PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Again I reiterate, I'll wait for an answer on plasma stealth from an "informed individual". If I wanted expertise on how to join the Taliban, or how to bend over and grab ankles in case of a reaper drone strike, then I would of sought advice from you directly CaptainPakistan.

magnumcromagnon wrote:I'm going to be upfront and honest, I'm very ignorant on the concept of "plasma stealth" technology, and I would love to be enlightened by significantly more informed individuals on this forum on this matter/subject. As of now I only have a rudimentary understanding of the concept, and apparently the Russian federation has developed the technology since 1999, and from what I've heard apparently the RCS signature is reduced by a factor of 100, am I correct? If that case is true is it theoretically possible to install plasma technology on non-stealth aircraft and make them comparable by stealth aircraft standards? Thanks to whoever enlightens me in advance!

Russia can't deliver on Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft: IAF

The Indian Air Force alleges Russians reluctant to share critical design information, besides technical and cost issues

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has done a stunning about-turn, sharply criticising the showpiece Indo-Russian project to co-develop a futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). Even as New Delhi and Moscow finalise a $6 billion deal to co-develop an FGFA with capabilities tailor-made for India, the IAF has alleged the Russians would be unable to meet their promises about its performance.

So vital is the FGFA considered for the IAF's future that Defence Minister A K Antony has publicly rejected any prospect of buying the American fifth generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, declaring the FGFA would suffice. In 2007, New Delhi and Moscow highlighted the fighter's criticality by signing an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) placing the project above MoD procurement rules. Moreover, Indian scientists say the expertise gained from the FGFA will provide crucial momentum for developing an all-Indian fifth generation fighter, designated the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Yet, with so much riding on the FGFA, the IAF has taken aback the MoD with its complaint that it would not be good enough. On December 24, in a meeting in New Delhi chaired by Gokul Chandra Pati, the secretary of defence production, top IAF officials argued the FGFA has "shortfalls… in terms of performance and other technical features."

Business Standard has reviewed the minutes of that meeting. The IAF's three top objections to the FGFA were: (a) The Russians are reluctant to share critical design information with India; (b) The fighter's current AL-41F1 engines are inadequate, being mere upgrades of the Sukhoi-30MKI's AL-31 engines; and (c) It is too expensive. With India paying $6 billion to co-develop the FGFA, "a large percentage of IAF's capital budget will be locked up."

On January 15, the IAF renewed the attack in New Delhi, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA. The IAF's deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), its top procurement official, declared the FGFA's engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India's work share too low, and that the fighter's price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.

Top MoD sources suspect the IAF is undermining the FGFA to free up finances for buying 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated $18 billion, an acquisition that has run into financial headwinds because of budgetary constraints. In October 2012, then IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, announced the IAF would buy only 144 FGFAs instead of the 214 that were originally planned. Having cut the numbers, the IAF is now questioning the very benefit of co-developing the FGFA with Russia.

Fifth-generation fighters are qualitatively superior to current "Generation 4.5" fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI. They are designed for stealth, which makes these near-invisible to radar; they "supercruise", that is, fly at supersonic speed without lighting engine afterburners (which some current fighters like the Rafale also do); and they have futuristic avionics and missiles.

The MoD and HAL have countered the IAF's objections to the FGFA. Russian officials have clarified that the current prototype's engine, the AL-41F1, is a temporary solution to let the flight-test programme continue. A new engine being developed in Russia will eventually power both the FGFA and PAK-FA.

Officials also say the FGFA programme involves co-developing radar far superior to the one on current prototypes. The Russian Air Force wants conventional radar for its version of the FGFA, which looks only towards the front. The IAF wants two additional radars that look side-wards, allowing the pilot vision all around. Now the Russians are evaluating a similar requirement.

Asked for comments, the IAF has not responded. The MoD and HAL, who were requested for comments via email, have also remained silent.

While the MoD, HAL and the IAF continue discussions, Russia has gone ahead with developing a fifth-generation fighter. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has designed and done 300 test-flights of the T-50, the stealth fighter Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) plan to refine into the FGFA in about eight years. The Russian Air Force, which has less ambitious specifications than the IAF, plans to induct into service its own version of the T-50, the PAK-FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or 'Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation') by 2017-18.

After the IGA of October 2007, a General Contract was signed in December 2008 between HAL and Rosoboronexport, Russia's defence exports agency. This laid out general principles of cooperation, such as work share, cost sharing and sale of the FGFA to third countries. In December 2010, a Preliminary Design Contract was signed, which led to the FGFA's basic configuration and selection of its systems and equipment. With that completed in June 2013, the crucial R&D contract is now being negotiated. This will encompass the actual design and development of the FGFA.

Hachimoto wrote:http://www.business-standard.com/economy-policy

Viktor wrote:Yes, it is enough to see Ajay Shukla BROADSWORD blog and his pattetic vinning about F-35 and hopping miracle will happen and IAF will give up on

Russia planes only to buy F-35 which is by his opinion death star of modern aviation. In reality he is most likely receiving money from LM to spam India media space.

GarryB wrote:I told you all it would not cost 10 billion for those Rafales.

GarryB wrote:Clearly what India should have done was buy 60 Rafales and 60 Mig-35s and upgraded their 62 existing Migs using Mig-35 components and saved themselves a lot of money

GarryB wrote:and now this individual is trying to blame Russia...  

Sujoy wrote:

That's because of the huge fall in the value of the Indian Rupee against the US$ and the Euro over the last 2 years . It's the Govt of India which is responsible for this fall .

Also because a new approach for MMRCA was chosen based on Life Cycle Cost was chosen for MMRCA which meant though the initial purchase cost would be high but LiFe Cycle Cost based on 30 years life would be more cost effective in long run

The MIG 29K can do exactly what the MIG 35 can . More trances will be ordered before the end of this decade.

By and Large but Mig-35 can be far more the share common air frame and Standard Open Architecture . but Mig-35 will have a more power RD-33MKM engine and new Avionics/Senors etc

This individual blames anyone who is not Anglo Saxon and most of his mud slinging is directed towards Indians . I suspect this is a cultural problem that we Indians have . We inevitably need someone to blame.

For Reasons best known to him Ajai is Russophobic by and large and self proclaimed ardent fan of F-35 , Also he has an agenda and bad mouths the indian armed forces.

And indeed blaming every one except correcting one self is the favourite past time in India .....I have yet to hear in my 20 years following defence topics any one in Indian PSU or R&D ever got fired for doing a bad job or due to delays ..... on most cases they are just bumped up. Rarely one gets demoted if at all or fired thats not on the cards.

Austin wrote:Also because a new approach for MMRCA was chosen based on Life Cycle Cost was chosen for MMRCA which meant though the initial purchase cost would be high but LiFe Cycle Cost based on 30 years life would be more cost effective in long run

Austin wrote:By and Large but Mig-35 can be far more the share common air frame and Standard Open Architecture . but Mig-35 will have a more power RD-33MKM engine and new Avionics/Senors etc

Austin wrote:For Reasons best known to him Ajai is Russophobic by and large and self proclaimed ardent fan of F-35 , Also he has an agenda and bad mouths the indian armed forces.

Austin wrote:I have yet to hear in my 20 years following defence topics any one in Indian PSU or R&D ever got fired for doing a bad job or due to delays ..... on most cases they are just bumped up. Rarely one gets demoted if at all or fired thats not on the cards.

Sujoy wrote:

Hachimoto wrote:http://www.business-standard.com/economy-policy

A couple of us have the misfortune of having to read absolute garbage that the Indian media doles out in generous quantity .

This article  being one of those .

Ajay Shukla is fulfilling the sublimated fantasies of the  frustrated  leadership of Lockheed Martin . In the process he is not questioning our intelligence . He is  assuming we don't have any .

There are absolutely no issues raised by any one in the IAF pertaining to the PAK FA .

The IAF is just disappointed that of the 50 % share that HAL had in this project it is planning to surrender 30% back to Sukhoi . Period .

The IAF experimental test-pilots from ASTE will be getting 3 FGFA prototypes in 2014, 2017 and 2019 for R & D and flight-trials .

Vann7 wrote:Total Insanity Brazil decision to buy the Saab Gripen ,, will be similar as to IRAN buying planes from US or Israel. And this already happened with Venezuela.. They bought F-16s a decade ago and US does not supply spare parts anymore for repairs of the plane.

TR1 wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

Bahaha, oh wow.

The fact is that the F-35C will – if everything goes right – cost significantly more than the F/A-18 to acquire, according to every budget document out there. In FY13, according to the Navy's detailed budget documents (which include the ATFLIR and ALQ-214, according to Boeing) the total flyaway cost (including recurring cost) of the F-35C is $199 million, more than three times the Super Hornet price.  Even at full rate (20 per year) it is 70 per cent more costly. And according, once again, to the current SARs, the cost per flight hour of operating the F-35A (not the bigger and more expensive F-35C) is projected at $31,900 in 2012 dollars. The Super Hornet SAR figure (based on an annual cost in 2000 dollars, divided by flying time and converted to 2012) is $15,600 per hour. It’s going to take a lot of work by operating cost “war rooms” to start to close that gap.

TR1 wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

Alex555 wrote:Something wrong with FGFA cost?

Alex555 wrote:100% price escalation on Rafale fighter aircraft

TR1 wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

Bahaha, oh wow.

Britain could buy weapons from its former Cold War foe for the first time under a landmark defence treaty, the Telegraph can reveal.

Defence chiefs are preparing to sign a deal that would see British defence companies working jointly on projects with the Russian arms industry.

The treaty allows arms companies to buy kit from Russia – and Russian diplomatic sources said they hope one day to see British soldiers carrying the Red Army’s famous Kalashnikov rifle as a result.

Ministry of Defence sources confirmed the deal creates the legal framework for the British Army to buy Russian equipment, but stressed their main focus is on allowing firms to share information and buy components from one another.
The MoD and the Russian Federal Service for Military Technical Co-operation are now studying the draft text. It could be signed in the spring, Moscow sources said, earlier than previously thought after making quick progress.


The deal covers ‘unclassified’ technology, so it is unlikely to allow co-operation on advanced battlefield equipment such as missile systems.

Nevertheless treaty is regarded by defence chiefs and diplomats as a major step forward in the relationship between Britain and Russia, which went into deep freeze following the polonium murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London and the granting of asylum in Britain to some of Mr Putin’s rivals.

The British and Russian security services have worked together to defend the Sochi Olympics, and last year British veterans of the Arctic Convoys, which ferried supplies to the USSR in World War II, were awarded medals recognising their bravery after decades of prevarication by ministers.

President Putin wants to dramatically boost Russia’s arms exports to compete with the European defence industry. He has also announced a radical expansion in military spending in order to overhaul an army and navy that are reliant on hopelessly outdated weapons from the Soviet era. The deal means that British factories are in line to benefit from those orders.
The Russian authorities are keen for a closer business relationship with Britain. Only 600 British firms currently trade in Russia, compared to 7000 German.

The release of British Greenpeace activists who were jailed after protesting on a Russian oilrig, following lobbying from MPs and extensive back-channel negotiations, was seen privately as a minor diplomatic breakthrough.

The US has in recent years spent hundreds of millions of dollars on buying Russian Mi-17 helicopters to give to the Afghan armed forces, although Congress has protested at Russia's role in supplying arms to the Syria conflict.

In 2010 Russia bought two helicopter carrying warships from France, in a deal that caused surprise in a country that had strong shipbuilding industry during the Soviet period.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Work is ongoing on a Military Technical Cooperation Agreement (MTCA) between the UK MOD and Russian Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation which will provide a framework for Russian and UK defence companies to cooperate at an unclassified level.”