Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[Air Force Brat]

Hey, if you want to say you have the best cheese in the world, go ahead and say it. But if you also say that your cheese cures cancer, you will find a skeptic.

LM has made very absurd claims that insult the reader's intelligence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you read the Flight Global article, which I have read before, but thanks for posting a link, the F-35 test pilot, who has also flown the Typhoon makes some very good points, one being that the Typhoon is limited to 25 degrees AOA, and the Lighting can be safely flown to 50 degrees AOA with-out significant worries of "departure" or aerodynamic stall? That tells us a lot about how maneuverable the F-35 is, and it is "very good", and more departure resistant in hard maneuvering than most of the fourth generation aircraft? It is however anecdotal and lacking hard numbers, LockMart is in business to sell airplanes, the more F-35s they sell, the price should come down, but most aircraft including PAK-FA will likely exceed their projected prices, particularly in a down economy where many are cutting their buys, or hedging their bets. I do agree that it is unlikely that the F-35 will be "cheap", it won't be, but it does represent a value added purchase when placed along side current fourth gens, it is much more capable in the L/O regime?

and if you want to get really technical, how did the Vik deal turn out monetarily??? It cost a bunch more money than initially priced at right, expect the same with FGFA and you won't be disappointed?? just the old AFBs opinion, but there is NO doubt in my mind that is the reason the PAK-FA deal is not a done deal, Raphael the same?????

 

[A Bar Brother]

If you read the Flight Global article, which I have read before, but thanks for posting a link, the F-35 test pilot, who has also flown the Typhoon makes some very good points, one being that the Typhoon is limited to 25 degrees AOA, and the Lighting can be safely flown to 50 degrees AOA with-out significant worries of "departure" or aerodynamic stall? That tells us a lot about how maneuverable the F-35 is, and it is "very good", and more departure resistant in hard maneuvering than most of the fourth generation aircraft? It is however anecdotal and lacking hard numbers, LockMart is in business to sell airplanes, the more F-35s they sell, the price should come down, but most aircraft including PAK-FA will likely exceed their projected prices, particularly in a down economy where many are cutting their buys, or hedging their bets. I do agree that it is unlikely that the F-35 will be "cheap", it won't be, but it does represent a value added purchase when placed along side current fourth gens, it is much more capable in the L/O regime?

If you look at individual parameters, then you will miss the forest for the trees. The F-35's transonic and supersonic performance is woefully inadequate. I wonder how Flynn says the F-35 has better transonic acceleration than the Typhoon when the Typhoon is capable of supercruising at mach 1.4 on dry thrust with 3 drop tanks and 6 missiles. The Typhoon's supersonic capabilities actually match the F-22. The climb rates of both the Eurocanards are higher than the F-35.

Typhoon is an air superiority aircraft, and they don't believe higher AoA gives them a particular advantage. However the Rafale can perform 100 deg AoA with no issues while flying at negative speeds. The flight control can be disabled, and it pulls 11Gs with the override. It can also perform sustained 5.5G maneuvers with 3 2000L drop tanks, 6 LGBs and 4 missiles. The F-35A doesn't even come close when clean, let alone loaded.

As for the F-35's cost, the one that LM is talking about comes without cost of engines and contracts for long lead items. The planned sticker price on a fly away F-35 at today's market rates is supposed to be $113 Million with engines. Typhoon ($124 Million) is definitely more expensive than that, but Super Hornet ($60 Million), Rafale ($85 Million) and Gripen ($82 Million) are not. These are the prices offered to the IAF in 2011.

and if you want to get really technical, how did the Vik deal turn out monetarily??? It cost a bunch more money than initially priced at right, expect the same with FGFA and you won't be disappointed?? just the old AFBs opinion, but there is NO doubt in my mind that is the reason the PAK-FA deal is not a done deal, Raphael the same?????

Vik was a badly planned and executed project. That's not been the case with PAKFA, thankfully. They noticed very late that they had severely underestimated the work required, after they started cutting open the ship. The blame lies equally with India as it is with Russia. While most ship building projects start with cutting metal and then welding parts, the opposite was done for this ship. The wiring requirement was underestimated too, so replacing the wiring took very long and was very expensive. Converting a cruiser to a carrier isn't easy.

Apart from that the weather was bad too. Due to the delays, they had to wait for clear skies to begin trials. So that took away many months away at least on two occasions.

Basically, they agreed that building a new ship was easier. However, even with cost overruns, the ship is still cheaper than a brand new ship with the same capabilities. The only difference is while a new ship has a 40 year life, Vik will have 30 years. Not a bad deal for roughly half the cost of an equivalent new ship.

Of course, due to the delays, the IN added a lot of other technologies to the ship that was originally scheduled for 2017. So they are getting a much more modern ship, even though there was added cost. However the addition of new technologies was cheaper than had they done it after 2017. The cost escalation also included extra expenditure that wasn't part of the original contract. They replaced all the analog instruments with digital, this wasn't part of the original contract. Sevmash worked on the project without profits. But they did gain extensive knowledge on building a carrier, since it was their first attempt.

FGFA is not yet a done deal because, from open source information, they are negotiating workshare. IAF wants HAL to commit to greater workshare. Cost negotiations are complete considering they are talking about a January signature. Rafale's cost negotiations are complete too, they have handed over the 15000 page contract to the committee and they are going through that now. What they are negotiating is liability in case HAL misses deadlines for delivery. Both sides are being stubborn about it.

 

[tphuang]

Both apparently happened during similar times. LM has been presenting the F-35 to the armed forces since 2005 and Russia has been negotiating with India since that time. Both were doing the same thing, conducting meetings, giving presentations etc. The IAF could have opted for the F-35 anytime before 2010. Joint development wouldn't have stood in the way of the F-35 was 15-20 years ahead of the PAKFA.

While IAF opted for the FGFA, the navy decided to wait it out for the F-35, the B version in particular because of its STOBAR capability. Now they should be open for C too, because it is confirmed that the next carrier will be CATOBAR.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So why did the IAF choose the FGFA (in 2010) while the IN sent out an RFI (in 2009) for the F-35? The reason could be as simple as the FGFA is being designed as an air superiority aircraft, which the F-35 isn't, while the navy wants CATOBAR carrier compatibility, which the FGFA isn't.

So we may still see the F-35 in Indian service, and this potentially throws your joint development argument out the window. If joint development was really important, then the navy would have jumped at the chance to have a N-FGFA made in India, rather than just outright buy or license produce the F-35 or the Rafale. Now, all of LM's efforts in India are focused on the navy's requirement. It is unlikely for the navy to pick the N-FGFA because it won't be CATOBAR capable. The navy's requirement could be as significant as the IAF's MRCA tender too.

Even if India was offered a partner position, I doubt the US would have provided enough ToT. Ashton Carter says they are changing their bureaucracy to accommodate Indian requirements for ToT. It is yet to be seen if they will actually deliver. So there are a lot of non-technical reasons also, including agreements like CISMOA and LOA. However it is possible that even though we have not been part of the F-35's initial development, we could be part of the future MLUs of the F-35 while definitely being a part of the MKIzation of the F-35. With enough orders, it may be possible to get a much larger production workshare than other partners. A Rafale type license production for the F-35 in India will still be a significant boost to the aviation industry in India, especially if the lead integrator is a private company like TATA or Reliance. Let's not forget India could be a part of the two-seat F-35 program too. That could make it as significant as the FGFA, maybe more. And Israel should have no problems with that.

Good things may happen between India and the US in the future.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lots of interesting information here. Some important snippets have been posted.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So all is not lost for the F-35 in India.



Thanks.

You didn't respond to my most basic point that PAK-FA offered India an opportunity to be the top partner in Joint venture whereas the partner nations for JSF was already set. That's something that the Russian offered that JSF program could not. Saying that F-35 was offered to India is irrelevant since we are talking about different things here.

 

[Brumby]

I'm not sure how the FGFA and AMCA are identical. There will be pretty large differences in capability, apart from sortie rates and cost of operation. AMCA is the same size as the Rafale while FGFA is as big as the F-22 or Su-27. AMCA's flight ceiling and range are similar to the F-35's while FGFA's range is roughly twice as much. It doesn't look like AMCA will have supercruise requirements similar to the F-22/FGFA either.

As for the clash between FGFA and F-35, the F-35 isn't a domestic program. Basically, the IAF has one foreign program and one domestic. The choice in the foreign program was between the FGFA and the F-35. The domestic program was always the AMCA.

I did not say identical (as in weight and dimensions) but in capabilities. The official stated premise of the AMCA is an indigenous 5th gen program that delvers stealth, super cruise, thrust vectoring, advanced sensors and fusion capabilities. That is essentially what the FGFA program is meant to deliver. You are plainly a pain in the bump when trying to have an open and honest conversation. With you we can easily get into a series of iterations but never getting to the point. It is ok to have a difference in opinion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. In the attached article, an official of the program stated the following " , it is imperative that India look ahead and begin developing technologies and platforms like the AMCA,” the officer adds. “We cannot forever be a buyer of aircraft that are conceptualized, designed by others and simply assembled or license-built here.”

I can relate to that as a national and strategic goal. I just have a problem in reconciling how India intends to get there given its state of aerospace technological development; track record that is not entirely exemplary e.g. HAL LCA project; funding needed ($2 billion) ; and the timelines set. If you view LM's marketing claims as unethical and grossly misleading, the AMCA claims would be LM standard mixed with a cocktail of LSD/ICE for a Disneyland crowd.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You didn't respond to my most basic point that PAK-FA offered India an opportunity to be the top partner in Joint venture whereas the partner nations for JSF was already set. That's something that the Russian offered that JSF program could not. Saying that F-35 was offered to India is irrelevant since we are talking about different things here.

Partnership can come in many forms. We may share IPR for FGFA, but the workshare related activity is very less. The two-seat FGFA was, as far as today's news is concerned, canceled. The two-seat was supposed to be our ticket to increased workshare. If we develop a two-seat F-35 with LM, then we will be able to jointly market and sell it to F-35 buyers, even if the profits and IPR would be lower. So the actual deal would be similar to what's on the FGFA. With joint development, there would be sharing of IPR between India and the US. Maybe not at a similar level as the one with Russia, but is still possible.

IAF is spending $5.5 Billion (maybe more) on the FGFA, apart from the $300 Million already spent. We could have spent a similar amount in developing the two-seat F-35. I have already posted links where the US is willing to work with India and the improvement in relationship has been happening since the nuclear deal negotiations.

So I did answer your question.
My previous post,

Let's not forget India could be a part of the two-seat F-35 program too. That could make it as significant as the FGFA, maybe more. And Israel should have no problems with that.

The Israelis want a two-seat F-35 along with other air forces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article is from 2010, before IAF signed the FGFA deal. If the navy releases a tender, the F-35 is the underdog. Proposing a two-seat development plan will give the F-35 a major advantage.

I suppose you'd agree that developing a two-seat F-35 is as significant as the FGFA partnership. And technically, much more than even the level-1 partner. We would be spending twice as much as the UK has, maybe more.

 

[A Bar Brother]

I did not say identical (as in weight and dimensions) but in capabilities. The official stated premise of the AMCA is an indigenous 5th gen program that delvers stealth, super cruise, thrust vectoring, advanced sensors and fusion capabilities. That is essentially what the FGFA program is meant to deliver. You are plainly a pain in the bump when trying to have an open and honest conversation. With you we can easily get into a series of iterations but never getting to the point. It is ok to have a difference in opinion

I don't get your point at all. What's the difference between Su-27 and Mig-29 then? Both are air superiority aircraft.

You are confusing the AMCA to be a smaller version of the FGFA. Stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring, sensors are just words. In the end it is about cost and capabilities. If the AMCA's operation costs are half or a third of the FGFA's, then it will be the lo-end of the force structure. It will be our numbers component post-2030. We could eventually be operating 200-400 FGFAs and 500-1000 AMCAs.

What about the F-15 and the F-16? Both started off as air superiority fighters and eventually fielded strike versions. The US has around 400-500 F-15s and 1000+ F-16. It is the same between J-10 and J-11 in China. Both are air superiority fighters.

Your argument is if you have the F-15 and the J-11, then why do you need the F-16 and the J-10. IAF is also a large air force. The force structure will resemble other larger air forces.

MKI and Rafale are current requirements. FGFA and AMCA are future requirements. It would actually be weird if we didn't have a Lo-component development program.

So what's that about an open and honest conversation? Or is it that being Indian, we should be conservative and less capable? I don't see you questioning the rationale behind previous generation Hi-Lo force structure of other countries.

I can relate to that as a national and strategic goal. I just have a problem in reconciling how India intends to get there given its state of aerospace technological development; track record that is not entirely exemplary e.g. HAL LCA project; funding needed ($2 billion) ; and the timelines set. If you view LM's marketing claims as unethical and grossly misleading, the AMCA claims would be LM standard mixed with a cocktail of LSD/ICE for a Disneyland crowd.

It's true, though you are being condescending about it. Indian capabilities are questionable. If the Chinese capabilities are in question, then why not Indian capabilities too. Even Russian capabilities are being questioned. That's why I don't buy claims from anybody, be it Americans, Russians, Chinese or Indians.

It's a rough road ahead, but we are gonna have to walk it. That's the purpose of the MKI, Rafale and FGFA programs. They are supposed to infuse enough technology into the industry that will allow the creation of new systems for future programs.

Rafale in particular will be a major game changer since the program is meant to infuse major technologies into the Indian aviation sector. Dassault, Thales and Safran are signing JV deals left right and center with Indian companies, both public and private. A lot of it has nothing to do with Rafale.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There have been technology deals with other countries too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Letter of Offer and Acceptance is reported to specifically include the build-out of a high-altitude engine test facility and trisonic wind tunnel facility at India’s DRDO. Rumors place those projects’ cost at $500 million, but the long-term value to Indian research may be higher.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In order to meet the 30 per cent offset obligations, Lockheed Martin has set up a manufacturing facility in Hyderabad. Giving the details of the manufacturing work that takes place at the Hyderabad facility, Crisler said, “The Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures ltd, at Hyderabad manufactures C-130 empennage products and also C-130 centre wing box spares, which is the backbone of the aircraft.” The facility will provide the spare parts for all the C-130J aircraft in different parts of the world apart from the Indian aircraft.

There's more because India is signing offsets deals with the US for P-8I, Apache and Chinook as well. Each time a deal crosses a $65 Million mark, foreign companies are expected to invest 30% of that value into India to boost Indian capabilities. And all the above deals go into Billions.

The French offsets in particular will be higher because of the size of the Rafale deal. So this is just the start of foreign investment in India. The Israelis and Russians do the same here.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

MiG's 30% offset obligations will result in the avionics suite including systems produced by Indian companies Bharat Dynamics and Hindustan Aeronautics. It will also build consignment depots, service centres and simulator facilities with training aids in the country.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Astra manufactures AESA modules. This deal in particular is related to LCA's AESA radar.

Similar tenders with ships and submarines will see investments in those industries too.

This is how we are progressing. We are buying stuff the military needs and forcing the companies to reinvest a portion of the money into our country for exclusive access to the market and further development of our industry. Our way is cheaper, faster and cleaner than the questionable methods of other countries. Our method also gives us access to markets in foreign countries, so we don't have to market future products from scratch when the time comes to exports.

 

[Brumby]

I don't get your point at all. What's the difference between Su-27 and Mig-29 then? Both are air superiority aircraft.

You are confusing the AMCA to be a smaller version of the FGFA. Stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring, sensors are just words. In the end it is about cost and capabilities. If the AMCA's operation costs are half or a third of the FGFA's, then it will be the lo-end of the force structure. It will be our numbers component post-2030. We could eventually be operating 200-400 FGFAs and 500-1000 AMCAs.

I agree that I do not understand the rationale between the AMCA and FGFA program and hence I posted a specific question of this nature in the Indian Military thread (post # 1621) and you responded in post # 1632.

I acknowledge in that post you mentioned about Hi-Lo mix and that the AMCA will generate more sorties and be cheaper. I understood the context of the Hi-Lo mix at that time relative to that of the F-22/F-35 programs. In my mind, all 5th gen programs are enormously expensive. Cheaper is a relative term and so is the F-35 to the F-22 but nevertheless is still a $100 million plus platform. As a rule of thumb, every generation change basically results in a 3-4 times increase in cost per plane. We saw that with the change from 3rd to 4th and now with the 5th.

You are the first person I have seen that talks of the AMCA platform being a low cost platform. If you have stated from the onset that the AMCA is targeted to be a third or half of the FGFA platform then the focus and nature of the conversation would be different. It is estimated that the cost of a FGFA plane is in the region of $100 million. Assuming this is the case, you are saying a AMCA 5th gen plane with all the stated capabilities will come in at between $30 to $50 million a piece considering that the Mk I cost $30 million.

Do you actually have a basis for making such a claim? A Hi-Lo conversation is only meaningful if such a claim is even remotely realistic.

So what's that about an open and honest conversation? Or is it that being Indian, we should be conservative and less capable? I don't see you questioning the rationale behind previous generation Hi-Lo force structure of other countries.

It's true, though you are being condescending about it. Indian capabilities are questionable. If the Chinese capabilities are in question, then why not Indian capabilities too. Even Russian capabilities are being questioned. That's why I don't buy claims from anybody, be it Americans, Russians, Chinese or Indians.

In my posts I attempt to be issues centric and is clearly not about picking on things because of national origin. My issues and questions were directed at specific programs. If they are perceived to have gone beyond the issues but generally to the people of your country I would sincerely apologise. Having stated that I consider you are both painful to have a conversation with but correspondingly you do make good points and are knowledgeable on the subject and so I do enjoy the dialogue - mostly. I consider that you can handle a robust and meaningful conversation and hence I was being frank when I thought it was warranted.

 

[A Bar Brother]

I agree that I do not understand the rationale between the AMCA and FGFA program and hence I posted a specific question of this nature in the Indian Military thread (post # 1621) and you responded in post # 1632.

I acknowledge in that post you mentioned about Hi-Lo mix and that the AMCA will generate more sorties and be cheaper. I understood the context of the Hi-Lo mix at that time relative to that of the F-22/F-35 programs. In my mind, all 5th gen programs are enormously expensive. Cheaper is a relative term and so is the F-35 to the F-22 but nevertheless is still a $100 million plus platform. As a rule of thumb, every generation change basically results in a 3-4 times increase in cost per plane. We saw that with the change from 3rd to 4th and now with the 5th.

You are the first person I have seen that talks of the AMCA platform being a low cost platform. If you have stated from the onset that the AMCA is targeted to be a third or half of the FGFA platform then the focus and nature of the conversation would be different. It is estimated that the cost of a FGFA plane is in the region of $100 million. Assuming this is the case, you are saying a AMCA 5th gen plane with all the stated capabilities will come in at between $30 to $50 million a piece considering that the Mk I cost $30 million.

Do you actually have a basis for making such a claim? A Hi-Lo conversation is only meaningful if such a claim is even remotely realistic.

Cost is relative to the timeframe in which the aircraft were inducted. Irrespective of the fact that the AMCA will be an expensive program, it will still be cheaper than the FGFA. While the FGFA is set to cost $11 Billion or more in total to develop, the cost of the AMCA's development is much lower (ADA wants $2.5 Billion and GTRE wants around $2 Billion for the engine), however India will be footing the entire bill.

Unit costs shouldn't be taken into consideration. Lifecycle costs are more important.

Due to the threat perception, costs are not such a high priority.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Costs, albeit important, don’t decide acquisitions; it is the capability one desires that is the driving factor and it’s our misfortune that HAL has not delivered this to the nation.

So they will spend a lot more on FGFA to keep it fighting fit compared to the AMCA. But at the same time they won't sideline AMCA. Apart from that, it is yet to be seen how capable the AMCA will really be in terms of late 5th gen and 6th gen technologies like DEW which are power hungry. I'm pretty sure the AMCA will end up with smaller powerpacks than the FGFA.

In my posts I attempt to be issues centric and is clearly not about picking on things because of national origin. My issues and questions were directed at specific programs. If they are perceived to have gone beyond the issues but generally to the people of your country I would sincerely apologise. Having stated that I consider you are both painful to have a conversation with but correspondingly you do make good points and are knowledgeable on the subject and so I do enjoy the dialogue - mostly. I consider that you can handle a robust and meaningful conversation and hence I was being frank when I thought it was warranted.

I know you didn't mean it, but it would be unfair to have double standards. I apologize if I came across as forceful, but I don't like beating around the bush. If I don't like something I say it to the face.

 

[aksha]

[video=youtube;UQ0JL0asHZA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UQ0JL0asHZA[/video]

 

[tphuang]

Partnership can come in many forms. We may share IPR for FGFA, but the workshare related activity is very less. The two-seat FGFA was, as far as today's news is concerned, canceled. The two-seat was supposed to be our ticket to increased workshare. If we develop a two-seat F-35 with LM, then we will be able to jointly market and sell it to F-35 buyers, even if the profits and IPR would be lower. So the actual deal would be similar to what's on the FGFA. With joint development, there would be sharing of IPR between India and the US. Maybe not at a similar level as the one with Russia, but is still possible.

IAF is spending $5.5 Billion (maybe more) on the FGFA, apart from the $300 Million already spent. We could have spent a similar amount in developing the two-seat F-35. I have already posted links where the US is willing to work with India and the improvement in relationship has been happening since the nuclear deal negotiations.

So I did answer your question.
My previous post,


The Israelis want a two-seat F-35 along with other air forces.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The article is from 2010, before IAF signed the FGFA deal. If the navy releases a tender, the F-35 is the underdog. Proposing a two-seat development plan will give the F-35 a major advantage.

I suppose you'd agree that developing a two-seat F-35 is as significant as the FGFA partnership. And technically, much more than even the level-1 partner. We would be spending twice as much as the UK has, maybe more.

You are completely wrong here. There is no indication that IAF was ever offered anything in F-35 program what it has been offered with by the Russians in PAK-FA. Any such talk is pure speculation on your end. If USAF or LM decides to develop a two seat version, it will be up to their own perogative. The idea that the pentagon will allow a foreign air force to dictate the terms in its top program is ludicrous. If the Pentagon decides it wants to chop any of the F-35 variants today, the only people it will have to answer to is the congress. So, stop speculating that you can become a partner nation in JSF. Actually provide actual physical evidence that says US has offered India level 1 partnership terms that's even better than what Britain (it's long time top ally) has gotten.