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

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 12 Mar 2015 19:21

Viv S wrote:Ironically if we go by the 'model of co-operation' that is the Su-30MKI project (notwithstanding MRO/serviceability issues), all 144 FGFAs (should really call them PAK FAs) will be kit assembled in India.

Ironically, never meant anything of that sort. Joking about JSF or "fundamental" commandment clauses won't go too far on this thread either, even if push and pull for such arbitrary and specific for/by USA is already started even before PAK-FA/FGFA is in prototype stage. Such are the intrigues in threads dealing with Next Gen fighter jet!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Mar 2015 04:09

vishvak wrote:Ironically, never meant anything of that sort. Joking about JSF or "fundamental" commandment clauses won't go too far on this thread either, even if push and pull for such arbitrary and specific for/by USA is already started even before PAK-FA/FGFA is in prototype stage. Such are the intrigues in threads dealing with Next Gen fighter jet!

I wasn't talking about the JSF. I was referring to your line about 'appreciating co-operation on Su-30MKI project'. On the same lines, the FGFA ~~co-development~~ co-production will consist of only kit assembly.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Mar 2015 05:16

As someone ^^^ said : "PAK-FA/FGFA is in prototype stage". And this is what we are insisting on for deliveries by 2018.

What we are going to get at a huge cost is plastic Revell kits, The Russians are desperate for us to fund their R&D at the cost our aviation industry.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 13 Mar 2015 11:39

Even in Su-30 MKI indigenisation was reduced and cost was increased by USD 2 Billion on the pretext of increased induction rate. Similarly even with FGFA both the R&D and indigenous manufacture is sought to be reduced to Zero on the false pretext of rapid induction. FGFA is going the T-90, Brahmos way.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Mar 2015 19:11

Viv S wrote:
vishvak wrote:Ironically, never meant anything of that sort. Joking about JSF or "fundamental" commandment clauses won't go too far on this thread either, even if push and pull for such arbitrary and specific for/by USA is already started even before PAK-FA/FGFA is in prototype stage. Such are the intrigues in threads dealing with Next Gen fighter jet!
I wasn't talking about the JSF. I was referring to your line about 'appreciating co-operation on Su-30MKI project'. On the same lines, the FGFA ~~co-development~~ co-production will consist of only kit assembly.

No sir, you were merely criticizing PAK-FA/FGFA - criticizing Gen 5 fighter jet nonetheless(with no competitors other than JSF, coincidentally), and then another message was posted promptly about LM will kindly offer a JV with JSF assembly. While no one else mentioned anything about white man's burden coming along with the ONLY competitor, and so on.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Mar 2015 20:32

vishvak wrote:No sir, you were merely criticizing PAK-FA/FGFA - criticizing Gen 5 fighter jet nonetheless(with no competitors other than JSF, coincidentally), and then another message was posted promptly about LM will kindly offer a JV with JSF assembly. While no one else mentioned anything about white man's burden coming along with the ONLY competitor, and so on.

It was an observation about the program and nothing else (conclusions driven from that are a different matter). [No mention (let alone advocacy) of the JSF was made by me anywhere.]

We've already reconciled ourselves to co-production of the PAK FA, instead of co-development of the FGFA. Its now time to reconcile ourselves with the actual deal i.e. kit-assembly (in lieu of co-production), with a substantial number simply delivered of the shelf by KnAAPO. On the MKI model.

BTW the PAK FA's competitors also include the J-20 and J-31. Don't know about the 'white man's burden' since Russia remains a very white country.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Mar 2015 21:08

Why are you so serious about white man's burden, sir, it was a "joke" to make a point. Russia does not lecture others on white man's burden, for the record.

Let me quote Chief Joseph

"We did not ask you white men to come here. The Great Spirit gave us this country as a home. You had yours. We did not interfere with you. The Great Spirit gave us plenty of land to live on, and buffalo, deer, antelope and other game. But you have come here; you are taking my land from me; you are killing off our game, so it is hard for us to live. Now, you tell us to work for a living, but the Great Spirit did not make us to work, but to live by hunting. You white men can work if you want to. We do not interfere with you, and again you say why do you not become civilized? We do not want your civilization! We would live as our fathers did, and their fathers before them." . . . .

Crazy Horse Tashunca-uitco (1849-1877)(1845?-1877)

Inspections of stealth plane, after paying hard cash, does not mean that inspectors have seen God. We do not need the issues in the first place, nor we have mentality to interfere in others' supply chain - that we have not shown such tendency for.

However, we can learn from experience for sure. For example, issues with logistics of Mig 21. Even domestic LCA is flying with US engine from GE, so won't such "fundamental" commandment issues interfere while offering LCA to some other countries for sale - ie indirectly? The issues are not going anywhere even if tech will become obsolete, since some way or other logistic chain will have to be maintained for many decades.

Wasn't it so that there was even an offer of litigation in US courts - if necessary for issues that we do not need - as if the US court personnel have seen God, too! It is as if during an ongoing war we have to consult oracles - and then even after the war we have to consult more in courts. All this while US, with the most powerful war machine, has already supplied pakis with delivery platform (F-16s) for nuke warheads.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Mar 2015 21:23

It's all hunky dory as long as we feed our Russian ~~masters~~friends their due. Any mention of the fact that PAK/FA/FGFA is not ready for prime time unleashes elliptical statements about nuke capable F-16s/Rudyard Kipling and Native Americans—bracketed by smilies alluding to dark CT theories re the JSF.

This is very much in the vein of Shiv's "shirt button/fly open" antiphon. Tiresome.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Mar 2015 22:42

As long as I don't joke around in another thread (say JSF thread for example), I am not sure this is a problem. But, one can always learn from experience - say Mig 21.

For example, there could be another export version for LCA with Russian engine - again, for export only

- to help out some friendly countries. Since it could be a joint Indo-Russian project, no other country can hijack logistics, or we will show a paper full of rules and regulations.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2015 06:53

vishvak wrote: Why are you so serious about white man's burden, sir, it was a "joke" to make a point. Russia does not lecture others on white man's burden, for the record.

Nobody lectures anybody on the 'white man's burden'. Not for the last 50 years anyway. Unless you're referring to run-of-the-mill racism in which case, post-Soviet Russia may not be the ideal benchmark you think it is.

However, we can learn from experience for sure. For example, issues with logistics of Mig 21. Even domestic LCA is flying with US engine from GE, so won't such "fundamental" commandment issues interfere while offering LCA to some other countries for sale - ie indirectly? The issues are not going anywhere even if tech will become obsolete, since some way or other logistic chain will have to be maintained for many decades.

Which potential market is blocked for export for the LCA as a result of its US engine or other parts? Iran? Venezuela? Hardly a big loss. Vietnam in contrast is now open for export. Not that any of this is relevant to the topic. The ~~FGFA~~ PAK FA is a Russian aircraft through-and-through, we aren't going to be exporting it to anybody. For all practical purposes we're actually importing it.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 14 Mar 2015 22:50

Read what you type out, gentleman.

Nobody lectures anybody on the 'white man's burden'.
..
Vietnam in contrast is now open for export.

And how is Vietnam now "open for export"? Mainly because USA sanctioned Vietnam, when colonial masters were thrown out thusly:

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com ... tions.html
..
Economic sanctions accompanied America's war against North Vietnam just as they did previous U.S. conflicts. The Eisenhower administration suspended all export licenses for North Vietnam in 1954, shortly after the Geneva Convention temporarily divided Vietnam in two. President Lyndon Johnson extended those sanctions to a prohibition of all commercial and financial transactions with North Vietnam when the war escalated in 1964. Although the peace agreement signed in 1973 included a provision for renegotiating economic ties, the final conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam in 1975 resulted in an extension of the sanctions to all of Vietnam.
..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 91770.html
..
President Bill Clinton last night announced the formal end of the embargo against Vietnam, 19 years after North Vietnamese troops captured Saigon
..

Just for the record, the "opening up" thing is ongoing:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/20087 ... tions-bill
..
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), a vocal champion of human rights, on Friday introduced a bill that would impose targeted financial and visa sanctions on Vietnamese individuals involved in abuses.
..

Anyway, for a hypothetical plane (LCA with Russian engines), who is to decide which country are blocked or about big/small a loss ESPECIALLY when none of the countries need any "fundamental" commandment regulations? In fact, as a seller country, why can't we expand what we have to offer for benefit of buyers only?

Actually, why should we be post-colonial conduit of USA regulations while selling our wares -and therefore indirectly- put constraints instead of convenience of choices?

The actual point was not to have any country interfere in logistics chain at all, which is what we can learn from experience.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2015 23:42

vishvak wrote:Read what you type out, gentleman.

And how is Vietnam now "open for export"? Mainly because USA sanctioned Vietnam, when colonial masters were thrown out thusly:

I'm well aware of what I write. The colonial masters were the French. Vietnam in contrast was a Cold War conflict, a sequel to the (successful) Korean intervention.

The US ITAR was formally revised in Nov 2014 to raise sanctions on Vietnam and allow the export of 'lethal equipment for maritime security'. To start off, this will enable the sale of ex-USN P-3Cs to Vietnam as they are phased out. Other exports are permitted on a 'case-by-case' basis. with everyone (not including some sections of BRF) worried about China, exemptions for a GE F404/414 re-export will be accepted, if not welcomed by the US strategic community.

Anyway, for a hypothetical plane (LCA with Russian engines), who is to decide which country are blocked or about big/small a loss ESPECIALLY when none of the countries need any "fundamental" commandment regulations? In fact, as a seller country, why can't we expand what we have to offer for benefit of buyers only?

Not a loss because neither Iran nor Venezuela is high on the list of possible export markets (the former is under UN sanctions and the latter can't afford it). For the record, any military equipment whether US, Russian or European cannot be legally re-exported or modified without the seller's consent. Russia has been able to condition RD-93 exports (and support) on the JF-17 not competing against the MiG-29/35. The same applies to the Tejas vis a vis traditional Russian markets (Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Indonesia).

Just as importantly, the RD-33 isn't a 'drop-in' fit. You're going to need to modify the aircraft to enable its usage. With the RD-33MK packing up in normal MiG-29K operations and the Tejas being a single engined aircraft, that's a certifiable waste of effort and money.

Actually, why should we be post-colonial conduit of USA regulations while selling our wares -and therefore indirectly- put constraints instead of convenience of choices?

The actual point was not to have any country interfere in logistics chain at all, which is what we can learn from experience.

In principle, supporting (independent) domestic products is a solid idea. Just as important is cost effectiveness without which we're sunk against the Chinese (to say nothing of a two front war). This where domestic equipment is doubly useful by virtue of being exceptionally cost-effective (usually). The same principle needs to apply when it comes to imports. Should be limited but deliver the best possible value-for-money. Political convenience will be a secondary concern when facing down a threat as serious as we do, an endeavour in which we're joined by multitude of Pacific Rim states.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Mar 2015 00:08

The colonial masters were the French. Vietnam in contrast was a Cold War conflict

Let me quote something I read on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
..
Provisional Government of the French Republic restored colonial rule in French Indochina. Nationalist and communist movements in Vietnam led to the First Indochina War in 1946. This colonial war between the French Union's Expeditionary Corps and Hồ Chí Minh's Việt Minh guerrillas turned into a Cold War crisis in January 1950.[6] The communist Việt Minh received support from the newly proclaimed People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, while France and the newly created Vietnamese National Army received support from the United States.
..

In other words, enforcing colonial rule directly lead to First Indochina war (part of cold war), followed by sanctions etc. Something similar happened during Goa liberation war but we didn't humiliate erstwhile colonial masters, even though USA didn't like it and hence protests in the UN.

Vietnam is not totally out of sanctions yet, it seems. For the record: link , not that Vietnam needs to sign further constraints/regulations.

PAK-FA/FGFA is a game changer (or that is what I read) and is in fact correct choice that Indians have made. But then, I do agree that logistics need be sorted out (surely Su-30MKI experience will help here) since we are getting a lot many of the stealth planes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Mar 2015 00:46

Everyone has a set of cards. The important one, right now, as we post, is the one with Calspan on it.

The Rafale and the FGFA (not the PAK-FA) are important. But the 600 lb beast is the AMCA. India has no need for a JSF, if there are problems with getting it in any way. But all India needs is help that makes the AMCA a little better than the other two.

I just do not see that as a problem. Calspan!!!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Mar 2015 09:27

vishvak wrote:In other words, enforcing colonial rule directly lead to First Indochina war (part of cold war), followed by sanctions etc. Something similar happened during Goa liberation war but we didn't humiliate erstwhile colonial masters, even though USA didn't like it and hence protests in the UN.

The USSR/PRC support to the Viet Minh was a response to colonialism. The US intervention in Vietnam on the other hand was in response to communism following on its policy of 'containment' rather than colonialism. The French Indochina collapsed in 1954, while the last US forces withdrew from Vietnam only in 1973. But yes sanctions were first applied in 1954.

Vietnam is not totally out of sanctions yet, it seems. For the record: link , not that Vietnam needs to sign further constraints/regulations.

That's a just a bill. It has no legal standing whatsoever. Not to mention its already all but defunct; tabled Mar 2014, whereas sanctions were lifted Nov 2014. GE 404/414 re-export would require approval, which is certain to come through.

PAK-FA/FGFA is a game changer (or that is what I read) and is in fact correct choice that Indians have made. But then, I do agree that logistics need be sorted out (surely Su-30MKI experience will help here) since we are getting a lot many of the stealth planes.

Its a major step from what we field (even assuming the Rafale is inducted) but 'game changer' might be an optimistic expectation with the opposition also fielding fifth gen fighters of their own (and in far far bigger numbers). Its still an unproven option when it comes to strike, SEAD & ISTAR employing as does a 'brute-force' approach. Reliability and availability is an even bigger question as the MKI & MiG-29 experience would indicate. And finally, whatever the merits to acquiring the aircraft may be, its foolishness of highest order to volunteer lumpsum payment upfront to reimburse the Russians for their expenses (since no real development workshare is really available to us). I suspect, that logic is slowly sinking in at the MoD which would explain why the FGFA contract has been stuck in limbo for so long.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 15 Mar 2015 15:50

How stealthy is PAK FA actually? And how advanced are its sensors along with sensor fusion?

To be honest PAK FA doesn't look that stealthy in comparison to US and Chinese fifth gen aircraft. Even our AMCA design looks more stealthy. This might be the reason why IAF is not that excite about this aircraft.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Mar 2015 21:42

But yes sanctions were first applied in 1954.

Exactly, sir, in response to nationalists resistance against colonial rule - which is the point I made. Sanctions can be totally independent of the cold war, and in this case, predates the cold war, too - while an argument, made by Amerigo fanbois, is that the cold war is over and that is the only argument for considering American sanctions regime.

Another example to demonstrate this, is sanctions on LCA in the 90s - to replace Russian Mig 21s- even though Indians later went ahead with American engines anyway.

In other words, sanctions are primarily about USA policies, USA war machines, and realpolitik more than cold war, Indian fighter jet, standards, rules and regulations in black and white.

That's a just a bill. It has no legal standing whatsoever. Not to mention its already all but defunct; tabled Mar 2014, whereas sanctions were lifted Nov 2014.

It was just to make a point, about how someone can table a bill here and there at some point of time.

Its still an unproven option when it comes to strike, SEAD & ISTAR employing as does a 'brute-force' approach. Reliability and availability is an even bigger question as the MKI & MiG-29 experience would indicate. And finally, whatever the merits to acquiring the aircraft may be, its foolishness of highest order to volunteer lumpsum payment upfront to reimburse the Russians for their expenses (since no real development workshare is really available to us).

An unproven option as opposed to which 5th Gen fighter jet is yet proven? American w.r.t. strike, SEAD, ISTAR - or is this difference is *apparently* magnified because at end of cold war, Americans were quicker in developing 5th Gen fighter jet while Russians are now catching up?

Even when pushing for "fundamental" commandment clauses before Russians have delivered PAK-FA as of now. It is silly how people who can do a lot of hairsplitting usually are silent about sanctions regime, or Mig 21 issues with logistics, and then all of this ends up here as a tangential discussion only.

I think Russians, would definitely know a lot more about PAK-FA/FGFA, more so as stealth is concerned. In another thread, once there was discussion about fuel efficiency of desi v/s foreign options, and IF I remember correctly, a difference of about 5% of that was considered a factor against desi option with established logistics chain. I wonder where comparison of stealth platform will lead to, each % of each factor (fuel efficiency, stealth features, super-cruise, radar signatures) - and fishing for more and more info till all the American fanbois are satisfied only.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Mar 2015 07:52

vishvak wrote:Exactly, sir, in response to nationalists resistance against colonial rule - which is the point I made. Sanctions can be totally independent of the cold war, and in this case, predates the cold war, too - while an argument, made by Amerigo fanbois, is that the cold war is over and that is the only argument for considering American sanctions regime.

That would be communist resistance to colonial rule. And you've got your timeline crooked if you think these sanctions predated the cold war.

Another example to demonstrate this, is sanctions on LCA in the 90s - to replace Russian Mig 21s- even though Indians later went ahead with American engines anyway.

In other words, sanctions are primarily about USA policies, USA war machines, and realpolitik more than cold war, Indian fighter jet, standards, rules and regulations in black and white.

Yes, sanctions are about US policies. Now then, what's the US policy when it comes to China?

It was just to make a point, about how someone can table a bill here and there at some point of time.

Just tabling a bill is completely meaningless. Proven by the lifting of sanctions last year, after that happened.

An unproven option as opposed to which 5th Gen fighter jet is yet proven? American w.r.t. strike, SEAD, ISTAR - or is this difference is *apparently* magnified because at end of cold war, Americans were quicker in developing 5th Gen fighter jet while Russians are now catching up?

That being the case, perhaps you would care to explain why they are yet to operationally field their first fighter AESA (over 15 years after it was first fielded on the F-15C)? And why they were importing Damocles pods for their Flanker fleet (Damocles itself being a full generation behind Rafael/LM offerings)? Also, why India chose to replace the Russian EW gear on the Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, MiG-29K with DARE kit. And how the PAK FA for the next decade will be powered by the same family of engines that have been 'packing up' on the Su-30MKI and exhausting their service lives well ahead of schedule.

Even when pushing for "fundamental" commandment clauses before Russians have delivered PAK-FA as of now. It is silly how people who can do a lot of hairsplitting usually are silent about sanctions regime, or Mig 21 issues with logistics, and then all of this ends up here as a tangential discussion only.

WRT to the sanctions regime, not silent at all. Will simply tell you to acquaint yourself with developments in China. MiG-21's issues don't help make the PAK FA's case. A more crippling silence is the one surrounding India's proposed payment of a massive amount upfront, years before it the definitive variant of the aircraft is even available.

member_28990 · Post by **member_28990** » 16 Mar 2015 09:26

Has anybody from the IAF flown/evaluated the PAK-FA? Or are we having all these talk of accelerated deals etc on the basis of the initial design documents only?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 16 Mar 2015 09:53

I do not think the manouveribility/speed/agility etc are causes of concern

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2015 10:53

before putting any money on the table, we should fly a PAKFA prototype to India inside a AN124 (wings removed) and evaluate it with our own pilots and scientists for IR and RCS reduction on our own test ranges.

Sukhoi will surely state the earth and moon and "manage" demos for visiting teams appropriately.

or have it fly there but we fly our radars, people and test procedure over there...incl a SU30MKI to paint it from all angles and record the RCS measures.

without significant benefits in LO and engines and passive electronics, we could as well ask Sukhoi to create a internal bay between the engine bays on the Su30 and call it silent-Su30.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Mar 2015 13:34

I think Mr. P lost his job because of some amount of obstinacy. ?????

The PAK-FA is designed for a specific purpose (as all planes are). "Stealth" in their minds/doctrine has a slightly lower slot (and for good reason). Question is if that fits the IAF. My impression was, reflected partially in the 40 odd modifications that India wanted in the PAk-FA to come up with the FGFA, that India wanted to go it alone after the initial design. I attributed this to philosophical diffs - which is natural.

Seems to me this current impasse concerns this "diffs" - whatever they may be. Part of it I am fairly confident, is the demand to let Indians evaluate the plane. And, the answer is ........................................... Nyet.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Mar 2015 16:46

we are still building new Su30s. and given the 30 yrs lifespan, some of us might not even be alive when the final SU30s are retired and those flying them are not even born right now.

there is a lot of life left in the su30 design if we play the game right. the first F-15 was IOCed around 1976 I think...so its already enjoyed a 40 yrs lifespan and continues to be a premier fighter in the latest models and these will serve until 2050....75 yrs lifespan for a design!!

force feeding and being stampeded into a immature one-legged soln like PAKFA is to be avoided.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 16 Mar 2015 17:01

.

why not HAL build the New Su 30 as Super Sukhoi standard

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 16 Mar 2015 21:30

Viv S wrote:
vishvak wrote:<SNIP>
That would be communist resistance to colonial rule. And you've got your timeline crooked if you think these sanctions predated the cold war.

<SNIP>

Yes, sanctions are about US policies. Now then, what's the US policy when it comes to China?

<SNIP>
Just tabling a bill is completely meaningless. Proven by the lifting of sanctions last year, after that happened.

An unproven option as opposed to which 5th Gen fighter jet is yet proven? American w.r.t. strike, SEAD, ISTAR - or is this difference is *apparently* magnified because at end of cold war, Americans were quicker in developing 5th Gen fighter jet while Russians are now catching up?
That being the case, perhaps you would care to explain why they are yet to operationally field their first fighter AESA (over 15 years after it was first fielded on the F-15C)? And why they were importing Damocles pods for their Flanker fleet (Damocles itself being a full generation behind Rafael/LM offerings)? Also, why India chose to replace the Russian EW gear on the Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, MiG-29K with DARE kit. And how the PAK FA for the next decade will be powered by the same family of engines that have been 'packing up' on the Su-30MKI and exhausting their service lives well ahead of schedule.

Even when pushing for "fundamental" commandment clauses before Russians have delivered PAK-FA as of now. It is silly how people who can do a lot of hairsplitting usually are silent about sanctions regime, or Mig 21 issues with logistics, and then all of this ends up here as a tangential discussion only.
WRT to the sanctions regime, not silent at all. Will simply tell you to acquaint yourself with developments in China. MiG-21's issues don't help make the PAK FA's case. A more crippling silence is the one surrounding India's proposed payment of a massive amount upfront, years before it the definitive variant of the aircraft is even available.

Please read the quoted text again from this message: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1812296 :USA sanctioned against Vietnam due to "Nationalist" & communist resistance. The sanctions are about US policies and communist resistance, "opening up" etc are secondary; and the Vietnam war in between clearly shows that Senate actions are not always perfect. It is not like the Senate personnel, just like personnel of courts or "inspectors" have seen God, even while pushing for "fundamental" commandment clauses that no country needs.

If PAK-FA for the next decade will fly by the same family of engines, then question is about if the engines are suitable - and ALSO - about the next Gen engines that are tested now. Partially questioning will not do. You seem to be very sure that next Gen engines will be too long to come, however I am sure that next decade shall pass too, even if sanctions regime will take much more to be obsolete - and no one seems to know that it will be at cost of convenience during wars, too. And this is more important than discussion about hard cash that Indians already possess.

Are you sure that there is no silence about sanctions regime and "fundamental" commandment clauses - even though these issues will probably interfere with currently deployed assets such as P8-I surveillance planes - again paid for by Indians. Going by that, no one seem to understand significance of 5th Gen aircraft with engine logistics already established, as compared to LCA with Indian airframe and engines+issues imported.

Can there be a better and smoother steps than:
(1) Stealth plane with already established engine logistics in India.
(2) Upgrade of engines
(3) FGFA induction along with step (2).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2015 05:02

On engines, the "5th Gen" engine was supposed to be available in 2018/19 or so.

Then Mr. P announced that the PAK-FA would go into production with the current engine - seem to have implied to forget about the new engine.

Then the latest:

Feb, 26, 2015 :: Russians have started working on a new engine for their 5th generation stealth fighter

If there is one field in which the Russians seem to fall behind in aircraft development – it is definitely the propulsion systems for the new jets.

Currently, prototypes of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii—Future Tactical Air System) which is the Russian 5th Generation fighter design, use the Saturn AL-41F1 engines, which are a series production model used by the Russian 4.5 generation fighters, such as Sukhoi Su-35.

We must remember that childhood of T-50 PAK-FA has been quite troublesome and engines have already been cause of some quite embarrassing incidents in the near past.

The current engine should not be mistaken with the NPO Saturn AL-41F engine, which has been designed for the Multi-Role Frontline Fighter, also known as MiG-1.44. The engine used by the PAK-FA prototypes is actually an updated variant of the AL-31F power-plant.

According to altair.com.pl, NPO Saturn corporation representatives recently announced that the prototype of the second engine is expected to be ready for flight testing in 2015. The new engine, shall be ready for the series production by 2020, with the first prototype being completed by 2016, and flight tests planned to happen in 2017.

At least such statements were made during the Aero India 2015 expo by Vladislav Masalov, who is the chief of the ODK company working on the jet propulsion systems.

In the meanwhile, numerous media outlets report that Russia and India are going to sign a contract, regarding the future development of a 5th Generation Fighter in 2015. According to IHS Jane’s, Yuri Slyusar, who is the CEO of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), stated that the parties are at the final stage of negotiations. The preliminary agreement has already been signed. The program is to involve the UAC company on the side of Russia and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited company for India. Slyusar confirmed the fact that the new generation engine testing program is under way.

It is yet unclear, when we may expect the PAK-FA or the Indian fused design to be introduced into service in the front-line units though

IF there is one component that can really slip, it is an engine.

And, there has got to be a diff between an Russian engine and one for the Indian counterpart.

Also, I hope they are not expecting to build on the MKI experience.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2015 17:02

An inportant data point on "engines":

From here, on the Indian made MKI:

Manohar Parrikar wrote: A total of 35 incidents of engine failures in air or other engine-related problems have occured between January, 2013 and December last year.

To a question, Parrikar said the Russian Original Equipment Manufacturer had introduced a number of measures to contain and eliminate technical issues that have led to engine troubles in flight.

"OEM has offered nine modifications or technological improvements for implementation in the production of new aero engines and during overhaul of engines," he said.

This is with engines that have been in use for some time now.

Using these engines would be akin to the Scorpions without the AIP (in 2020). Planned obsolescence.

Russians really seem to be behind the curve on engines. Sad.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2015 18:04

One of the recent AWST issues has news about the AMCA.IAF plans for the future FGFA,Rafale and AMCA (where is Tejas?).Anyway,design frozen,waiting for funds,$3+ B for development when compared wioth SoKos $7+B.20/25t "in the same class as an F-16",statement put out by a desi boffin associated with thee programme.(?) Two versions,stealth and non-stealth. The non-stealth version will have the same shape,but will not be fitted with many of the stealth features.
What comkonality is going to be there between the FGFA and AMCA is anyone's guess.It would be prudent to share/use FGFA tech which is applicable in the AMCA programme as well. Other issues have reports on anti-stealth radars from the Russians/Chinese and US finally getting into IRST sensors for anti-stealth.

X-posted ,JSF cutbacks by the USN.

AWST Feb16/15
USN " reduces" by one-third F-35C orders for the years between FYDP 2016-2020,instead spending more money ($800M) on stand-off PGMs."This is the first move by a US service to slow down its JSF procurements."
Major reason for cutback is costs.The USN will spend in 2020 $4.7B for 32 F-35Cs. Unit cost for just 12 is now pegged at $144M,F-35B at $147M.

AWST reports that this is due to the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert,who has been skeptical about the invincibility of stealth ever since he took over in 2012,downplaying stealth in favour of "payloads".Speaking on Feb 4th he said," any future fighter will not be super-fast because you can't outrun missiles,and not super-stealthy because you can't be invisible,Stealth may be overrated",he said. "If you move fast through the air,that puts out heat and you are going to be detected".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2015 21:43

One of the recent AWST issues has news about the AMCA.IAF plans for the future FGFA,Rafale and AMCA (where is Tejas?)

And the MKI too.

Reporters grow old too.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 23 Mar 2015 17:34

Found this awesome pic of PAK-FA from a Russian forum. She's a beauty.

Note to moderators- Hope it is kosher to share images found on the web. Do I need to put an attribution?

Meanwhile some more infoon the new engine being developed for the PAKFA. Should be able to fly on the new prototype by year end and will have 15-25% higher thrust than the current AL-41F1 (upgraded variant of AL-31F designation). Expected to geenrate dry thrust of 107 kN and 176 kN with afterburner

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Mar 2015 00:20

Good advertisement for PAK-TA

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Mar 2015 03:27

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:
Meanwhile some more infoon the new engine being developed for the PAKFA. Should be able to fly on the new prototype by year end and will have 15-25% higher thrust than the current AL-41F1 (upgraded variant of AL-31F designation). Expected to geenrate dry thrust of 107 kN and 176 kN with afterburner

The article claims that the flight testing of the engine is slated to begin in 2017. This is also claimed by Greg Waldron in an article quoting the same source for FG.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Mar 2015 07:13

I see no advantage of the stealthy PAKTA design . disadvantages are many including a low mounted wing, no ability to load via side doors or front part hinging open.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 25 Mar 2015 02:33

With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin’s New Jet Beats Us Hands-Down
( More Money please article)

The “fifth generation” of fighter jets to which Borisov refers is a category of the very newest military aircraft in the world. To date, the only true fifth generation fighter in operation is the U.S. F-22, a wildly expensive and not terribly reliable plane that Congress agreed to stop funding in 2009. The last F-22 was built in 2011, giving the U.S. Air Force an inventory of 187.One of the reasons Congress and the Pentagon agreed to eliminate the F-22 was that the F-35 was in the pipeline. The joint strike fighter was supposed to be cheaper to produce and operationally superior to the F-22. To date, it has been neither.The F-35 has consumed some $400 billion in resources, about $170 billion more than was originally projected, and the prototypes that have been produced have failed to meet the necessary performance standards. A scathing report from the Department of Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation cited a laundry list of flaws and shortcomings, from vulnerability to engine fires to computer malfunctions.Experts estimate that the F-35 remains years away from deployment in a combat situation, despite assurances to the contrary from the Pentagon.t the moment, that isn’t a major security issue. The F-22, for all its problems, is currently without real competition in the battle for the skies. However, if the Russian T-50 is true to its specification, that could change in the not-too-distant future.
he T-50 is significantly faster than the F-22, and has a huge advantage in terms of range – 5,500 kilometers compared to the F-22’s 3,400. The T-50’s detection systems allow it to spot incoming threats at a distance of up to 400 kilometers, compared to the F-22’s 210 km.There are some caveats, of course. It is unclear how many planes Russia could realistically expect to produce, given Putin’s push to increase investment in the Russian military. Whether or not Russia’s reported success in trials is wholly accurate is also in dispute. In 2013, the Indian Air Force was given the opportunity to test a prototype, and came away unimpressed, saying that the T-50 hadn’t lived up to the hype. But a lot can happen in two years.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Mar 2015 03:09

^ The article is a click bait with clearly a headline that is factually incorrect. The F-35 is not grounded. Training and routine sorties are ongoing as we speak. International training is also underway with the RAAF beginning their first IP training just a couple of days ago. The milestone mentioned for the PAKFA (serial production) had been acheived for the F-35 many years and over 100 have been delivered. International deliveries in support of the test and training fleet have also happened in addition to the roll out of the first serial production aircraft outside of the US (Cameri, Italy). Japan is currently negotiating with suppliers for its Factory and the work should be complete by the middle of next year. First Japanese built F-35A is supposed to be delivered in 2017.

The article is also talking about detection ranges which are very much classified, and pulled out of thin air. There are very few performance aspects of the F-22 that have been declassified. Following 911 a lot more was classified that was earlier disclosed and the program/operators began to pass on the questions about known performance. What little is known, super cruise performance is mach 1.72, and the performance is iirc (i'd have to check again) 5 or 5.5 sustained G's at mach 1.7 at some altitude. Best super cruise was at 40,000 feet and it can go supersonic without afterburner at sea level.

Back to the T-50, some more light on the serial production plans disclosed a few months ago that now (as per these reports) may face financial challenge -

Russia's Defense Ministry is not ready to buy PAK FA in large quantities - "Kommersant"

TSAMTO March 24. Deputy Defense Minister for Armaments Yuri Borisov said on March 23 that the military can buy a smaller number of fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) than planned in the state armaments program until 2020, writes "Kommersant".

According to the newspaper, the military zakontraktuyut only 12 fighters after their commissioning Decide how many aircraft of this type will be able to afford, although previously firmly expects to acquire 52 aircraft.

The possibility of reducing procurement Yu.Borisov said during a visit to the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant. He stated that "the company is ready to start serial production of fifth generation fighter since 2016". However, continued the Deputy Minister, Ministry of Defence reserves the right to revise the number of machines purchased. "In the new economic conditions of the original plans can be adjusted, - he explained. - We'd better have a reserve in the form of PAK FA and the ability to then move forward to the end to squeeze everything possible out of 4+ generation fighters (Su-30 and Su-35), "- said" Kommersant ".

UAC President Yuri Slusar said "Kommersant" that the position of the Ministry of Defence agreed with the KLA.

According to a source, "Kommersant" in the military, LG 2020 include the purchase of 52 units. T-50. "We even prescribed delivery schedule - told" Kommersant ". - In the period 2016-2018 gg. Russian Air Force would receive eight fighters each year, and in the 2019-2020 biennium. - 14 aircraft of this type. " These plans were actually feasible, he said, if it had not arisen in the country economic difficulties.

Speaking about the plans for 2015, Yu.Borisov said that by the end of this year, the military still awaiting receipt of the four T-50 fighters for testing. In addition, he said, the company will put the military in 2015. The multi-purpose Su-35 (14.) And Su-30M2 (5 units.), Writes "Kommersant".

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... rev=search

Another link -

http://in.rbth.com/economics/2015/03/25 ... 42179.html

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 25 Mar 2015 23:16

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 26 Mar 2015 00:00

From the above article,
stats of PAK-FA v/s F-22:
* Combat takeoff weight: 35,480kg v/s 38,000kg
* Maximum range: 5500km v/s 3,400km
* Maximum target detection range: upto 400km v/s upto 210km

Surely, this is a data point for at least people trying to fish information about PAK-FA.
From link

But the T-50 is still a powerful, fast and long-range fighter, and the Kremlin wants to arm it with its modern, long-range Kh-58UShE radar-homing missiles. The U.S. F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, and their missiles, are comparatively slower, and the missiles have shorter ranges.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Mar 2015 00:13

The max target detection range is unknown for the F-22 as it is classified. The Apg-77 was claimed to have 2200 elements by Janes around the late 90's, the V(1) has upgraded Modules starting production lot 3 or 4. There were never any sensor performance details released other than the fact that the requirements from the KPP's were bettered by 5%.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 26 Mar 2015 00:19

I got that part, but does not it mean a very different meaning to BVR combat if PAK-FA has a very long range target detection, additionally radar homing missile with mid-course guidance + long flight range will add to BVR effectiveness. As it is, PAK-FA/FGFA has good enough within VR capabilities in case required.

As it is, stealth is more about not getting detected earlier (and additional strategies such as last shot capable before scooting) and hence bigger flight range of PAK-FA/FGFA will add to such tactics too. Comparison to F-22 as specialized air superiority fighter, by itself, a good advantage to begin with.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Mar 2015 03:09

Sensor fusion wins.

The Indian team also had identified some 42 changes for the FGFA, one of them: 360 degree radar coverage.