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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 08:27

Arjun, Was that post needed? Your comments are incoherent.
An Air Marshal (retired) headed committee recommended investing in the program. It overturned Ministry objections.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 383
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 31 Jul 2017 10:18

ramana wrote:Arjun, Was that post needed? Your comments are incoherent.
An Air Marshal (retired) headed committee recommended investing in the program. It overturned Ministry objections.

Inda da,
Not sure what part is incoherent, can you please point out.

Regarding comment on retd. AM, probably you are misinterpreting my comments (or i was not clear in first place), it was not a comment on AM, it was on the geniuses in MoD who need to be told that this program will add value and will not duplicate efforts in AMCA but will feed into it and accelerate it.
Apart from that, till the day contract is not signed it is not done.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 31 Jul 2017 10:49

From LCA dhaga
ramana wrote:Also I think LCA design group will work on PAK-FA and transition to AMCA.


I don't think so. I think FGFA is going to be completely HAL's baby. And from what I have heard about Russians' way of working, they will want to keep the work as much separated as possible from other HAL projects/divisions. FGFA work will be based in HAL Nashik I suppose and not in BLR. HAL Nashik was formed away from BLR at the insistence of Russians to keep their systems segregated from other divisions. Similarly the new Tumkur plan for KA-226 will be kept separated from HAL's own Heli division, is what I here from some ex-HAL birdie. Though not 100% authentic panwalla piece, it makes sense. This also falls in line with what I have seen/heard about tech received from Su-30MKI in bits and pieces so far.

With MP at the helm, I would have had more hopes. But with him gone and no sign of a dedicated RM let alone a good one, I don't have much hopes that PAK-FA will be any different in terms of teaching us anything that we can use elsewhere, than what Su-30MKI did. May be a little better ownership of systems thanks to the better contract being put up by current dispensation under MP. Anyways the times lines do not give much gap for things to be ported from PAKFA to AMCA, unless of coarse AMCA is kept on rolling like LCA for long time, while finish line being moved farther ahead all the time.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 13:50

Aah, at long long last.... The pakfa is on, yeah. Damn good news, I was getting fed up of seeing plastic chinese 5 g birds flying around. If this is another mki type setup, and I'm willing to bet it is a sight better, I'll be a happy man. This is a sweet bird.

We should order the first 40 straight up for short term needs and the remaining should be totally mkized.

I'm assuming Hal will be most happy. So, until the mangoka is ready, we'll see three fighter manufacturers in desh.... Tata and LM or Saab, Hal and pakfa plus LCA and Reliance with rafale. I'm guessing the Navy order and then some will go to the Reliance dassault combine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2017 21:00

Arjun If you remarks were wrt MoD babus then it was not clear.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2598
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 31 Jul 2017 23:31

Cross posting from LCA thread...
ramana wrote:Cain Marko, Thanks.
What triggered my mind is an AM level officer headed the panel that suggested investing in PAK-FA and noted the work-share part of it.

Not some academic nor a mfg MD.
Put yourself in IAF shoes.
Here comes a project where you can invest and get your engineers to get experience that can be leveraged into future AMCA and also hedges in case that one falls short.

And Su-30MKI line gets to be alive.

He is a genius.


Did you see T.S. Raju, chairman remarks on what HAL will contribute to the PAK-FA and how that is most of the guts of modern airplanes: the avionics.

We can discuss on the other thread.....

Yes. the one good thing from the report is that it was headed by an IAF man, which I hope means that it addresses many of the concerns that the IAF had to begin with.

Hal is cush and doing pretty. Even if this project is delayed I'm sure it will get some extra orders for the mki or for it's MLU that will allow it to keep busy.

TS Rajus statement suggests that unlike the mki, India has negotiated for deeper access to the bird allowing it to deploy custom weapons and sensors as and when available. I'm guessing that apart from this, production and IP setup will be no different from mki and brahmos..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 01 Aug 2017 00:30

Arjun, Nice that you clarified your post. But did you have to report your own post?

Its not a school no?

All this gives more work to admins.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Khalsa » 01 Aug 2017 01:11

Well happy that the decks are clear (when were they not).
We knew we had invested in the PAK-FA.

Now we still have to wait for 3 years before we see prototypes.
This should be down to 2 years. The first prototype should be flying in 2019 in Indian Skies.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 01 Aug 2017 02:08

The Business Standard article by Col. Ajai Shukla (R)

The decks are clear for the ministry of defence (MoD) to sanction the long-delayed Indo-Russian project to jointly develop a cutting-edge “Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft” (FGFA).Business Standard learns that an Experts Group, headed by Air Marshal (Retired) S Varthaman, has submitted a report on July 7, finding that the FGFA project would be beneficial to India.

After MoD bureaucrats objected to the FGFA project on the grounds that it might duplicate, or hinder, the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), former defence minister Manohar Parrikar set up the five-person Experts Committee to consider this question.

After deliberating for six months, the Expert Committee has ruled there are no conflict lines between the FGFA and AMCA. In fact, the technological expertise that Indian engineers and designers would gain from working with Russian experts would feed positively into the AMCA project.

Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation, through its subordinate Aeronautical Development Agency, can continue designing the entirely indigenous AMCA – based on its experience in developing the Tejas light fighter.

New Delhi and Moscow signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) a decade ago, in October 2007 for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to partner Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau in developing and manufacturing the FGFA. Between 2010-23, HAL and Sukhoi spent $295 million each on a “Preliminary Design” phase.

Now, the two sides are required to sign an “R&D Contract”, which the MoD told parliament on July 5, 2013, would “define the total scope; the work share and responsibilities of each side; and the financial implications of the programme.”

Reliable sources tell Business Standard that India and Russia have negotiated a draft R&D Contract, which commits both sides to spending $6.1 billion on the project –$3.05 billion each.


While India has dragged its heels for a decade since signing the IGA, Sukhoi Design Bureau has already designed the basic flying platform, named Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or “Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation” (PAK-FA).

At least six PAK-FA prototypes are already participating in flight-testing and flying displays, such as at the recent Paris Air Show. The draft R&D Contract commits Sukhoi to build the eighth, ninth and tenth prototypes for flight-testing in HAL, by Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots.

That means that, if the R&D Contract is signed this year, IAF pilots could be testing FGFA prototypes in Indian skies by 2020.

HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju, declined to comment on the Experts Group report, but told Business Standard that an early conclusion of the R&D Contract would allow HAL to play an important role in developing the PAK-FA flying platform into a combat effective FGFA for the IAF.

“If we join now, we will still get a significant part of the work share, thanks to delays in the PAK-FA project. HAL would co-design the avionics, including navigation systems, radars and weapon aiming devices. This is the heart of the fighter’s combat ability”, says Raju
.

Delays in the PAK-FA’s development are attributable partly to hitches in designing a new, powerful engine that would let the fighter “super-cruise”, or travel at supersonic speeds on “dry thrust”, without engaging its fuel-guzzling afterburners. While engine-maker NPO Saturn has struggled to perfect a secretive new engine, dubbed the Izdeliye 30, the PAK-FA has been flying with the relatively underpowered AL-41FI engine – an uprated version of the Sukhoi-30MKI’s AL-31 engine.

However, at the Paris Air Show in July, Russian designers have claimed that the PAK-FA’s new engine would be ready to fly by December.

For the IAF, the FGFA project opens up the assured development of heavy fighters that will succeed the Sukhoi-30MKI, many of which have already completed 15-17 years in operational service. In the medium fighter category, the IAF would have two Rafale squadrons, possibly three if a follow up contract is signed for an extra squadron; and also three upgraded Mirage-2000 squadrons. In the light fighter category, there will be four squadrons of Tejas Mark 1A, and another light fighter for which procurement has been initiated. Amongst the contenders are the Swedish Saab Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70.


The FGFA is equally crucial for HAL’s Nashik plant, which is now building the last 35 Sukhoi-30MKI fighters of the 272 fighters contracted by the IAF. At a build rate of 12 fighters per year, the Sukhoi-30MKI production line will be idle by 2020. It remains unclear how many FGFA units the IAF will eventually buy, but for HAL Nashik, a production order is essential.



Lots of facts to think about.
IAF still has the heavy, medium and light fighter category.
Heavy is Su-30 MKI and FGFA
Medium is Rafale, upgraded Mirage 2000s
Light is LCA Mk1A and Single Engine fighter either F-16 or the Grippen.
I think it could be Mk1A with the Kaveri if HAL can show capability.

Need to get out of Engine dependence.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15642
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2017 02:55

SaiK wrote:Indo-Russian Gen-5 fighter gets green light; $6 bn negotiated for joint R&D
Experts find 'no conflict with indigenous AMCA fighter'; prototypes will fly in India in 3 years

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 429_1.html



The decks are clear for the ministry of defence (MoD) to sanction the long-delayed Indo-Russian project to jointly develop a cutting-edge “Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft” (FGFA).

Business Standard learns that an Experts Group, headed by Air Marshal (Retired) S Varthaman, has submitted a report on July 7, finding that the FGFA project would be beneficial to India.

After MoD bureaucrats objected to the FGFA project on the grounds that it might duplicate, or hinder, the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), former defence minister Manohar Parrikar set up the five-person Experts Committee to consider this question.

After deliberating for six months, the Expert Committee has ruled there are no conflict lines between the FGFA and AMCA. In fact, the technological expertise that Indian engineers and designers would gain from working with Russian experts would feed positively into the AMCA project.

Meanwhile, the Defence R&D Organisation, through its subordinate Aeronautical Development Agency, can continue designing the entirely indigenous AMCA – based on its experience in developing the Tejas light fighter.

New Delhi and Moscow signed an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) a decade ago, in October 2007 for Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to partner Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau in developing and manufacturing the FGFA. Between 2010-13, HAL and Sukhoi spent $295 million each on a “Preliminary Design” phase.

Now, the two sides are required to sign an “R&D Contract”, which the MoD told parliament on July 5, 2013, would “define the total scope; the work share and responsibilities of each side; and the financial implications of the programme.”

Reliable sources tell Business Standard that India and Russia have negotiated a draft R&D Contract, which commits both sides to spending $6.1 billion on the project –$3.05 billion each.

While India has dragged its heels for a decade since signing the IGA, Sukhoi Design Bureau has already designed the basic flying platform, named Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or “Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation” (PAK-FA).

At least six PAK-FA prototypes are already participating in flight-testing and flying displays, such as at the recent Paris Air Show. The draft R&D Contract commits Sukhoi to build the eighth, ninth and tenth prototypes for flight-testing in HAL, by Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots.

That means that, if the R&D Contract is signed this year, IAF pilots could be testing FGFA prototypes in Indian skies by 2020.

HAL chief, T Suvarna Raju, declined to comment on the Experts Group report, but told Business Standard that an early conclusion of the R&D Contract would allow HAL to play an important role in developing the PAK-FA flying platform into a combat effective FGFA for the IAF.

“If we join now, we will still get a significant part of the work share, thanks to delays in the PAK-FA project. HAL would co-design the avionics, including navigation systems, radars and weapon aiming devices. This is the heart of the fighter’s combat ability”, says Raju.

Delays in the PAK-FA’s development are attributable partly to hitches in designing a new, powerful engine that would let the fighter “super-cruise”, or travel at supersonic speeds on “dry thrust”, without engaging its fuel-guzzling afterburners. While engine-maker NPO Saturn has struggled to perfect a secretive new engine, dubbed the Izdeliye 30, the PAK-FA has been flying with the relatively underpowered AL-41FI engine – an uprated version of the Sukhoi-30MKI’s AL-31 engine.

However, at the Paris Air Show in July, Russian designers have claimed that the PAK-FA’s new engine would be ready to fly by December.

For the IAF, the FGFA project opens up the assured development of heavy fighters that will succeed the Sukhoi-30MKI, many of which have already completed 15-17 years in operational service. In the medium fighter category, the IAF would have two Rafale squadrons, possibly three if a follow up contract is signed for an extra squadron; and also three upgraded Mirage-2000 squadrons. In the light fighter category, there will be four squadrons of Tejas Mark 1A, and another light fighter for which procurement has been initiated. Amongst the contenders are the Swedish Saab Gripen E, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Block 70.


The FGFA is equally crucial for HAL’s Nashik plant, which is now building the last 35 Sukhoi-30MKI fighters of the 272 fighters contracted by the IAF. At a build rate of 12 fighters per year, the Sukhoi-30MKI production line will be idle by 2020. It remains unclear how many FGFA units the IAF will eventually buy, but for HAL Nashik, a production order is essential.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 01 Aug 2017 15:06

KTRV modifies Kh-38ME missile for improved PAK 50 fit

http://www.janes.com/article/72607/ktrv ... pak-50-fit
Russia’s Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV) has modified its Kh-38ME direct attack air-to-surface guided missile to enable improved integration with the internal weapons bay of the Sukhoi PAK FA fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

The Kh-38-family of air-launched short-range modular guided missiles – which were initially developed to be deployed in the PAK FA's weapon bay – are designed to engage a wide range of armoured and soft-skin land targets, and surface ships in littoral waters.

Image

The earlier domestic Kh-38/Kh-38M and export Kh-38E/Kh-38ME variants sometimes featured a folding rear mid-body wing assembly to enable internal mounting. The new, more simplified design of the modified Kh-38ME does not require a folding assembly to accommodate the missile in the compartment.

"The latest version of the Kh-38 missile retains the existing aerodynamic airframe, but features a new, smaller clipped delta wing assembly, in cruciform configuration, with an increase to the width of the wing at the point of docking with the missile airframe. The cruciform tail actuator assembly has also decreased in span," a KTRV official told Jane’s at the 2017 MAKS Air Show.

The Kh-38ME is 4,200 mm long, 310 mm in diameter, and has a fin span of 1,140 mm. The missile can be fitted to AKU or APU-type launchers, and can be launched by an aircraft flying at speeds of between 15-450 m/s and at altitudes between 200-12,000 m to a range of up to 40 km. The Kh-38ME retains the earlier dual-thrust solid propellant rocket engine, which delivers a supersonic speed of Mach 2.2 in unspecified atmospheric conditions.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35291
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 03 Aug 2017 04:37

so, how many internal hard-points are we talking?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 03 Aug 2017 04:40

ramana wrote:Lots of facts to think about.
IAF still has the heavy, medium and light fighter category.
Heavy is Su-30 MKI and FGFA
Medium is Rafale, upgraded Mirage 2000s
Light is LCA Mk1A and Single Engine fighter either F-16 or the Grippen.
I think it could be Mk1A with the Kaveri if HAL can show capability.

Need to get out of Engine dependence.

We will. Getting an operational Kaveri is the KEY.

All eyes on Snecma-Safran right now. Come 2019, I am hoping to see a Kaveri powered Tejas flying.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 03 Aug 2017 11:49

Rakesh wrote:We will. Getting an operational Kaveri is the KEY.

All eyes on Snecma-Safran right now. Come 2019, I am hoping to see a Kaveri powered Tejas flying.


Hope but don't hold your breath. :wink:

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14107
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Karan M » 03 Aug 2017 14:05

HAL wrote:“If we join now, we will still get a significant part of the work share, thanks to delays in the PAK-FA project. HAL would co-design the avionics, including navigation systems, radars and weapon aiming devices. This is the heart of the fighter’s combat ability”, says Raju.


What exactly is HALs capability in these areas? This is the kind of muddled, overambitious thinking that has ensured HAL has done next to nothing for what it should have focused on, the LCA MMR and now there is talk of telling NIIP, Russkaya Avionik etc what to do.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby JayS » 03 Aug 2017 14:17

Karan M wrote:
HAL wrote:“If we join now, we will still get a significant part of the work share, thanks to delays in the PAK-FA project. HAL would co-design the avionics, including navigation systems, radars and weapon aiming devices. This is the heart of the fighter’s combat ability”, says Raju.


What exactly is HALs capability in these areas? This is the kind of muddled, overambitious thinking that has ensured HAL has done next to nothing for what it should have focused on, the LCA MMR and now there is talk of telling NIIP, Russkaya Avionik etc what to do.


Would be HAL or someone like LDRE or BEL through HAL (sub-contracting) would be working on it..? I thought it would be later case. If we hope for any tech flow from PAK-FA to AMCA, it better be the later case.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 04 Aug 2017 08:17

Don't forget the 60+ upgraded MIG-29UGs.
Looking at fighter costs,SE td.,MIG-35s come in at around 40M only.Half the cost of either a Gripen or F-16.

FGFA naval version should be on the IN's inquiry list.For CV 3 2030.

Vips
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Vips » 04 Aug 2017 20:35

The "actual cost" of these upgraded MIG 29's will only be known when their active availability rates will be available 2 years down the line. will have to wait for the CAG and other air force reports in 2018 and 2019. I will be mighty surprised (and pleasantly so) if the rate is anything above 50%.

Regarding FGFA - Lets see how the new engines pan out and see how "really stealthy" these birds are before we commit to anything. IAF has strong reservations on both counts.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 05 Aug 2017 01:04

Sukhoi PAK-FA could soon power India’s 5th generation fighter
http://www.defencenews.in/article.aspx?id=263540

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Aug 2017 04:02

About the price of modern Mig-29s/Mig-35.
Russia keen to sell MiG-35 to IAF, talks on: Top official
He stressed that in comparison to its competitors, the prices offered by MiG were 20-25 per cent cheaper, making it an attractive option for those who wish to purchase this aircraft.

The top official here is Director General of MiG: Ilya Tarasenko. But, Philip sir does not let fact come in the way of his bias. I think this is the third time that I have reiterated this since MAKS 2017 which was held only a month ago.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Manish_P » 05 Aug 2017 15:29

After reading the reports of the problems the IN is having with the MiG 29k's, i have a feeling Philip sir will suggest that we transfer them to the unsinkable INS Andaman & Nicobar and fund the development of a naval MiG 35s for the Indian navy :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2017 21:55

Manish_P,

No baiting.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 06 Aug 2017 02:50

HAL should have heaps of work post 2020 upgrading approx 240 MKIs to "Super Sukhoi"/ whatever std.Therefore Nasik is not going to be idle.I don' t think that even if we seal the deal before end 2018,we're going to start local production as our desi version has to be developed first,given 3+ prototypes,this will still
take years of flight testing.The only comfort is that fundamentally the basic design is complete unlike our struggles with the LCA.

If the IAF is happy with the upgraded MIG-29s,the 35 being much lower costwise than any equiv Western bird,is a cost-effective solution to augmenting numbers of med multi-role aircraft
and increasing sqds. The cost in the Egyptian
deal should be looked at. Transfer of a MIG-35
prod. line to India could have some export
potential esp if some stealth tech comes with it
which could benefit AMCA due in 2030.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 06 Aug 2017 02:55

PS: Yes,land/island based aircraft from "unsinkable" carriers a necessity,but Backfires are better! Defective MIG-29s could go back to Russia,replaced by perfected 29Ks being built for the RuN if MIG cannot do the biz.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Aug 2017 09:54

MAKS 2017 - Close encounter with T-50 and flight demo! - HD 50fps


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46922
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby ramana » 07 Aug 2017 20:54

Austin.

Please post snippet of S. Christopher interview from Force magazine on the PAK-FA and AMCA differences and why both are needed.
Thanks,

ramana

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Aug 2017 21:24

Snippets from Force interview with drdo chief

Safran Aircraft Engine appears slightly reluctant to get into the Kaveri engine project (to power the LCA). They are keen to work with you on the M-88 technology that powers Rafale. What do you say to that?

We can use Kaveri engine core, but it will not cover the entire envelope. Therefore, the present thinking is to have the M-88 core but still more than 60 per cent will be Kaveri component and the entire engine will be made in India with our design rights.

What about the engine for the AMCA?

For the AMCA, the IAF has given us a go ahead with F-414 engines. In aviation industry, there are two ways to approach the fighter development. Either one takes an already available engine and based on that develop the airframe, or both engine and airframe manufacturer jointly start their design work. This works well with an engine company that has done this earlier and can match the speed of the airframe manufacturer. We believe that our speed is likely to be better and faster in the airframe manufacturing since we have done one. We have a lot of confidence and enough capability. Moreover, we have total control over it. In terms of systems, let us say radars, communications, IFF, we have much more capability. So we will start with the F 414 engine.


Considering that the AMCA has been pitched as the 5th Gen fighter, will this affect the partnership with Russia on the FGFA programme since India will find it difficult to financially support two similar programmes?

The two programmes are not similar. AMCA is a medium weight 5th-Gen fighter, while FGFA is a heavy weight 5th-Gen fighter.
Last edited by ramana on 07 Aug 2017 21:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6403
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Prasad » 07 Aug 2017 21:48

OT for this thread but that means its a straight slotting in of the M88 core into Kaveri? Damn. What about our own engine program after that?!

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3248
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Rakesh » 07 Aug 2017 22:01

Prasad: Replied in the Kaveri & aero-engine discussion thread...

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Marten » 07 Aug 2017 22:29

If MIG is keen on a joint development, would there be scope for the 1.44 follow on LMFS? They do have the design cojones and know how, and interested local players could supplant HAL as the integrator. Plus is that the engine is an RD33 derivative, or follow on.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35291
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby SaiK » 08 Aug 2017 06:18

http://defenceupdate.in/mod-panel-recom ... velopment/
From New Delhi’s perspective, it appears that the high costs of the PAK-FA are borne from the platform’s design still not meeting IAF requirements, such as a lack of certifiable active electronically-scanned array radar and Moscow’s own lack of interest in the program.

In July, Russian defence industry analysts and observers have told IHS Jane’s that the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) was not pushing for the PAK-FA as the platform does not offer a substantive improvement in value over the Sukhoi Su-35, one of the VKS’ emerging mainstay fighter platforms.

READ Indian Navy Looks Positively at


Now, this Su 57 can wait till we sort these two major issues. It also gives time for them to come with the Izdeliye30

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19140
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Austin » 08 Aug 2017 09:47

^^ what is lack of certifiable active electronically scanned radar :lol: they come up with new term, PAK-FA has multiple AESA radar on nose cheek and wing slats

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3301
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby deejay » 08 Aug 2017 10:10

SaiK wrote:
http://defenceupdate.in/mod-panel-recom ... velopment/
From New Delhi’s perspective, it appears that the high costs of the PAK-FA are borne from the platform’s design still not meeting IAF requirements, such as a lack of certifiable active electronically-scanned array radar and Moscow’s own lack of interest in the program.

In July, Russian defence industry analysts and observers have told IHS Jane’s that the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) was not pushing for the PAK-FA as the platform does not offer a substantive improvement in value over the Sukhoi Su-35, one of the VKS’ emerging mainstay fighter platforms.

READ Indian Navy Looks Positively at


Now, this Su 57 can wait till we sort these two major issues. It also gives time for them to come with the Izdeliye30


Sky Sir, the article is from someone who does not like the PAK FA. Whether we like it or not FGFA is coming. We have just made it too costly to back out.

Personally, I find the Ruski effort of going for good and not perfect better than the paper plane we would have in pursuit of a perfect design. The Ruski design may not be F22ish but by 2025 - 27 time frame we should have stealth fighters in Indian skies and that is going to be a big offset for threats from East and West.

Going by present scenarios we may expect both Pak and China to have some stealth fighters stationed against us by then.

It may not appear important for the regular crowd here but to militarily be ready we need that capability. Even 2025-27 appears late to me.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8892
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Aug 2017 14:50

Marten wrote:If MIG is keen on a joint development, would there be scope for the 1.44 follow on LMFS? They do have the design cojones and know how, and interested local players could supplant HAL as the integrator. Plus is that the engine is an RD33 derivative, or follow on.


I think the 1.44 is the J-20, both look very similair. SO the Chinese probably have paid the Russians to make sure it is not sold to India and off the table.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16745
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Aug 2017 18:29

I still am in serious doubt about the worth of a med. sized AMCA,inferior to a larger FGFA which can carry far more in its internal bays. It will face the same problem that the JSF has,not enough weapons carried stealthily.We lack a dedicated strat/ bomber and the AMCA should morph into such a platform.The UCAV prog. being kept under wraps is far closer to the AMCA in size,etc. Being unmanned.There was somewhere a mention of a stealth version of the LCA on the anvil.That is a far quicker programme to bear fruit if work begins immediately,where we could have the bird flying by 2025,leveraging whatever tech is relevant from the T=50/FGFA. If the MIG corp. wants,it could take a stake in the LCA-S (stealth),a reverse flow from India to Russia,as there is a huge market for a small SE stealthy bird to replace the MIG-21 and F-16 markets.The GOI/HA:L shgould make an offer to MIG for the same,where the smaller stealth fighter is a mirror image of the FGFA prog.Such a JV would bring the bird faster into reality and series production.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby chola » 08 Aug 2017 18:41

Aditya_V wrote:
Marten wrote:If MIG is keen on a joint development, would there be scope for the 1.44 follow on LMFS? They do have the design cojones and know how, and interested local players could supplant HAL as the integrator. Plus is that the engine is an RD33 derivative, or follow on.


I think the 1.44 is the J-20, both look very similair. SO the Chinese probably have paid the Russians to make sure it is not sold to India and off the table.



With the Russians all you have to do is pay them. If we want the blueprints to the J-20 (almost guaranteed to have some Russian involvement) we just have to give them enough moolah to be worth effort.

Conversely, think they won't sell the PAK-FA to Cheen? The PRC pays enough and they will get a squadron just like the SU-35.

Selling to both Cheen and Bharat will always be more profitable than selling to just one or the other.

The faster we are off Rus drugs, the better.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5506
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby brar_w » 08 Aug 2017 22:03

It will face the same problem that the JSF has,not enough weapons carried stealthily.


Define "Enough"? Requirements for payload, as with most other things are a function of Concept of Operation and fleet replacement needs. The Range and Payload for the F-35 has been sized with a particular mission in mind based on the aircrafts it is replacing, and the missions they are taking over. The USAF requires a self escort mission (need missiles for that) that delivers 2x2000lb bombs close to 600-650 nautical miles (combat radius not range) from base on internal fuel and in RCS preserved state. You can mount multiple EFTs and CFTs on the F-16 and it will barely get there let alone be survivable under such a mission profile.

On Air to Air, they kept the 6 AMRAAM-class capacity on reserve (4 at baseline, 2 at expanded configuration). For CAS it can carry 8 SDBIIs along with a pair of AMRAAMs. Similarly, the cruise missile carriage requirement has largely been kept at par with the capability that is likely to be fielded or required. It can carry a pair of long range supersonic ARMs, a pair of long range subsonic cruise missiles (plus AMRAAMs) etc...

Of course you can make aircraft larger, but that doesn't mean you need to since that affects cost to buy and operate. You size an aircraft based on need and the missions it is taking over. This is akin to saying that the LCA needed to be able to haul the payload of a Rafale, or the Su-30. Aircraft designers are given a set of requirements after a deliberate analysis on alternatives that look at the missions being offloaded to a new platform and cost considerations. It is a deliberate, disciplined and nuanced process. The PAKFA is a heavy class fighter designed by Russia based on its requirements. The AMCA will again be designed based on requirements that factor in current and future mission needs, and the types it is meant to replace. You don't frame requirements in a bubble.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 03:26

chola wrote:With the Russians all you have to do is pay them. If we want the blueprints to the J-20 (almost guaranteed to have some Russian involvement) we just have to give them enough moolah to be worth effort.

Conversely, think they won't sell the PAK-FA to Cheen? The PRC pays enough and they will get a squadron just like the SU-35.

Selling to both Cheen and Bharat will always be more profitable than selling to just one or the other.

So is selling to India and Pakistan. It is worse to sell to India and gift to Pakistan. Should I elaborate more? But why question bias?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5407
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: PAK-FA and FGFA Thread - June 2014

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 03:30

Philip wrote:I still am in serious doubt about the worth of a med. sized AMCA,inferior to a larger FGFA which can carry far more in its internal bays.

Please define inferior. The Su-27s could carry more and further. Then, why did USSR continue with Mig-29s? So did the Americans with the F-15s/F-16s. Why? If you can answer that why, you would have cleared your doubt.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David Saenz, dhyana, srin and 40 guests