PAK-FA Thread - First flight

L Ram · Post by **L Ram** » 30 Jan 2010 16:11

apologies in advance, mine also the same question. What happened to Arun S??

MOD s can delete if they feet this is OT.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 30 Jan 2010 16:12

Arun_S left BR

:(:( taking all his missile drawings with him

:(:(:(:(

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2010 16:18

Samay wrote:Times like this makes one wish if JC, GJ, Arun S & B Harry and other old BRFites were still around to share this joyous moment with us.

sorry to ask but What happened to Arun S, JC ?

Unfortunately for us they are not with us at BR any more

But Arun S still posts at India Forum Link , so he will be happy to reply to you there.

GJ is busy flying MKI , PAK-FA etc etc wont distract him

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2010 16:40

The PAK-FA is more like a MKI with internal weapons bay

I dont think it shares anything in common in airframe terms with su30 family - all of wings, tailplanes and vertical fins are different. the canards are replaced with lerx. the nose is smaller, so is the cockpit. the fuselage is wider, the air intakes are bigger.
it is is a very different bird...the engine bays bulge above the fuselage.

the only common things I see is landing gear and swan neck.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jan 2010 16:41

Congrats Russia and Sukhoi! Glory,Glory,Hallelujah! The 5th-gen fighter has arrived and man,isn't it a beaut!

First impressions,it appears that the large,deep intakes on the Fulcrum,Flanker and Foxbat,have been turned sideways and this has dramatically increased the wing lift ,also allowing for the many internal weapons bays.Here the designers have well understood the limitations of the JSF,which as many analysts have remarked,once its wings are loaded with weaponry,"poof" goes its much vaunted stealth,procured at astronomical cost! With the JSF coming in at around $130M and the F-22 at $175M per piece,frankly,how many can even a rich nation afford,let alone India?

This is a typical Russian answer to a design problem and as usual the Russian philosophy in the design of its weapon systems follows the creed,KISS,"make it simple stupid".Brute force in the form of two massive engines with TVC give the aircraft massive power and supercruise ability and a wide,flat wing-cum-fuselage,"a squashed Flanker" said one post,gives fabulous lift and internal storage for weapons and fuel.The wide spacing between the 3-D nozzles allows for the flat underbelly and the 4 internal weapons bays.Here too another advance over the US birds in that it can carry far more AAMs internally apart from a huge fuel factor.From the first pics,it appears that the outboard weapons bays are (as Sweetman observes) for smaller fin-folding WVR dogfighting missiles,while the two forward and rear mid-line weapons bays will carry at least 8-12 BVRs + "AMRAAMskis".Outer weapon pylons if used can then carry stealthy EW pods,or even two large ASMs.Looking at the pics taken,these missiles could even be located close to the outer weapons bays in a conformal arrangment reducing RCS.

As I said many moon ago in the MMRCA thread,once the PAK-FA/T-50 arrives and flys,it will usher in a sea-change in attitude towards the IAF's current and future procurement strategy and heavily influence the MMRCA decision.The 5th-gen fighter is the future for the IAF and the way to go.We must devote max funds available to this programme,as it will give us the cutting edge tech and a quantum leap in air dominance over our two mortal enemies China and Pak.There is little point wasting our money on expensive 4+ gen fighters which do not even compare with the SU-30MKI,which has yet to get the first of many upgrades which contain several of the 5th-gen technologies and systems that will feature on the T-50.NOw that the T-50 has arrived and seen in all its beauty,a new understanding and mindset about Russian aviation skills in comparison to the western approach will make our IAF/MOD decision makers think hard before a decision on the MMRCA is taken.If the Russians play their cards well,and offer a clear direction and path towards the T-50/5th-gen fighter for India via the SU-30MKI and the MIG-35,simplifying the IAF's requiremetns at reasonable cost,the cost-effectiveness/attractiveness of the MIG-35 could be very difficult to discard.Right now,the Gripen's chances brighten from a cost point of view,especially if LCA development is delayed further.

From the T-50s design,it is clear that a carrier version is definitely on the cards and the IN should look no further than this beauty for its future larger carriers and modify its designs on the drawing boards to accomodate the T-50.The IN should also jump onto the bandwagon of the T-50 project,which will give it a quantum leap over anything that China can put to sea on its future carriers.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 30 Jan 2010 16:57

Great news! have put some words about the 1st flight of PAKFA in my blog...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jan 2010 17:21

Well the funny thing is a long time ago my late cousin Wing Co Suresh was describing meeting a Russian designer from the Sukhoi bureau and said that when talk came to technology and transfer of technology he said "What is technology? I am technology", patting himself on the chest. I am reminded of a friend of mine who would enter the kitchen and quickly whip up a delicious something from whatever there was in the kitchen.

The Russians have used all the design experience they have to quickly whip up what appears to be a beauty. This comes from IMO a long tradition of
1) Setting up design bureaus where people can think and experiment
2) Not being afraid of trying new things
3) Not being afraid of failure
4) And a very very Russian version of "Jugaad" that corporate India wants to claim as an original Indian thing - but I would like to see it applied to tech in India.

"Oooh! Aaah! Wow!" are the sorts of reactions that we are seeing now - but I recall that these were exactly the reactions that we saw when the MiG-25 appeared about 30 years ago, the MiG-29 20 years ago and the Su 30 a decade ago.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 30 Jan 2010 17:24

@ Igorr

that IR and radar observability reduction was achieved not worse than on American 5th gen. fighters, but in different way.

Like..?

Russian PM Putin itself said after the fly, that the designers 'have much to work' on the fighter's weapon and engine.

Looking forward to see...Anyhow..any information about super cruise and maximum speed.!

. It could be Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Algeria, Malaysia, Libya and in some circumstances – Iran. The second line, if economically improved, the follow states could become T-50's customers too: Myanmar, Indonesia, Syria, Serbia and even Ukraine (if more realistic president will be elected). However, I think, China has zero chance to be allowed for T-50 import for obvious reasons.

Ok...the question for gurus is....can Indian count on Mayanmar...?

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 30 Jan 2010 17:36

I don't know the original source....but I am coping from KEYPUBLISHING FORUM ::

Just posting for reference ::

http://s006.radikal.ru/i215/1001/e3/6cf080542dca.gif

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Jan 2010 17:40

The Flaptor will definitely carry a boatload of fuel and supercruise.So will outfly and outrange anything out there including i suspect the Raptor.
It will have definitely a much reduced RCS vs the Su30 by extensive use of composites and design , also reduced IR signatures., maybe not as much as the Raptor ?
It will most likely carry an armament load more than any fighter out there except maybe the dedicated bombers.

With new generation radars,missiles and electronics one Flaptor is likely to blow away an entire squadron of 4th gen fighters

True Russian bear.When you hit , hit hard.And if the Raptor is found it is as good as dead ! Plus it will most likely outrun any missile the raptor will pit against it., unless uncle comes up with hypersonic AAMs !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2010 18:11

8 full-caliber ramjet AAMs internally and 4 smaller ones in "silent eagle" stealthy housings underwing, probably 500-1000kg worth of EW gear in various bays, a 1500-2000 module aesa radar + side arrays, 3D TVC to fly clean and efficiently upto 65000ft, "frameless" HUD , next-gen IRST, rear facing IRST/MAWS, supercruise, mach2 sprint speed....and a combat radius twice that of any 4.5/5th gen fighter out there.

this thing will "wipe the floor" to put it delicately with ALL of the MRCA contenders
and any version of F-15. also looks superior to JSF in all departments - which was
surely a design goal.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 30 Jan 2010 18:12

Here are some comments from Strat re: PAK-FA:
"Indeed, the Jan. 29 flight marks the first flying test bed of a stealth fighter outside of the United States. The Soviets historically eschewed stealth technology for a variety of reasons: Their system favored quantity over quality, they were concerned about efficient mass production and quality assurance challenges, and they believed in the long-term supremacy of radar and land-based air defenses. Sukhoi’s attempt with stealth technology — one that Russian engineers have limited experience working with — will thus present numerous challenges, and the characteristics of the final product remain to be seen".

With respect to "supremacy of radar and land based systems", Strat is referring to the S-400 SAM, regarding which they have this to say.
"Air defense is hardwired into the Russian military psyche. For much of the Cold War, Russia was at an extreme disadvantage in terms of intercontinental reach — especially in terms of aerial reconnaissance and strategic bombers. To put it simply, Russia was more vulnerable to U.S. reconnaissance planes and strategic bombers than the United States was to Soviet planes. Part of this is geography, part is history. The United States began designing an intercontinental bomber to reach Tokyo the moment the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbor. The Russians, on the other hand, were fighting a massive and devastating land war against the seasoned German army. They had little time or patience for the niceties of long-range aviation. That disparity defined how each emerged from World War II to wage the Cold War. Air defense — particularly surface-to-air missiles — was consequently a major strategic consideration for the Soviets."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2010 19:56

For a raptor @ 15* angle to madhu, what would be her rear RCS?

Bhushan · Post by **Bhushan** » 30 Jan 2010 20:22

Kartik wrote:
Ajatshatru wrote: Could the Russians also end up selling PAK-FA to the chinese?
not possible now since India is a partner. we had no say on the Su-30 because we simply bought a variant customised for us. In this case, we'll be putting up a large portion of the funding, so no chance of any Chinese sales.

I dont think the Russians will sell PAK-FA to chinese as that would have security implications for Russia as both are neighbouring countries with history of 'settled' disputes. One of the reasons for Russia choosing India over China was the issue of intellectual property rights and also high technology falling into Chinese hands. The Russians surely wont want a competitor in the form of China who will simply copy the latest Russian technology (without paying any royalty to Russia) and sell them cheaply across the world thereby affecting Russian sales.

As far as the issue of selling Su-30 variants to both India and China is concerned although both have same Su-30 designations the Indian version is made by Irkut while Knappo made the Chinese versions although it must be noted that both Irkut and Knappo are part of Sukhoi group. Also the technology given to us by Russians in Su-30 MKI is vastly superior than that of Su-30 MKK.

Also recently the news has come out that Russian arms sales to China are declining so that would mean that India can increase its influence on Russia even more as they would be even more dependant on us to get new orders. Remember what the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said 'the Gorshkov saga can have serious consequences' ie $12 Billion MRCA contract of course!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2010 21:09

I think stealth is not a problem and to some extent it is a hype as well be it F-22,B-2, JSF or PAK-FA.

The fact that stealth has been flying for 3 decades now and the typical paranoid Soviets and now Russian did not invest in building another Stealth Fighter or Bomber is a good indication that Stealth can be countered.

In fact the last thing they funded was a stealth fighter which is PAK-FA they rather invested in Air Defence System, Radars and Upgrading existing fighter or building new derivatives.

On the contrary what the Soviets/Russian invested in was Metric/Decametric/Bistatic Radar , S-300 and now S-400 SAM's and Integrated Air Defence System (IADS).

All of the above tightly integrated in to Netcentric IADS is quite adequate and effective to deal with Stealth.

The practical use of stealth by USAF is certainly not inspiring or says a great deal about its achievement for e.g in Gulf War -1 the Iraqi Airdefence was well degraded and Stealth Attacks were preceded by Cruise Missile attack and Extensive use of Electronic Warfare.

In Kosovo B-2 did long range bombing but were accompained by EW Aircraft they never went in alone so much for all aspect stealth , the only fear was they thought Yugoslavia operated older S-300 SAM's secretly given by Russians which were later proven to be untrue.

Infact the USAF lost a F-117 due to some smart use of older AD SAM and metric radar.

Not to mention that Stealth aircraft is maintenance intensive and if you have so called all aspect stealth like B-2 then its like maintaining a white elephant.

So its good to have a Low RCS aircraft but its by no mean a killer or a game changer as it is made out to be and it equally applies to the newer PAK-FA

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jan 2010 21:13

Apparently from November 2009 issue of Russian Popular Mechanics

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iibL3efnMDw/S ... iagram.jpg

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jan 2010 21:21

I wonder what is that makes BRFites assume things , Chinese have been highly successful in getting RU IP in key areas of MIC now how much of it was willingly supplied by RU as per official agreements vs clandestine routes is a different issue. The Chinese might be interested in the new engine (AL-41) and the NIIP's AESA technology and for which they need not buy the complete AC as such .

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 30 Jan 2010 21:31

Austin wrote:Assuming you would not like to use your RF source , then it would be either your IRST or the sensor of the missile itself , if you do not have a IRST then one is greatly restricted ( and even if you do ) since the sensor of the missile no matter how capable these are cannot be used as they are carried inside the aircraft and when doing a hard manouvering , probably the aircraft which carries the missile externally (MKI/Typhoon etc ) has a better tactical advantage in WVR combat ?

Speculating here, but the bay door might open as soon as the pilot 'selects' the missile. It might stay open during the few seconds of manouvering after that before the missile is fired. So it might not be a disadvantage.
IIRC the previous F-22 crash happened during high manouvering tests with the bay door/s open.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2010 21:32

Negi this is true that in the past Russia did sell them top class weapons because they were desperate for funds as their economy was not doing well and Chinese had the hard cash to buy it
( which reminds me a anecdote a good Admiral told me , that when they visited Russia they were in the same hotel as Chinese were , while Russia was willing to sell India all weapons they were limited by approval/decision and hard cash from Delhi and Chinese were willing the buy top notch weapon with hard cash from Russia while Russia was hesitant to sell them every thing )

But now Russians have learnt their lessons the hard way since they learnt that Chinese were hell bent reverse engineering it and cared a damn about IP ) the Russian economy is in a substantial better position then it was a decade back , so now they are quite cautious in what they sell and hence deciline in exports to China.

In a way its good for Russia as it helps them influence and control to some extent China purchase and they know what the Chinese have.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 30 Jan 2010 21:48

Developing 25% of this beast!! Wow

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jan 2010 22:09

Austin your assessment is wrong the only reason why RU might not have opted for emphasis on stealth like the US is because of the costs and may be even the lack of expertise and experience with building such airframes given the time frame for the PAKFA , the very fact that Russians have incorporated substantial RCS reducing features into PAKFA airframe is an indicator of the importance of having lower RCS . I am pretty sure next AC from RU stable would be better than the PAKFA in every aspect including RCS reduction however at the end of the day all is governed by the state of the art of the technology which Russians posses in order to achieve a 'practical' low RCS design which can be operated by its armed forces within their budget.

You quoting B-2 being accompanied by EW AC proves nothing , its a million dollar machine the decision to go all alone or accompanied by EW aircraft is a mission specific call , taken by the people in know . Stealth is important for it forces the enemy to have a re look at its ADS with AC like F-22 and PAKFA taking to the skies a plethora of small SAMs and old old generation air defense systems will now be relooked at by the either sides this is a cat and mouse game so the need to field AC with lower RCS and more powerful ADS systems will always exist. And both Americans and Russians are investing in both the areas its just that America has surplus funds .

The incident involving F-117 again only goes to prove that it takes a lot of coordinated effort in terms of early warning , prior info on the waypoints/routes which AC is likely to take and finally a well timed interception to actually down an AC with low RCS. F-117s flew multiple missions over Kosovo and one cannot rule out the fact that air defenses in and around Belgrade had a fair idea about the route AC was supposed to take in for its bombing runs one also cannot rule out a hint of over confidence as far as USAF is concerned given the success of its prior bombing runs .

Yes stealth comes at a cost but then for those who can afford it it is an acceptable cost .

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 Jan 2010 22:12

X-CROSS POST from the Indian Aviation Thread!!!! Video IN ENGLISH!

krishna_krishna wrote:Guys check this out. First looks :

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/17874356

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Jan 2010 22:22

Austin it is obvious that Ru is not happy with the way Chinese have gone about this business of procuring platforms in lower numbers and then reverse engineering them and then even selling them to the other countries , however all said and done PRC is a big dawg in the town and they have been able to get hold of the key IP in relevant areas either from Unkil or Ru via back channels , their fighter AC engine programme is known to have received Russian assistance inspite of the engine being a close replica of the AL-31 itself same is the case with their domestic version of the S-300PMU i.e. HQ-9 where they received RU assistance in area of SRP , this year Unkil waved major trade barriers against Chinese players in the space sector despite accounts of chinese spies and hackers trying hard to get their hands on the latest US IP in defense and space .

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jan 2010 22:32

I am pretty sure next AC from RU stable would be better than the PAKFA in every aspect including RCS reduction

Under the right circumstances THIS very project could/should see a vast difference.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jan 2010 22:51

That yahoo video news reporter words makes us feel proud.. it was done with collaboration with India. It means a lot for India, especially when various firms are trying to offer latest tech via MRCA contract.

Pak-fa cooperation would only help us better our playing field. I want the Kaveri engine get more desh funds, and do it all by ourselves.

Yes we can!
--

from the oz.carlos article:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

QWIP technology “OLS-50M” installed in the PAK-FA. Such a device could be design-optimised for simultaneous detection and tracking of aircraft exhausts, jet-plumes and missile flares to ranges of 70 nm and beyond – the limiting factors are the size of the optics, cooling system and detector area

This means that the F-22A AN/ALR-94 will be denied signals to detect and track the PAK-FA.

---
RCS:

Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Stealth is something India must advance on her own for NGFA

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 30 Jan 2010 23:14

SaiK wrote:That yahoo video news reporter words makes us feel proud.. it was done with collaboration with India. It means a lot for India, especially when various firms are trying to offer latest tech via MRCA contract.

Saik ,at this stage frankly speaking that AP reporter was wrong. There is zero direct contribution by india to Pak-Fa, yet.
Though we can be proud that we enjoy friendly ties with Russians who achieved this.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 30 Jan 2010 23:15

negi wrote: the very fact that Russians have incorporated substantial RCS reducing features into PAKFA airframe is an indicator of the importance of having lower RCS . .

The most RCS reduction on F22 is made by covering. 'Stealth geometry' allowed for 'naked' F-22's only 0,3 m2 RCS, the remained reduction (some says 100-1000 times) is a cover work. Hopefully I dont surprise you by saying Russia now has more advanced anti-radar cover technology than first serial Raptors. Look for the reference here.

The airframe is alway a compromise between different aims, and over-accentuation on stealth geometry may hurt to the range, maneuverability and super-cruise speed.

BTW: PAKFA skin is much more smooth than JSF, has less rivets too. Compare with JSF pic.

PS: The cockpit will be impoved for sure. This is the new published information about the Russian tender for a new, frameless cockpit glass.

disha · Post by **disha** » 31 Jan 2010 02:09

Question? At Mach 2.0, will not be any plane hot (if not red hot) due to air friction and will not that increase the RCS - even for stealth geometry planes like F-35, F-22?

Or is Stealth only in question where the fighter is undertaking CAP missions and hence has to loiter around unseen or is taking bombing runs and hence has to sneak in unseen? Of course it can escape at Mach 2.0, but then it will be hot enough to be visible to IR missiles!

So stealth is just one of the attribute which gives the plane its edge. Or that is what I think.

At the end of the day, T-50/PAK-FA is not just beautiful, but formidable and it is admirable how the Russian engineers overcame the downsides of YF-23. That is compromise little on Stealth and make it more maneovarable for real combat use. Truely ingenious.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 31 Jan 2010 03:00

Acquiring the Mig-35 as the MRCA would do us good as any future upgrades could incorporate fifth-gen elements, say in the time frame of 2018-2019. However, this first flight has dampened the MRCA a great deal, hopefully this will be the beginning of the end for phoren purchases and we can gradually wind it down thereby having 70-80% indigenisation by 2030 AD!

Anyways, the Russian statement expressing hope for Mig 35 mere days before the maiden flight of PAK-FA is surely no coincidence, it may be a veiled msg that I hope the concerned folks can understand and deduce for the benefit of the IAF.

Question to experts: If the SU 30-MKI is bieng sent for upgrades with potential fifth gen moolah, then going by the same logic, even the Mig-29K might be getting some such booty in a future upgrade, no? Especially given the fact that PAK-FA seems suited for a carrier based version with a low take off distance! Adding the Mig-35 to this mix would only give us another platform which could be upgraded with fifth-gen tech.

Enlightenment on the above would be much appreciated!

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 31 Jan 2010 03:12

bhavani wrote:Guys,

I have some questions:

- is FGFA similar to PAK-FA? will it be really different.
- why do we want so many dual seaters?

India has agreed to buy 50 single seater PAKFA/FGFA in addition to 200 2-seaters of FGFA. Part of the compromise deal struck with the Russians.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jan 2010 03:20

Igorr you always have something new to add

, we need more of your kind to counter F-22 fanboys in cyberspace for in real world PAKFA will hold on its own.

On a serious note I guess as for skin finish , people were comparing the finished prototypes and I guess using just rivets to draw conclusions wrt RCS will be impractical specially when a lot of changes might take place for PAKFA has only completed its first test flight.

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 31 Jan 2010 03:30

venkat_r wrote:Developing 25% of this beast!! Wow

In the current PAKFA Indian contribution is ZERO. It is onlt in FGFA that Indian inputs will be 25% or more.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Jan 2010 03:33

BTW: PAKFA skin is much more smooth than JSF, has less rivets too. Compare with JSF pic.

There is an article (posted by Shiv?) that addresses this issue (on the F-22).

The ultimate determinant is a need for excessive invisibility and associated cost.

BTW, I did see a close up of this "PAK-FA" that has a ton of rivets.

counter F-22

To kill time - sure.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 Jan 2010 06:44

lilo, I know that.. my context was mrca. it was my little spin for mrca contenders to consider price reduction. get it? unless, we show less interest in mrca, and more so on pakfa, many contending nations can hold us by the price b@ll., especially the french/eads.

pakfa announcement would definitely make the mrca price come down is my theory., if it does not, then we have to make the market such that, there is a natural devaluation by way tech advancement and availability for us.

it matters.
--

the only possible nations who can buy Raptors/JSF in Asia zone are : SK, Japan, UAE, Taiwan, Singapore. Hence, we can feel safe with current known pakfa stealth specs (carlos!). Of course, future tranches are always possible with higher stealth materials.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 31 Jan 2010 08:53

negi wrote: I guess as for skin finish , people were comparing the finished prototypes and I guess using just rivets to draw conclusions wrt RCS will be impractical specially when a lot of changes might take place for PAKFA has only completed its first test flight.

I guess, a lot of chaps around the cyberspace who recently made this false-start with crying about 'riveting' just never saw 'naked' JSF like this or this

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jan 2010 09:56

Rupesh wrote: When did we order the 60 birds ?
IIRC the SU orders are 40+140+50-2 =228 (with reports of IAF demanding an Additional 50, but that has not been ordered so far )

Indeed the order has not yet materialized but is supposedly in the works. Still, it seems that distance in induction times between pakfa and MRCA won't be markedly different.

Irrespective, I think the powers that be see the MRCA as a political tool, and frankly the IAF would be a bit more secure in having some diversity.

CM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Jan 2010 09:57

good find Igorr. only thing the Pakfa needs to be careful about is panel gaps and making sure all openable panels have saw tooth edges as seen in JSF pic.

atleast sher khan has f22/jsf and a raft of UCAV projects to retain its position.

the euros must be crapping in their pants. only one ucav project neuron and no ability
to print the worlds reserve currency.

what are they going to throw at the beeg bad polar bear?

MRCA if we sign up today would likely take 36-48 months to start delivery from
units made abroad and 60 months until the first squadron is fully formed up. Likewise
HAL will take its sweet time to get ready and start producing locally - 6-7 yrs for sure
with usual claims and counterclaims of stuff being held back.

FGFA is probably 10 yrs away from full production, and being a full partner we can
prepare in advance and start our line / initial few units in sukhoi plant around same
time...so 11 yrs to get 1st squadron.

so I would say around 5-6 yrs gap between MRCA and FPFA if we sign up today.
the gap will decline more we push back MRCA signing.

I vote we curtail the MRCA order to 75 units (5 sqdns) and devote rest of cash to
more units of Tejas instead - we can probably buy another 75 Tejas with the money
saved.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jan 2010 10:03

Cain Marko wrote: Indeed the order has not yet materialized but is supposedly in the works. Still, it seems that distance in induction times between pakfa and MRCA won't be markedly different.

How? The FGFA will start being inducted around 2017 at the earliest according to the news stories. We haven't even seen the final production version of the PAK-FA yet. The FGFA would be still different. I'd be happy if we have one squadron of the FGFA in place by 2020. The MRCA should be fully inducted long before that.

Irrespective, I think the powers that be see the MRCA as a political tool, and frankly the IAF would be a bit more secure in having some diversity.

CM

Fully agree with this. However I'm a little worried about spending too much money on the MRCA and then having to reduce the number of FGFAs or LCAs inducted because we ran out of money.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 31 Jan 2010 10:32

nachiket wrote:
How? The FGFA will start being inducted around 2017 at the earliest according to the news stories. We haven't even seen the final production version of the PAK-FA yet. The FGFA would be still different. I'd be happy if we have one squadron of the FGFA in place by 2020. The MRCA should be fully inducted long before that.

The MRCA circus is anything but rushed (as we all know). The next thing on the burner is flight evals of the EF-2000 and a half-ready Gripen NG (circa March?). Then you will have technical evaluations of electronic goodies and weapons in phoren countries - 6 in all, lots of trips, delegations, masala, etc etc to manage. Give it a nice year - March 2011 is my guess. Then of course, the IAF will present recommendations to MOD probably by end of 2011 - who may sit on it for a nice cuppa (or perhaps several cuppas), and after deep thought, send it to MOF, who may likewise ponder the details over a cuppa or two (or several), and so at last the file will wind itself past the great corridors of the great city with its great walls and halls, to some netas, who in their unfathomable insight might decide to act (or give the go ahead) or then again, might still ponder certain ponderous imponderables, all of which, should take the better part of a good year or two (or three). So at last, at the end of this 6th cycle within the great cycle of the Kaliyuga, at the very onset of a new era, a great dawn will arise, whence India shall renew its tryst with the MRCA. Dotted line will see ink around 2012 (at the earliest) and 2014 (at the latest). No later or you may have a new GOI and the process may begin anew!

It has been said in the great annals of boeing contracts and RFPs, that the first 18 MRCA are to be delivered within 3 years of the contract, this will make it 2015 (at the earliest) or 2017 (at the latest). Thereafter starts the long and arduous process of learning to make MRCAs at HAL, which would probably have modest beginnings at the rate of 4-8 a/c per year. All in all, a good 10 year run, which will end in the better part of 2025-2030.

The FGFA otoh, might move quickly (2017, possibly earlier if single seaters are inducted in lieu of the MRCA) or suffer a similar fate and start seeing IAF roundels by 2020. In either case no more than 5 years difference in induction. MVVHO onlee. Still, no point putting all hopes in one project - portfolio needs diversification it is said, so an MRCA is to be used as a hedge just in case.

CM

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jan 2010 10:50

Jingo nitpick aside what has impressed me about the PAKFA is that huge tail boom between the nozzles and if the links posted by Gerrard are indeed an indicator of things to come then a decent sized rearward facing AESA radar will mean PAKFA will be able to track and engage enemies without having to turn around and this is significant for deep penetration strike missions , specially while returning from a bombing run when AC would be low on fuel .

GD regarding saw toothed panels if you noticed in one of the pics/videos the panel/panels covering the retractable IFR probe on PAKFA do have those sawtooth edges , they might have only incorporated the above into those panels which would be exposed while flying over hostile territory hence we don't see those on the panels which constitute the landing gear cover . We are yet to come across pics showing the internal weapons bay so can't comment on it.