PAK-FA and FGFA Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Sep 2013 16:54

Vortex aerodynamics

http://fotografersha.livejournal.com/431734.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Sep 2013 09:02

T-50 at MAKS ( Konstantin Khmelik )

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Sep 2013 16:20

Edit:referring to PakFa

Latest article in Air International by Piotr Butowski. A serious author and not some hack.

The frontal array has 1522 modules-should be pretty powerful.
N036 radar has LBand arrays for both IFF AND A2A target detection.
The side arrays will enhance coverage in the a2a with coverage of upto 135 deg, and will have around 400 modules each. Plus with horizontal polarization be good for a2g coverage. There will be a pod mounted mmw radar as well. The FGFA radar derived from the N036 will also have Indian participation, and will be called the N079. The PAKFA avionics suite will not just utilize an EW Tx-Rx in the tail sting but also leverage the frontal radar array.
In another first, the EO suite will have a DIRCM. Butowski confirms this for the second time.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2013 19:11

^^ Some new details on the new engine too talks of number to cold and hot stages compared to the current 117 series , not much news on weapons front other then what is known.

Seems the joint AESA radar for FGFA has its own designation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Sep 2013 02:50

On weapons says the Kh-58UShK ARM is ready and so are the Kh-38M and the KAB-250 guided bomb. All three have been tested using other aircraft. However, UAC blames Tactical Missiles Corporation for delays in other missiles, particularly the replacement to the R73E missile, thanks to a delay with the K-74M2 seeker.

Regarding engine - NPO Saturn head said work on the 2nd stage - item 30 engine - was going very well. Design characteristics of the engine are much better than what Sukhoi expected. Current, first stage- item 117 engines - are rated at 147Kn wet, and 88.2-93.1 Kn, dry.
Cold section of item 30 will have a 3 stage compressor (117 has 4) and a single stage turbine, hot stage will have five stage compressor (instead of 9) and a single stage turbine.
Aircrafts characteristics will significantly improve in speed and acceleration when stage 2 engines come, per Fedorov of UAC.

Supersonic speed performance. Mikhali Pogosyan
Su-27 can fly over 650-700km at supersonic speed.
T-50 can fly over 1500 km at supersonic speed.
Subsonic range of T-50, 3500 km

India and Russia's PMF will be called Type 79L based on the T-50
30 engineers from HAL at Sukhoi
Efforts currently focused on preliminary projects involving aircraft components, presumably including the N079 radar
Further expanded contract may be delayed till 2014 till financial issues are resolved
Sixth T-50 proto to be tested in India once Russian trials complete
After that, a batch of 4 PPS aircraft for mil evaluation
60 to be ordered by Russia
PAKFA IOC and full series production by 2016 end

EO system
101 KS-U/02 UV MAWS, 2 - one to the front and one to the back'
Remainder of 101KS Atoll suite - 101KS-V for A2A, 101 KS-U/01 also an UV MAWS, 101KS-O DIRCM, 101 KS-N EO Pod (Litening type FLIR/LDP)

EW Suite
Sh-121
ECM portion is Himalaya

L402 made by KNIRTI
2 sets of arrays in this Himalaya suite. Its own which are distributed around the aircraft one is fitted in the sting and those of the N036 radar. Both operate in different frequency ranges

L BAnd radars
Not only used for IFF but also for ground and aerial target detection. computer processing of lband and xband signals enable systems information to be significantly enhanced.

GRPZ plant is currently preparing for series production of the radar.

Provisional (estimated) Performance with stage 1 engine:
NTOW: 25K kg
MTOW: 35K kg
Max speed: 2.3 M
Cruise speed: 1.3M
Supersonic: 1500 KM PLUS
Subsonic: 3500 KM plus

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Sep 2013 05:42

May be LCA can have this engine too in future - will help in logistics plus better generation level performance. The engine seems to have less number of stages and still better performance than expected!

OT here:is Mig-21 overpowered for its generation considering its flight characteristics like max height.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Sep 2013 09:47

Karan M wrote:Cold section of item 30 will have a 3 stage compressor (117 has 4) and a single stage turbine, hot stage will have five stage compressor (instead of 9) and a single stage turbine.

What is the significance of reduced number of cold and hot section other then having a smaller engine ( in length ) compared to current engine and perhaps lower weight ..... does fewer stages makes engine more efficient ?

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 01 Oct 2013 16:59

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Cold section of item 30 will have a 3 stage compressor (117 has 4) and a single stage turbine, hot stage will have five stage compressor (instead of 9) and a single stage turbine.
What is the significance of reduced number of cold and hot section other then having a smaller engine ( in length ) compared to current engine and perhaps lower weight ..... does fewer stages makes engine more efficient ?

Well less weight (and length as well) yes ... basically achieve greater engine-Thrust-to-Weight ratio.

Normally as a rule of thumb, the significant part of the weight of the engine is from the compressor stages - so lower the number of compressor stages (without sacrificing the compressor SPR, which in turn would mean lower OPR meaning lower Thrust) but still achieving the desired thrust, better it is.

But Russians, while translating, as usual, completely messed up the desc - it's basically a 3-5-1-1 (LPC-HPC-HPT-LPT) layout (compared to Kaveri's 3-6-1-1 layout).

Also wrt weight saving etc, amongst the compressor stages, the LPCs are the heaviest - so any saving in the LPC stages (again without sacrificing the SPRs) is a significant saving. Plus the amount of rotational energy (from the turbines) being constant, any weight saving in the compressor stage, leads to high blade speed (aka higher SPRs - until a point as moving beyond 1.2-1.6M blade speed may actually impede SPRs, due to supersonic shock-wave interference).

But reducing compressor stages without sacrifising overall OPR would mean achieving higher SPR for each of the Compressor stages - which can only be achieved by
1) Higher blade speed (mentioned above) - maybe in the realm of 1.5-1.6M
2) Low aspect ratio (aka wide chord) blade design
3) Multi-circular arc profile compressor blades
Pls refer to this post of mine on Compressor Blade Design and Manufacturing aspects for further details.

Yada Yada Yada ...

However interesting point to note is that same 1/1 HPT/LPT layout - that would certainly mean improved thermal resistance turbine castings (Ni based superalloys) as improved SPRs from the compressors (lesser number of stages etc) would definitely mean higher TeT levels etc.
Pls refer to this post of mine OPR vs TeT for a schematic representation of this relationship.

I think there was a news report (I think it was you who linked it), that had the Russians bragging about 2050K level of TeT (now that's so close to stoichiometric temp levels that any further improvement on TeT etc is firmly in the realm of ceramic blade regimes).

Interview with General Designer of NPO "Saturn" Yuri Shmotin
...
For these numbers to improve, you need heavy-duty, ultra-light, heat-resistant materials and alloys that can withstand high temperature and pressure. Suffice it to say that the temperature at the outlet of the combustion chamber may exceed 2,000 degrees.
...
Forming a technological advance, we first of all, are working to create high-temperature materials. "Saturn" today - one of the few organizations which, besides the use of materials on the market, is developing a high-temperature materials that can operate at gas temperatures up to 2050 degrees Kelvin.
...

Exotic stuff!!

member_25400 · Post by **member_25400** » 02 Oct 2013 03:55

the Russians bragging about 2050K level of TeT (now that's so close to stoichiometric temp levels that any further improvement on TeT etc is firmly in the realm of ceramic blade regimes).
Quote:
Interview with General Designer of NPO "Saturn" Yuri Shmotin
...
For these numbers to improve, you need heavy-duty, ultra-light, heat-resistant materials and alloys that can withstand high temperature and pressure. Suffice it to say that the temperature at the outlet of the combustion chamber may exceed 2,000 degrees.
...
Forming a technological advance, we first of all, are working to create high-temperature materials. "Saturn" today - one of the few organizations which, besides the use of materials on the market, is developing a high-temperature materials that can operate at gas temperatures up to 2050 degrees Kelvin

2000 Kelvin is ~1700 celsius. Japan has (admittedly via national project for world leading) technology for 1700 celsius gas turbines. Ref =Ref2. and has commercialized ~1900 celsius turbine. While these references are for power turbines, the same technology can be applied to jet turbines too.
Plus there's no telling the technology that lurks in the heart of the military industrial complex of the US.
So the russian brag is indeed laudable, world leading/world class, but hardly revolutionary.

Additionally, stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't most (current) first turbine blades ceramic coated anyway ? I'm sure I have a public technology foresight references from power generation technology around, if that will help.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2013 04:11

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Cold section of item 30 will have a 3 stage compressor (117 has 4) and a single stage turbine, hot stage will have five stage compressor (instead of 9) and a single stage turbine.
What is the significance of reduced number of cold and hot section other then having a smaller engine ( in length ) compared to current engine and perhaps lower weight ..... does fewer stages makes engine more efficient ?

Less moving parts means less probability of failure provided that all other variables are constant. Also to answer your question actually it is the other way round i.e. number of stages are reduced because efficiency of the individual compressor stage has gone up and so has the matching between the compressor and turbine section.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2013 08:10

Thanks for the replies everybody

Pitor PAK-FA write up from latest Air International issue

http://www.crocko.com/EA00ED90007D40E4B ... PAK-FA.zip

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Oct 2013 12:44

Air Superiority: Aviation goes to new heights on molecular level

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Oct 2013 03:14

vic wrote:
pragnya wrote:
begs a question. what is the purpose of this JV?

JV is beautiful vehicle for (i) Single Vendor, (ii) non-tender, (iii) non competitive, (iv) open ended priced (v) import (vi) with practically no Indian input (vii) hardly any technology absorption (viii) limited manufacturing value addition (ix) inflated commissions, bribes, swiss accounts etc

You forgot the ability for DDM journos to call the end product "indigenous"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2013 08:28

More bad news for the IAF.The Rafale deal is in limbo and now there is another yr.+ delay in finalising the nitty-gritty of the FGFA too.It appears that nothing will happen until the elections are over as "The Saint" and co. do now want their dhotis tarred with more coal dust or aviation fuel and allegations of yet more defence scams ! The Q is what will the IAF do with these delays that will have a drastic effect upon its re-quipment and moderniation plans?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131006/nation.htm#1

Differences crop up with Russia over fighter jet deal
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi October 5
Difference of opinion has cropped up between long-term partners India and Russia over the prestigious project to jointly develop and produce the next generation fighter planes.

The two countries had agreed in 2010 to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), which at $ 30 billion USD would be the biggest defence deal ever in the world.

The preliminary design contract (PDC) phase costing $ 295 million was completed on June 19. However, New Delhi and Moscow will take at least an year more to take the next step -- that is signing of the final design Research and Development (R&D) contract worth $ 11 billion. The draft contracts for the proposed R&D were exchanged in mid-2012. India’s share is $ 5.5 billion.

Since then, developments have lost pace. Sources said India wants access to technical data and be a contributor in the R&D as that will enable its teams to get experience. Also, India is seeking a ban on the sale of the plane to other countries. Indian planners accept in private is that Russia, or any other country, would never part with engine design specifications and metallurgy. “India is looking to be more than a monetary contributor in the deal”, said the source.

The IAF Chief, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, confirmed yesterday that brakes had been put on the FGFA project, at least for now. “We are still working on the R&D contract. It will take one more year. Technical discussions are on. Till we get technical details, which we need to know, we cannot even get to the issue of discussing financial terms and conditions”, the IAF Chief said.

The first hint of delay was when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Delhi in December last year but the R&D contract was not signed.

The first induction was planned for 2022, but the assessment within the MoD is that it will be delayed. Four prototypes of the code-named ‘PAK-FA’ are already flying in Russia.

The plane has stealth features enabling it to be somewhat masked from enemy radars. It will have advanced features such as super-cruise, ultra-manoeuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons (that is under-carriage weapons will not be visible) and network centric warfare capabilities.

Only when the R&D contract is signed, the FGFA prototypes will be available in India. The first is slated in 2014. It will be flight-tested by Indian pilots and monitored by Indian engineers. Two more prototypes will follow in 2017 and 2019. The last will be the final version on which the FGFA will be based.

What India wants
Access to technical data and be a contributor in the research & development
This will enable its teams to get vital experience.
Ban on the sale of the plane to other countries.
The two countries had agreed in 2010 to develop the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA)
At $30 billion, it was the biggest defence deal ever in the world

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 07 Oct 2013 12:55

This was bound to happen. We were late to join PAK-FA bandwagon on our side. We could had much more significant say, learning etc if we were to join then. Russians had been offering us a JV since 2001. But we didn't show interest until pretty late for reasons unknown to me.

Russia in 2001-2003 was different from Russia of 2011-13. We could have squeezed out more from them.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2013 14:38

Philip wrote:It appears that nothing will happen until the elections are over as "The Saint" and co. do now want their dhotis tarred with more coal dust or aviation fuel and allegations of yet more defence scams ! The Q is what will the IAF do with these delays that will have a drastic effect upon

Cant really blame AKA here for this atleast , The finance ministry is hell bent on keeping import lowest possible to meet CAD targets and if possible exceed it so any new big defence acquisation has been stalled including MMRCA , FMS and other stuff.

In an election year no one wants to sign a big deal no matter how genuine it is the opposition will cry murder not that the UPA government has any credibility on transparency issue.

AKA has to push thought very tight fist FM and very wary government willing to avoid any controversy to push though any new big defence deal this year ...so taking hits from both sides.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Oct 2013 15:25

We were late to join PAK-FA bandwagon on our side.

It was a risk that India could not afford. Not a technical one, but a financial one.

Even after Russia invested India still has requested some 40 modifications. (There are multiple dimensions to this, but I will not get into that discussion now.)

On the current delay, I am inclined to believe it is a Russian tactic to extract as much funds from India. I do not think Russia is against giving India most techs (engine, radar and a few others should be off limits - the relations was good, today it is OK, but never was great to part with such techs, which is OK and to be expected), but (like France) is attempting to bargain for the max funds.

The appeal of the FGFA is that the IAF will get a good plane that will bring the BP to the right level. Technically it should not provide India with much - certainly not what the expected cost is supposed to be ($100 million per plane) (bet it will be more than that). By design it may do more than the JSF, but technically it is inferior (based on open source accounts), but it will cost more.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2013 18:21

The problem is that by not taking decisions and being indecisive,AKA and the regime lays itself open to accusations from the Opposition that it is neglecting vital defence decisions.One wonders why decisions can't be made on the issues,with major funding kept over for 2014.In both the MMRCA case and the FGFA,initial agreements were signed long ago.About $300M has been already given to Russia/spent for the prelim work on the FGFA, and the MMRCA was fairly chosen after a truly intense battle of the warbirds.In both cases however,the doubt of HAL being able to meet the high standard of manufacture and quality (Rafale), and workshare on the FGFA that it has astonishingly abdicated wanting instead to develop the HTT-40 (!),seems to be also related to the delays.The size of the cake that our DPSUs can stuff into their mouths,chew,and digest happily without acute "indigestion" is still undecided.

The report that over 300 urgent posts for scientists for the DRDO is being delayed for financial reasons beggars belief.How on earth is the goal of indigenisation going to be accelerated if we do not have the manpower and highly skilled human resources to meet the challenges? I would instead have advocated slashing babudom intakes by 25%,which would save the country billions,in overheads as well as kickbacks!

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 07 Oct 2013 20:06

The post in the tribune is basically what we have been talking about on this forum

Namely once we fund development of the plane it should not be sold to 3rd country

More input fm indian R & D

If we are hanging tough on these conditions that is great news, If there is a delay so be it.

PAK FA could be bought off the shelf and then get the Isrealies involved , we must learn to play hardball

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Oct 2013 20:16

so does the IAF big wigs have a plan B???

I was never optimistic of this. they will have us over a barrel at every point

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2013 20:18

Philip I think you are mixing up too many things here , Even if AKA is to say OK for MMRCA and all big ticket item ....it still has to be cleared by CCSA , MOD is not the final authority for all things defence deal but just Last minus 1 to clear the file , CCSA should finally clear the deal and there has been instances where CCSA has differed clearing either due to some technical objection from CS or MOF objecting and the file goes back again.

The point is our Procurement system is just too flawed and too slow for todays Age and Time ........it takes Eons to acquire something as urgent as MMRCA and even delayed participation in JV like FGFA results in sub optimum output in our favour. I can talk about the even more urgent Submarine Procurement or much delayed Artillery one........the list is long and well known.

Unless we shorten the procurement system for any capital purchases into some fixed time table like 2-4 Years for small and big purchase and make it transparent ....we will end up in the cyclic process of delays and more delays while Government keep changing and in an election year it would be left for the next Government to decide and the process begins all over again depending how much of bribe money one gets deprived or benefited from

We need to sort our things first before we start blaming every one for what is essentially our problem in the making.

AKA is the scape goat today but being on BRF for more than a decade now i remember we cried foul for every MOD from Mulayam Singh to GF to Pranab Da and across all Governments.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Oct 2013 20:21

More likely to be the case that Indian Developed FGFA will not be sold to any other country unless India and Russia agrees to sell to friendly one like Brahmos since there would be Indian and Russian IP involved and would need approval for sale.

But its unlikely that there would blanket ban on Sale or Export of PAK-FA that Russian can develop and export model and wishes to sell to any one....more like MKI and MKM , MKK deal is what I foresee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Oct 2013 19:56

Sept, 2013 :: Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project

There is no shortage of uncertainty about the future of Russia’s Sukhoi Perspektivniy Aviatsonnoi Kompleks-Frontovoi Aviatsii (PAK-FA)/T-50 fifth-generation fighter project. These doubts are driven by problems with major subsystems, delays with the aircraft’s introduction into service, and plans to defray some of the R&D cost by making India a developmental partner on the aircraft.

Russia’s NIIP radar design bureau, the traditional supplier for Sukhoi-design aircraft, has developed prototype models of the N050 active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set. “The results of the flight-test of the radar installed in one of the four T-50 flight-test aircraft are very impressive,” according to a Russian aerospace analyst familiar with the program. However, the N050 is a hand-assembled product and “currently the industrial base capacity to series produce the N050 does not exist,” said the same analyst. Furthermore, “the PPMs [transmit/receive modules] are produced at the Istok military electronics enterprise on a limited scale, which has made the radar’s cost prohibitive.”

In the same vein, the T-50’s composite panels are also handmade using the same basic technology as the well known Sukhoi range of all-composite aerobatic sports aircraft.

The fifth-generation engine that is to power later versions of the T-50 is still mostly on paper, say Russian industry experts. The flight-test aircraft are powered by the same Saturn 117S engine that is installed in the Su-35, and this will also be the engine for the initial production batches of the T-50.

Above all, without changes to the aircraft it is questionable whether or not the T-50 will actually be a low-observable design. Several aspects of the aircraft as currently configured will produce unacceptably high RCS, as well as IR, signatures, according to U.S. industry experts who spoke to AIN.

Another factor is that the T-50 program was considered to be economically viable only if India stepped up to purchase at least 250 of the aircraft, and also would share in the R&D effort. But India is planning to procure only around half that number of fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Sources in the Indian MoD state they cannot afford both the T-50 and the Dassault Rafale that was selected as the winner in the MRCA competition. If the situation becomes an “either or” proposition the T-50 may be jettisoned in favor of the French fighter so India does not place all of its eggs in the Russian basket.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2013 20:16

Too many flaws in the article to start with PAK-FA is powered by 117 engine and not 117S that powers Su-35S , 117 engine is a 5th Gen engine having a T:W ratio of 10.5:1 , even the F119 engine that powers the F-22 has a T:W ratio of 8:1 .

Initial batch of AESA radar will always be hand assembled until full scale production starts when radar production can start on industrial scale and the AESA radar is not N050 but N036

Too many wrong to even go further

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Oct 2013 21:03

I agree. Also, I hope FGFA numbers are not compromised with. We don't have dedicated bombers, so we need these heavy fighters. Beyond 2025, it must be just

Light: Tejas Mk2 + Tejas Mk3
Medium: Rafale + AMCA
Heavy: Su-30 MKI + FGFA

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Oct 2013 21:16

Even economic part is viable on certain conditions so it is not a problem as is. The only part serious enough is enquiry about forbidden ie how much stealth lulz.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2013 21:56

As far as stealth of PAK-FA goes I have posted this before and would do it and from official source i.e from Chief Designer of PAK-FA Alexander Davidenko , You cant get better source than that and you cant really look at an aircraft and say how stealthy it is , Stealth is also very band specific what is stealthy for common X band which is where most low RCS aircraft is optimised for since most weapon control radar work in those band , is not stealthy for L band and is far less stealthy for Meter Band ( HF 1-3 m )

Chief Designer of PAK-FA Alexander Davidenko has to say about RCS link

Chief Designer of the aircraft, Alexander Davidenko indirectly hinted at the size of the effective area of scattering (ESR) of the future fighter. According to him, the ESR of the old generation aircraft (eg, Su-27) is about 12 m ², whereas the F-22A Raptor, it varies in the range of 0.3-0.4 m ². EPR PAK FA will not be higher than the F-22A, it will be very close to them. "

Note he is talking of Average RCS of an aircraft and not the magical 0.0001 m2 that people often quote which is obtained only from a narrow radiating cone from frontal ,So the goal of PAK-FA is to have RCS very close to F-22 though that is not the end and means to it self as there are many characteristics where PAK-FA will have equal or better capability then F-22.

There are even exercises held within NATO where Rafale was able to outdo F-22 in Close Combat few times , some pictures were posted in MMRCA dhaga some time back.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Oct 2013 22:13

Sept, 2013 :: Various Obstacles Confront Russia’s T-50 Project
Sources in the Indian MoD state they cannot afford both the T-50 and the Dassault Rafale that was selected as the winner in the MRCA competition. If the situation becomes an “either or” proposition the T-50 may be jettisoned in favor of the French fighter so India does not place all of its eggs in the Russian basket.

So thats why the FGFA numbers were cut down? I have said this earlier that we can't afford three concurrent fighter acquisition programmes(FGFA, MRCA and LCA). Most air forces which build their own fighters have only 1 or 2. The MRCA is leeching on both our indigenous LCA programme and our first next generation fighter programme. IAF's current plan is to buy fewer uber expensive fighters which will force it to keep ancient fighters in service far longer than ideal. Its not just the Mig-21 which will have to serve till 2025+, a large number of Jaguars, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s will be become 40+ year old airframes/50+ year old designs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2013 23:32

I squarely point finger to planning on the core enablers within LCA program. We are still no late... for the future. I'd say, put emphasis on Kaveri (rename if you don't like her) - Ganga is fine! but get that done with a new young team - like A5. Rest of the things is at lower priority.

Radars and stealth issue is more doable and possible than engine technology as of now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2013 06:36

Austin true,but it is the duty of any Def. Min. to try and overcome the hurdles,delays and bottlenecks in decision making in his own ministry.At least if the MOD has made up its mind,then the CCS can move forward.Secondly,the priority list of critical items required by the forces cannot be ignored for a decade,as the UPA has done.AKA's lethargy in decision making is too well known to absolve him of the major share of the situ we are in now.

A couple of years ago one asked the Q how we were going to afford 3 major aircraft programmes when even advanced nations could afford only one,that too in collaboration with others.The sh*t has now hit the fan and the headless chicken state of affairs is being experienced.In my mind,the long term requirement of the 5th-gen fighter should be top priority,as we will be facing the challenge of a countering at least one Chinese 5th-gen bird ,no matter how capable it is,by 2020.How much we can budget for this is another matter.The second issue is whether we need to acquire also full TOT for a 4++ gen fighter at huge expense (Rafale) instead of buying the aircraft (as we did with the M-2000) and some selective tech.The money saved going into the 5th-gen project.The LCA has become for India on a far lesser scale,a project comparable to the JSF.We are going to be the only or almost only nation flying the bird.After spending so much time and money,we have to make it succeed and build at least 120-150 of them to keep our numbers in the IAF's inventory happy as MIG-21 replacements and to master the art (diploma certificate) of designing and building our own combat aircraft.Once we also master the art of engine tech,we can graduate to the "Bachelor's degree".What it is finally going to cost us per unit,LC costs,etc. ,recovering the total expenditure on the programme,is still unknown but being a desi holy grail,we have to keep plugging on.There have been various statements that funding of the LCA programme has never been an issue and that funds earmarked have still not been utilised due to delays in the programme.

It would be wise for the IAF/MOD to appoint 3 heads for the 3 projects ,with responsibilities almost equiv. to the DG ADA to focus effort on achieving the required results and cutting through any delays,hurdles being experienced at the technical/MOD level so that swift decisions can be made and the funding found and earmarked for the same purpose.
All 3 programmes are essential to the health of the IAF,in the short,med. and long term.Any tinkering with it will spell catastrophe.The absurdity of the situ speaks for itself,60 yr. old MIG-21s still in service by 2020.Do we have to keep on flying our warbirds until they crash?

Unfortunately,the UPA is consumed with the fear of being swept out of power in the forthcoming elections and is desperate to use whatever money is left in the kitty on freebies for the votebanks.The defence of the nation is their last priority.The UPA and Dr.Singh from its track record appears more willing to compromise and perhaps even tolerate a Nelsonian eye to China's grabbing Indian territory and allowing Pak to continue waging its war of terror against us to stay in power.It is why it is doing b*gger all on both borders.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Oct 2013 17:33

It sounds to me that we at BRF have envisioned larger than the realistic requirements.

I am appalled by the attitude our admins (hopefully in the future, we develop short-term and long-term policy driven administration) with no direct inputs from political clout rather establish a program management commission, that is given the budgetary controls direct., that spans across regime changes, politics, and just focuses on core requirements.

The committee should start from establishing capabilities driven and operational specific requirements, and develop sub components, components and LRUs from that perspective, from satisfying existing upgrades to future use, into LCA, Migs, Sus, etc. We have these programs in hodge-podge manner, but it needs better management.

The goal is for future, but use the existing platforms as enablers. It gets ops and capabilities a boost with such a program management.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 11 Oct 2013 20:26

Philip wrote: ...
...
A couple of years ago one asked the Q how we were going to afford 3 major aircraft programmes when even advanced nations could afford only one,that too in collaboration with others.The sh*t has now hit the fan and the headless chicken state of affairs is being experienced.In my mind,the long term requirement of the 5th-gen fighter should be top priority,as we will be facing the challenge of a countering at least one Chinese 5th-gen bird ,no matter how capable it is,by 2020.How much we can budget for this is another matter.The second issue is whether we need to acquire also full TOT for a 4++ gen fighter at huge expense (Rafale) instead of buying the aircraft (as we did with the M-2000) and some selective tech.The money saved going into the 5th-gen project.

This is precisely the point which I am afraid people are not getting. We will be faced with a PLAAF and possibly PLAN 5th Gen fighter before 2020. And with the incremental development of PLA's AA missile it is going to very difficult if not downright impossible for Rafale and EFT to penetrate the Chinese Air Defenses. Of Course 5th gen is not the only solution, Automated UAV featuring rudimentary AI is another option, but that is ages away. And let us not forget what PLAAF has it will offer to PAF and PN.
By 2020 hopefuly IAF would have successfully inducted 100+ Rafales and setup tactics to match the planes capability. But by that time we will be facing PLAAF's 5th gen fighter.
There is something to be said for spending the same amount of money on AMCA rather than on a foreign designed and produced fighter.

Philip wrote: There have been various statements that funding of the LCA programme has never been an issue and that funds earmarked have still not been utilised due to delays in the programme.

That is the misconstruction of the truth. Money was not the problem, it was the delay in sanctioning the money and also amount what was sanctioned. We had to send Kaveri engine to Russia to test it at high altitude when necessary infrastructure for the same was not set up over here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Oct 2013 20:51

Aug 19, 2013 :: Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 Oct 2013 21:15

Christopher Sidor wrote:...
By 2020 hopefuly IAF would have successfully inducted 100+ Rafales and setup tactics to match the planes capability.

The IAF will start receiving the first of the Rafales in 2017 IF the deal is signed next year. In all probability there will be further delays and we can at best hope for 30-40 of them before 2020.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 11 Oct 2013 22:54

^^^
I pray that is not the case. This deal has already seen too many delays.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2013 23:58

To speed up induction, the IAF will move more aircraft to CKD/SKD from the TOT portion, and also to increase numbers and meet TOT EOQ requirements, it will move the order numbers to 189 from the 126 originally noted
(exercising the 63 options)
Check the Su-30 MKI deal - saw much the same.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Oct 2013 01:00

NRao wrote:Aug 19, 2013 :: Sukhoi T-50 Shows Flight-Control Innovations

Thank you. For a guy interested in aerodynamics, it is a valuable link.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Oct 2013 01:47

indeed.. btw, that pic angle is awesome.

It appears that PAK-FA will take many internal forms with many versions, to reach an acceptable 5th gen. Long way to go!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Oct 2013 17:36

Seems like Brazil may join India and Russia in PAK-FA/FGFA program

Brazil is interested in cooperation with Russia to develop a fifth-generation aircraft
http://www.itar-tass.com/c134/915287.html

BRASILIA, October 16. / Spec. corr. ITAR-TASS Igor Varlamov /. Brazil is interested in cooperation with Russia in the sphere of development of advanced models of aircraft of the fifth generation. This was stated by the Minister of Defence Celso Amorim, the South American country after today held a meeting with Brazilian capital on a visit to Brasilia, the head of the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Oct 2013 11:26

AK Antony to take up issues related to FGFA project with Russia

NEW DELHI: Not happy with its share of work in the multi-billion dollar Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, India is expected to flag the issue with that country during Defence Minister AK Antony's visit there next month.

Though India is investing 50 per cent of the cost of the multi-billion dollar programme, its work share in the research and development and other aspects of the programme at the moment is only around 15 per cent, IAF officials said here.

The Defence Minister is expected to flag this issue during his Russia visit beginning November 15 as this will have an impact on India's indigenous capabilities to develop such an advanced fighter aircraft, they said.

The IAF expressed its objection over the issue at a CII event on energising aerospace sector in India.

"We have a major opportunity in the FGFA programme. At the moment it is not very much in favour of Indian development. We are flagging it through the Government. It should be much more focused towards indigenous development capability," IAF Deputy Chief Air Marshal S Sukumar said here.

The senior IAF officer was commenting on the programme and the opportunities that it could provide for the Indian defence sector.

The FGFA is a joint venture programme between India and Russia and its preliminary design phase was completed recently.

The programme is expected to cost over 1.5 lakh crore to the Government. The two sides are now in discussion over the main Research and Development part of the programme, which is expected to take another year to be concluded.