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

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 23 Apr 2018 13:40

tsarkar wrote:^^ This one's a keeper. Just like Sher Singh and the cattle prod.

Philip - why isn't Sukhoi/ROE tendering PAFKA in the IAF RFP?

Saar, why saar? Why are you tempting a flame war, blue on blue.

nam · Post by **nam** » 23 Apr 2018 14:33

JayS wrote:
nam wrote:Not sure how j20 will be stealthly with it's massive canards.

If chinese canards doesn't effect stealth, why there isn't one on j31
If you have a notion in your mind that "canards are bad for stealth", you can simply delete this from your mind.

I don't claim to know about building stealth jets, however are you saying a large moving surface will not have EM returns at specific angles?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Apr 2018 15:10

nam wrote:
JayS wrote:
If you have a notion in your mind that "canards are bad for stealth", you can simply delete this from your mind.
I don't claim to know about building stealth jets, however are you saying a large moving surface will not have EM returns at specific angles?

There are other moving surfaces as well. Slats, elevators, flaps. All of them should then be bad for Stealth, no..?

You can always design the surfaces to give minimum possible reflections in forward direction for given movement envelop.

FYI, LM's original proposal for Stealth STOVL aircraft was a canard fighter. F35 would have been a canard based aircraft, had LM not destroyed the work related to that project. They had only F22 related data handy and that's what they sent as reply to RFI. That's why F35 looks like F22.

MiG's 5th Gen prototype was also a canard jet.

nam · Post by **nam** » 23 Apr 2018 16:21

JayS wrote:
There are other moving surfaces as well. Slats, elevators, flaps. All of them should then be bad for Stealth, no..?

Ofcourse they reflect. Depending on their size, amount of energy and the angle they are exposed to will drive the reflection. However the canard in question of J20 is massive,in horizontal plane and will be part of the frontal RCS. Not sure how much they can reduce it.

Not saying it is the end of stealth,however having massive canards is not adding to it.

You can always design the surfaces to give minimum possible reflections in forward direction for given movement envelop.

FYI, LM's original proposal for Stealth STOVL aircraft was a canard fighter. F35 would have been a canard based aircraft, had LM not destroyed the work related to that project. They had only F22 related data handy and that's what they sent as reply to RFI. That's why F35 looks like F22.

MiG's 5th Gen prototype was also a canard jet.

Mig 1.44 was a prototype. Sukhoi Production PAK-FA with be without one. As you mentioned about LM proposal, however it was just a design.It's production jets are without canards. We are not doing canards, neither are Japanese.

I would hold on to my opinion until I see a production aircraft , other than J20 with canards. I would happy to change my mind even if future Chinese stealth jets will be with similar sized canards.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Apr 2018 16:42

nam wrote:
JayS wrote:
There are other moving surfaces as well. Slats, elevators, flaps. All of them should then be bad for Stealth, no..?
Ofcourse they reflect. Depending on their size, amount of energy and the angle they are exposed to will drive the reflection. However the canard in question of J20 is massive,in horizontal plane and will be part of the frontal RCS. Not sure how much they can reduce it.

Not saying it is the end of stealth,however having massive canards is not adding to it.

You can always design the surfaces to give minimum possible reflections in forward direction for given movement envelop.

FYI, LM's original proposal for Stealth STOVL aircraft was a canard fighter. F35 would have been a canard based aircraft, had LM not destroyed the work related to that project. They had only F22 related data handy and that's what they sent as reply to RFI. That's why F35 looks like F22.

MiG's 5th Gen prototype was also a canard jet.
Mig 1.44 was a prototype. Sukhoi Production PAK-FA with be without one. As you mentioned about LM proposal, however it was just a design.It's production jets are without canards. We are not doing canards, neither are Japanese.

I would hold on to my opinion until I see a production aircraft , other than J20 with canards. I would happy to change my mind even if future Chinese stealth jets will be with similar sized canards.

Sure, you can believe anything you want, your prerogative. There was a time when people derided LCA saying all recent delta wing planes have canards and LCA does not, so LCA is bad wonly.

I am yet to see any reference worth any academic value which proves canards are bad for stealth.

There is not one tail-less delta wing based aircraft in all non-canard versions you mention. If you select a configuration which doesn't need canard even for normal aerodynamics, let alone stealth, why would you consider canard for it..? Aircraft configuration is dictated by 100s of parameters. What you see at the end does not necessarily best at every one of those paramters and there would be rejected configurations which are better in some parameters than the finalized one. That it was finalized, does not make it best from each and every parameters' perspective. For example YF23 is widely accepted as more stealthy design than the YF22. But still it lost out on other parameters in a competition which was for a stealthy air superiority fighter.

PS: I don't give a damn about Chinese aircraft. May be its stealthier than F35 maybe its dud as Su-30MKI as far as RCS is concerned. I look at this issue as a standalone issue. Too many times I have seen remarks saying canards are bad for stealth, without any substantiation of value.

PPS: The prototypes themselves are down selected from a large number of configurations after a careful study by the OEM. No OEM worth its salt would lightly select any config for building and testing unless it has reasonable confidence in its chances of success against the requirements. One should not dismiss them as mere proposals and designs.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 23 Apr 2018 16:49

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Philip - why isn't Sukhoi/ROE tendering PAFKA in the IAF RFP?
Saar, why saar? Why are you tempting a flame war, blue on blue.

Its a very genuine question requesting a factual answer. If PAKFA is the next best thing to pasteurized milk, why isn't Sukhoi/ROE proposing it in response to both IAF & IN RFPs?

A good decision has been taken not to spend Indian Taxpayers money on development of foreign systems for which we do not get 1. ToT or 2. Sales Royalty or 3. Exclusivity.

No one has doubted the potential ability of the aircraft or the designers. ROE/Sukhoi are free to bid in Indian RFPs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Apr 2018 17:07

+100 TSarkar - Russia can always request that India allow them to compete in the new MRCA bid and put up the PAKFA against the F/A-18 E/F and F-16 Block 70. The PAK FA should blow these aircraft away since its a generation ahead in terms of stealth, airframe performance etc and sensors are equivalent (just going by best case Russian claims). If they are unwilling to do so, what does that tell us? About how far the aircraft has to go before it matures?

Also, I am yet to see a single Indian program which has benefited from Russian TOT in some other system. Jag, Mirage 2000 etc all have their part to play indirectly in LCA. Not so for the MiG-27 etc. Apart from the Russian guns and R-73E, I dont see what TOT for the MiGs did for India. Similarly, I am very skeptical PAKFA TOT will do anything for India in terms of AMCA program.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Apr 2018 17:08

tsarkar wrote:
Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Saar, why saar? Why are you tempting a flame war, blue on blue.
Its a very genuine question requesting a factual answer. If PAKFA is the next best thing to pasteurized milk, why isn't Sukhoi/ROE proposing it in response to both IAF & IN RFPs?

A good decision has been taken not to spend Indian Taxpayers money on development of foreign systems for which we do not get 1. ToT or 2. Sales Royalty or 3. Exclusivity.

No one has doubted the potential ability of the aircraft or the designers. ROE/Sukhoi are free to bid in Indian RFPs.

+1.

Karan,

I also agree on ToT point. I have said it on this thread some time back that, there wont be any inflow of significant technology from PAKFA to AMCA. Hoping for it and pegging AMCA to PAKFA would have been suicidal.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2018 20:02

Tsk, from various interviews, given by the air chiefs, etc., the search is on for a cost-effective fighter, preferably SE.
The CoAS is again quoted in VAYU, 2nd issue this year, on 3 issues.The FGFA."With the MOD".AMCA, " full support".SEFA ( Single Engine Fighter Aircraft) "strategic partnership " model.

If you read between the lines, he isn't too enthused with the FGFA but leaving it to the GOI, as it may be part of a bag of deals; the AMCA full support , but it isn't going to appear for ages , therefore necessitating the SEFA reqd. for the 42 sqd. req., plus an insurance policy for delayed deliveries of the LCA.

The Q must be asked why in the interview there is no mention of the MRCA req., but only mentions SEFA? A Freudian slip perhaps? One can only surmise then that this is an old interview made before the MMRCA req. supplanted the SEFA req.!

With the twin-engined Rafale already in the bag, why would the IAF want an inferior F-18 which was discarded in round 1 the last time several years ago for any MRCA req.? The F-16 has few godfathers in the IAF which leaves the Gripen as the dark horse.Upgraded MIG-29UGs probably good enough not needing the MIG-35. The FGFA is for the future as the " F" stands for!

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 23 Apr 2018 20:55

^^ Which F in FGFA stands for Future exactly, Philip sahab..?

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 24 Apr 2018 00:22

JayS wrote:^^ Which F in FGFA stands for Future exactly, Philip sahab..?

JaySji: Let's leave it on this no. I am afraid we are going to go into another couple of pages tailspin debate.

Let Fifth Gen Fighter Aircraft come in the future. Why start an argument before we know more. Today it seems that the program is mired in uncertainties. And the deal is not too or liking. Tomorrow things may change. We will discuss then. Like Shivji's late cousin my future grand son in law also said that when the balloon goes up maybe the Ruskis will offer India a great value deal. Till then let's hold out horses.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2018 04:44

PAK-FA/FGFA will happen for the IAF but will be more like Su-30 MKI project. It will have more customizations and more Indian supplied parts than MKI though. It won't be a full-partner JV as originally envisioned.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2018 10:36

Pics of PAK-FA in fly past preparation for May Day Parade

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Apr 2018 10:43

Time to shut this thread? Useless at the moment to look at stuff that may or may not happen...

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Apr 2018 11:07

^no way. Say what you will, the bird is pure eye candy...

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Apr 2018 11:18

Cain Marko wrote:^no way. Say what you will, the bird is pure eye candy...

You stole words from my mouth. Was going to say the exact same thing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 24 Apr 2018 14:40

Sure there are pretty things out there, but if we ain't buying, this thread should be toast! No more salivating over thangs that ain't coming..

Focus on the real Cats - LCA and AMCA! Rest of them leave Philip sir to acquire!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Apr 2018 19:48

<POOF>

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Apr 2018 20:19

Has there been any official communication one way or the other? Wait till it comes.. then either it becomes the IAF FGFA thread or simply merges with the Russian weapons and military technology thread...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 24 Apr 2018 20:27

Cybaru wrote:Sure there are pretty things out there, but if we ain't buying, this thread should be toast! No more salivating over thangs that ain't coming.. Focus on the real Cats - LCA and AMCA! Rest of them leave Philip sir to acquire!

No official word on anything yet! Until there is an official word, the position of the Varthaman committee remains the most credible one.

At a strategic level, It would be crazy not to have this bird in some form in the IAF. My bet is we will not see the AMCA until 2050 in enough squadron strength - it is still not a funded project.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 25 Apr 2018 01:10

Cybaru wrote:Sure there are pretty things out there, but if we ain't buying, this thread should be toast! No more salivating over thangs that ain't coming.. Focus on the real Cats - LCA and AMCA! Rest of them leave Philip sir to acquire!

We are not getting JsF as.well, why that thread was discussed?? And what ABT Future aircraft carrier despite being rejected by FM. We still don't stop salivating F18 citing emals??

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2018 01:22

When did they add the side looking radars at the nose?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Apr 2018 01:22

nrshah, True, but we don't have dedicated threads for them, do we? Please read context above!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Apr 2018 01:31

The only certainity about the SU-57 is that by 2020 the RuAF will see its induction, probably just one sqd.I Don't see a naval version appearing until 2025, carriers and carrier aviation not a priority when compared with the RuNs sub fleet, due to start receiving the new Husky SSGN mid decade after all Yasens are finished.

Secondly, given its expanded global strat. interests, new bombers like the Blackjack-2 being built in large number is the top air force priority delivering large PGM payloads to targets in Syria for example. The PAK-DA will arrive later after full-scale development.The RuAFs Flankers like the SU-35 and their version of the MKI are still top dogs in the air.I think initially, SU-57s and other Flankers may serve together in mxd. sqds. until their numbers are
sufficient.New Flanker production is also continuing for export.

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Apr 2018 02:56

The Su 35 was possible only because of the MKI.. let's see if the Russians are smart .. an Indian FGFA will set the pace for the whole program

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 25 Apr 2018 06:53

Cosmo_R, fyi, your post has been moved to feedback thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Apr 2018 08:41

Indranil wrote:When did they add the side looking radars at the nose?

Pretty much at the same time as they had one on the nose and they have it on leading edge of wings too if I am not wrong but the new colour makes it stand out

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2018 10:11

That is an unique capability of the PakFA. The range of coverage is huge, and simultaneously in multiple bands.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 25 Apr 2018 10:22

Cybaru wrote:Sure there are pretty things out there, but if we ain't buying, this thread should be toast! No more salivating over thangs that ain't coming.. Focus on the real Cats - LCA and AMCA! Rest of them leave Philip sir to acquire!

+1

The LCA needs to come in more significant numbers. If only the GoI would simply shut down the current RFP and focus on the Tejas and its variants, everyone would be better off. From a home grown MIC, the IAF and the Indian taxpayer. The Tejas is a win-win.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2018 20:11

tsarkar wrote:
Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Saar, why saar? Why are you tempting a flame war, blue on blue.
Its a very genuine question requesting a factual answer. If PAKFA is the next best thing to pasteurized milk, why isn't Sukhoi/ROE proposing it in response to both IAF & IN RFPs?
s.

one reason Pakfa is not contesting MRCA 2.0 could be that it is already under negotiation under separate deal. Another reason is probably because it's too big. Just like su35. Or f15.

Lack of development doesn't have to be the only reason. There can be others as well. Iirc gripen participated in mrca trials despite being nowhere close to where the pakfa is today. Not even first flight. It is participating in this one too.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2018 20:14

ShauryaT wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Sure there are pretty things out there, but if we ain't buying, this thread should be toast! No more salivating over thangs that ain't coming.. Focus on the real Cats - LCA and AMCA! Rest of them leave Philip sir to acquire!
No official word on anything yet! Until there is an official word, the position of the Varthaman committee remains the most credible one.

At a strategic level, It would be crazy not to have this bird in some form in the IAF. My bet is we will not see the AMCA until 2050 in enough squadron strength - it is still not a funded project.

+100. The most obvious answer that posters are forgetting/ignoring

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2018 20:22

Karan M wrote:+100 TSarkar - Russia can always request that India allow them to compete in the new MRCA bid and put up the PAKFA against the F/A-18 E/F and F-16 Block 70. The PAK FA should blow these aircraft away since its a generation ahead in terms of stealth, airframe performance etc and sensors are equivalent (just going by best case Russian claims). If they are unwilling to do so, what does that tell us? About how far the aircraft has to go before it matures?

Also, I am yet to see a single Indian program which has benefited from Russian TOT in some other system. Jag, Mirage 2000 etc all have their part to play indirectly in LCA. Not so for the MiG-27 etc. Apart from the Russian guns and R-73E, I dont see what TOT for the MiGs did for India. Similarly, I am very skeptical PAKFA TOT will do anything for India in terms of AMCA program.

The pakfa has already demonstrated flight characteristics that few/none can match. Yes, development continues but then how is gripen e, especially in mrca 1.0 any different?

TOT for Migs did a lot for China, that India was incapable of leveraging it the way the Chinese did, despite having better access and technical expertise is not the Russians fault.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Apr 2018 21:43

CM: One bogey is this TOT thing. We need to be clear on what TOT is. It is the transfer of production technology. The ability to use "local" resources to produce items, even from a component level. There is NO ONE else who has offered us this opportunity like the Russians have. In many cases like the Su-30 and Brahmos and even for the Bhishma, we have indigenized the production and in the process create a veritable local supply chain. What it is not about is the transfer of IP or transfer of critical components. No one will ever provide that and the IP part has to come from indigenous research and development. Some people are asking questions like did we learn how to build engines on our own or AESA radars due to years of TOT of Russian wares? It is like asking, did China learn Apple's IP because iPhones are made in China? There have been many learnings and successful spinoffs, such as the canister design from the Brahmos project that we have successfully used for all our missiles with Russian help. We do not have to repeat the role Russia plays in our strategic projects.

Another bogey is this constant compare with Western products. Arrey Bhai: Who is even claiming that Russian wares are in general better than western ones, for apples-apples compare. The question is not if Russian wares beat western technology. In general, they do not. What matters to India is, is there any other 5G product available to India with the least impact on our strategic space and at a meaningful economic cost? Are these products on offer by the Russians likely to provide an edge against the PLAAF? Can we engage the Russians to NOT sell or delay the sale of its 5G product to the PLAAF?

@TSarkar: I agree in general, we should not use Indian money for foreign companies to build/mature their wares, but is there another time and risk mitigation option to the PAK-FA minus ceding strategic space or downgrading of our capabilities vs the PLAAF?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2018 22:49

^ some very very good points there. Thank you

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Apr 2018 23:38

One more point to add and I hate to be a skeptic but for every post which seeks to bank on the AMCA and dump the PAK-
FA based product, some food for thought. The LCA has taken 25+ years post funding to get to partial squadron strength, still maturing and yet to be in FOC. A reasonable approach to risk planning for the AMCA would be to assume at least a minimum of such a time frame for the AMCA. Is it possible to do it earlier, certainly but it is also possible that this may take longer than the LCA project. Meanwhile, the quantitive and qualitative requirements for national defense have to be met. What is the answer?

Also, the decision in the 80's by Indian designers to build a light aircraft with FBW, the FCS, heavy use of composites, delta wings with no canard, TurboFan engine/crystal blades, etc were all based on western examples. There were some who did warn at the time itself that it is much ambitious for India given her capabilities then. That water is down the bridge now but one thing unfair is to turn around and point out, what did TOT from Russia get us?

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 26 Apr 2018 00:15

ShauryaT wrote:Can we engage the Russians to NOT sell or delay the sale of its 5G product to the PLAAF?

This is the whole dilemma essentially.

We need a stealth fighter ASAP. The issue is not exactly with china operating the J-20. The issue is with china selling the J-20 to pakistan in the near future. Given the strategic convergence of interests between china and pakistan, I wont be surprised if the chinese gave away the J-20 to pakistan for free. After all, they transferred the JF-17 production line to pakistan for free.

Sometimes I wonder...

Had china not transferred the JF17 to pakistan, would it be wrong to assume that the americans would have commenced transferring a few dozen F16s to pakistan to keep the balance?

Will · Post by **Will** » 26 Apr 2018 00:58

ShauryaT wrote:CM: One bogey is this TOT thing. We need to be clear on what TOT is. It is the transfer of production technology. The ability to use "local" resources to produce items, even from a component level. There is NO ONE else who has offered us this opportunity like the Russians have. In many cases like the Su-30 and Brahmos and even for the Bhishma, we have indigenized the production and in the process create a veritable local supply chain. What it is not about is the transfer of IP or transfer of critical components. No one will ever provide that and the IP part has to come from indigenous research and development. Some people are asking questions like did we learn how to build engines on our own or AESA radars due to years of TOT of Russian wares? It is like asking, did China learn Apple's IP because iPhones are made in China? There have been many learnings and successful spinoffs, such as the canister design from the Brahmos project that we have successfully used for all our missiles with Russian help. We do not have to repeat the role Russia plays in our strategic projects?

The Chinese learnt to make phones , maybe not as good as apple but definitely workable. Licence producing aircraft with so called ToT hasn’t got us anywhere nor will it in future, be it with the Russians or anyone else. The point in this case is yes we need a 5th Gen fighter. Definitely buy one to manage risks till the AMCA comes. If the Pak-fa meets requirements buy it off the shelf with some customaziation. The thing to not do is pour billions into someone else’s MIC for R&D when everyone knows that you are not going to get any worthwhile IP or learning or tying yourself into buying over a 100 aircraft when the Russians themselves ain’t buying more than a dozen for the moment. Pour that same money into research in ones own country.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Apr 2018 01:23

ShauryaT wrote:One more point to add and I hate to be a skeptic but for every post which seeks to bank on the AMCA and dump the PAK-
FA based product, some food for thought. The LCA has taken 25+ years post funding to get to partial squadron strength, still maturing and yet to be in FOC. A reasonable approach to risk planning for the AMCA would be to assume at least a minimum of such a time frame for the AMCA. Is it possible to do it earlier, certainly but it is also possible that this may take longer than the LCA project. Meanwhile, the quantitive and qualitative requirements for national defense have to be met. What is the answer?

The point really was should invest 4-6 billion dollars into this venture and get hardly any IP for it. Given that RuAF isn't adding these in numbers, all the debugging and growing pains are ours and ours alone. If this were an equal partnership with joint r&d and production (Airbus kinda model?) this would make a lot of sense! Plus this enables the product to be sold to competition while we toiled, refined and made it into a weapon.

IMO, I would rather throw the 4-6 billion on engine ventures

MKI-Replacement engine/AMCA (78KN dry - 130 KN wet) - ERJ 2XX (I know I keep harping on this, but hopefully someday everyone will)
LCA Mk1 and Mk2 engine (60KN dry - 104KN wet) - M88/Kaveri expansion
HTSE-2250 for IMRH (2000 to 2250 kW) with safran or alone.

Flying lab, high altitude lab...

Having them participate in the tender forces them to invest in doing the basic ground work rather than selling us a lego kit which is a plane but not a weapon yet.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 26 Apr 2018 03:15

Cybaru wrote: The point really was should invest 4-6 billion dollars into this venture and get hardly any IP for it. Given that RuAF isn't adding these in numbers, all the debugging and growing pains are ours and ours alone. If this were an equal partnership with joint r&d and production (Airbus kinda model?) this would make a lot of sense! Plus this enables the product to be sold to competition while we toiled, refined and made it into a weapon.

The Airbus type joint IP option is not on offer. Understand, We may desire it to be so but it is not. Would not like to go into details of possible reasons why. But at the same time, the type of customization on offer would probably not be available from another country.

IMO, I would rather throw the 4-6 billion on engine ventures

I do not think anyone would object on the need to invest into our own MIC but we would be conflating two separate objectives. The investment into the PAK-FA project is about the acquisition of a product in relatively short time frames and hopefully with some strategic benefits to make it worthwhile to invest early. The engine venture example is about an investment into R&D in the hope of a successful future capability acquisition. Time and Risk are the key variables here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Apr 2018 03:37

ShauryaT wrote: I do not think anyone would object on the need to invest into our own MIC but we would be conflating two separate objectives. The investment into the PAK-FA project is about the acquisition of a product in relatively short time frames and hopefully with some strategic benefits to make it worthwhile to invest early. The engine venture example is about an investment into R&D in the hope of a successful future capability acquisition. Time and Risk are the key variables here.

We do not have the luxury of investing our meager resources in two different stealth fighter programs especially when one of them is not our own and will not accrue any benefits to our local MIC. Compare our R&D expenditure to what the Chinese pour into their local programs. The AMCA is still waiting for funds. It deserves whatever we can spare. For the IAF's operational needs we can buy the PAK-FA (or another aircraft if acceptable) off the shelf when the need arises. Which is kind of exactly what Doval ji implied. The PAK-FA will probably still fly in IAF colors in limited quantities one day. The FGFA will not.