Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
Vips
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 20 Oct 2017 22:24


The proposed FGFA program does not meet desired stealth and cross section features compared to a F-35 fighter, the official explained, thus major structural changes are needed that cannot be met in the existing Russian prototypes.


Vaijinder K Thakur, retired IAF squadron leader and defense analyst disagreement with the Air Force assessment of capability, saying that the current Russian FGFA prototype, known as Su-57, features the AL-41F1 engine. But the production variant of FGFA would be fitted with the Product 30 engine which is 30 percent lighter, features improved thrust, and has better fuel efficiency and fewer moving parts. That results in improved reliability and 30 percent lower life-cycle cost, Thakur said.


Fair enough let the Russians in a time bound manner first produce the Product 30 engine and ensure the RCS is at F35 and F22 comparable levels, only then should IAF be asked to put in more money into the program or should commit to buying the FGFA . Unless of course items of more strategic nature are offered as a trade-off.

Russians have offered non-modular engines for FGFA and its maintenance and other relations can only be handled by the manufacturer.


This in itself should be considered as deal breaker. We do not want to be in a ridiculous situation of having to ship engines to Russia or even to any other location for servicing it.
Last edited by Vips on 20 Oct 2017 22:29, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 20 Oct 2017 22:29

Fair enough let the Russians in a time bound manner first produce the Product 30 engine and ensure the RCS is at F35 and F22 comparable levels, only then should IAF be asked to put in more money into the program or should commit to buying the FGFA . Unless of course items of more strategic nature are offered as a trade-off.


Why? Wouldn't it be better to benchmark the program to what requirements were provided and/or agreed upon when the MOD decided to contribute $250 Million to the project? I mean, the performance values promised to them at the time and presumably agreed upon by the MOD?

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 20 Oct 2017 22:33

Logically yes but looking at the nature of our relations with Russia and even Russia's track record of honoring its commitments with India (T72 barrels, Naval missiles, Vikramaditya purchase, Mig 29 engines and under carriage issues, Kilo class refit in India) using any pretext for non compliance to contractual obligations by Russia is a given.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 20 Oct 2017 23:55

brar_w wrote:Why? Wouldn't it be better to benchmark the program to what requirements were provided and/or agreed upon when the MOD decided to contribute $250 Million to the project? I mean, the performance values promised to them at the time and presumably agreed upon by the MOD?

Since you brought this up, I am gonna take a stab at this.

Did the MoD even know what they were agreeing to? Did the IAF even take a glance at this before the MoD signed on the dotted line and frivolously gave away $250 million to the Russians? I doubt it, because the IAF would not be balking at the state of the project now. Get out from the project, sign for a FACO line for the F-35 (and thus give the SE contract to the Americans onlee). I am impressed that the IAF is looking for F-35 capabilities in the PAK-FA. Since now that PAK-FA is not shaping up to the standards of the IAF, ask the Americans for the F-35 and end the PAK-FA tamasha, SE tamasha and Gripen love-fest tamasha.

P.S. And I believe the F-35 fires the Meteor missile....a weapon that the IAF loves.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 21 Oct 2017 01:05

It is not going to happen, but ordering the F35 would be like killing two birds with one stone (The SE and FGFA). In that case what would Russia's reaction be? Give a couple of squadrons of SU35 for free to Pakistan? Hopefully Philip will lobby and help prevent that. :lol:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4976
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ShauryaT » 21 Oct 2017 02:24

See comparing to the F-35 is just fine but asking if the IAF has asked how does the FGFA stack up to the competition it is likely to face in the region is not Kosher? There has been an unwritten rule after the NSSP has been signed with the US. No more new Russian equipment, to the degree possible. The evolution from a defacto to dejure alliance is well in progress.

Congratulations to all, who have desired such an outcome.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 21 Oct 2017 02:49

Knowing how tough our qualitative requirements are i am sure IAF would have done a competent job in quantifying its technical parameters for the FGFA when they signed the agreement with the Russians.
But naturally a Fifth Generation jet will be compared to its contemporary, What is wrong in that? If in future IAF is going to be up against hostile JXX or FXX , then it is only natural it will expect a true blue fifth generation craft with all the bells and whistles. Do you expect IAF to lower its standards just because it is coming from Russia. What kind of logic is that??
Last edited by Vips on 21 Oct 2017 02:54, edited 1 time in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3328
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Oct 2017 02:53

^^^Condolences to all those who wished us to be in splendid isolation kowtowing to the Chinese Empire and gazing in wonder at the perfect people in Young Pioneer magazines from the FSU, even as we sacrificed our own interests to be in harmony with the 'workers' paradise.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3328
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Oct 2017 02:57

Vips wrote:It is not going to happen, but ordering the F35 would be like killing two birds with one stone (The SE and FGFA). In that case what would Russia's reaction be? Give a couple of squadrons of SU35 for free to Pakistan? Hopefully Philip will lobby and help prevent that. :lol:


Russia can be bought by offering collaboration and funding on SSN/SSBN. Let them sell SU-35/57 AMG Biturbos to Pakistan. If they give them away, that's a different story. Pakistan does not have the funds

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3328
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cosmo_R » 21 Oct 2017 03:03

Rakesh wrote: I am impressed that the IAF is looking for F-35 capabilities in the PAK-FA. Since now that PAK-FA is not shaping up to the standards of the IAF, ask the Americans for the F-35 and end the PAK-FA tamasha, SE tamasha and Gripen love-fest tamasha.

P.S. And I believe the F-35 fires the Meteor missile....a weapon that the IAF loves.


Finally we are on the same plane (as it were). I believe we should go the FACO route and settle on the F-35 even as we pursue the AMCA. I'd gladly chuck the F-16 stuff if we settle on the F35

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Oct 2017 04:07

Cosmo_R wrote:
Rakesh wrote: I am impressed that the IAF is looking for F-35 capabilities in the PAK-FA. Since now that PAK-FA is not shaping up to the standards of the IAF, ask the Americans for the F-35 and end the PAK-FA tamasha, SE tamasha and Gripen love-fest tamasha.

P.S. And I believe the F-35 fires the Meteor missile....a weapon that the IAF loves.


Finally we are on the same plane (as it were). I believe we should go the FACO route and settle on the F-35 even as we pursue the AMCA. I'd gladly chuck the F-16 stuff if we settle on the F35


Yes at the very least, combine the damned sef fiasco and the Navy requirement into an f35 faco line.

I'm not sure though that the goi will drop the pakfa in favor of the jsf irrespective of IAF misgivings. Especially if HAL his in favor of the bird. However, if that does happen, expect a boatload of hardware from the Russians like s400 and akulas.

Be that as it may, the faco line for the f35 stands on its own merit.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20350
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Prem » 21 Oct 2017 04:39

So F35 will be SE 125 for AF + Navy 54 Total 179 =25-30 Billion $ acquisition over 10-12 year?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Oct 2017 04:53

Yes. I expect the costs to be not very different from say 126 f16 and 57 shornet or Rafale. Not to mention greater costs associated with logistics and supplies.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 11:19

ShauryaT wrote:See comparing to the F-35 is just fine but asking if the IAF has asked how does the FGFA stack up to the competition it is likely to face in the region is not Kosher?

The IAF will face S-300 & S-400 class SAM systems, a variety of long range ground & aerostat based radars, AESA equipped J-10s & J-11s, KJ-3000 AWACS and more, tied together by a very modern C4I system. So the "if PAK FA > J-20 then induct" logic doesn't apply.

Aside from which, the PAK FA's superiority is still an open question. Better performance is a given, but the J-20 is definitely stealthier, and may well be equipped with better mission systems. Given the J-20's production/service status, it will almost certainly hit benchmark reliability/maintainability standards before the PAK FA. Its also got a far far better resourced evolution path.

There has been an unwritten rule after the NSSP has been signed with the US. No more new Russian equipment, to the degree possible. The evolution from a defacto to dejure alliance is well in progress.

Which begs the question - where did the agreements for the Ka-226, 3rd batch of Talwars & S-400 come from?

- The Talwar was chosen instead of more Shivaliks (or P-17As if the schedule permitted) - because Russia found itself with two Grigorovich hulls without propulsion in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis and India had to oblige.

- The Ka-226 was competing against the Airbus Fennec for the RSH/LUH contract one day, and had exclusive negotiating rights the next day - because Russia promised "Make-in-India".

- An RFI for a long range SAM system was never released. No competitors were evaluated (THAAD, MEADS, Arrow-3, Aegis-Ashore). An MoU was simply signed with Russia one day and that was that. And according to recent reports - the offsets requirement is being waived entirely to push the $6 bn deal through.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 21 Oct 2017 11:58

The news of FGFA selection by Committe by MOD or IAF Rejection are speculative write quoting Unnamed High Level Sources , IAF chief stated that both the reports are classified and are with MOD and it is MOD role to deliberate on all the reports/facts presented to it and come to a conclusion which they would eventually and we would known what the final deal stands at.

Till then we will have to gulp all kind of trash thrown by Indian Journalism , Defence News quoting Vivek Raghuvanshi says FGFA is rejected by IAF quoting unnamed sources the same author 2 months back quoting the same unnamed sources mentioned FGFA deal was ready to be signed

If India Media reports from Rafale deal is any benchmark to go by then since 2011 to 2016 when the deal was signed we heard all kind of reports without any facts presented and quoting unnamed sources while finally turned out to be different compared to what MOD wanted and signed on and the value we got from media too turned out to be way off mark.
Last edited by Austin on 21 Oct 2017 12:12, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 21 Oct 2017 12:10

Rakesh wrote: I am impressed that the IAF is looking for F-35 capabilities in the PAK-FA. Since now that PAK-FA is not shaping up to the standards of the IAF, ask the Americans for the F-35 and end the PAK-FA tamasha, SE tamasha and Gripen love-fest tamasha.

P.S. And I believe the F-35 fires the Meteor missile....a weapon that the IAF loves.


You got to be impressed because the same brochourites driven IAF needing xyz from foreign weapon system has been the Achilles Heel of many indiginous programs since they did not meet those exalted foreign standards , And reason why after 70 years of independence the IAF is still a 90 % plus foreign aircraft in its inventory either purchased or build under Lic to foreign design.

You got to be more impressed because the same IAF now wants another foreign design aircraft presumably to meet its 90 % standard of operating Foreign designed aircraft by having an SE competition when they have a Tejas available ! :((

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 12:43

Austin wrote:You got to be impressed because the same brochourites driven IAF needing xyz from foreign weapon system has been the Achilles Heel of many indiginous programs since they did not meet those exalted foreign standards , And reason why after 70 years of independence the IAF is still a 90 % plus foreign aircraft in its inventory either purchased or build under Lic to foreign design.

You got to be more impressed because the same IAF now wants another foreign design aircraft presumably to meet its 90 % standard of operating Foreign designed aircraft by having an SE competition when they have a Tejas available !

The F-35 doesn't impinge upon the Tejas' prospects in the least. Its in a different class and will be tasked with a different role. Minimal overlap with the Tejas' more basic workhorse functions.

If anything, the overlap is with the PAK FA and, to a lesser extent, the Rafale. When the former matures, the Tejas line at HAL can be replaced with an FGFA line, in the 2026-2030 period.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2017 14:52

An RFI for a long range SAM system was never released. No competitors were evaluated (THAAD, MEADS, Arrow-3, Aegis-Ashore).


These are easy choices. THAAD/Arrow-3 is only ATBM, MEADS is not long range (designed around mobility and low logistical footprint), and AEGIS Ashore can't emplace and displace so isn't mobile.

By choosing the S-400, the IAF and MOD have clearly shown that they required a long range SAM, and not purely a long range ABM system. If the latter was the main driver than longer ranged ABM systems such as THAAD, A3, or even S500 (future) may have been looked at (plus there are domestic systems on the cusp of being inducted) as they are better suited with better sensor coverage for the mission, and better interceptor kinematics to reach out and kill warheads at longer ranges.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 17:21

brar_w wrote:These are easy choices. THAAD/Arrow-3 is only ATBM, MEADS is not long range (designed around mobility and low logistical footprint), and AEGIS Ashore can't emplace and displace so isn't mobile.

By choosing the S-400, the IAF and MOD have clearly shown that they required a long range SAM, and not purely a long range ABM system.

If the latter was the main driver than longer ranged ABM systems such as THAAD, A3, or even S500 (future) may have been looked at

Five regiments of S-400 will protect two to three major Indian cities including the capital city of New Delhi. In terms of configuration, India would need two surveillance radars each with phased array and multipath radar with range of 600km across 180 degrees to track up to 100 targets simultaneously. Moreover, each regiment which comprises two batteries with eight launchers will require one sectoral radar to acquire hostile target and pass its coordinates to the sectoral command post. Each Tractor Erector Launcher (TEL) which houses the missiles can carry four 48N6 missiles or two 40N6 missiles. - link

In any event, your logic would make RFIs functionally redundant. An RFI is issued to elicit official submissions from available OEMs. If an RFP is subsequently only issued to one vendor that is a different matter.

(plus there are domestic systems on the cusp of being inducted) as they are better suited with better sensor coverage for the mission, and better interceptor kinematics to reach out and kill warheads at longer ranges.

I'm yet seen any confirmation on that score.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5915
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 21 Oct 2017 17:41

In any event, your logic would make RFIs functionally redundant. An RFI is issued to elicit official submissions from available OEMs. If an RFP is subsequently only issued to one vendor that is a different matter.


The list you cited can easily become a list of 1 if the requirements call for - A Long range SAM, Mobility, and the ability to go after a diverse threat. That is the point. If the IAF required a mobile, multi-mode system capable of attacking aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles at medium to long ranges (depending upon target type of course) then this eliminates all of them except the S400. MEADS is a short to medium range system, AEGIS is not mobile, and THAAD and A3 can only attack one target set.

Request for Proposals, are usually preceded by a market survey before determining which systems even meet basic needs before reaching out and requesting materials, and briefings to further evaluate whether vendor should be allowed to submit a bid.

In any event, your logic would make RFIs functionally redundant. An RFI is issued to elicit official submissions from available OEMs.


Only when you have first determined that the available system even meets the requirements in the first place. If you wan't to shoot cruise missiles, you won't ask Raytheon to supply additional information on the THAAD since it has no interceptor or radar that can go after the threat. If you want a system that is relocatable, you won't reach out to the USN, or Lockheed and ask for information on AEGIS ashore. Similarly, if you have identified a need for a long range SAM system, you won't ask short to medium range SAM system's developers to provide additional information on their product.

Five regiments of S-400 will protect two to three major Indian cities including the capital city of New Delhi. In terms of configuration, India would need two surveillance radars each with phased array and multipath radar with range of 600km across 180 degrees to track up to 100 targets simultaneously. Moreover, each regiment which comprises two batteries with eight launchers will require one sectoral radar to acquire hostile target and pass its coordinates to the sectoral command post. Each Tractor Erector Launcher (TEL) which houses the missiles can carry four 48N6 missiles or two 40N6 missiles. - link


I don't understand the relevance of this information?
Last edited by brar_w on 21 Oct 2017 18:01, edited 3 times in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2017 17:48

The FGFA deal is facing flak in the media ,etc. becos of the Rafale lobby,French DM due to visit shortly.Timing of these reports not coincidental! The French are desperate (and their desi partners) as the SE deal is ahead in the order of Biz.The French ,US,Russians and Swedes are in a WWW style "king of the ring" slugfest.The FGFA deal is linked with so many other critical deals with RU,frigates (slow blg time in our yards,latest P-28 4 years late for example) urgently reqd.,S-400s to deal with Sino-Pak BMos,LUHs also reqd. sev.yrs ago-and the KA-226 won a fair fight against the Fennec please note; plus Akula subs,N-sub tech for our SSBNs,BMos etc.,etc.,that cancelling it would endanger the entire defence relationship with Russia.Therefore unlikely that the JV will be cancelled,modified perhaps.

Has any IAF team been given an F-35 demo or shown its RCS data? Has the same been shown for the SU-57 when the deal has yet to be sealed? The last official report was that all tech parameters had been agreed upon.2 conflicting reports (media) are supposedly with the GOI.
If we could compromise with the Rafale deal at such exorbitant costs where there were no other critical deals in the offing with France,dumping the FGFA deal-a critical req for the IAF post 2020+ endangering the aforementioned menu items already ordered would be catastrophic.

The JSF has never been offered and in any case first priorities are to US allies and partners who've invested in the bird.It is also v.v.expensive and would beggar the IN.What's the point of EMALS if you have the F-35B? The US is clearly pushing the IN for an EMALS CV with F-18s for interoperability in its grand scheme of things,making the IN its willing member of the anti-China posse.US carrier aircraft could then seamlessly operate from our CV's deck in any crisis.F-16s for the IAF and F-18s for the IN.Grand "back to the future" strategy what?! :rotfl:

There is precious little moolah in the kitty for all the goodies that the IAF want.Prioritising its needs budget wise is what is reqd.Some IAF sr. brass have said so in various reports.My gut feeling is that the FGFA and Rafales decisions will be pushed back until the SE deal is sealed.A smaller bill for the GOI, big boast of indigenous manufacture and collaboration on LCA dev.,AMCA tech transfer/assistance (v.possible bonus for the winner) assured,and a good electoral point to make compared with the UPA paralytic DM,PM,et al. The Rafale team want some toes in the door before the SE deal is sealed.

Just for the record,ck the WSJ for a fine report on the USN trying without much success
to hunt the Ru Krasnodar in the Meditt v.recently.The sub,a new RU Kilo-2 fired its Kalibir missiles against ISIS evading USN detection.A good piece on how RU subs are v.difficult to find.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 18:08

Philip wrote:The FGFA deal is linked with so many other critical deals with RU,frigates (slow blg time in our yards,latest P-28 4 years late for example) urgently reqd.,

ASW helicopters are urgently required, frigates are not.

S-400s to deal with Sino-Pak BMos,

No such thing as a Sino-Pak BMos and if there were, the S-400 wouldn't have been the way to deal with it.

LUHs also reqd. sev.yrs ago-and the KA-226 won a fair fight against the Fennec please note

Bull****. At no point, did the MoD declare the Ka-226 the winner of the RSH contract. An MoU was signed with Russia, and the open tender just evaporated.

plus Akula subs,N-sub tech for our SSBNs,BMos etc.,etc.

Russia was contracted to provide design assistance with the Arihant (much like DCNS in Brazil). Its done, the vessel is in service, further development is being done indigenously. There's no ToT linked to the Akula deal.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6555
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Mort Walker » 21 Oct 2017 18:18

Just how many Su-50 variants are the RuAF planning on buying by 2027? That should tell us the confidence level Russia has in it. Else India is being ripped off. Dump the FGFA, buy 100 more Su-30s to keep Russia pacified and get the Tejas in 1000+ numbers. There is no way India can be a global power if it continues to import major weapon systems from ANY country. We saw the debacle with the T-90 tank in the Russian tank competition, but the Chinese variants continued. That should have been an important lesson. Another lesson is that when all said in done, after 2020 the Chinese J-20 will be available in significant numbers albeit not as capable of the F-35, but far more competent than the Su-50.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2017 18:40

There's a huge list of reqs. including frigates.There was an official IN quote reg. the need for xtra FFGs some time ago and the negotiations have been going on for extra Talwars,building them in India ,for over 4 years! It was nothing to do with RU having a couple ready.That's coincidental becos of the UKR crisis where the IKR is refusing to sell engines for them to Russia.

Sorry spelling mistake,"Sino-Pak BMs" not BMos.

The point is not to keep anyone "pacified" but to understand the reasons for entering into a JV dev. years ago for a much needed future req. and then after spending some money trying to wriggle out of the same becos of pressure from other competitors for an inferior product.This is becoming abundantly clear as the days pass.It's not going to help the relationship.It would be diff. if we refused say the MIG-35 as we have no prior connection with the aircraft's development.Dumping the FGFA would be akin to breaking off an engagement.

Pl read June 2016 media reports of the KH winning the LUH contest.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 18:46

Philip wrote:There's a huge list of reqs. including frigates.There was an official IN quote reg. the need for xtra FFGs some time ago and the negotiations have been going on for extra Talwars,building them in India ,for over 4 years! It was nothing to do with RU having a couple ready.That's coincidental becos of the UKR crisis where the IKR is refusing to sell engines for them to Russia.

Lol. Coincidence huh? That's what you're going with? Okay. Just FYI - all services have an outstanding need for extra everything. If frigates were a priority follow-on Shivaliks would have been ordered ten years ago.

The point is not to keep anyone "pacified" but to understand the reasons for entering into a JV dev. years ago for a much needed future req. and then after spending some money trying to wriggle out of the same becos of pressure from other competitors for an inferior product.

There is no JV. We pay, the Russians deliver, that's how it works. And the Russians aren't a position to deliver a mature (i.e. reliable) aircraft in the near future.

Pl read June 2016 media reports of the KH winning the LUH contest.

Kindly post them.
Last edited by Viv S on 21 Oct 2017 18:49, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2017 18:49

Will do shortly.Shivaliks also v.late arrivals huge cost overruns.Read old CAG reports.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 18:56

Philip wrote:Will do shortly.

I'll wait.

Shivaliks also v.late arrivals huge cost overruns.Read old CAG reports.

Its an Indian product. And offering better value than four Grigorovich frigates for $4 billion i.e. a whopping $1 bn each.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2017 19:42

Ck your facts again.Costs,etc. Talwars vs completed Shivs first batch.By the way,all the principal armament on the Shivs,Talwars,Delhi's,were Russian!The only new systems are the main gun and B-8 SAM on the latest batches.These aren't desi by any means unless you're counting the JV for BMos or B-8!

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 21 Oct 2017 22:19

Cosmo_R wrote:
Finally we are on the same plane (as it were). I believe we should go the FACO route and settle on the F-35 even as we pursue the AMCA. I'd gladly chuck the F-16 stuff if we settle on the F35

I have been arguing for the F-35 FACO line ever since cybaru and brar mentioned the 'FACO line' early this year in the SE thread. I am sold on the idea of strategic alignment with America. You are preaching to the choir here. Where I disagree with is the platform being offered i.e. the F-16. And I am not going to buy the argument that the Americans are just responding to the requirements of what is stipulated in the tender. Because first of all, no tender has been released. All the IAF has asked for TO DATE is a single engine bird via a RFI. However, that is not a document set in stone. And if you want to win this competition, you don't just meet the requirements. You exceed them, just as Sweden is peddling the Gripen E with empty promises. It has been 10+ years since the first MMRCA contest was put out. The F-16 was rejected back then and it will get rejected again. And the Govt cannot interfere in the technical parameters of this test. You will have open revolt in the IAF if that occurs. But that is a moot point, because the Govt will have no clue on any of the technical parameters.

If America is really invested in the idea of a strategic alignment with India and if India is really serious about building up her capability vis-a-vis China, then scrap the SE fighter contest and go directly for a G2G deal with the Americans for a FACO line for a minimum of 100 F-35As plus 'X' number of F-35B/Cs for the Navy because EMALS is coming. And I could care less what the Swedes think. At the most they will lob a few Ikea meatballs at us. Also, station all the IAF F-35s in the Eastern theatre against China onlee. We do not need the F-35 against Pakistan. What the IAF has now is more than sufficient. To quote ACM Dhanoa, "The IAF can overwhelm the PAF." And for offsets in the G2G deal, get a MRO facility to maintain, repair and overhaul the F-35 in India onlee. General Electric, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin can keep the tech of the F-35 with them. They could hatch eggs on that tech for all I care. Let us assemble that plane in India via a FACO line. Build the factory now and start churning them out. Learn Transfer of Production on a 5th Gen platform.

And the Govt should push for the continued development of the Tejas aircraft. From Mk.1 --> Mk.1A ---> Mk.2

Time for Prime Minister Modi to really put the money where his mouth is. The Tejas is truly Make in India. Rest is assembly onlee.

If Mk.2 is anathema to the IAF, call her Mk1.B then. But if you want to see AMCA come on board, then Mk.2/Mk1.B is crucial. Same with the Naval Tejas as well. Continue the development of that platform also. Validate whatever concepts you need to. AMCA will follow. Remember, the F-22 and and the F-35 did not come directly from the P-51 Mustang :) The F-15 and the F-16 had to exist FIRST in various Blocks, over a span of three decades for the F-22 and the F-35 to come about.

Just in case, for youngies who do not know what a P-51 Mustang is --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... 51_Mustang

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 Oct 2017 22:34

Philip wrote:Ck your facts again.Costs,etc. Talwars vs completed Shivs first batch.

The ships we're talking about are priced at $1 billion each.

India, Russia discuss $4bn deal for 4 stealth frigates

By the way,all the principal armament on the Shivs,Talwars,Delhi's,were Russian!The only new systems are the main gun and B-8 SAM on the latest batches.These aren't desi by any means unless you're counting the JV for BMos or B-8!

The Shivalik is an indigenous ship the Krivak-III/Grigorovich is a Russian one. And a 'but their missiles were..' argument does not grant them any equivalence.
----------------------

Philip wrote:Pl read June 2016 media reports of the KH winning the LUH contest.

Viv S wrote:Kindly post them.

Philip wrote:Will do shortly.

Viv S wrote:I'll wait.

Still waiting.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14479
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 22 Oct 2017 03:14

Major cities including Delhi will be protected by the DRDO BMD system. The S-400 will complement them for use against airbreathing targets, such as aircraft, cruise missiles and other low RCS, lower profile flying targets. The BMD systems will have radars and equipment optimized for BMD profiles. The S-400s are multipurpose. A couple will likely go to the NE vs PLAAF to protect against their targeting our critical bases.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14479
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 22 Oct 2017 03:25



LOL, its been very obvious from several years now, the FGFA compromises on critical stealth parameters for speed and height, both of which would also require the new engine to enter service. By which time, IAF would again, like the Su-30 be expected to play several years of footsy with debugging the fighter and its spares etc.

Expect the IAF to ask GOI for a formal indent for the F-35.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3977
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 22 Oct 2017 04:38

Vips wrote:It is not going to happen, but ordering the F35 would be like killing two birds with one stone (The SE and FGFA). In that case what would Russia's reaction be? Give a couple of squadrons of SU35 for free to Pakistan? Hopefully Philip will lobby and help prevent that :lol:

Let the PAF also enjoy the reliability of Russian maal. Why should the IAF have all the fun?

We walked out of the MTA deal. Nothing happened. Nothing going to happen if we walk out of this either.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4976
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Oct 2017 08:32

Rakesh wrote:We walked out of the MTA deal. Nothing happened. Nothing going to happen if we walk out of this either.
Nothing at all Sir. Like morons, we order different jets in the category for AWACS, Special Forces, no replacement for AN-32 in sight and civilian Airbus and Boeings in the category by the 100's. A 15-20 ton payload carrying aircraft would suffice for many of these roles but NO we want the best of breed for each one of these. Good going to build native capacities and strategic investments.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 08:52

The MTA was a non-starter in comp. with the FGFA where considerable time has been spent by both sides on the issue ,some hard cash too.If the GOI want to cosy up to Uncle Sam as he retreats in the ME,Levant and desperately wants to be relieved in Afghanistan, it would be better to say so instead of bringing in excuses.One would seriously like to see what the alternatives are and the cost to us.

But if we do so and our enemies benefit with large sales of affordable Ru. weapons let's not b*tch about RU. in the future.Expecting the US cavalry to come rushing to our aid if China attacks would be the height of optimism.It is the US who want us to race to its rescue instead if the balloon goes up against China in the Asia-Pacific where an Indian navy and armed forces are clones of the US.Will an Indian govt. support such an eventuality if a spat does occur but China refrains from attacking India?

Back to the medium transport req.I agree with the above post.Why is there such a lust for so many diff. platforms? We now have another Yanqui bird for EW when we should've standardised on the EMB platform which is what was chosen for our desi AEW mini AWACS.Again lusting after the hugely expensive A-330 for tankers 3 times more expensive than the new IL-76s/78s which are vastly improved.The same platform chosen for our Phalcon AWACS! The IAF appear to want a "buffet" global ,with delicacies from every continent.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Oct 2017 08:53, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 22 Oct 2017 08:53

Rakesh wrote:
Vips wrote:It is not going to happen, but ordering the F35 would be like killing two birds with one stone (The SE and FGFA). In that case what would Russia's reaction be? Give a couple of squadrons of SU35 for free to Pakistan? Hopefully Philip will lobby and help prevent that :lol:

Let the PAF also enjoy the reliability of Russian maal. Why should the IAF have all the fun?

We walked out of the MTA deal. Nothing happened. Nothing going to happen if we walk out of this either.

Our MiG-29 has two faulty RD-33s. But their Blunder only has one. So they have advantage of a quicker path to 72 virgins.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 22 Oct 2017 09:00

Would be int. to see how many JF-17 crashes have been to faulty engines.When there is bias taking place excuses appear.As said before a war is taking place between the major manufacturers and huge lobbying going on for our $200B budget over the next few years.The media war in favour of x or y or denigrating a rival is in full flow.The govt. Would also like to conclude as many deals as poss.
before the next election to show that it performs better than the prev. paralytic party,hoping that the moolah will arrive later on.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby KrishnaK » 22 Oct 2017 10:58

Philip wrote: But if we do so and our enemies benefit with large sales of affordable Ru. weapons let's not b*tch about RU. in the future.
Then why all the b*tching about US selling Pakistan weaponry when we didn't buy any from them ? Just one example of the absurdities in your post.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19760
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 22 Oct 2017 11:25

Viv S wrote:
Austin wrote:You got to be impressed because the same brochourites driven IAF needing xyz from foreign weapon system has been the Achilles Heel of many indiginous programs since they did not meet those exalted foreign standards , And reason why after 70 years of independence the IAF is still a 90 % plus foreign aircraft in its inventory either purchased or build under Lic to foreign design.

You got to be more impressed because the same IAF now wants another foreign design aircraft presumably to meet its 90 % standard of operating Foreign designed aircraft by having an SE competition when they have a Tejas available !

The F-35 doesn't impinge upon the Tejas' prospects in the least. Its in a different class and will be tasked with a different role. Minimal overlap with the Tejas' more basic workhorse functions.

If anything, the overlap is with the PAK FA and, to a lesser extent, the Rafale. When the former matures, the Tejas line at HAL can be replaced with an FGFA line, in the 2026-2030 period.

My bet is we won't see F-35 in service in near/medium future as there is no official reqst from MoD or IAF much less the trials, negotiations, TOT, etc. These would be another lengthy process going through multiple layers of babudom, that might change next decade we will have to wait and see if this makes any progress.

If AMCA gets delayed like Tejas, there is high probability IAF will go for some variant of F-35 like the SE competition.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], JayS, K_Rohit, manjgu, Vineetmehta_del and 40 guests