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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Jun 2014 02:37

NRao wrote:
In the PAK FA's context, one would assume the higher the degree of sensor fusion that's built into the aircraft, the more expensive and time-consuming it will be to customize.
Indians expected their FGFA to be superior to the PAK-FA - a *lot* more advanced. It is all there in the earlier articles.

As an example, the PAK-FA does have 360 coverage, but, India wanted 360 AESA coverage. A substantial difference.

Composites was another area where the Indians were very confident that they could make the FGFA a superior plane.

Thing is we can expect a lot, but somewhere along the line practicality kicks in.
For instance take the 360 degree AESA thing - again, where is the local tech to make this happen? If not, we are either dependent on Russia, France or Israel. Take France or Israel out of the question - France would rather the river Styx froze over before handing us Thales tech for the Rafale, for the FGFA (a rival). Israel was facing issues even giving us the EL/M-2052 thanks to US pressure.
Our capabilities are maturing - we are yet to even get a single fully kitted out flying prototype AESA FCR out for tests.

So we are dependent on Russia. And here, we can get what Russia has been able to achieve - which seems well in line with what the rest of the AESA makers are at - they have a powerful 1526 module front facing AESA, with 2 cheek arrays with around (800? modules each) - per reports, the AESA will also be capable of LPI modes etc, so thats a plus. NIIP has a long history in ESAs (thats the experience factor), the significant investments and learning curve will be more towards the hardware (Tx/Rx sticks for instance, wherein the US would have an advantage, with more compact modules@ lower power, giving equivalent performance). Overall though, this will be a powerful, credible radar, able to match whatever's out there and what we will face. Much the same as a "late entrant" Bars was able to still match some of the 1st Gen AESAs and last gen MSAs and a Bars derivative Irbis can match 2nd Gen AESAs.

Point is even if we don't get the sky high specs demanded by the IAF, we will still get a very credible fighter with its own USPs.

For instance, a rough compare of the JSF vs FGFA assuming FGFA = PAKFA as the JSF is the only other acquisition alternative to the FGFA

1. Both will have AESAs - the FGFA will have better coverage w/cheek arrays; the US radar will be better multirole able to handle higher # of A2A and A2G targets simultaneously with better resolution SAR modes etc
2. Stealth - JSF ahead; though FGFA will reportedly use an active EW suite to compensate for active hot spots/break the kill chain ("Himalaya suite" with disposable RF EW - doesn't paint a target on the aircraft itself)
3. Kinematics/Maneuverability - significant edge to FGFA
4. Cost - should be equivalent; acquisition lower for FGFA, lifecycle costs cheaper for JSF (single engined)
5. Technology Access (India) - FGFA blows the JSF away. Assembly/codesign of the FGFA even at the level of a Su-30MKI would simply never be available for the JSF
6. Passive avionics - JSF has DAS (360 deg SA) - edge; FGFA will have integrated KOLS with (reportedly) DIRCM - edge there (JSF may get something in the future)
7. Political aspect- this is the critical factor which puts the JSF out of contention, as far as India is concerned. Russian reliability in this regard is still miles ahead of the US & would have played a role in the MMRCA downselect as well.
8. Weapons - edge to FGFA for more internal carriage balanced out by JSFs greater weapons options

Point is this list can continue ad infinitum. 5&7 are the key aspects which count from a strategic perspective for an Independent India.

Both platforms will have their pros and cons, but overall, the FGFA brings a lot of value on the table for an IAF which would want both top edge performance against the next Gen platforms from PRC etc and yet, wants local control and ownership of sustainment and also modernization.

Overall, more than the FGFA, India needs to invest in its own eyes - Project India AWACS with cutting edge capabilities in anti-stealth and similar GBRs (without these all the JSFs and FGFAs are useless, a bunch of stealthy bats running around in the dark unable to detect other stealthy bats) and also the AMCA.

Without the AMCA, we will not gain ownership of crucial technologies in stealth, fire control & guidance and so forth.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 14 Jun 2014 07:54

I had read some where that Pak-fa due to delays in agreement with india it is unlikely india will get Pak-Fa in 2015 , and HAL have said it will take 8 Years to develop FGFA , So Its seems like Repeat of story everyone is familiar of Russian Selling us first Su-30K and then after 7 years came Sukhoi-30MKI .

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 09:24

Both will have AESAs - the FGFA will have better coverage w/cheek arrays; the US radar will be better multirole able to handle higher # of A2A and A2G targets simultaneously with better resolution SAR modes etc

That is if one believes that side arrays and 360 degree AESA is the only way to get full SA even in the RF domain. The Yanks gave up on that due to emcon and because of the massive developments of the networks both within the stealth family and outside of it.

Stealth - JSF ahead; though FGFA will reportedly use an active EW suite to compensate for active hot spots/break the kill chain ("Himalaya suite" with disposable RF EW - doesn't paint a target on the aircraft itself)

Who says that the F-35 does not have an "active EW suite"? And access to disposable RF EW? Disposable EW is by itself a limited use system for fighters. They are better for saturated attacks on IADs then to bulk up fighters with them (where they compete for weapons carriage) as they are limited due to the nature and power constraints.

Kinematics/Maneuverability - significant edge to FGFA

Yes

Cost - should be equivalent; acquisition lower for FGFA, lifecycle costs cheaper for JSF (single engined)

Speculation

Passive avionics - JSF has DAS (360 deg SA) - edge; FGFA will have integrated KOLS with (reportedly) DIRCM - edge there (JSF may get something in the future)

Everything you mention for the PAKFA is in the future. A full system suite aboard a PAKFA has yet to fly. The F-35 has all the systems in the air and in certification. DIRCM base (from which the TnDR comes) is already on offer, its a matter of integration. Partners sat together yesterday to chart out full block 4 and block 5 capability. There is no development cost to the partner for TnDR just a software bump when customers want it.

Political aspect- this is the critical factor which puts the JSF out of contention, as far as India is concerned. Russian reliability in this regard is still miles ahead of the US & would have played a role in the MMRCA downselect as well.

JSF is not the solution for the IAF, when it comes to a PAKFA alternative. It is a different capability for a different requirement. We should stick to buying the PAKFA as is and getting it here while our boys develop an MKI version.

Without the AMCA, we will not gain ownership of crucial technologies in stealth, fire control & guidance and so forth

This!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 10:22

Karan M wrote:1. Both will have AESAs - the FGFA will have better coverage w/cheek arrays; the US radar will be better multirole able to handle higher # of A2A and A2G targets simultaneously with better resolution SAR modes etc

The APG-81 fields some 1680 T/R modules. And interviews with NG folk suggest that the performance for each module has increased. So the APG-81 while more sophisticated may well have more brute power than the N036 as well.

2. Stealth - JSF ahead; though FGFA will reportedly use an active EW suite to compensate for active hot spots/break the kill chain ("Himalaya suite" with disposable RF EW - doesn't paint a target on the aircraft itself)

With recent revelation about the F-35 having a lower RCS than the F-22, the difference vis a vis PAK FA would likely be by an order of magnitude.

The F-35 employs an active EW suite as well (with the APG-81 the primary active component). And its got options for disposable EW as well, in the MALD-J.

3. Kinematics/Maneuverability - significant edge to FGFA

True.

4. Cost - should be equivalent; acquisition lower for FGFA, lifecycle costs cheaper for JSF (single engined)

Actually the F-35 is supposed to cost $75 million flyaway ('and not a penny more', according to the program head) and with the aim being to reduce that even further. So maybe $90-95 million in 2019 dollars for India, after DoD's cut and misc expenses etc.

Russia has traditionally had the advantage of lower input costs compared to the US and Western Europe but that's shrinking fast. For example in 2000, the Russian GDP (PPP) per capita was about 19% of the US', while today the same figure is 46%, making labour costs proportionately higher (link). And with inflation averaging over 15% over the same period, material costs have increased as well.

Back in 2010, the PAK FA was being advertised as costing $100 million. Can they deliver it at that cost in 2019? I doubt it.

5. Technology Access (India) - FGFA blows the JSF away. Assembly/codesign of the FGFA even at the level of a Su-30MKI would simply never be available for the JSF

True enough. But two (overlapping) elements to it here - root access and ToT.

Access is a necessity because we'll need to replace the helmet and LDP for starters, besides integrating the third party equipment like recce pods & jamming pods. On the other hand, every component of the F-35 is state-of-the-art, so aside from IFF and data-links there's relatively little customization required. The weapons complement too is excellent value-for-money.

As far as ToT is concerned, its good to have, but we are after all going to be paying for it. I'd argue the same monies invested directly in the AMCA program would yield far greater benefits. Especially considering what the LCA program delivered for the amount of capital invested in it.

6. Passive avionics - JSF has DAS (360 deg SA) - edge; FGFA will have integrated KOLS with (reportedly) DIRCM - edge there (JSF may get something in the future)

The F-35 also has the advantage of having DAS imagery projected directly onto the pilot's visor. Also, cued by the DAS, the ThNDR DIRCM system is ready and available. It'll probably be fielded on the Block 5 aircraft.

7. Political aspect- this is the critical factor which puts the JSF out of contention, as far as India is concerned. Russian reliability in this regard is still miles ahead of the US & would have played a role in the MMRCA downselect as well.

I would probably have agreed five years ago. Not so much today, despite the loss of the Bush era bonhomie. Since then we've become the first export customer for the P-8I and signed up for the AH-64E (in addition to the transports, engines, munitions etc).

Geopolitically, there are other signs of concern. Russia's relations with Pakistan have vastly improved (while the US-Pakistan relationship has deteriorated beyond repair). More worryingly, Russia's ties with China have strengthened to the point where a formal alliance is not altogether out of the realm of possibility.

Any aircraft we purchase will serve till 2050. Our relations with Russia on the other hand, are based mostly on warm Cold War era ties. I wouldn't bet on that warmth enduring another 30 years without genuine strategic congruence.

Of course a current switch to the F-35 will be perceived as a slight by an already touchy Russia. That can be addressed by continuing FGFA development as a tech demonstrator for a scaled up AMCA.

8. Weapons - edge to FGFA for more internal carriage balanced out by JSFs greater weapons options

The missile capacity for the PAK FA's main bays and a Block 5 F-35 will be similar (i.e. six missiles). The PAK FA can reportedly carry an additional two weapons in side-bays but I'm yet to understand how they work. They don't appear large enough to accommodate an ejection mechanism in addition to the SRAAM.

Given the variety of weapons available or in development for the F-35, definite advantage to the F-35 here. SDB II. CBU-105 SFW. Stunner/Python-5. CUDA. JAGM. MALD-V.

^^Couple of aspects that haven't come up - maintenance & reliability, sensor fusion and EW suite.

On the latter in particular, there's an assumption that the Russia is well on their way to catching up with the US, But forget the US, I see no reason why its capabilities should be considered ahead of our own. DARE developed equipment was after all good enough to replace Russian kit on the Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG and the MiG-29K/KUB. All in the fairly recent past.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 10:27

With recent revelation about the F-35 having a lower RCS than the F-22, the difference vis a vis PAK FA would likely be by an order of magnitude.

The F-35 employs an active EW suite as well (with the APG-81 the primary active component). And its got options for disposable EW as well, in the MALD-J.

Have replied to this in the JSF thread.

member_23364 · Post by **member_23364** » 14 Jun 2014 13:53

^^ No idea where you are getting the $75 Million/flyaway cost of the F-35.

I have consistently read estimates of $120 MM++ for the F-35A and that too in LRIP 6 (not the initial batches)

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-de ... 00-million

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. SK is paying $6.79 Billion for 40 F-35's for deliveries starting 2018. While this is a "package deal" and does not reflect flyaway cost, there is no way the flyaway cost is $75 Million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 7220140324

and please do not take a interview by a mid level general as a basis of inferring costs..

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 14 Jun 2014 14:09

Viv S wrote: Any aircraft we purchase will serve till 2050. Our relations with Russia on the other hand, are based mostly on warm Cold War era ties. I wouldn't bet on that warmth enduring another 30 years without genuine strategic congruence.

As you have stated many times previously, that in '98 Shakti Tests amrika imposed sanctions 'cause they were not aware of chinese economic might will grow so much. amrika became aware of chinese growth only 5-6 years back hence they won't sanction Bharat; that is due to help needed to counter china.

Well in that case due to sushasan by current govt. Bharatvarsh also grows leaps and bounds by 2025 which amrika doesn't expect or is unable to calculate now. Then Bharatvarsh will be seen as threat so to counter Bharat, amrika will help countries like porkis and indonesia to muscle-up against us.

Meaning BIG BIG NO to amrikan platforms.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 14:45

Guru_Tat wrote:^^ No idea where you are getting the $75 Million/flyaway cost of the F-35.

I have consistently read estimates of $120 MM++ for the F-35A and that too in LRIP 6 (not the initial batches)

LRIP 6 -> LRIP 7 -> LRIP 8 -> LRIP 9 -> LRIP 10 -> LRIP 11 -> FRP

The flyaway cost negotiated for the LRIP 7 is $112M ($98M for LM, $14M for P&W). (link)

The LRIP 7 contract is for 35 aircraft. At FRP the F-35's production will be in excess of 120 units annually.

Assistant Air Force Secretary William LaPlante said the price of the new A-model F-35 is on track to drop from $112 million now to the mid-$80 million range by 2018 or 2019, but the program is developing plans to drive the price even lower. (link)

Martin, who was referring to the US Air Force's F-35A version of the jet, says efforts to reduce costs should bring the price of the aircraft down to about $85 million by 2019, including engines and full mission systems. That amount would equal $75 million in today's dollars, she adds. (link)

For cost to fall to $75 million, every LRIP must be 7.5% cheaper than the previous one. Is it possible? So far the cost has been dropping by about 4-5% each LRIP. However, this reduction is despite the production remaining flat. At FRP in contrast it would have increased by at least 400%.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. SK is paying $6.79 Billion for 40 F-35's for deliveries starting 2018. While this is a "package deal" and does not reflect flyaway cost, there is no way the flyaway cost is $75 Million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 7220140324

Defense Ministry Director-General Udi Shani signed an agreement during a ceremony in New York on Thursday, according to which Israel will purchase the first squadron of F-35 stealth fighter jets from the US for $2.75 billion.

According to the agreement, Israel will receive the first aircraft between 2015 and 2017 at a price of $96 million per plane, together with simulators and spare parts, at a total price of $2.75 billion.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 19,00.html

These F-35Is will be produced under Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots 8, 9 and 10. (link)

and please do not take a interview by a mid level general as a basis of inferring costs..

That's hardly some random officer. He's the Pentagon's point-man for the F-35 program, responsible for negotiating production contracts with LM and P&W.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 15:01

No idea where you are getting the $75 Million/flyaway cost of the F-35.

I have consistently read estimates of $120 MM++ for the F-35A and that too in LRIP 6 (not the initial batches)

You are correct on the LRIP6 cost, however the LRIP by itself means initial early batches. They are not designed with economies of scale in mind because each level of the production process is at sub-optimal production level. The current prices have come down by around 5-6% from LRIP 5 to LRIP7 because the program matured and economies of scale were realized, LRIP 8 contracts would be announced later in the year, and LRIP 10 would take per annum production to 94( Initial long lead item procurement has already begun for this batch). There is no space for any customer before LRIP10 anyhow, so LRIP 6 prices do not really matter. The US SAR and the congressional committee tracks the price model as more is known on the negotiations, cost of production and scales it according to production volume. The program head has indicated that @ full production which would be post LRIP 10 the cost should be around 75-80 million for the CTOL version of the jet. Only around 10% of the intended JSF's would be produced in LRIP so for the program the LRIP represents early initial batches.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In which case we should not even talk of the PAKFA price until serial production is well underway.

and please do not take a interview by a mid level general as a basis of inferring costs..

As far as this program is concerned, he is the person in charge of the program, its cost negotiations. Not only does he negotiate the cost for the USAF, USN and the USAF but he is also the chief negotiator for the cost for each and every partner f-35 that is ordered.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 15:04

Dhananjay wrote:Well in that case due to sushasan by current govt. Bharatvarsh also grows leaps and bounds by 2025 which amrika doesn't expect or is unable to calculate now. Then Bharatvarsh will be seen as threat so to counter Bharat, amrika will help countries like porkis and indonesia to muscle-up against us.

In PPP terms, China's GDP will overtake the US' by the end of the year. In nominal terms, it may overtake the US even before 2020. So perhaps you should worry less about what the US might plan and more about what China is planning.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 14 Jun 2014 16:02

Viv S wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:As you have stated many times previously, that in '98 Shakti Tests amrika imposed sanctions 'cause they were not aware of chinese economic might will grow so much. amrika became aware of chinese growth only 5-6 years back hence they won't sanction Bharat; that is due to help needed to counter china.

Well in that case due to sushasan by current govt. Bharatvarsh also grows leaps and bounds by 2025 which amrika doesn't expect or is unable to calculate now. Then Bharatvarsh will be seen as threat so to counter Bharat, amrika will help countries like porkis and indonesia to muscle-up against us.
In PPP terms, China's GDP will overtake the US' by the end of the year. In nominal terms, it may overtake the US even before 2020. So perhaps you should worry less about what the US might plan and more about what China is planning.

It is your theory that suddenly US found out the china is going to overtake them hence they won't sanction Bharat and prop us up against cheen. Naturally when Bharat is about to take over amrika they'll prop someone against us. They'll even sabotage F-18 / jsf bought from them.

Before you were explaining away 71' wartime 7 fleet advance towards Bharat as "......oh it was not america's doing, the american administration was pro-Bharat but just nikson was against bharat...."

'98 sanctions as "......oh it was not america's doing clinton was pro-Bharat just his administration was against Bharat so forget about how Bharatiya scientists for LCA were insultingly kicked out...."

"98 sanctions won't happen again as at that time US didn't know china would rise so much.........."

Well so what happens when US sees that Bharatvarsh is going to take it over? Since the planes bought now will last well over 2050

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 16:21

Dhananjay wrote:Well so what happens when US sees that Bharatvarsh is going to take it over? Since the planes bought now will last well over 2050

If you think India is going to invade the US, I have no response.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jun 2014 16:24

imo since a Su30MKI is around $100 mil cost today, we can expect the PAKFA which will be built in smaller numbers to be around $200 mil. it will certainly follow global trends in being costlier than legacy ac it replaces. and being 2 engines it opex will be higher on engine front.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 16:25

Where is the link which says the MKI is 100 million a piece? I have never heard of such costs, the max I have heard is 70 million. Coming to the PAKFA, what would be more interesting to see is how Sukhoi preps for serial production. The level of production tolerance, constant RCS verification at different levels of manufacturing is going to be paramount for all aspect VLO performance. Their approach would be interesting to follow. One cannot make the PAKFA like one makes the Su-27 family. The processes have to be different.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 14 Jun 2014 16:36

The Sukhoi-30MKI, a heavier and, therefore, more expensive fighter that HAL builds in Nashik, currently costs the IAF more than Rs 400 crore ($65 million) each.

Tejas MK-1 --- $26 million a fighter
JF-17 Thunder--- $23-24 million per aircraft

Article dated January 11, 2014

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 829_1.html

But Article dated April 22, 2014 Says

which started out as a bargain at $30 million apiece, but which are now priced at $75 million each.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 138_1.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jun 2014 16:42

I am seeing it another way. suppose we buy 60 hornets from boeing. the cost will include the empty a/c (which maps to the $65 mil above), plus cost of munitions pkg, and a comprehensive annual support plan, plus cost of anything else like jammers, LDP we ink with the deal, their vendor support plans, some sets of spares, some sets of spare engines.

IAF is paying for all these extras in other heads whether to HAL or sukhoi, or HAL is paying for it and its probably not counted in the 65 mil.

I see it as the final cost of having a highly available fully armed and supported fighter on the flight line whether night or day.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 16:57

Initial aircraft procurement is a lot more expensive then adding another airframe to an established set up. Australians paid a set cost to acquire the Super Hornet aircraft, its weapons, support, sims and prepping for it. If they buy 10 more as a follow up the cost would be a lot less given that infrastructure has growth designed into it (which most do). Weapons can vary depending on what percentage of the system weapons are platform specific as opposed to fleet wide commonality.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 14 Jun 2014 19:19

brar_w wrote:Where is the link which says the MKI is 100 million a piece? I have never heard of such costs, the max I have heard is 70 million.

while overall average cost might be less it is a fact that the prices have ballooned for the MKI. infact this report quotes a price of $102m quoting the figures tabled in the parliament in 2010.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jun 2014 19:26

Oh, boy!! One day go to sleep early and look at the amount of water that flows. ................

Not going to respond to every point (I disagree with most) (not to mention depressing posts), but ..................

Karan_M wrote: Anyhow, this time around, for PAKFA, I expect MKI++, in that more avionics systems will be sourced from India, and our involvement in the program will be more complex. I.e. Indians writing mission avionics software and such. However, I don't expect a LCA type story, wherein we handle 90% of the avionics by ourselves and entirely define and architect the product roadmap, and whatever goes into it.

I am fairly confident that the Indian side expected a lot more.

Especially in the design phase. That is where they are lacking - along with "testing". (Design phase does not mean the earlier one - where everyone claims India missed the boat - I do not subscribe to that Russian thinking.) (This R&D, for which India is paying $6 billions is the Indian design phase - Russia needs to accept that.)

MKI++ is very, very disappointing. Especially in 2014-20 time frame. It just will not do.

Karan_M wrote: Thing is we can expect a lot, but somewhere along the line practicality kicks in.
................................

From what I have read, my opinion is that the Indians have been very practical.

The problem, from an Indian point of view, is that India does not - understandably - have a complete view/picture of the problem set. Which is the only reason to lean on someone like the Russians (or any other country for that matter).

The very thought that Russia has to protect her MIC shows the lack of depth of thinking. India fully expects Russia (and others) to protect their IP - that is not a topic for discussion. The question is what are they willing to part with and for what price. even here the item that is most valued is their thinking (design) and no so much their research (which they will never part with) and to greater extent their processes, which is negotiable to some extent (I would imagine).

Why do we get into this FGFA vs. JSF I am not sure, especially since a FGFA does not really exist. But ............

3. Kinematics/Maneuverability - significant edge to FGFA

Immaterial. Does not even matter.

The thinking that the JSF is not as aerodynamic as it can/should be is passe. Old thinking.

5. Technology Access (India) - FGFA blows the JSF away. Assembly/codesign of the FGFA even at the level of a Su-30MKI would simply never be available for the JSF

Do not agree:

1) Co-design is debatable. The fact that this "co-design" was to have been signed in 2012 and is expected in 2015 is telling.

2) I agreed in late 1990s, when people told me that India got something in the MKI deal. Today? Nyet. IF India gets something similar (or even the MKI++) it would be a travesty - total waste of time and effort (outside of IAF getting squadrons to fill their back log *and* PAK-FA replacing MKIs). Indians should expect a *LOT* more or go on their own.

3) On tech transfer:
a) The gap is great. So, in 2014, talking about India getting MKI stuff is totally underwhelming. Not impressed *at all*. So, my point is that with whatever India gets with the JSF it will benefit India a lot more.

b) Production techniques and supply chain are the topics that have been totally neglected on BR (God even does not know why). Russia is in the ancient times - nothing to provide for there. JSF will bring in those two aspects that the Russians cannot. Combo of debatable co-design + lack of quality production + Supply Chain tilts the pointer in fav of JSF. Totally, not even close.

4) JSF. Israel worked out some agreement - I have not got into it, but it is an avenue that is open. I do not accept that #5 (tech access) is an issue. India has not thrown her weight around the way she can and should.

5) Politics. Up to India. A billion strong country should carry a much bigger stick. So people complaining about US behavior does not sit well with me. Get up and be counted. Stop playing cricket, watching Big B movie, do something but stop crying about what the US does or does not do.

BTW, as afar as I know, India has access to pretty much every tech that India desires from the US. There are no restrictions. There are stories of some babus in the US that have their heads between their legs, but India is not pressuring enough to unblock such blockages. Under this new dispensation (whatever that is) I would hope and expect it would change.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jun 2014 19:34

The cost of MKI across various timelines has been mentioned in the link

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... icost.html

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 20:15

Austin wrote:The cost of MKI across various timelines has been mentioned in the link

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighter ... icost.html

The last link posted is quite wonky. $51 million for the aircraft in 2007 but $38 million in 2012-13. That too for a Super-30 standard aircraft with an airframe modified for BrahMos employment. Same thing's mentioned on DID.

Russia signs over $4 billion worth of defense contracts with India, including the deal for 42 “Super 30″ upgraded SU-30MKIs. Key Super 30 upgrades are reported to include a new radar (probably AESA, and likely Phazotron’s Zhuk-AE), improved onboard computers, upgraded electronic warfare systems, and the ability to fire the air-launched version of the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

Russian sources place the Super 30 deal at $1.6 billion, which is significantly below previous figures. The Hindustan Times places its value at Rs 16,666 crore instead, which is about $3.023 billion at current conversions. The Times’ figure is in line with previous estimates, and is the one DID will use. - DID

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jun 2014 20:25

From what I know the Super-30 deal is not yet signed , The IAF has not made up its mind of it wants to go for AESA or Irbis class BARS. Seems media confusing additional 42 Su-30 deal with Super 30.

AFAIK the additional 42 deal was made to take care of depleting squad stregth based on IAF request.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 20:38

Austin wrote:From what I know the Super-30 deal is not yet signed , The IAF has not made up its mind of it wants to go for AESA or Irbis class BARS. Seems media confusing additional 42 Su-30 deal with Super 30.

AFAIK the additional 42 deal was made to take care of depleting squad stregth based on IAF request.

The Su-30 upgrade deal is not signed yet. That's not being referred to. The 42 Su-30MKIs AFAIK were also supposed to be delivered with a Super-30 fit-out, which is probably why they've been referenced as Super-30s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jun 2014 20:45

^^ No I remember HAL stating they are normal Su-30MKI just additional number built to take care of squadron strength , ofcourse they will be built to the last standard of MKI but its not Super 30 , the latter will be signed when IAF finalises all its requirement.

The last news was from MAKS August 2013 where the designer of BARS mentioned that IAF has not made up its mind on AESA or Upgraded BARS and between August and now I have not heard any thing officially from MOD on Super 30

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Jun 2014 20:47

Are the russians delivering AESA for their new built Su-35's?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 21:00

Austin wrote:^^ No I remember HAL stating they are normal Su-30MKI just additional number built to take care of squadron strength , ofcourse they will be built to the last standard of MKI but its not Super 30 , the latter will be signed when IAF finalises all its requirement.

They may reverted because of delays but AFAIK at least originally it was supposed to 42 Super 30s.

IAF orders 42 'Super-30' Sukhoi fighters for Rs15,000 crore - Domain-B

PM visit: India to buy 42 ‘upgraded’ Sukhois - Indian Express

'An improved set of 42 HAL-built SU-30MKI “Super 30s”. A preliminary order was reportedly signed in 2011, but the final deal waited until December 2012.' - DID

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jun 2014 21:03

brar_w wrote:Are the russians delivering AESA for their new built Su-35's?

Irbis-E. PESA derived from the MKI's Bars.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Jun 2014 06:24

NRao wrote: b) Production techniques and supply chain are the topics that have been totally neglected on BR (God even does not know why). Russia is in the ancient times - nothing to provide for there. JSF will bring in those two aspects that the Russians cannot. Combo of debatable co-design + lack of quality production + Supply Chain tilts the pointer in fav of JSF. Totally, not even close.

Sorry I couldn't understand what the red underlined sentence means. Isn't jsf already complete designwise? Or we can re-design the jsf body like increase in length etc. working with LM?

Or

Are you saying that since Co-designing etc. isn't working on PAK FA so better by jsf from US off the shelf?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jun 2014 11:55

Viv S wrote:
brar_w wrote:Are the russians delivering AESA for their new built Su-35's?
Irbis-E. PESA derived from the MKI's Bars.

Any word on what the Chinese are likely to get ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jun 2014 22:03

The delay in signing deals after they've been passed,a characteristic of the previous regime ,needs to be probed.As with the Scorpene,second lot of Talwars,etc.,we were told well in advance that if dates were not met,there would be inevitable escalation.From available evidence,no justification was given for such delays.In addition,the responsibility of signing on lies with the MOD and not the services.why there had to be a one yr. delay in the extra Sukhois beats me,since it is a follow on order for a highly successful acquisition,the key factor responsible for the IAF's capability.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Jun 2014 05:14

While surfing the net ..............................

Here {In Russian}

Translated (by someone else, not me):

~In fact, it went down slightly different. Today T-50 initially rose to demonstrate the possibilities for our Indian guests. Around 12 pm on board lost contact. Was only partial remaining. On the 3rd turn there was an alarm, shavings in the right engines, the pilot was forced to shut down the right engine. Since there was no communication, he passed over the runway waving wings, letting understand the RP (EDIT: ATC) problems on board. Successfully able to land the plane on one engine. Turned to the nearest taxiway, the pilot immediately turned off the left engine. Then all the fun started! RP gave the command to leave the plane immediately. Pilot turned around and saw that intense belching black smoke poured out of the right engine. Without waiting for any ladders pilot jumped out of the cockpit. Seeing a burning puddle of fuel underneath the plane he ran a good 100 meters.~

Interesting:

* Indians were there, nothing unusual, but interesting, and
* What is this about loss of contact (with the ATC)?
* How did ATC give command to leave the plane (when there was no contact)? Visual?

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 18 Jun 2014 06:55

Pilots can become amazingly atheletic when they think their plane is on fire.

I was launching a flight one day and the engine starter on the plane (a small engine that drives an air compressor to start turning the jet engine) belched and stopped. I immediately looked up underneath the plane into the hell hole to look at the engine starter. I saw a puff of smoke coming from the starter. I backed out from under the plane looked at the pilot still siting in the ejection seat, pointed at the plane and made the side ways figure eight with my other hand, the signal for fire in the plane. The pilot's eyes got as big as saucers and he jumped out of the cockpit and was down the runway 100 meters before you could blink your eyes. Meanwhile my crew and I grabbed various fire extinguishers and headed back to the hell hole underneath the plane in order to put out the fire. Turns out it was a false alarm, the smoke was a natural occurance from a failed start. No fire to it. But boy howdy did that pilot move fast!

the plane had 10,000 lbs of fuel and full load of ordnance, btw

the folks in tustin, california would have had quite a show if there was fire.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Jun 2014 07:31

sometimes in summer in india 45C, cars spontaneously start burning in places like delhi when moving. maybe some fuel was leaking and a loose wire ignites it.
I doubt anyone waits for ATC commands and verification before decamping

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jun 2014 08:16

that is normal to hear a pop and smoke coming out of the jet engine, during start which means the jet fuel/combustion started working. till then, the slow start is normally the electrical starter motor that spins the turbine.

problem is there needs to be air movement thru the chamber.. sometimes big jumbo jets have a dedicated small turbine at the back that kicks start first to power the starting process of the main turbines. it is easier to start smaller jet than large ones.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2014 09:31

Reports claim that the first Indian fgfa would arrive in India by this year end.

Q: would this plane, if true, be from the Russian lot or built to Indian recs? And where does the r&d fit into all this?

My impression was that the first plane would be the result of the r&d, which would place the arrival about two years after the r&d is signed

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 03 Jul 2014 03:28

Cross post from Rafale thread -

Karan M wrote:Disagree. NIIP, Russkaya Avionika, KNIRRTII & associated firms capabilities are fairly advanced and very credible. Their capabilities were never in doubt, funding was an issue post FSU breakup. Judging by what we got for the MKI, and what is on the Su-35 they will deliver world class performance with the FGFA given time & iterative improvement. And no, I don't buy the comments in the AS article about judging the final product by what's on the test bed.

They're credible yes and relative to their peers in Europe I'd expect the PAK FA to have a fairly sophisticated avionics suite. But the Americans have over a decade's head-start over the Europeans when it comes to AESAs, and builds on what is still a cutting edge EW suite & sensor fusion on the F-22, and driven by about 10 times (at TR2) more processing power than PAK FA (Elbrus architecture).

With regard to Su-35S, it doesn't AFAIK feature sensor fusion (though the PAK FA will) and while its a more powerful aircraft I wouldn't bet on it featuring a significantly more sophisticated EW suite than the Tejas Mk1. Its received some adverse press from the primary user as well.

The Irbis BTW gets AN/APG-80 levels of SAR performance despite being a PESA set & has range coverage equal to several Block 2 AESAs WW and has superior FOV.

Source?

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 03 Jul 2014 08:58

Friends,

Do understand, Killing anything (esp. humans) is american living requirement. they dont kill for business. its their elixir. America will finish if they stop killing or putting others in trouble. So its obvious they are miles ahead in killing technology. We dont need not match Americans. Our primary need of arms is defence. everybody in the world knows we dont attack on other. its pure defence business. we need weapons to stay out of trouble.

I think its the basic difference between us and americans or americans and any other country. thats why I think we should choose weapons according to our requirements and not on american benchmarks.

And anyways americans are not attacking us anytime soon. So no worry in that end also.

JMT.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Jul 2014 09:39

What is the status of the two MKIs being upgraded/modified to carry BMos? One supposes that the future MKI upgrades will depend upon the trials with the two prototypes.Local production of MKIs is being found more expensive than imports.However.local content has increased hugely and a fully locally sourced MKI is expected within a couple of years.No small feat there,it will create a string foundation for future FGFA production if and when the full deal is sealed.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 03 Jul 2014 14:30

sarang wrote:Friends,

Do understand, Killing anything (esp. humans) is american living requirement. they dont kill for business. its their elixir. America will finish if they stop killing or putting others in trouble. So its obvious they are miles ahead in killing technology. We dont need not match Americans. Our primary need of arms is defence. everybody in the world knows we dont attack on other. its pure defence business. we need weapons to stay out of trouble.

I think its the basic difference between us and americans or americans and any other country. thats why I think we should choose weapons according to our requirements and not on american benchmarks.

And anyways americans are not attacking us anytime soon. So no worry in that end also.

JMT.

How about peace & love.

But seriously a killer will kill till you get rid of him and killing him is a method of doing that.

The problem is not the killing itself, but the inability to understand how best to kill.

The answer to Stealth is not better stealth. Better stealth merely means more money and bragging rights. The answer is counter stealth. Counter Stealth means great engineers working on great ideas.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2014 19:57

May be we should start a thread on "What is a 5th Gen Plane?".

Here is another aspect of the challenges faced by such machines (need credentials):

Jul 14, 2014 :: 5th-To-4th Gen Fighter Comms Effort Still In Early Stages

The U.S. Air Force’s plans for a forthcoming program to buy a communications system to connect fifth-generation fighters to their fourth-generation counterparts is only a first step, according to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh.