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

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Feb 2018 02:13

please go. I wonder why the Chinese are not interested in the bird? Seeing how they love to xerox copy everything. Because even the Chinese know, the PAK-FA is an enigma. Stay away from this bird...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Feb 2018 11:20

China already has two 5th green fighters in advanced stage of development. Why should it even consider the pakfa?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2018 14:11

IAF experts on stealth? If the IAF is ready to accept the LCA MK-1 which is below their expected performance parameters, waiting for a MK-1A and eventually 5 years fown the line the definitive MK-2 why are they being such perfectionists about the FGFA MK-1?Secondly not many years ago, the IAF accepted two sqds. of the non- canard SU-30s which were in truth the two-seat Flanker trainer variants and after a few years progressed onto the definitive MKI variant.The IAF appear to be splitting hairs ,as I've pointed out earlier, v.powerful vested interests want the Raffy deal to go through and in the opposite direction the US lobby is working overtime to sell us their legacy antiques.

Anyway I thought that officially as expected technical parameters and issues reg. the FGFA had been sorted out and only the final call had to be made.We will be making a colossal mistake if we dump the 5th- Gen SU-57 in favour of a 4th-gen bird that will be outclassed in the next decade by several 5th-gen birds.And if any think that our AMCA which has yet to fly or even decide upon its engine, etc. will come to our rescue, dream on.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 17 Feb 2018 17:42

Philip wrote:IAF experts on stealth?

No. Apparently they are not as good as the posters here

Philip wrote:why are they being such perfectionists about the FGFA MK-1?

Er because we are paying good money, to outsiders, for what was touted to be 5th generation (which by it's very definition demands near perfection in all constituents - shape, sensors, interface, performance, reliability)

Philip wrote:in the next decade by several 5th-gen birds

Please state the names and numbers which we will be facing

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Feb 2018 18:40

Cain Marko wrote:China already has two 5th green fighters in advanced stage of development. Why should it even consider the pakfa?

Saar, I know. Rhetorical question

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2018 09:32

True, but last official reports said that all technical issues/ reqs had been resolved.All left now is to say " yes or no". If a powerful desi corporate co. had partnered Sukhoi it would've got the green light long ago but HAL has been the traditional partner for Sov/Ru birds, not corporate entities vying for the SEF, less flesh on the bone there!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Feb 2018 11:00

Just saying: Of all aeronautical companies in India, HAL has the most flesh on the bone.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2018 11:19

Correct.Why all things considered, it should get first pick at the cherry for the more sophisticated projects.Hiving off BTs, IJTs, LTAs and light aircraft for civvy street , to pvt. industry to get them started in the aviation industry,perhaps light helos too, would be useful in freeing up space at HAL for the major projrcts.If an SEF is ever acquired for local manufacture too, it should be HAL as the lead integrator and local OEM.

Pvt. entities can do very well with the supply chain if the GOI also places large orders.There will be a constant demand from the services for decades .Put. players can then graduate to OEMs for fighters, etc. after proving themselves as reliable suppliers of quality components delivered on time and within costs too.

HAL has come out in favour of sealing the FGFA deal but the desi interests which will benefit from the other firang birds having tied up with them to build their birds , would not want the FGFA deal to go through as there is such limited money to spread around.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Feb 2018 12:55

Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft for the IAF: A Mirage or Reality?

by Gp Capt Joseph Noronha

Generations in Evolution

It was in the 1990s that jet fighters first began to be classified by generation. Although the practice quickly gained popularity, most categorisation is rather vague. This is partly because there can be no clear dividing line between generations. Fighter aircraft are usually continuously upgraded in their airframes, engines, avionics and armament carriage. This is an evolutionary rather than revolutionary process and several modern fourth-generation fighters have elements that otherwise fall naturally into the fifth generation.

A fifth-generation multi-role fighter is a highly coveted asset. Its features are generally taken to include all-aspect stealth even when armed, Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR), high-performance airframe, high-performance engine capable of supercruise (supersonic cruise without afterburner), advanced avionics with long-range sensors and networked data fusion providing full battle-space situational awareness.

In 2005, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor entered service with the United States Air Force (USAF), becoming the world’s first combat-ready fifth-generation fighter. The F-35B Lightning II became operational with the US Marine Corps in July 2015 and the F-35A was declared combat-ready by the USAF in August 2016. The only non-US fifth-generation fighter to enter fully operational military service is China’s Chengdu J-20A and it achieved this distinction with the PLAAF in September 2017.

Chinese Chequers

The Chengdu J-20A ’Black Eagle’ is Asia’s first fifth-generation fighter. This single-seat twin-jet gives the war-fighting capabilities of the PLAAF a major boost and may pose a significant threat to Indian forward bases due to its radar evading properties, long range and significant weapons load. It is currently powered by two Russian NPO Saturn AL-31F engines but is planned to be upgraded with new, more powerful turbofans. China is developing the Xian WS-15 Emei engine, which is expected to be more fuel efficient than the AL-31F and would enable the J-20A to super cruise.

As is well known, China is pouring vast sums of money into military modernisation. Convinced of the utility of stealth technology, it is not content with a single stealth programme. The Shenyang J-31 ‘Gyrfalcon’ or Falcon Hawk is another Chinese fifth-generation fighter under development. It is a single-seat twinjet intended to provide advanced capabilities in close air support, aerial bombing and air interdiction roles. It can also be used as a carrier-based fighter. It is apparently intended mainly for export, in which case the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) may get some aircraft. Initial operational capability is expected by 2020.

Brothers in Arms: the Su-57 and the FGFA

Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter is a single-seat, twinjet multirole aircraft under development. It is designed for air superiority and strike missions and intended to counter the US F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. Its first flight was in January 2010 and it is scheduled for delivery to the Russian Air Force (RAF) from 2019 onwards. However, like the Chinese J-20A, the Su-57 is underpowered. Its NPO Saturn 117 engine does not permit supercruise, but a more powerful truly fifth-generation engine, the Izdeliye 30 (Product 30), is currently under testing. With the new engine, the Su-57 should be able to cruise without afterburner at speeds of over Mach 1.5.

The Su-57’s progress has been of particular interest for the IAF, because the IAF’s hopes of getting its own fifth-generation fighter are intimately linked to it. It was a decade ago that India and Russia began exploring the possibility of a joint stealth fighter programme. In 2010, both sides signed a $295 million design contract for the co-development of the Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) or Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF), based on the Su-57 prototype – the Sukhoi T-50 or PAK FA. Since then there have been many twists and turns, rising costs, prolonged delay, and much heartburn over the project.

It was agreed that the FGFA would have 43 improvements over the T-50, including stealth, supercruise, advanced sensors, networking and combat avionics. The IAF was initially keen on the FGFA, seeing it as the only viable fifth-generation option. It wanted as many as 214 FGFA but the number was progressively whittled down. It hoped to get its first lot of fighters by 2017, but that has turned out to be a mirage. More recently, there have been serious doubts over how the Su-57 would turn out because Russia itself wanted just a dozen aircraft, preferring to procure more Su-35 and Su-30SM jets instead.

As the years passed and the T-50 began to look increasingly uninspiring, the IAF made no secret of its dissatisfaction. One grouse is that despite its low work share in the joint development project, India has to pay 50 per cent of the development cost. Another is that unless the Russians agree to substantial Transfer of Technology (ToT), the IAF will be perpetually dependent on it for components, spares and even minor modifications. And not only does the FGFA come at a high price, it will be expensive to maintain as well.

Besides, there seem to be serious design issues, especially with the stealth engineering. The Russians claim the Su-57’s RCS will be less than 0.5 square metres against the F-35’s RCS of 0.2 square metres, but the IAF is unimpressed. Indeed, anyone who has operated Russian aircraft learns to take such claims with a pinch of salt. The reliability of the crucial AESA radar is also in doubt. In addition, the engine is a worry. As mentioned, the Su-57’s current turbofan does not permit supercruise. Although the Izdeliye 30 engine is expected to be ready soon, the IAF’s experience with Russian engines in general and the NPO Saturn AL-31FP turbofan fitted on the Su-30MKI in particular, has been anything but happy. They have been plagued by failure in the air, poor operational serviceability and shortage of spares.

In order to continue the FGFA project, India and Russia next need to sign a development contract each committing to spend over $3 billion. The IAF must also place a firm order for the jets that might enter production eight to ten years after signing of the contract. An expert committee appointed by India’s Ministry of Defence submitted its report in July 2017, and was ostensibly in favour of proceeding with the project, opining that the FGFA would be a useful springboard for India to develop its own fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). However, the IAF is now deeply sceptical, believing that if the base model T-50 is of doubtful worth, it is unlikely that the India-specific features will improve it. Rather than risk being stuck with a white elephant, the IAF apparently prefers to terminate the project and wait for the indigenous AMCA to materialise.

AMCA’s Promise

The HAL AMCA is a single-seat, twin-jet, super-manoeuverable multi-role fifth-generation fighter under development. While its design is the responsibility of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), manufacture will be undertaken by HAL. Preliminary design work on the AMCA began in 2008, but it officially started only in 2011. For the AMCA to be a truly indigenous effort, India’s aerospace technologists need to develop stealth technology comparable with the US F-35, a thrust vectoring engine capable of super-cruise and its planned AESA radar. The AMCA’s RCS is low thanks to serpentine air-intakes, an internal weapons bay and extensive use of composites and other radar-absorbent materials. It features relaxed static stability with a quadruplex digital fly-by-optics flight control system.

The AMCA requires two 110-125 kN class turbofans for its planned maximum takeoff weight and for supercruise capability. The engine expected to power it is either the Gas Turbine Research Establishment’s (GTRE) K9 or the K10, which have succeeded the GTRE Kaveri engine. GTRE and French multinational Safran are working together to fix all issues and make the AMCA engine ready by 2019. A possible fall-back option if this approach fails is the trusted General Electric F414 that is slated to power the Tejas Mark 2. The AMCA project can really take-off only after its engine is firmed up. According to ADA estimates, the maiden flight by 2030 followed by low-rate production by 2035 is likely.

Limited Options

However, in military planning, it is essential to keep abreast of the potential adversary’s capabilities. The main reason the IAF needs a fifth-generation fighter is to maintain approximate parity if not superiority over the PLAAF and to a lesser extent the PAF. Yet, most analysts believe it will take time for the PLAAF to build a large fleet of fifth-generation fighters, overcoming the problems of incorporating true stealth and sensor fusion-enabled situational awareness. Meanwhile it will continue to operate mainly fourth-generation fighters. And that goes for the PAF too. If the IAF wants a fifth-generation fighter but doesn’t want the FGFA what are its options?

For obvious reasons the Chinese J-20A and J-31 may be ruled out. Although some other fifth-generation fighters are under development, including Turkey’s TAI TFX, South Korea’s KAI KF-X and Japan’s Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin. None of these are viable for the IAF. What about the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II? The Indo-US military relationship has grown more cordial in recent times and the IAF is already inducting several modern military aircraft from the US. These include the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III large transport, the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules transport, the Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopter and the Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. There is a good chance that the Lockheed Martin F-16 will soon be selected to bolster the IAF’s combat fleet, so the F-35A might also be a possibility. It may not be too expensive. According to Lockheed Martin, the cost of each F-35 is already below $95 million and it hopes to reduce that to $85 million in a few years.

However, the IAF would need to judiciously evaluate the F-35A before opting for it. The aircraft has been roundly criticised mainly because of huge time and cost overruns and because it is allegedly plagued with design flaws. Besides, Lockheed Martin already has a large order book. The IAF would be a late customer and might not get the desired jets for at least 10 to 12 years. And US military supplies usually come with negligible ToT and with strings attached – neither of which appeal to this country.

That is why the IAF appears to be of the view that the best option in the current circumstances is to forget the FGFA mirage and back the indigenous AMCA to the hilt, making it a strong prospect. At the same time, it could spend the money saved on the FGFA deal to boost its shrinking fourth-generation fleet. In fact, the quickest way for the IAF to induct a sizeable fleet with all fifth-generation features, except stealth, would be for its Rafale order to be doubled or even tripled. The Su-30MKI, which will remain the backbone of the IAF’s combat fleet for decades, also needs to be comprehensively upgraded. These two measures would give the IAF enough breathing space till the HAL AMCA becomes its prized fifth-generation fighter.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Feb 2018 22:26

Then keep waiting IAF before you search for the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of technology that we can't develop ourselves to cobble togegher a bird which will arrive post 2030 and will still be unable to carry BMos.

If this is the IAF's genuine assessment, when it has reluctantly bought the LCA ( how does it have confidence in the desi AMCA that has never even flown or found a suitable engine yet? We've been hearing stories about a desi engine for 30 yeats now and not even a single unit to power an aircraft in service has been built! ) ,its true intentions are obvious when it wants and prefers Rafales and another SEF to the LCA ,both being pushed by vested interests. We might as well end the tamasha with Russia and let it go its own way selling the same perhaps to our enemies.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 19 Feb 2018 10:34

Phillip
Are you saying all planes that can't carry bmos are useless?
As a corollary, is F22 worst than MKI as it don't carry Bmos? Do you know when FGFA will be able to carry BMos if at all it can?
And where u not telling Bmos -M is being developed for smaller birds. Can't this be carried on AMCA
Besides, how do you know that we will not be able to develop technology? Is this your perception or some ACM told you??

I am pro Russian in second place, in first place I am Indian.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2018 13:23

Not at all.I too am an Indian first.BMos is to be the principal strike weapon of the IAF even for the next century.IN smaller NG form it is hoped that it will be small enough to be accommodated in an FGFA's internal bay.This gives it a great advantage when penetrating enemy territory undetected still able to launch a stand-off weapon.I don't think that the AMCA in current form can carry a BMos-NG,but our Super Sukhois can,externally and will do so even with ER BMos Land and seaborne missiles will have the touted 800-900 km capability.The FGFA/PAK-FA/SU-57 has been designed as a multi-role stealth bird,combining the roles of the F-22 and JSF in one fighter If the deal is sealed. If we fail to clinch the deal even if in a buy-only system only,juts we have done with the Rafale.'

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Feb 2018 14:19

Philip wrote:Not at all.I too am an Indian first.BMos is to be the principal strike weapon of the IAF even for the next century.IN smaller NG form it is hoped that it will be small enough to be accommodated in an FGFA's internal bay.This gives it a great advantage when penetrating enemy territory undetected still able to launch a stand-off weapon.

The IAF will have other stand-off weapons available for internal carriage - SAAW, Garuthma, ARM with SFDR propulsion as well as the SPICE series.

I don't think that the AMCA in current form can carry a BMos-NG,but our Super Sukhois can,externally and will do so even with ER BMos Land and seaborne missiles will have the touted 800-900 km capability.

Problem solved. The Su-30 will remain in service upto 2050 and can continue operating as a BrahMos/BrahMos-2 platform upto that point.

The FGFA/PAK-FA/SU-57 has been designed as a multi-role stealth bird,combining the roles of the F-22 and JSF in one fighter If the deal is sealed. If we fail to clinch the deal even if in a buy-only system only,juts we have done with the Rafale.'

The program is a year away from the delivery of the first production Su-57, the idz.30 is 5-6 years away from IOC and a mature FGFA is at least 10 years away, if not more.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Feb 2018 16:49

^^^
The IAF at this point is not in a hurry when it comes to acquiring a heavy fighter like PAK-FA because they have 270+ Su-30MKIs for that role for the foreseeable future. They can choose to play the waiting game and keep demanding better specs.

Will · Post by **Will** » 20 Feb 2018 17:26

The best option would be dump the FGFA, buy 2-3 sqns of the F-35 to cover the Chinese threat and go full steam on the AMCA.

What will likely happen is 2-3 sqns of the F-35 will be bought as the IAF wants it. 2-3 sqn of the PAK-FA will be bought to keep the Russians happy and the FGFA will be dumped and the design of the AMCA will start. When the AMCA gets delayed the IAF will push for more F-35 purchases.

chola · Post by **chola** » 20 Feb 2018 22:01

The F-35 must be in our radar irregardless of the Su-57.

The Russians WILL sell the Su-57 to Cheen eventually even if it is a small “evaluation” order like the Su-35.

Rather not be flying a 5th Gen with an ever overhanging threat of its specs being compromised.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2018 22:09

F-35s as the IAF wants it? Dream on! It is so heavily layered with software and ultra- sophisticated tech that any attempt to modify it will be even more complicated than trying to modify the FGFA.Secondly, would the OEM waste its time for a piddly little order? Even US allies have downsized numbers because of both acquisition cost plus operating costs which are rather opaque as of now.We must take it in whatever level the US is willing to sell us or leave it.

The manner in which tbe IAF is going about acquiring the 5th-gen fighter is exactly how it went about the LCA.The decision is also being heavily influenced by the 2 vested corporate interests as posted earlier.They stand to lose if the FGFA goes through.No honey from the hive for them!

Please see how Pak has started selling its modest little trainer to 12 countries plus possible sales of the JF-17 which is beimg incrementally upgraded.Have we sold a single equiv. aircraft? They have a clear idea of where they are going and keep plodding on.The IAF is pretending to be billionaires when they are merely millionaires. Window shopping for the most expensive wares with barely a few coins to rub together in their pockets! Remember the "only Rafale", "no plan B" statements not too long ago from starred IAF sr. brass.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Feb 2018 22:15

Philip, we will not be modifying anything on the F-35. Take it as is and use it as. Even in that mode, it is a valuable tool. And you don't need too many of them. Just 2 (maybe 3) squadrons are sufficient. You just need the plane to break down the door and sanitize the airspace (against enemy aircraft and air defences) and let the other aircraft do their thing.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2018 22:19

Evaluate both SU-57 and JSF in basic mode then including costs! The IAF is behaving true to form.The grass is always greener on the other side.There are deep undercurrents here which we will see being played out.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Feb 2018 22:27

Philip, if you want to go down that path (evaluating the Su-57 and F-35 right now), I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that the F-35 will win hands down. Even after development of the Su-57 is *FULLY* complete - in another 10+ years - the F-35 will still be more advanced as American advances in software, weapons, RCS, etc will still give the F-35 the edge at that point in time. The Russians have a long way to go, to catch up to the Amreekis on fifth generation platforms.

Su-57 is also coming for India. I agree with you on the undercurrents. Lot of geopolitical play going on behind the curtains. The defence relationship between the US and India will only go up. And that is a good thing.

NachiketM · Post by **NachiketM** » 20 Feb 2018 22:43

Just thinking loudly ...
I wonder why we are discussing the F35 purchase... Wouldn't that mean that we will have to sign various CISMOA and BECA agreements to be able to enable communication between F35 and various Indian entities to interlink them together?
If we are not signing these agreements then getting the F-35 is like buying Lemons as it will not be able to communicate with our majorly Russian hardware and that will create more challenges rather than solutions... The US is not going to let us alter the avionics or communication equipment to enable this ... And without it it is just a 4+ gen bird with stealthy airframe.... nothing more ...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Feb 2018 22:48

Good point Nachiket. However, a work around can be had for that problem. And the "enabling communications" is for interoperability with the American military, not for F-35 and Russian platforms in Indian service. What exactly that work around will be can only be known, once they begin formal talks about the platform. As of now, all we have is some journalist article that the F-35 is being looked at. Not a reliable source of info.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Feb 2018 22:57

Philip wrote:F-35s as the IAF wants it? Dream on! It is so heavily layered with software and ultra- sophisticated tech that any attempt to modify it will be even more complicated than trying to modify the FGFA.

Modify it for what? Local IFF & comms? Done. For Israel. Local weaponry? Done. For Israel, UK & Turkey.

Upgrades? The Su-30MKI, Jaguar etc. had to be upgraded because a lot of the OEM-gear was sub-par. The same is probably true for the Su-57 but not for the F-35 which is equipped with absolutely top-of-the-line equipment (with a few exceptions that are being addressed in the Blk 4 upgrade; Ad.EOTS, ThNDR).

Secondly, would the OEM waste its time for a piddly little order? Even US allies have downsized numbers because of both acquisition cost plus operating costs which are rather opaque as of now.We must take it in whatever level the US is willing to sell us or leave it.

1. Modifications to the aircraft are funded by the buyer. Alternatively, the customer can modify local weapons for UAI-compatibility and have them integrated at minimal cost.

2. The F-35 is the single most transparent military program in history. Calling it opaque is absurd and doubly so for someone advocating a Su-57 purchase. Unless of course you have details about the PAK FA program that you'd like to share with the forum. Well..?

3. "Whatever level the US is willing to sell us" is the same level that is being sold to every other customer including the US services. There is no downgraded export variant of the F-35. The same may or may not be true for the Su-57MK.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Feb 2018 23:13

NachiketM wrote:Just thinking loudly ...
I wonder why we are discussing the F35 purchase...

The IAF's preparing to ask for a classified briefing on the F-35A.

Wouldn't that mean that we will have to sign various CISMOA and BECA agreements to be able to enable communication between F35 and various Indian entities to interlink them together?

If we are not signing these agreements then getting the F-35 is like buying Lemons as it will not be able to communicate with our majorly Russian hardware and that will create more challenges rather than solutions... The US is not going to let us alter the avionics or communication equipment to enable this ... And without it it is just a 4+ gen bird with stealthy airframe.... nothing more ...

We're negotiating the COMCASA and a similar local analogue for the BECA. No intrusive boilerplate agreements.

As for the communication element, it'll have to be equipped with the IAF's Operational Data Link (ODL) and software defined radios (SDRs) to be compatible with rest of the fleet. Same situation as Israel which is also an F-35 operator.

Keep in mind, the ODL has been developed by Israel's IAI and the SDR by Rafael. The F-35I "Adir" also employs data-links supplied by IAI and SDRs by Rafael.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Feb 2018 23:25

^^^ Just like the P-8I, C-130J, C-17 and soon-to-arrive AH-64E Apache and CH-47 Chinook.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2018 23:37

The CNI suite on the F-35 already supports a fairly wide array of antennas and frequencies so proprietary communication needs need to only deliver a very small amount of hardware, and develop software if they want their own waveforms incorporated. In essence it starts off as an SDR. The embedded antennas pretty much cover all the frequencies of interest. Israel is using the existing system and adding its own elements to the CNI suite using the space, weight and power margins and emitters and receivers already built in. The only exception to this flexibility may be the Ku band MADL which has dedicated hardware and is getting a GaN antenna bump as part of block-4, but then that is only really for F-35 to F-35 communication for now.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... asheet.pdf

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Feb 2018 03:48

Viv S wrote: We're negotiating the COMCASA and a similar local analogue for the BECA. No intrusive boilerplate agreements.

Reference Please?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Feb 2018 04:10

ShauryaT wrote:
Viv S wrote: We're negotiating the COMCASA and a similar local analogue for the BECA. No intrusive boilerplate agreements.
Reference Please?

You'll have to be more specific.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Feb 2018 04:33

You are claiming that India is negotiating COMCASA and BECA, can you quote a reference for this claim, please? Or is your claim based on the generic long-standing desire of the US to do so? So, is this an active negotiation or the same old passive one? If active, please quote your sources?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Feb 2018 05:02

ShauryaT wrote:You are claiming that India is negotiating COMCASA and BECA, can you quote a reference for this claim, please? Or is your claim based on the generic long-standing desire of the US to do so? So, is this an active negotiation or the same old passive one? If active, please quote your sources?

US wants security pact for sharing technology with India’s private sector - Dec 24, 2017

In New Delhi, on December 4, an official from the US Department of Defence (Pentagon) displayed photographs that convincingly documented China’s theft of design information relating to America’s most secret defence systems – fifth generation fighter aircraft and advanced unmanned aerial vehicles.

His purpose: to explain to the audience of Indian and US military, defence ministry and industry honchos why New Delhi was being asked to sign an agreement binding the Indian private sector to safeguard information it receives relating to American defence equipment.

One such agreement, termed “General Security of Military Information Agreement” (GSOMIA), was signed on January 17, 2002 between the Indian and US defence ministers of that time, George Fernandes and Donald Rumsfeld.

GSOMIA of 2002 prescribes security standards and protocols for safeguarding information shared by the Pentagon with India’s defence ministry; as well as by US defence firms with Indian defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs).

However, GSOMIA does not cover the exchange of classified information with Indian private companies. Washington wants this covered, given New Delhi’s emphasis on the “strategic partnership” (SP) model of procurement, in which Indian private firms will manufacture defence equipment for the military, using technology transferred by global “original equipment manufacturers” (OEMs).

Washington is not demanding a fresh agreement. It is asking New Delhi to sign an annexure to GSOMIA that would cover the Indian private sector.

This, however, remains stuck in the Indian defence ministry’s decision pipeline. “It seems everything in New Delhi must be cleared at the level of defence minister, even prime minister”, complains a former Pentagon official, speaking anonymously.

“US companies are keen to partner Indian private companies designated as SPs, but sharing technical information, which is essential for a technical manufacturing partnership, requires India to extend the GSOMIA to the private sector”, says Ben Schwartz of the US-India Business Council.

Schwartz explains how this works in practice. If New Delhi chooses two private Indian firms to competitively build, say a tank; and they want to partner a US company, the American firm currently cannot share any classified information with them. It could share information with DPSUs like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd or Bharat Electronics, but not with L&T, or the Tatas.

GSOMIA is not a public document. It is one of four agreements – initially termed “foundational agreements” by Washington, but recently toned down to “enabling agreements” – required by US legislation for facilitating deeper defence cooperation.. A second agreement, the Logistic Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) that facilitates mutual logistical inter-dependence, was signed in 2016.

Two others are currently being negotiated. The Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), which safeguards secure communications equipment, is at a more advanced stage. There is less progress on the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Information and Services Cooperation (BECA), which lays down protocols for digital mapping and survey.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 Feb 2018 06:21

^OK, this is not India negotiating, it is the US pushing. An Indian credible source would have had a different effect. You can probably find a report like the one above going back even 10 years.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Feb 2018 16:20

ShauryaT wrote:^OK, this is not India negotiating, it is the US pushing. An Indian credible source would have had a different effect. You can probably find a report like the one above going back even 10 years.

If India's not negotiating why would the COMCASA be in a more advanced state than the BECA? You wouldn't find any reference to COMCASA going back 10 years, it was referred to as CISMOA until the negotiations began.

As for the credibility of the source, the same bit has been reported elsewhere too. From "The Hindu" by Dinaker Peri:

This has significant implications for several upcoming big ticket defence deals under the SP policy in which foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) have to partner with the private sector to build defence equipment domestically. This includes the soon to be initiated deal for a single engine fighter jet in which Lockheed F-16 is competing against SAAB Gripen. The two companies have already tied up with Tata and Adani groups respectively if they were to win the contest.

However, this is different from the foundational agreements for which discussions are underway. India and the U.S. concluded the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Understanding (LEMOA) last year and discussions are on for the other two namely — Communications Compatibility And Security Agreement (COMCASA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Information and Services Cooperation (BECA).

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 22 Feb 2018 14:15

Has Moscow moved its Su-57 stealth fighter into Syria?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Feb 2018 14:28

This will be a decent environment to put the prototypes in place for a few weeks. Gets them good PR and allows them to test interoperability with other aircraft in a more active setting. But besides that, these are still pre-production prototypes that do not represent the Su-57 in its final form so there will be some time before it is actually operational and able to conduct a wide set of missions in combat.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 22 Feb 2018 14:29

^^^^
I doubt it
i think Syria is afraid of Israeli and Turks attacking jointly in North and SOuth.
SYrian air defenses have been stretched thin

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Feb 2018 14:31

Khalsa wrote:^^^^
I doubt it
i think Syria is afraid of Israeli and Turks attacking jointly in North and SOuth.
SYrian air defenses have been stretched thin

What does that have to do with this? How does deploying 2 prototype fighters help with that? If you wanted to bolster Syrian defensive capabilities and shoot down or deter Israeli or Turkish aircraft violating their airspace, putting down a squadron or two of Su-30's or 35's would be more beneficial to the cause.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Feb 2018 14:50

More of the speculations discussion available here

:http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... s-to-syria

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Feb 2018 15:01

^^^^To enable the f-35 discussion.. (devil's advocate is LINK-16)
Here you go:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ever-24564

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Feb 2018 15:03

^ This is not relevant to this thread and Link-16 is not the answer to any of the issues cited here. The solution, much like what Israel has done (which is a L16 member) is to essentially use its own hardware and software to configure the F-35's SDR to use its own waveforms to support their own proprietary data link. Similarly, L16 capability is still retained to make it interoperable with other aircraft. The CNI suite on the F-35 is designed to be able to do this and to quickly add waveforms and communication links via limited hardware and custom software additions. This costs money and requires a technical solution so is not right for everyone who cannot or does not have a proprietary data link. In case of the IAF, they already have one operational so a similar solution to what the IDF has done with its C4 suite is appropriate. In case of the F-22 article you cited, the problem has a pretty well known and understood solution (for 5th to 5th) which is to upgrade the F-22's IFDL antennas to support MADL. This requires new generation wideband antennas and they were demo'd many years ago after the US DOD approved MADL addition to the F-22 fleet. However this was later set aside for budgetary reasons and the USAF asked to find a technical solution that did not require hardware upgrades to the aircraft. Their solution was to use Link-16 transmit capability and explore using currently embedded antennas or a gateway. The F-35' own MADL fixtures are getting an upgrade for block 4 and beyond and this could be looked at as a potential F-22 retrofit to expand its capabilities to communicate discretely with the F-35 and B-21. There are also efforts underway to add LPI modes to L16 communications in the future but IFDL/MADL share much more, more discretely.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Feb 2018 15:15

Point! :