France is doing something similar, Egypt gets french aircraft from inventory and will get jets from the line that would have been destined for their own air force had there been no contract with Egypt. I believe the french also offered the IAF its own fighters. The objective obviously being to meet obligations without the expensive ramp up in production.

Of course money can and will change everything but I am not certain whether the IAF has transferred the 2-5 billion USD that was expected to be paid for the development of the FGFA as a developmental partner.
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Avarachan »

Let's wait and see. :)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by brar_w »

brar_w wrote:Is there a definitive number on total test sorties or combined flight hours for the program?

I did a bit of digging - On November 03, 2011 the T-50 made its 100th flight , apparently more than 450 flights had place by October (28th) 2013 - 33 months from first flight. So it flew around 350 flights in around 2 years with 4 test aircraft in 2013 and 3 before then. No official update since Sukhoi reported that more than 450 flights had taken place by end of 2013.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by habal »

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/26/5029

Russia Ditches Plans for Super Advanced 5th Generation Fighter Jets
The Russian military is scaling back initial requirements for the fifth generation T-50 (PAK FA) fighters to twelve planes, after initially planning for fifty-two. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that this was due to economic considerations.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

^^ There seems to be translation issue what he said was the 12 Planes would be used for flight test program and based on the outcome of the test the numbers for future purchase would be decided

http://tass.ru/en/russia/784409
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Cosmo_R »

habal wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/26/5029

Russia Ditches Plans for Super Advanced 5th Generation Fighter Jets
The Russian military is scaling back initial requirements for the fifth generation T-50 (PAK FA) fighters to twelve planes, after initially planning for fifty-two. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that this was due to economic considerations.
That is why "It seems that there will be PAK-FA's available for purchase." :)

It's a FAK/AP shaping up.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

habal wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/26/5029

Russia Ditches Plans for Super Advanced 5th Generation Fighter Jets
The Russian military is scaling back initial requirements for the fifth generation T-50 (PAK FA) fighters to twelve planes, after initially planning for fifty-two. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that this was due to economic considerations.
Russian Air Force to buy fewer PAK FA fighter aircraft
According to Kommersant, the military will buy only 12 fighters initially and, after their operational testing and commissioning, will decide on how many more aircraft of this type it can afford. They had previously made commitments to acquire 52 aircraft according to the State Armament Program until 2020.
Could be anywhere between 0 and 52, after the 12.

Looks like what their MoD is promising is support for 12 planes and if and when things improve then they may purchase more.





This certainly does not bode well for the FGFA.
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Misraji »

Another Mig-35/T-90 in making?

"Please to buy some. We will surely buy after that.
No, no. You don't need to test it.
Ya, comrade. We will transfer the technology for that. SURE!!".... :mrgreen:

--Ashish.
member_24770
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_24770 »

With Oil prices running at $50 p bbl that has impacted the Russians quite significantly and their economy is in a mess. This is purposeful as it keeps the Russians in check wrt Ukraine, does not stop them, keeps ISIS in check wrt selling oil on the black market and lets the Saudis understand costs of and drive out shale oil producers. A win-win for all. America still gets cheap gas, except the transfer of wealth continues.

12 planes instead of 52, the reduction should not come as a shock. However the landmines to watch out for are excessive maintenance costs, a small percentage of flying hours compared to maintenance, whatever else. Is the entire story out in the open with respect to the PAK-FA. Russia has invested billions to create an F-22 like aircraft, perhaps better. They cannot let go so easily.

India needs to compete with Pakistan and China, the question to be asked is what will it take?
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_23694 »

Russian Air Force to buy fewer PAK FA fighter aircraft
If any truth in the above statement then it will prove the fact that relying on development aircraft for fleet augmentation without any good backup is very risky and cannot be relied upon from any planning perspective.
Further this also seems to suggest that to make PAK-FA as a true blue 5th gen fighter there seems a lot of dependency on the kind of investment to be done by India.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Vipul »

Defence ministry ignores Russia's requests to discuss fighter project.

The programme for India and Russia to jointly develop a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), long touted as the flagship of a time-tested defence relationship, has run into a stone wall.

Documents available with Business Standard indicate India's defence ministry is cold-shouldering Russian requests to continue the negotiations on a "R&D Draft Contract", which will govern the partnership to develop a futuristic, fifth-generation fighter.

A letter from Russia's powerful export agency, Roso-boronexport, points India's defence ministry has not responded to Russian requests dated February 9 and March 3, which "suggested holding of the negotiations in February and March of 2015."

"(W)e have not received any data regarding readiness of the Indian side for the negotiations," the letter says. It goes on to request holding the next round of negotiations between April 6 and 9.

The letter refers to Project 79L, the code name for the FGFA project.

This is a precipitous fall from grace for a co-development project considered so strategic that an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) that New Delhi and Moscow signed in October 2007 exempts it from normal procurement rules. Indian defence planners have long held that co-developing the FGFA would help India build its own fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Following the IGA came a General Contract in December 2008, which stipulated details like work share and cost, and the conditions under which the FGFA could be sold to other countries. Under a Preliminary Design Contract (PDC) in December 2010, New Delhi and Moscow contributed $295 million each to finalise the fighter's basic configuration, systems and equipment.

With that completed in June 2013, the R&D Contract is now being negotiated. This would govern the actual design and development of the FGFA, and is estimated to cost $3-4 billion each. Meanwhile, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has turned cold to the FGFA proposal. Sources tell Business Standard this is because air marshals fear the FGFA undermines the rationale for buying the Rafale fighter from France, a $18-20 billion contract that is sputtering through so-far unsuccessful negotiations.

The first sign of the air force's eventual volte-face on the FGFA came in October 2012, when then IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, announced the IAF would buy only 144 FGFAs instead of the 214 that were originally planned.

In December 24, 2013, top IAF officials alleged the FGFA would not meet Indian expectations. Business Standard reported that air marshals at a high-level defence ministry meeting claimed the FGFA has "shortfalls… in terms of performance and other technical features."

The IAF claimed the FGFA's current AL-41F1 engines were underpowered; the Russians were reluctant to share critical design information; and the fighter would eventually cost too much.

On January 15, 2014, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA, the deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), the IAF's top procurement official, said the FGFA's engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India's work share too low, and the fighter's price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.

Meanwhile, Sukhoi is flying and testing their version of the FGFA, which is termed the T-50, or the PAK-FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or "Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation"). Moscow has declared it would enter Russian Air Force service by 2017-18.

However, rumblings within the Russian defence industry suggest that all might not be well with the PAK-FA. On January 17, the influential Mikhail Pogosyan was relieved as United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) - an umbrella body that oversees Russia's aerospace establishment, including giants like Sukhoi, Irkut, RSC MIG, Ilyushin, Sokol Plant, Tupolev, UAC-Transport Aircraft, Aviastar-JV and VASO.

The Russian media has linked his departure with problems in developing the Sukhoi-35, a programme that is reportedly being scaled back. However, there is no word on cutting back the PAK-FA, a project personally backed by Putin.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2932
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Cybaru »

Sounds like the french at work?
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Vipul »

Possible. But the Russian perfidy in not involving India in any design work ,reluctance to do TOT, the high downtime of their aircraft will surely add towards this much needed rethink. A lot will also depend on how fast we can move on the AMCA.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by rohitvats »

The only agency hell-bent on FGFA contract in whatever form is HAL because it ensures business in future. DRDO has already said we've nothing to do with FGFA so one wonders what contribution will HAL provide in terms of R&D. It is not a coincidence that Mr. Shukla has been the lead crusader against IAF on it's stand on FGFA given his bonhomie with HAL.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

Ajai Shukla article always reminds me what Indian Ambassador Indian ambassador Srinivasan Raghavan said last month http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150218/1048319491.html

Speaking on conflicting assessments of Russian-Indian military-technical cooperation, he noted that "the press is always rife with misinformation, including the one that comes competitors." "And we need to understand that many of these press reports are written by people who are not interested in this project, for whatever their reasons. So they do not necessarily tell the truth. Or tell, but based on their own understanding, not based on point of view of the government or establishment, "- he said.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

rohitvats wrote: DRDO has already said we've nothing to do with FGFA so one wonders what contribution will HAL provide in terms of R&D. It is not a coincidence that Mr. Shukla has been the lead crusader against IAF on it's stand on FGFA given his bonhomie with HAL.
DRDO has nothing to do with FGFA ?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-to-pl ... /1/10.html
DRDO to play major role in FGFA programme

DRDO has a major role to play. Six DRDO laboratories are presently working on the project. Our role in the programme would include development of stealth technology, avionics systems, aero dynamic systems and other composite materials for the advanced fighters,” DRDO Chief V K Saraswat told reporters at Aero India 2011.

“We will also be conducting tests and trials of the fighter aircraft,” he said.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12271
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Pratyush »

What do we mean with the FGFA. Do we mean the Su T50 or the proposed Aircraft that is to be designed in India as the AMCA?
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_23694 »

Austin wrote:DRDO has nothing to do with FGFA ?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-to-pl ... /1/10.html
Isn't it 2011 article. Much water flown under the bridge since then.
Best case could be a MKIsed PAK FA if at all , but nothing sort of a completely different FGFA
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by NRao »

The good Amby has done his job (rather well that too).

However, there are too many data points pointing to some friction. For what it is worth, this article seems to be quoting a "letter" of some sort.

We seem to be hearing some noise. The question is is that noise due to a tree that has fallen. And there ought to be some witnesses to this event, who are not talking about it.

IF there was seriousness it should have moved much faster. This is taking too long for an Indo-Russo project. ?????

I do not see the PAK-FA ...................... due to technical issues, is my bet. Good plane. Just not good enough.

On to the AMCA IMVVVHO.

Invest that $25 billion in their energy sector.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Philip »

There are two obvious factors if numbers for initial acquisition are being scaled down.One,moolah,two tech difficulties.I suggest both. The Russian eco crisis after sanctions over the UKR mess is no secret.Even Rusians themselves warn of eco difficulties for the next two years.Secondly,there are well-known tech delays from Russian sources,mainly the new engine.First avatars will not come with it. Thirdly,in the list of priorities of all defence projects,Russian SSBNs and SSGNs appear to be the most important along with the development of new LR strategic missiles like the Bulava,etc. The core of a nation's strength today lies with the capability and numbers of its strategic deterrence,why little Britain still hangs on to its Trident SSBNs.

Coming back to the immediate need of the T-50/PAK-FA.If you actually examine the Russian air force's inventory,it is quite healthy,with large numbers of Flankers,the best strike fighter in the sky barring the USAF's F-22s, with SU-34 dedicated bomber versions too on order. The strat bombing role is still being tasked by Bear bombers,giving the RAF a headache,apart from its Tu-22 Backfires and Blackjacks. The Russian war machine is dedicated to defending Russian territory and external ops in its "near abroad" like the UKR. Therefore ,it cana fford to wait a little longer for the T-50/PAK-FA to be inducted in large numbers,preferring to "walk before it runs".A v.pragmatic approach which underscores Vlad Putin's philosophy if one examines his decision making thus far.

In the Indian context,thus far we've seem official statements that we want acceleration on the FGFA so that by 2020 we would have inducted the aircraft,perhaps a sqd. or two, if poss. If according to the last schedule,we are to get our first aircraft sometime in 2017,then this may be possible. VBut we are also cash strapped with a billion+ hungry mouths to feed. We'll have to wait for the next Indo-Russian defence meeting to see what is on the cards.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

Most FGFA work/discussion are classfied hence the press is not aware of any thing hence using sources or high level sources for their story.....making up things as they go by

In Aero India it was confirmed the differences in workshare is sorted out

India, Russia sort out differences on fighter jet project


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 920466.ece
India and Russia have generally agreed upon the amount and division of work during the research and development (R&D) stage of the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project.

A contract for the R&D phase is being prepared and expected to be signed this year, said Yuli Slyusar, president and chairman of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) at Aero India 2015 in Bengaluru.
“The Russian and Indian parties have generally agreed on the work share of each,” said company officials but refused to divulge specific details at this stage.


The work share of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has been a contentious issue as the project will have equal investment between India and Russia and is likely to cost over $30 billion for about 400 aircraft. India plans to induct 144 of them.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Vipul »

This news report about India and Russia agreeing to division of work on FGFA is rather hazy. Is the 'agreement' for work share at 50% as originally planned or is it just a case of fait accompli for India now that majority of the work is already done? India doing just 0.1 of the work can also mean an agreement has been reached and that Russia is 'dividing work' with India.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_23694 »

Most FGFA work/discussion are classfied
As per the wiki, FGFA talked about "FGFA will differ from the current T-50 flying prototypes in 43 ways with improvements to stealth, supercruise, sensors, networking, and combat avionics"
So the question, is the current T 50 capability really 5th gen. and if yes, then with the additional development cycle and pumping $5 billion of Indian investment what do we want FGFA to be (more than 5th gen apart from the 2nd seat). Both can definitely not be true.

PAK FA could definitely be a fantastic plane but I really suspect the joint development part and the $5 billion investment part. Its a bluff.
Further if at all this joint development stuff happens then FGFA for sure will take another 10 years minimum.
member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_24684 »

.

only for Range and, GLONASS

Image
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1246
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

Image

Interesting take on the Indian questions on FGFA Forums and news articles in Russia. If there are guru's who are familiar with Russia could throw some light. Chacha does a horrible job of translating.

But prima facie seems to be a lot of angst at SDRE's asking too many questions.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Philip »

Will a twin-seat trainer version of the T-50 end up as our FGFA? The same was done with the SU-30.The design was then tweaked as much as poss. to define the MKI. Russia having gone so far on with the programme,waiting to receive its first aircraft within a year;s time,if we want to sign on now,and from reports that the major workshare,etc. has been agreed upon,we will have to do with the same single-seat version for a couple of sqds. and then decide later on whether to proceed with the twin-seat avatar.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

dhiraj wrote:As per the wiki, FGFA talked about "FGFA will differ from the current T-50 flying prototypes in 43 ways with improvements to stealth, supercruise, sensors, networking, and combat avionics"
The IAF identified 43 improvements required over the prototypes but we still have little to suggest that the second stage PAK FA with the 'izdeliye 30' engine will be significantly different from the FGFA, leaving the burning question - do we really need to reimburse the Russians for their R&D expenditure?
SajeevJino wrote:.

only for Range and, GLONASS
Its a fan-made poster. None of figures relating to the performance, range or avionics have any real validity.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:Will a twin-seat trainer version of the T-50 end up as our FGFA? The same was done with the SU-30.The design was then tweaked as much as poss. to define the MKI.
The twin seat variant has been abandoned. Its not being taken up again, notwithstanding amateurish reporting by out-of-date local outfits.
Russia having gone so far on with the programme,waiting to receive its first aircraft within a year;s time,if we want to sign on now,and from reports that the major workshare,etc. has been agreed upon,we will have to do with the same single-seat version for a couple of sqds. and then decide later on whether to proceed with the twin-seat avatar.
All the reports talking about successful agreements are sourced from Russian spokesmen/individuals. And they have just as much credibility as reports of India opting for a 'fifth gen' Su-35 to 'punish' France for the Mistral deal. I wouldn't trumpet such 'news' until it comes from the Indian MoD.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by vishvak »

do we really need to reimburse the Russians for their R&D expenditure?
Didn't USA put together a list of countries for F-35 project? Did they not 'reimburse' USA for their R&D expenditure? Here we have Russian offer to directly be part of PAK-FA/FGFA project but, oh boy, there is a lot of issues with that, too. Just read messages on this page.

By the way, isn't a new and improved engine going to change profile of the same fighter jet- least of all stealth jet- in a manner that is far from trivial? The engine is probably most important part of a fighter jet. Just because it is a stealth fighter jet does not mean any such improvements will not be beneficial to owners.
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_23694 »

Didn't USA put together a list of countries for F-35 project? Did they not 'reimburse' USA for their R&D expenditure?
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 7451,d.c2E
The UK is the only tier one partner. This gives the UK significant influence through the
System Development and Demonstration phase and meant its requirements were formally
incorporated into the Joint Operational Requirements Document.
The tier-1 partner status of the UK means 15% of the aircraft’s components are
manufactured in the UK which the Ministry of Defence says secures “more than 25,000
jobs.

The previous Labour government said: “over the lifetime of the JSF programme, depending
on aircraft costs and numbers ordered, overall expenditure with UK industry is likely to
outweigh by far the UK MOD’s investment in the programme.”
Italy and Turkey will provide heavy maintenance of the F-35 aircraft and F135 engine
respectively in Europe from 2018, the Pentagon announced in January 2015.
vs
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/d ... scows.html
On January 15, 2014, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA, the deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), the IAF’s top procurement official, said the FGFA’s engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India’s work share too low,
Issue seems to be only with the hyped word joint design and development rather than using the word reimbursement
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Austin »

Considering our productivity manhours is very low compared to West one can be assured Su-30 Rafale or FGFA would generate more jobs in India :D
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Cosmo_R »

dhiraj wrote:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/04/d ... scows.html

On January 15, 2014, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA, the deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), the IAF’s top procurement official, said the FGFA’s engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India’s work share too low,
This reminds me of Woody Allen's line in Annie Hall: "There's an old joke - um... two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."

Too little work share in project that's not going well :)
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5353
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Cain Marko »

^ Well that is a good thing then - don't want to be too deeply involved in something that is not so good to begin with. :D
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by member_23694 »

Cosmo_R wrote:Too little work share in project that's not going well
Sir, the project may not be going fine right now but it is definitely not being written off , so deficiencies can be worked upon and fixed. There were/are issues with F 35 too so nothing unique here.
However concern is only that Russia will sell an MKIsed PAK FA in name of joint design and development and charge $5 billion for this. IAF would still have been very happy with this if it foresees a direct competitor to an F 22 / F 35, but right now it does not seem to be satisfied with what has been shown.
Being the only 5th gen prg. right now with which it can be associated till AMCA comes, so IAF will definitely not be give up on the prg though it will like to have more say on how the final product develops. May be just waiting for some more time to see how things shape up
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Post by Viv S »

vishvak wrote:
do we really need to reimburse the Russians for their R&D expenditure?
Didn't USA put together a list of countries for F-35 project? Did they not 'reimburse' USA for their R&D expenditure? Here we have Russian offer to directly be part of PAK-FA/FGFA project but, oh boy, there is a lot of issues with that, too. Just read messages on this page.
1. The total contribution of the partners is less than 10% of the $60 billion expended on development.
2. They received workshare during the development process.
3. By investing in it they became suppliers to the program. Every single fighter operated by the US military will have components built by partner nations.

The PAK FA in contrast is a done deal, in terms of the development program. The workshare ship sailed a long time ago. Reimbursing the Russians is a giveaway and has no parallel with the F-35 program. The most commonalities you'll find is with the development of the JF-17 by CAC, wherein PAF/PAC paid 50% of the development cost and then pretended to 'co-develop' it.
By the way, isn't a new and improved engine going to change profile of the same fighter jet- least of all stealth jet- in a manner that is far from trivial? The engine is probably most important part of a fighter jet. Just because it is a stealth fighter jet does not mean any such improvements will not be beneficial to owners.
What are you going on about? The 'new and improved engine' was conceived long before the IAF analysed the T-50 prototype. It will be developed and integrated on the PAK FA regardless of the FGFA's status. So no, a new engine doesn't make the FGFA special and worthy of a separate R&D contract.
Post Reply