PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - 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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chetak » 13 May 2018 12:08

Rakesh wrote:
Karan M wrote:4. No F-35 (I still don't understand why)

COMCASA.

There is a significant trust deficit between India and the US. It is still very much a transactional relationship and not a strategic relationship at all. America needs to drop the I-Am-Still-Emperor mentality, despite being $21 trillion in debt. It is unsustainable for them. They will eventually collapse, if they continue on this path.

If they want to seriously tackle the Dragon, they need to drop these nonsensical agreements like COMCASA. Stop playing Emperor and start thinking of partnership in the true meaning of the term. Stop molly coddling Pakistan and then ask for strategic partnership with India. That will not work. Stop shooting yourself in the foot (which they habitually did during the SEF contest) by putting out statements that are guaranteed to make them lose. Stop with the pompous lectures on human rights and religious rights in India and take care of your own backyard first ---> the "gun" problem, racial strife with non-whites, police brutality, etc...the list goes on.

Adopting the term from former US President Bill Clinton, "There is nothing wrong with India, that cannot be cured with what is right in India." Partner with us and make it better for both nations and for the world as a whole.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family


IMVHO, this is the root of all our problems and it limits our thinking.

"Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family"


We are talking of weapons and weapon systems and we traditionally close all arguments and talks/addresses/discussions by this one statement as though it is the panacea, the solution to all the worlds problems.

It just doesn't compute. Ideally and if it were truly "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" and everyone subscribed to that view, we wouldn't need any weapons.

It is like the declaration of a unilateral "cease fire" in cashmere "to better celebrate ramzan" even though the terrorists and the hardliner separatists haven't asked for it but the J&K CM wants the IA to unilaterally do it.

She would never dare ask the terrorists and the hardliner separatists to declare it first and guarantee it.

If not provoked by the terrorists and the hardliner separatists regrouping or fired upon by the jehadis, IA simply would not retaliate, period.

We should be practical and pragmatic. Carry the big stick, use swiftly when provoked and keep the powder always dry.

We should only talk the "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" concept when the others have clearly understood it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15356
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 14 May 2018 02:27

What a simple thing said by the CAS and completely accurate.

Just note the planform alignment when the J-20 is flying.

The bird is not really true VLO even in the front aspect.

https://mobile.twitter.com/OedoSoldier/ ... 86/video/1

At even 0.1 Sq Mtr, the J-20 will be detectable at BVR ranges by Su-30s and much further by AWACS.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5413
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 14 May 2018 06:20

chetak wrote:We are talking of weapons and weapon systems and we traditionally close all arguments and talks/addresses/discussions by this one statement as though it is the panacea, the solution to all the worlds problems.

Saar, I never insinuated anything like that :)

chetak wrote:It just doesn't compute. Ideally and if it were truly "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" and everyone subscribed to that view, we wouldn't need any weapons.

It is like the declaration of a unilateral "cease fire" in cashmere "to better celebrate ramzan" even though the terrorists and the hardliner separatists haven't asked for it but the J&K CM wants the IA to unilaterally do it.

She would never dare ask the terrorists and the hardliner separatists to declare it first and guarantee it.

If not provoked by the terrorists and the hardliner separatists regrouping or fired upon by the jehadis, IA simply would not retaliate, period.

We should be practical and pragmatic. Carry the big stick, use swiftly when provoked and keep the powder always dry.

We should only talk the "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" concept when the others have clearly understood it.

All I said is that the Americans need to drop the insistence of signing agreements like COMCASA. It is a stumbling block to Indo-US relations. We must not agree to having our communications monitored, in the name of interoperability with the US. They need to stop forcing their world view on other countries and it would serve both nations better, if they dropped that attitude. I used the term Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in that context and not as a solution to all problems of humanity :)

I do not want to detract from the topic at hand - PAKFA. So no more from me on this. My apologies to you chetak, if anything I said offended you.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17098
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chetak » 14 May 2018 10:16

Rakesh wrote:
chetak wrote:We are talking of weapons and weapon systems and we traditionally close all arguments and talks/addresses/discussions by this one statement as though it is the panacea, the solution to all the worlds problems.

Saar, I never insinuated anything like that :)

chetak wrote:It just doesn't compute. Ideally and if it were truly "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" and everyone subscribed to that view, we wouldn't need any weapons.

It is like the declaration of a unilateral "cease fire" in cashmere "to better celebrate ramzan" even though the terrorists and the hardliner separatists haven't asked for it but the J&K CM wants the IA to unilaterally do it.

She would never dare ask the terrorists and the hardliner separatists to declare it first and guarantee it.

If not provoked by the terrorists and the hardliner separatists regrouping or fired upon by the jehadis, IA simply would not retaliate, period.

We should be practical and pragmatic. Carry the big stick, use swiftly when provoked and keep the powder always dry.

We should only talk the "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam --> The world is one family" concept when the others have clearly understood it.

All I said is that the Americans need to drop the insistence of signing agreements like COMCASA. It is a stumbling block to Indo-US relations. We must not agree to having our communications monitored, in the name of interoperability with the US. They need to stop forcing their world view on other countries and it would serve both nations better, if they dropped that attitude. I used the term Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in that context and not as a solution to all problems of humanity :)

I do not want to detract from the topic at hand - PAKFA. So no more from me on this. My apologies to you chetak, if anything I said offended you.


Saar,

Please, no apologies needed from you. It was never meant for you. I should have made that clear. The fault is entirely mine, as is the apology too.

Our PM quotes it, it is also quoted in the UNGA by our folks and it gets my goat everytime that the philistines to whom we quote such a noble and enlightened concept are dismally incapable of understanding it and they all see it as a sign of weakness, little realizing that we have been putting our money where our mouth is for centuries now by providing shelter, succor and sanctuary to oppressed peoples like the syrian catholics, the jews and the parsis, just to name a few.

Regarding the amreki "agreements", I entirely agree with you and have said so many a time myself. They are now beginning to take us for granted and their inimical deep state has begun to see us as an already tamed ghar ki murgi, to be pushed around at will.

We have to be careful of the minefield of afghanistan into which they seem very determined to drag us willy nilly, completely disregarding our legitimate interests and security concerns.

Their persistent and dogged pursuit of these "agreements" is indicative of a much deeper intent and a desire to enmesh us further in their global shenanigans. Probably, they are seeking to replace the UK or at least to also co opt India as one of their pet, "ask no questions" global lieutenants and gofer.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 19 May 2018 10:45

Continuation of tests of the flying laboratory T-50-2 with the engine of the "second stage"

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/107232/

Image
Image

Flying laboratory-aircraft T-50-2 (board number "052") in flight with the engine "product 30" (installed on the left). Zhukovsky, 05/17/2018 © Aleksey Karpulyov / russianplanes.net
Spotter photographs from Zhukovsky captured the continuation there of flight tests of the flying laboratory of the fifth generation fighter T-50-2 (onboard number "052") with one experimental model of the "second stage" engine, "product 30", created for the PAK FA.

The second flight prototype PAK FA aircraft T-50-2 was converted into a flying laboratory, instead of one of the two engines "product 117" (left), a prototype engine "product 30" was installed. The first flight of the so-modified airplane t-50-2 with the engine "product 30" took place in Zhukovsky on December 5, 2017. Flight tests of this flying laboratory with the engine "product 30" were resumed in Zhukovsky in February 2018.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 26 May 2018 10:32

PAK-FA fired Kh-59MK during Syrian campaign in March from Internal Bay

Image

Image


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 26 May 2018 10:35

Starts at 5 minutes 25 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeeTJbd9w6M

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 26 May 2018 18:28

Fantastic! Is this the stealth version with a 550km range for Russia? Some reports say that we will also get a spl. export + version with a range of 350km+.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby pravula » 26 May 2018 23:55

Philip wrote:Fantastic! Is this the stealth version with a 550km range for Russia? Some reports say that we will also get a spl. export + version with a range of 350km+.


Spl meaning detuned and derated? Nothing special about it

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 27 May 2018 14:01

Export versions less than 300km.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 28 May 2018 07:20

Bays open IRL image. Finally!!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 31 May 2018 10:14

Presentation of the engine of the first stage of the AL-41F-1 fighter PAK FA

No English translation there , Can some one read it can translate key points ? Original PDF Link http://www.aviationunion.ru/Files/Nom_7_OKB_L_11.pdf

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3221633.html

It is interesting presentation ( original ) of the engine of the first stage of the AL-41F-1 ( "Article 117"), established for the PAK FA fighter (Su-57), in "Experimental Design Bureau named after A. Lyulka" (Moscow, a branch of PJSC "UEC-Ufa motor-building production association ") and representing the nomination of A. Lyulka Design Bureau for the contest" Aviastroitel of the Year "following the results of 2017 in the nomination" For success in the development of aviation equipment and components (OKB of the year). "

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Eric Leiderman » 09 Jun 2018 01:50

Q and A to the Indian ambassador to Russia.

http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/5274171

Translator reqd

the media reported that India withdrew from the joint project with Russia to build a fifth generation FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) fighter. Can you confirm this?

- I can only say that the negotiations are continuing, thanks to which there is already a clearer understanding of each other's priorities and plans for the future.



Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/5274171


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1126
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Jun 2018 12:30

The amount of venom for DRDO is visible for everyone to see in teh article

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62692
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 13 Jun 2018 12:41

saw that today morning. someone got cheated out of a farmhouse, a benz and a cavorting session with elite natashas.

with nearly 300 MKI in service whose key parts are made in russia like radar and engine components , they will be "well fed" for the next 30 years surely.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Jun 2018 14:42

ArjunPandit wrote:The amount of venom for DRDO is visible for everyone to see in teh article


Considering the author is blaming the ex DRDO chief Christopher , This article contradicts the earlier one which blamed the IAF this one says IAF concerns were getting addresses but DRDO chief says the technology could be developed.

The IAF does not have the Capex to fund so many programs and the current urgent ones from IAF chief interview is the new 110 Fighter and Tejas program with that the S-400 buy for IAF and so many other programs for IAF alone they wont have capex for many year now to fund high end program like FGFA , Even the IN is suffering from critical program of minesweeper and ASW hello for many years not to mention so many others its the most neglected service today while IAF gets all the malai.

IAF can always outright purchase PAK-FA at a later date in the next decade atleast they have worked out the specs of FGFA with HAL so the technology road map for the future is clear.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2018 15:09

That is a mighty tall claim by the DRDO when after 3 decades + they haven't produced one single Kaveri engine and are using firang engines, radars and other eqpt. on the LCA. This claim was meant to give the deal an indecent burial because the sad truth is that there is no moolah in the kitty and the Rafale lobby and R co. want more ultra- expensive and 4++ gen Rafales bought instead of the FGFA.For the same cost buying the std.SU-57 is always an option but the setback to our stealth ambitions will now cost us at least a decade.With the GOI
struggling to fund the LCA programme and as Austin has pointed out so many demands for major toy. items from the other services, the FGFA right now is not the top priority, and one has to acknowledge the fact.

It would've been more honest to say that we don't have the money now than to have spun another tall tale.Sure, the DRDO will eventually develop 5th-gen tech but in how many years time? By then, major air forces will be developing the next-gen fighters and UCAVs!

It's why my proposal of developing the LCA Mk-2 with as much stealth as possible as an interim measure before we embark full-fledged on the AMCA whatever, gains strength.It will also give the DRDO to put our hard-earned taxpayer's money where its mouth is! It should seize the opportunity now and prove it can do the biz.Ultimately we all want as much indigenisation as possible but in a clear time frame to fit in with the long term perspective planning by the services so that they do not face acute shortages due to non-appearance of promised milware.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Jun 2018 02:33

The PAK-FA seems to be getting proper burial with scape goats and mud slinger army and mutual love for each other's country and their great leaders but who could not prevent sabotage by out of control agencies.

Look criticise whatever or whoever you want.
PAK-FA would have been Vikramaditya 35 times worse.
No Congress or BJP would have signed off.

Congress probably thanks BJP for manning up and signing up for the Rafales.

We cannot afford
continued development of LCA MK1
new development of LCA MK2
AMCA
PAK-FA

From my perspective, I would be happy if the Russians sold it to Chinese, Pakistani, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka.
Honestly I would be very happy, it would be akin to Aliens landing in antarctica.
It would unite India like never before and spur the best period of development.

My best wishes for Mother Russia.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6736
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Jun 2018 02:42

I would not be happy if PakFA ends up with the Pakis or Cheenis. The power of that plane is gross underestimated. It is head and shoulders over ANY plane flying or in development in the Eastern hemisphere. On a head to head between the PAKFA and the F-35, I will put my money on the PAKFA blindly . That is all that I would say.

But I agree that we came out of the tamasha of "co-development". Just buy if we need to.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Raveen » 14 Jun 2018 03:12

Indranil wrote: On a head to head between the PAKFA and the F-35, I will put my money on the PAKFA blindly.




Why?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Jun 2018 07:54

Indranil wrote:Just buy if we need to.


I used to say that about a year ago and I guess we could if we need to.
However that particular bit NEED.

That bit is open, I can tell you what the country needs, a war mongerer can tell what the country needs, a plant can tell you what you need.
That is the bit that will be out of control and far open and wide to interpretation.


You sir, will develop that is better than PAK-FA because you will deploy it in mass.
Not like Pakistan Air Force PAK_FA that will have less than 50% serviceability.

Watch what happens with LCA MK2 development.
Time for cookie cutting is coming

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby srin » 14 Jun 2018 08:11

The FGFA was doomed with HAL (and not DRDO) being the development partner. Not aware of any 5th gen technologies that HAL is working on.

OTOH, having PAK-FA in the MKI model - get the basic platform, then upgrade what is deficient - and after the MKI order is over, is a sound plan. I don't know if we can get it at a reasonable cost, though.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2843
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Kashi » 14 Jun 2018 08:52

srin wrote:The FGFA was doomed with HAL (and not DRDO) being the development partner. Not aware of any 5th gen technologies that HAL is working on.

OTOH, having PAK-FA in the MKI model - get the basic platform, then upgrade what is deficient - and after the MKI order is over, is a sound plan. I don't know if we can get it at a reasonable cost, though.


As it has been pointed out above, MKI plan has impeded us from developing many local capabilities by tying down their procurement from Russian sources. No reason to believe that Russians will not push for a similar locked-down deal for PAK-FA/FGFA. Indeed this may have been the prime reason for an FGFA agreement falling through.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6736
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Jun 2018 10:32

Raveen wrote:
Indranil wrote: On a head to head between the PAKFA and the F-35, I will put my money on the PAKFA blindly.




Why?

Because I interact with people working on operationalizing the F-35 at least once a week.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2018 10:47

Sev. years ago a sr.Ru minister asked the Q about what parts of the JV we wished to work on as the project was gathering speed and said we needed to make up our minds fast.It never happened.The hard truth is that we were unable to contribute in any significant way due to lack of skilled design manpower.At that time the IJT team was also asked to look after the FGFA programme! The LCA was still uncertain with no firm orders having been placed and focus was on getting that programme saved from the dustbin .The IAF were then all excited about the MMRCA contest, which was also being relentlessly pushed for by vested interests who have signed up with Dassault for local support, despite never having built even a paper plane!

As the years progressed, the FGFA window of opportunity of joining the programme in a meaningful way closed rapidly to the point where it is now a virtually closed one. We now as with the MKI can only tinker with incremental options and improvements and buy the std. SU-57 variant just as we're buying with the Rafale or modifying as with the MKI.The IAF's strange obsession with a twin-seat FGFA version also lost us precious years , which would've also cost a lot extra developing plus even more development time.

Our pussy-footing on what should've been considered the most important aircraft programme for the IAF's future, has resulted in the current fiasco.The haste to buy a firang fighter ( Rafale) when we already are building the MKIs , an alternative as MP said openly, has cost us a JV
stealth bird for at least a decade+. One wonders now whether he was gently eased out as DM for his independent thinking or wanted a change as he couldn't get his way. We can now only buy the SU-57 at a premium which the Russians will definitely ask for keeping in mind the hugely exorbitant Rafale pricing
which is now a benchmark price for a 4++ gen. bird.

It's why I maintain that we should build LCA Mk1-As as much as possible and develop the Mk-2 as an interim bird with some degree of stealth, as the AMCA will take a minimum of at least 10 years, perhaps even more for LSP production.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3387
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 14 Jun 2018 11:00

^^ Utter Bullshit. Its completely Russia's fault that they failed hopelessly in inciting any confidence in IAF's mind that PAKFA can be what they want it to be. Even the ultra corrupt UPA didnt dare finalize the deal and that says something about Russia's inability to convince India worth of money they wanted us to invest. They never shared anything about the program while expecting us to just invest billions blindily. You are making fool of yourself if you think its all HAL's fault.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Jun 2018 11:20

It is not any bodys fault here indeed the commitee set up by MOD under Retd Air Marshal to look into HAl and IAF concerns on FGFA has given up the go ahead to the project.

It is question of Fund , Where does IAF today has CAPEX to buy new 110 fighter , S-400 , Tejas , Transport Aircraft of Medium Category to replace An-32 , Upgrading ADGES and so many other programs that has not seen any go ahead in the last 5 years much before NDA come to power .

MOD also has to take care of IN and IA needs where there are equal or more important projects that needs funding , I can name a few but every one knows what it is.

MOD cannot fund all these program before streamlining on the priority and FGFA is not a priority today or in next 5 years too , The key goal of IAF today is to bring its squadron strength to 42 asap and FGFA wont have come online before 2025 in at best 1 squadron. Our Defence Funding as percentage of GDP has shown a decline in recent years and expensive program already signed like $9 billion Rafale deal and some signed earlier will take significant chunk of capex in year to come.

MOD can look into the program later when its priority is met and can fund other program may be 5-8 years from now.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby srin » 14 Jun 2018 11:25

To me, the primary reason to go with PAKFA is to help AMCA development - because of timelines. AMCA won't be ready for another 10 years, and PAKFA is *probably* good enough in a couple of years.

While it'd be good to put a bit of pressure on ADA to get on with AMCA, undue pressure with unrealistic timelines is going to hurt us. To the extent that PAKFA can relieve the excessive time-pressure on ADA, it would be considered beneficial.

So, forget co-development and all that non-sense (that bridge was crossed long ago). Get PAKFA as cheaply as possible and as quickly as possible with the ability to modify it as much as possible, modify the avionics etc when you can. Okay let HAL have its factories producing it (and call it "deep TOT" or whatever marketing nonsense it can come up with). And have it as a counter for whatever Chinese can bring up in next 10 years. We'll struggle with spares and other things - yeah, accept that it is part of the package. So PAKFA is a pure stop-gap in my mind.

But in the meantime, keep the focus on developing our own technologies and get the first AMCA prototype flying as quickly as possible. I don't see too much capex consumption during the development and testing phase. So, earmark funds (out of R&D budget - why take it out of IAF budget ?) and keep it moving. And when the AMCA is ready (10 years from now), then start building a few dozens each year. That's our plane, we need to support it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Jun 2018 11:27

Indranil wrote:
Raveen wrote:

Why?

Because I interact with people working on operationalizing the F-35 at least once a week.


F-35 is a medium category fighter it lacks the persistent it needs to be in air , it does not have another key aspect which is Super Cruise.

If we have to fully exploit the Sensor Grid and other capabilities of F-35 we will have to sign on the dotted lines of COMCASA its a no go area for us knowing the risk involved with that agreement.

I dont know about the maintenance aspect etc which perhaps you might know better.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7800
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Pratyush » 14 Jun 2018 11:36

Indranil wrote:
Raveen wrote:

Why?

Because I interact with people working on operationalizing the F-35 at least once a week.


That means that everything is perfect with Pak fa. Just because people speak freely about American platform and same information is not available ro you about the Russian platform. You cannot conclude which is better or which will be victorious over the other.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6736
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Jun 2018 11:56

I didnt say PAKFA is perfect. In aerodynamic prowess it is second to none, not even F-22. F-35 in this respect is somewhere in the 5th or 6th place. Pakfa, f-22, Su-35, Rafale, EF, then may be the F-35.

In the sheer amount of sensors and the energy that is sent out through those sensors, PAKFA is second to none.

In quality control, in mass production, sensor fusion, nothing touches the F-35.

In RCS reduction, F-35 has made similar compromises as the Pakfa. The only dofference is that Pakfas engines are bot completely shielded by the inlet. But there are workarounds for this.
But, a flying Pakfa vs flying F-35, my

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby tsarkar » 14 Jun 2018 12:47

Indranil wrote:In the sheer amount of sensors and the energy that is sent out through those sensors, PAKFA is second to none.

On paper. As design specs.

And as we discovered in the LCA Tejas Saga, there is huge gap between Design Specs in 1993 and Achieved Specs in IOC-1 in 2011, IOC-2 in 2013 & FOC in 2018.

There is a whole lot of testing involved. Like Tejas development testing and MMRCA user testing where all 5 contenders were rigorously tested and Eurofighter and Rafale were technological winners.

https://www.livemint.com/Politics/De5tl ... -jets.html
“The four companies that have not made the shortlist have been rejected on technical grounds. Grounds for rejection have been conveyed to them individually,” he said without specifying the reasons.

The person making this statement was Sitanshu Kar, then Spokesperson Ministry of Defence.

IAF has not been privy to either development testing data or user testing data (if PAKFA has entered that phase) or even allowed to test it themselves.

Yet we're supposed to be dazzled by design specs, brochures, photos and buy it! It like someone posting Cindy Crawford's photo on Shaadi.com and asking to marry based on that photo!

And the fake conspiracy theories continue -

Philip wrote:The hard truth is that we were unable to contribute in any significant way due to lack of skilled design manpower.

That is false. Can you corroborate your statement with facts?

Austin wrote:It is question of Fund , Where does IAF today has CAPEX to buy new 110 fighter

MoD/IAF had invested USD 250 million on it with zero outcome. It was more than happy to invest more provided there was joint development.

The PAKFA is Emperor's new clothes. Utterly naked behind brochures and photos.

Unless IAF is given access to development data and user testing, it is a horribly bad deal, even simple purchase of aircraft minus ToT minus co-development.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Jun 2018 13:03

tsarkar wrote:MoD/IAF had invested USD 250 million on it with zero outcome. It was more than happy to invest more provided there was joint development.

The PAKFA is Emperor's new clothes. Utterly naked behind brochures and photos.

Unless IAF is given access to development data and user testing, it is a horribly bad deal, even simple purchase of aircraft minus ToT minus co-development.


Without having access to data how would HAL and later the Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthama committee set up by MOD would have looked into IAF and HAL requirement and would have given the go ahead , These data are available with the MOD you dont do comprehensive audit with a commitee setup by Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman with just brochures and photos as data.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby RKumar » 14 Jun 2018 14:07

PAKFA might be a good aircraft, but it does not make business sense to pay An-214 full of dollars to get the aircraft only. We contribute 50% of the development and industrialization costs without getting IP or deep know-how tech transfer or to block aircraft sale to direct adversary.

Now you decided, should we give a blank cheque to our friends?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3387
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 14 Jun 2018 14:33

Austin wrote:
tsarkar wrote:MoD/IAF had invested USD 250 million on it with zero outcome. It was more than happy to invest more provided there was joint development.

The PAKFA is Emperor's new clothes. Utterly naked behind brochures and photos.

Unless IAF is given access to development data and user testing, it is a horribly bad deal, even simple purchase of aircraft minus ToT minus co-development.


Without having access to data how would HAL and later the Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthama committee set up by MOD would have looked into IAF and HAL requirement and would have given the go ahead , These data are available with the MOD you dont do comprehensive audit with a commitee setup by Air Marshal Simhakutty Varthaman with just brochures and photos as data.


Austin, this is very late development AFAIK. Only recently, in last couple of years, our guys were given some proper access to the program. Until now they were used to be shown the prototype from half a mile and would be asked to believe whatever Russians were claiming about it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62692
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Singha » 14 Jun 2018 14:34

>>F-35 is a medium category fighter it lacks the persistent it needs to be in air

brar_w sir was saying the F-35 combat radius with a useful USN load was demanded and achieved as 900 miles which is lot more than F-18 and future demands are 1200 miles with a more fuel sipping engine.

if they sling two drop tanks under the wings, the combat radius would exceed the 1500km of the F15/Su30 types.

they have developed a optimized composite structure - but not yet IOC

Massa continues to take advantage of its trump card - powerful but fuel efficient engines

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21767
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Jun 2018 14:48

Well if you consider the fact that our Su can do a 1500 km radius with internal fuel and 5300 with one refueling range , PAK-FA carries more internal fuel more than 11 tons and had more fuel efficient engine plus super cruise , which would mean without AB it would cover more range at supersonic speed than any subsonic fighter can do. If you add drop tanks then its different game.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3387
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 14 Jun 2018 15:42

There is no point in comparing F35 and PAKFA head on as standalone fighter. Both are designed using completely different doctrine, are of different weight class and work best in their native environment. Given the only thing that is common between the two is that they are both 5th Gen aircrafts, IAF is highly unlikely to look at them as alternative to each other.

But if one is hell bent on doing the comparison still, in all likelihood F35 will fall short in such comparison, simply because its designed as a network-centric jack of all workhorse and not as a Air-superiority fighter. F22 is closer competitor for PAKFA.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, chaitanya, Kakarat, Rakesh and 30 guests