PAK FA, T-50: News #1

There are going to be a few different variants of the PAK FA... a navalised version for one, but that will all be in the future.

I rather suspect that a model optimised for long range interception is certainly possible but would not need the level of stealth or the level of manouver performance of the PAK FA and would also benefit from having more than one crew and a much larger weapon capacity and much larger fuel capacity along with reduced drag design to allow for higher speeds.

At the end of the day a light bomber converted for speed and air to air payload actually makes more sense than a converted PAK FA because the bomber will already have lots of range and if it is a bomber like a Tu-22M3M then it will have speed as well already.

A belly covered in 20 R-37M launchers and the internal rotary launcher with 12 scramjet powered R-77Ms plus 6 or so Morfei short range highly manouverable IIR guided AAMs for defence against enemy AAMs and SAMs, plus a huge front mounted radar array and a reduction to two crew and an increase in internal fuel and an engine upgrade and we are talking about a serious heavy long range interceptor... a much more efficient use of old airframes and engines...

As a more direct answer... the reason why they should spend money on something to replace the Mig-31 instead of using a modified PAK FA is because the PAK FA was designed number one for manouver capability.... and number two for Stealth. Neither factor is important for a Mig-31 or its replacement.

For PAK FA flying high and fast for long periods is to allow longer range missile launches against enemy aircraft and to reduce the effective range of enemy missiles (SAM and AAM).

For Mig-31 speed means getting to launch positions faster and hitting enemy aircraft and cruise missiles at greater distances from their targets so they have more time to return to base... rearm and refuel and do it again.

High for speed is good but super high is no advantage, stealth means nothing as AB will be used a lot and so will radar. Manouver is not of great use as it is a long range missile carrier that strikes down from max range and then heads back to rearm and refuel.

High speed long range missiles and long range radar means it can cover more area, while doing so it will be generating a lot of engine and skin (friction) heat, and will be using datalinks and comms and radar so there will be little question of its location.

With high speed and a flight range of 300km the R-37M could cover a 600km diameter of a border area... carried in enormous numbers in an AN-70... released out the back like a pallet of cargo to fire up the engines and fly towards its target using data transmitted by high flying PAK FAs and ground and space based radars is of course another option to replace them perhaps...  

Russia close to completing its F-22 aircraft rival

According to United Aircraft Corporation CEO Mikhail Pogosyan, five T-50s are participating in the testing program, which has allowed Russian designers to speed up the process and close the gap with the United States.

The F-22 has been serving in the U.S. Air Force for a long time and, for good reason, is still considered to be the most advanced fighter. Far less is known about its Russian rival.

According to its designers, the T-50 is the embodiment of the latest in Russian aircraft technology.

A number of innovative solutions have been implemented in the machine, including stealth technology, new construction materials and coatings, artificial intelligence and the element base, which have brought Russia’s military aircraft building to a qualitatively new technological level.

A whole range of the latest polymer carbon plastics have made their debut on the T-50. They weigh 50 percent less than titanium or aluminum of comparable rigidity, and they are 20-25 percent lighter than steel.

New materials cover 70 percent of the fighter’s surface. Its weight has been reduced to just a quarter of that of a fighter made of conventional materials, allowing the designers to increase its combat load.

The Sukhoi Design Bureau has mentioned “the PAK FA’s unprecedentedly low level of radar, optical and infrared visibility.” The T-50’s effective reflective area will amount to 5.3 square feet (its predecessor, the Sukhoi-30MKI, has 215 square feet).

This means that the Sukhoi-30MKI appears on the radar screen as a large metal object, while the T-50’s reflection would only be one-fortieth of that, making it much more difficult to notice or aim weapons at it — especially since the machine benefits from the exceptional maneuverability that has been a hallmark of Sukhoi fighters.

In addition, the T-50 meets the main requirement of modern fighters—a high degree of intellectualization.

Its radar, complete with an active electronically-scanned array (AESA), can “see” everything that is going on in the air or on the ground at a distance of hundreds of miles.

It can track multiple airborne and surface targets simultaneously, while keeping them in the crosshairs of its weapons.

Several dozen sensors attached to different parts of its hull not only enable it to monitor the surroundings but also to exchange real-time data with ground control and within its airborne unit at the same time.

The T-50’s “e-pilot” functionality is constantly analyzing the situation, offering the pilot several options on which to act.

The pilot will receive the bulk of flight and combat data in the form of symbols and signs, making it easier to process and substantially easing the pressure on the pilot, while allowing him to focus on the tactical mission at hand.

The T-50 can take off and land from a runway that is only roughly 1,100 feet long. Going forward, it will serve as a basis for a navy variant. Weapons will be stored completely in internal compartments, to meet the stealth technology’s requirements.

According to certain reports, those compartments would be able to carry up to eight R-77 air-to-air missiles, or two 3,300-pound, guided aerial bombs.

Additionally, two long-range missiles could be suspended externally, to allow the fighter to engage targets located as far as 250 miles away.

The fact that India has joined in development of the fighter suggests that the program is promising and meets the highest standards. New Delhi has allocated almost $25 billion for this purpose and expects to obtain a proprietary version of the fifth-generation fighter by 2018.

It is this machine that will be exported, according to Russian specialists, while the Russian-made T-50 will remain an exclusively domestic model—like the American F-22. Russian airmen expect to take delivery of the first serially produced fighters as soon as 2013, and they plan to purchase at least 70 units.

GarryB wrote:There are going to be a few different variants of the PAK FA... a navalised version for one, but that will all be in the future.

I rather suspect that a model optimised for long range interception is certainly possible but would not need the level of stealth or the level of manouver performance of the PAK FA and would also benefit from having more than one crew and a much larger weapon capacity and much larger fuel capacity along with reduced drag design to allow for higher speeds.

At the end of the day a light bomber converted for speed and air to air payload actually makes more sense than a converted PAK FA because the bomber will already have lots of range and if it is a bomber like a Tu-22M3M then it will have speed as well already.

A belly covered in 20 R-37M launchers and the internal rotary launcher with 12 scramjet powered R-77Ms plus 6 or so Morfei short range highly manouverable IIR guided AAMs for defence against enemy AAMs and SAMs, plus a huge front mounted radar array and a reduction to two crew and an increase in internal fuel and an engine upgrade and we are talking about a serious heavy long range interceptor... a much more efficient use of old airframes and engines...

As a more direct answer... the reason why they should spend money on something to replace the Mig-31 instead of using a modified PAK FA is because the PAK FA was designed number one for manouver capability.... and number two for Stealth. Neither factor is important for a Mig-31 or its replacement.

For PAK FA flying high and fast for long periods is to allow longer range missile launches against enemy aircraft and to reduce the effective range of enemy missiles (SAM and AAM).

For Mig-31 speed means getting to launch positions faster and hitting enemy aircraft and cruise missiles at greater distances from their targets so they have more time to return to base... rearm and refuel and do it again.

High for speed is good but super high is no advantage, stealth means nothing as AB will be used a lot and so will radar. Manouver is not of great use as it is a long range missile carrier that strikes down from max range and then heads back to rearm and refuel.

High speed long range missiles and long range radar means it can cover more area, while doing so it will be generating a lot of engine and skin (friction) heat, and will be using datalinks and comms and radar so there will be little question of its location.

With high speed and a flight range of 300km the R-37M could cover a 600km diameter of a border area... carried in enormous numbers in an AN-70... released out the back like a pallet of cargo to fire up the engines and fly towards its target using data transmitted by high flying PAK FAs and ground and space based radars is of course another option to replace them perhaps...   

Interesting garry..
why did you said on this topic
https://www.russiadefence.net/t1803p420-is-russia-safe-from-f22
in post Post n°429:

BTW it would make no sense to use a variant of PAK FA as a Mig-31 replacement... an interceptor of bombers and cruise missiles has no requirement for stealth... there will be no enemy fighters to deal with... they will all be trying to shoot down incoming Russian cruise missiles heading for the US.


Just to spite me? Right...
Pak-fa is a (perspektivniy=futuristic) complex- like car factory complex producing caravan hedgeback saloon versions of the same car -not complexity ,why did you think all those talk about 1-2 seat versions ,1-2-3 engine versions (dfferent nozzles mostly) and ,L-band X-band radars was...
Man i hate it when im right i just didnt want to go too much off  

The rest of your post is just too much sci-fi BS.

According to certain reports, those compartments would be able to carry up to eight R-77 air-to-air missiles

Unless they're planning on installing a different compartment, 8 AA missiles is impossible to achieve.

....

On the MiG-31 vs Pak Fa

the MiG-31's will remain in service for at least another 10-15 years....no chance of Pak Fa replacing them in the near term. And unless the announced successor of the MiG-31 is a version of the Pak Fa (not likely IMO) it will never replace it.

Cyberspec wrote:

On the MiG-31 vs Pak Fa

the MiG-31's will remain in service for at least another 10-15 years....no chance of Pak Fa replacing them in the near term. And unless the announced successor of the MiG-31 is a version of the Pak Fa (not likely IMO) it will never replace it.

Why?

George1 wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

On the MiG-31 vs Pak Fa

the MiG-31's will remain in service for at least another 10-15 years....no chance of Pak Fa replacing them in the near term. And unless the announced successor of the MiG-31 is a version of the Pak Fa (not likely IMO) it will never replace it.

Why?

Think about it. The BM upgrade keeps the MiG-31 viable for the near term. After that, they can start thinking about if they actually need a replacement, and if so, what to do about it. By that time the PAK-FA may be done with production, depending on how many are bought and how many they make per year. If it's out of production, its chances of being the basis for a FOXHOUND replacement aren't very large. Plus, Garry is right: there's no need for FOXHOUND's replacement to be that stealthy or that maneuverable.

To be honest, with the updates in radar and missile capability these days, they'd almost be just as well off going with an adapted FLANKER airframe, and doing it right now instead of spending money on the MiG-31BM. FLANKER has excellent range, and a new radar mated with the R-37M would give it a combination of combat persistence, range, and avionics to pretty much kill everything FOXHOUND can. So it's not as fast, so what? Having a 300km range missile won't hurt. Semi-conformal inter-nacelle carriage and new engines might give you supercruise capability anyway to get out there fast. Plus, adapting a FLANKER would be cheaper, and if you use new airframes you've got a nice long service life.

Or, spend a fraction of the cost, and spread around up north some of the S-400 and S-500 batteries. The S-400 has the range that Russia can actually consider defending the entire border with SAM systems if it wanted to.

Interesting garry..
why did you said on this topic
https://www.russiadefence.net/t1803p420-is-russia-safe-from-f22
in post Post n°429:

BTW it would make no sense to use a variant of PAK FA as a Mig-31 replacement... an interceptor of bombers and cruise missiles has no requirement for stealth... there will be no enemy fighters to deal with... they will all be trying to shoot down incoming Russian cruise missiles heading for the US.


Just to spite me? Right...

Perhaps English is not your first language but in both the comments by me that you reproduce here I say the same thing... ie:

it would make no sense to use a variant of PAK FA as a Mig-31 replacement... an interceptor of bombers and cruise missiles has no requirement for stealth...

And:

I rather suspect that a model optimised for long range interception is certainly possible but would not need the level of stealth or the level of manouver performance of the PAK FA

As a more direct answer... the reason why they should spend money on something to replace the Mig-31 instead of using a modified PAK FA is because the PAK FA was designed number one for manouver capability.... and number two for Stealth. Neither factor is important for a Mig-31 or its replacement.

I think that is pretty clear... the Mig-31 and its replacement does not need stealth or manouverability any where near the level of PAK FA... what it needs is high speed and long range and lots of missiles.

Because of this I don't think PAK FA could replace the Mig-31.

The Su-35 has range and lots of missiles but lacks the very high speed of the Mig-31.

why did you think all those talk about 1-2 seat versions ,1-2-3 engine versions (dfferent nozzles mostly) and ,L-band X-band radars was...
Man i hate it when im right i just didnt want to go too much off

India was a very strong supporter of a 2 seat version but it seems they are not interested in spending the money necessary to develop one... and if they are not interested then I doubt Russia will want one either.

With 5th gen avionics there should be little need for a second crew.

The X and L band radar are for detecting enemy stealth fighters... F-35 and F-22. Would not be so useful against B-2s but then that is what the enormous ground and space arrays will be for.

And regarding engine number?

There is only going to be the twin engined PAK FA. The new light fighter might use one engine but three engines don't bring enough returns to be worth it except in VSTOL aircraft.

The only viable three engine aircraft I know of use the extra third engine for takeoff and run two engines for more efficient cruise.

Unless they're planning on installing a different compartment, 8 AA missiles is impossible to achieve.

If the Su-35 can fit two R-77s between its engine inlets then why couldn't PAK FA fit 4 R-77s abreast?

The long narrow strakes and folding rear gridfins take up very little room and the launch pylons include a pneumatic ram to throw the missile down away from the aircraft before the engine is lit and the tail grid fins are extended.

You could fit two of the missiles lower than the upper two missiles and stagger them to use the depth of the weapon bay as well as the width.

...regarding SOCs post... I pretty much agree and the Su-35 would be a better replacement for the Mig-31 in all areas than the PAK FA except in terms of speed. Fitting the new late model engines produced for the final PAK FA... if they do indeed put out 18 tons of thrust as promised should allow an increase in performance for the Su-35 but with all those weapon pylons I still can't see it flying faster than Mach 2.3, though its supercruising performance should be impressive.

The point is that they have Mig-31s already and fitting a huge AESA radar in 5 years time and new more powerful engines could mean significant increases in range and top speed and all round performance.

We need to keep in mind that a 21st century aircraft in the niche between the Foxhound and the Backfire but with much more sophisticated fixed wing and a more sophisticated propulsion arrangement that allows two large 5th gen turbojets to operate like turbo jets to get up to speed and up to altitude and then run like ramjets or even scramjets could open a whole new chapter in aviation. Remove manoeuvrability and stealth and focus on speed and range and a heavy armament that... with a larger aircraft can be internal for high speed long range flight and you can free up your expensive stealth fighters... heavy and light and 4+++ numbers aircraft like the Flankers and Fulcrums for tactical and theatre missions.

As a bonus you could use these aircraft on long range conventional missions to support conventional long range bombing missions too using long weapon and sensor range to compensate for lack of stealth and manoeuvrability.

Just a note, I think the L-Band AESA arrays on the PAK FA are IFF/SSR Transponders.

If they were only that then there would be no need for them to be AESA antenna arrays.

Most PVO aircraft had datalinks without the need for such an array...

It is confirmed it is for IFF:

http://www.aviationunion.ru/Files/Nom_8_GRPZ.jpg

Something like this I guess:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-08/selex-galileo-leads-europes-e-scan-drive

I think L-AESA in only IFF role would be huge overkill. Yet until Russia discloses what is it about we can not be sure and there are range of options with perhaps

even combination of different abilities. This thing is intended for even older Flankers who has IFF.

it seems we cant understand each other , i said engine versions ,not number of engines  , there will be always 2 engines in t-50 ,but different engine version  (different nozzle mostly).

that doesnt matter interceptor version was to be with just frontal stealth or reduced rcs with circular rear nozzles (no loss of thrust).russian and indians wanted 2 seat then russian side give up and single seat with l-band radars added. indiand wanted 2 seat with square nozzle and all round stealth so it would be a fighter version.russian cant seem to reach mig-31 performance supercruise is not near mach 2. if they use any afterburning they wont have the range....so thats the reason all the talk about new mig-31 production with 6 missileaesa radar and better speeds.,there is lot of potential there.
t-50 interceptor armament is just 4 missiles same as current mig-31. so t-050 interceptor version will be same or lacking not upgrading on mig-31.

it seems we cant understand each other , i said engine versions ,not number of engines Rolling Eyes , there will be always 2 engines in t-50 ,but different engine version (different nozzle mostly).x

When you say 1-2-3 engine versions, it sounds like you mean versions with one engine (ie a light 5th gen), the standard version with two engines (PAK FA), and a heavy version with three engines presumably as a Su-34 type variant replacement or Mig-31 replacement or both.

You would need a significant redesign of the PAK FA to make it suitable for Mig-31 replacement... the reduced manouverabilty requirement would allow the rear horizontal tail surfaces to be removed and perhaps even the vertical tails removed as well and of course the wing would then become a very large delta though the higher speed requirements would require much more sweep of the leading edge.

The body could be half as long again and the belly could be lowered so it has a flat bottom that would allow a row of medium or short range missiles below the engines in sort of semi conformal positions of the current design and an extra layer of heavy missiles in the main bay, though with the lowered belly they would all be internal.

That would allow perhaps two R-77s and a 9M100 under each engine nacelle at the front and the back, so 8 R-77s and 4 9M100s plus 4 R-37Ms in the original centre bays and 4 more below them for a total load of 8 x R-37M, 8 x R-77, and 4 9M100. In this case the 9M100 are short range point defence missiles with a lock on after launch capability and full thrust vectoring performance so they could be released downwards in flight and then be directed in any direction to hit an incoming missile like an AMRAAM for self defence if the US has a sneaky trick like arming its B-2s with a few AMRAAMs for self defence.

In fact an interesting idea would be to add a ramjet engine on a spine down the upper back of the aircraft that gets air fed from the main inlets to the standard two engines to operate at high altitude and high speed so one or both standard engines could be shut down to further improve fuel efficiency... the main issue of course is whether the structure can take the heat of those speeds which it likely can't as it was never a requirement.

that doesnt matter interceptor version was to be with just frontal stealth or reduced rcs with circular rear nozzles (no loss of thrust)

Even with just frontal stealth it is an unnecessary cost that will make the aircraft more expensive to make and operate than it needs to be.

When the only tool you have is a hammer you have to treat every problem like it is a nail... not all problems are nails.

russian and indians wanted 2 seat then russian side give up and single seat with l-band radars added.

Russian side never planned for 2 seat PAK FA.

From Austins post above:

The T-50’s “e-pilot” functionality is constantly analyzing the situation, offering the pilot several options on which to act.

The pilot will receive the bulk of flight and combat data in the form of symbols and signs, making it easier to process and substantially easing the pressure on the pilot, while allowing him to focus on the tactical mission at hand.

The 5th gen avionics act as an electronic pilot that passes only necessary and relevant information to the pilot so he can make a choice or decision... there is no need for a second crewman.

Once you can master a 4th gen fighter (ie Su-27/30/35) then flying this 5th gen fighter should be like flying with an instructor all the time.

and single seat with l-band radars added.

L band radars were planned for the Su-35 first and were added to PAK FA because both would be dealing with stealth targets.

indiand wanted 2 seat with square nozzle and all round stealth so it would be a fighter version.

We shall see what India wants... that will be the FFGA... the PAK FA is Russian.

russian cant seem to reach mig-31 performance supercruise is not near mach 2.

Funny that... perhaps a bit like the F-22 not being able to supercruise at the same speed as the Mig-31. Very odd. Perhaps because PAK FA and F-22 were never intended to be Mig-31 replacements?

so thats the reason all the talk about new mig-31 production with 6 missileaesa radar and better speeds.,there is lot of potential there.

Potential what? If PAK FA can be adapted to do the job of a Mig-31 then surely the Yak-130 can be adapted to the role of Su-25 and perhaps even light 5th gen fighter... or not.

The key to saving money is not to take the most expensive fighter in the fleet and use it for everything. The US wouldn't save money by taking the B-2 design and using it to replace all its B-52s and B-1Bs. A much cheaper B-2 design without the stealth and with the capability to carry enormous numbers of long range stealthy cruise missiles conformally over its belly with a straight forward avionics package designed for stand off launching of cruise missiles in WWIII or heavy high flying bomb truck for use against Afghanistan with extensive fighter support for other actions that maybe costs $150 million a plane to buy that is much much cheaper to operate... is fuel efficient.

Well lets not be too overcome with common sense and reality...

t-50 interceptor armament is just 4 missiles same as current mig-31. so t-050 interceptor version will be same or lacking not upgrading on mig-31.

Both aircraft could have the same armament in fact except the T-50 would have 4 R-37M missiles internally and a further 4 missiles on external pylons, while the Mig-31BM could have 4 R-37Ms on its belly with four wing pylons for other missiles too.

Both would have a gun, though I believe the Mig-31s are not using them at the moment.

The difference is that four big heavy externally mounted missiles would likely greatly reduce supercruise capacity for the T-50, and also effect flight range.

The other aspect of course is that the PAK FA will likely actually be rather more expensive than a Mig-31.

BTW I would say by this:



That it is a radar and not just an IFF antenna or datalink antenna.

GarryB wrote:That it is a radar and not just an IFF antenna or datalink antenna.

I agree. It reminds me of a similar principle like in air defense systems applied to aviation.

L-Band AESA will serve like a search radar and tell powerful Irbis where to look for. Just like 64N6 scans the sky and than tells 30N6 where to point/look for.

Exactly... even if it doesn't track the enemy stealth aircraft at all, it can indicate the presence of enemy stealth aircraft including UCAVS, and I am sure it will have many other functions they might work out for it for direction finding... the size of the AESA modules means it should be able to transmit and receive on a very wide range band of frequencies...

all options considered were ;
1 seat ,2 seat
engine with circular nozzle ,squaretip nozzle .
L-band aesa ,no L-band.
lots of combinations there.

[all options considered were ;
1 seat ,2 seat
engine with circular nozzle ,squaretip nozzle .
L-band aesa ,no L-band.
lots of combinations there.

Hardly anything really... only the 1 seat/2seat question would require any changes to the aircraft design worth a damn... the other two could be added on as optional extras if required later on.

The L band radar are fitted to the wing leading edge and take up space otherwise used for fuel or forward looking sensors or nothing.

Regarding engine nozzles... they can be changed fairly easily... the engines are not that close together and angled slightly outwards anyway so whichever arrangement they pick shouldn't be a problem.

Press conference of "Saturn"

http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2013/07/15/259336.html

On the engine for the PAK FA

Asked by reporters on the engine for a prospective fifth-generation fighter being developed by the program "promising aviation complex tactical aircraft" (PAK FA), I.Fedorov noted that work is being done extremely well under the leadership of chief designer STC them. Arkhip Cradles Eugene Marchukova. Design Bureau NPO "Saturn", headed by chief designer Yuri Shmotinym, did a great job on the new gas generator engine characteristics have turned out much better than expected by the customer. Now comes the final configuration of the motor and coordination with the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Dry questions on placing the engine on the aircraft. President of JSC "UAC" Mikhail Pogosyan puts a condition that the engine installed in the aircraft without any change in the support (now at T-50 or PAK FA fighter jet engines are installed ed. "117" before the new engine). Installing the engine of the second stage will dramatically increase the speed of the aircraft, as the increase traction and acceleration, in addition, the engine will be easier.

It should be noted that one of the conditions for the developer fighter is the price of a new engine - it should not be higher than the price of the engine, "ed. 117", which is set today, and this demand will be met and maintained. The engine in the production of the most cost-effective when it is released in large series, as it is today, for example, the engine AL-31 FP / FN in Moscow "Salute" and Ufa MPO. Today, there is confidence that even at half of the series, which now is, the production of the new engine will be cost-effective. Now an estimated price corresponds to the engine "izd.117."

5th-Gen fighter plan hits hurdle as Russia hikes cost

NEW DELHI: India's biggest defence project in the making, the critical joint development of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) with Russia, has flown into some rough weather.

Defence ministry sources said the inking of the final design and R&D contract for the stealth fighter has been hit by a huge delay, with Russia also jacking up costs for the futuristic project. "It's very unlikely the FGFA final design contract will be concluded in the 2013-2014 fiscal," said a source.

This contract was to be inked in 2012 as per the then revised timeline after completion of the preliminary design contract (PD C) phase. India will eventually end up spending close to $35 billion over the next two decades to induct over 200 such "swing-role" fighters.

The plan till last year was that India would begin inducting the FGFA from 2022 onwards, with IAF test pilots getting three prototypes in 2014, 2017 and 2019 for trials at the Hindustan Aeronautics manufacturing facility at Ozar.

"The timeframes will now have to be revised. MoD has established a committee of specialists and finance officials to verify the rise in costs. An internal contract negotiation committee is also in progress," said the source.

But India remains firm about rejecting the US offer for joining its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or the F-35 'Lightning-II' programme. "A lot of money and time has been invested in the FGFA with Russia. India simply cannot afford two FGFAs, both financially as well as logistically" he said.

The 18-month PDC worth $295 million for the FGFA with Russia was inked in December 2010, under which Indian designers and scientists have even been stationed in Russia to work out the blueprints and documentation for the fighter.

Though the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" will be based on the Russian single-seat FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA, which now has four prototypes flying, it will be tweaked to IAF requirements. IAF had initially pitched for 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters but will go for only single-cockpit jets now to reduce costs as well as protect stealth features.

The final design contract now being negotiated was pegged at $11 billion, with India and Russia sharing $5.5 billion each towards the cost of designing, infrastructure build-up at Ozar, prototype development and flight testing. Each fighter was to cost over $100 million.

IAF is quite confident the T-50 will meet its future requirements. Apart from ultra-manoeuvrability and supersonic cruising ability, the FGFA will carry its weapons inside the fuselage to lower its radar signature. With a cruising speed of Mach 1.7 to 1.8, it has both long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities.

IAF is currently making do with just 34 fighter squadrons (each has 14 to 18 jets) despite needing at least 44 to keep both Pakistan and China at bay. It's banking upon the ongoing induction of 270 Russian Sukhoi-30MKIs for around $12 billion as well as the early inking of the almost $20 billion project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters to plug operational gaps till the FGFA becomes a reality.

There has been a lot in regards to hate towards FGFA program from India, and it is no secret that organizations within India is payed by others (not pointing fingers) to protest such procurements. Actually, there are western backed organizations who get people to protest the opening of nuclear power plant in South India that is developed by Russia. There is very little word on regarding about funding for FGFA, and since FGFA is a two seater variant using some other components from other countries on board, India is getting away quite easily with its development as Russia footed most of the bill, while F-35 is once again, prolonged to 2019 as there are development issues (yet again) and cost overruns of unprecidented proportions

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578573502455715108.html

That being said, there were issues regarding Su-30MKI, with its Thales/Israeli avionics and the FBW components not working well together. This could very well be the cost overruns in trying to make sure that it would work well. But apparently, PAK FA is not showing any signs of cost overruns, so why FGFA? I think there is something else in the background going on.

That article has no specifics, only "sources" predicting problems.

Pass.

TR1 wrote:That article has no specifics, only "sources" predicting problems.

Pass.

Which one? Mine or what Y2J stated?

Let me repeat two quotes from the one article...

India will eventually end up spending close to $35 billion over the next two decades to induct over 200 such "swing-role" fighters.

and

It's banking upon the ongoing induction of 270 Russian Sukhoi-30MKIs for around $12 billion as well as the early inking of the almost $20 billion project to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters to plug operational gaps till the FGFA becomes a reality.

Lets look at those numbers again... 35 billion for 200 Russian and Indian 5th gen fighters, almost 20 billion for 126 French 4th gen fighters, and 12 billion for 270 joint developed Russian Indian 4th gen fighters.

I think one foreign country is screwing India and I also think they are not wearing a FRENCH letter (ie Condom).

Local production is always more expensive but the price of 126 Rafales is theft. Nice aircraft but no Su-30MKI+, and certainly no PAK FA.

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:That article has no specifics, only "sources" predicting problems.

Pass.

Which one?  Mine or what Y2J stated?

The one above yours.