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

[b787]

Yes....but...the article was written BEFORE economic sanctions wrecked havoc on Russian economy. We have to wait and see if the PAK DA is still a go.

Russian oil companies earn dollars abroad for their exports, but spend rubles domestically

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov, the import substitution program will allow Russian manufacturers to create over 30 billion rubles' ($600 million) worth of additional production annually, starting from 2015
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Plus, India continues to be among Russia’s leading buyers. New Delhi plans to splurge over $100 billion on high-end weapons and Russian manufacturers are hopeful of bagging some of the deals. At the same time, a lot of Russia-India deals are secretive – such as the lease of a second nuclear powered submarine from Russia and the consultancy services being provided to India’s Arihant ballistic missile nuclear submarine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[A Bar Brother]

Actually, I wasn't that surprised that Russia offered co-development of PAK-FA to IAF. If they couldn't get Indians to bite, they would've tried to get funding from China. At this point, there is no chance the Pentagon would offer partnership to India at the level that was promised by the Russians. If a two-seater gets developed and I don't see why it would not be, it would be based primarily on USAF/USN requirements and only secondarily based on the desires of export partners. That is far from what Russia has promised. I have not even heard a sniff that would suggest such level of cooperation is offered to India. One project helps India's domestic industry, the other does not. It's a very big difference. Your speculations have no basis at all.

If we are strictly talking about the navy versions, then the IN should have the exact same requirements as the USN. Of course, as a Lo-end aircraft, the IAF will be quite satisfied with the F-35 too. So, I don't see why India will ask for impossible to achieve requirements.

And let's be realistic about one more point, nothing was negotiated when the IAF decided to go for the FGFA. The actual negotiations started only after 2010. The earlier contract was just the PDP with the airframe and engine decision. Workshare, ToT, configuration, industrial production etc came into the picture after that, and still being negotiated. Until the negotiations progressed up to a certain point there was no way of knowing what we were getting into. You see the same with Rafale today.

If the two-seat F-35 is designed jointly by India and the US, it's going to help the Indian industry as much as the FGFA. The only difference being, the IPR will come only on a few frames that the export nations would induct, but that's not what the IAF is looking for because they don't want the FGFA exported. A successful joint venture here would mean extensive involvement in the development of later block versions of the F-35.

Oh, btw, it doesn't mean the US will offer the F-35 development right off the bat. The IN will have to commit to a decent number of aircraft, and it is possible the direct orders IN will place the first time will be much bigger than what's happening even with the UK. The options and extra orders will eventually push us past even the USN's current orders. Do you really believe the US won't allow greater involvement looking at the possibilities the F-35 presents in India?

Coming back to the point, had the F-35 not been delayed, we would have seen the F-35 in the MRCA competition. LM pointed out the timeframe in which IAF wants the aircraft doesn't match the F-35's development path. Of course, IAF pointed out early on that the aircraft should already be in production at the time of the competition. They didn't want to waste time waiting for a development aircraft like Gripen NG or Mig-35. At the really cheap cost the F-35 was supposed to come in with the most advanced tag attached to it, the IAF would have jumped at the opportunity to induct the F-35 at numbers greater than 126, possibly even ignoring the FGFA. The MRCA deal by itself is expected to cross well over 200.

The two-seat version alone would cost more than $10 Billion to develop. LM and Pentagon would welcome a partner willing to spend half that amount. There are two reasons for that. One, it will ease the budgetary pressures. Second, the US won't have to sign an offset clause. The US will actually make more profits that way.

 

[A Bar Brother]

the difference is their mission; one is a front line fighter the other a escort fighter, range and armament both are different

The same as FGFA and AMCA. Range and armament will be specific to missions.

 

[paintgun]

Can we go back from personal conjectures and meaningless debates to actual news and good discussion?

 

[A Bar Brother]

I didn't want you guys to miss this, so I'm linking this here.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...-military-news-thread-33-5867.html#post321250

A sparrow's RCS is 0.0006m2.

Point being, the IAF thinks FGFA is further ahead compared to Rafale. And official Russian sources like Pogosyan and Davidenko said the PAKFA's RCS requirements are similar to the F-22's.

Now we have an idea on why the RNAF put the F-35 and Rafale at the same level.

I don't know how it can get more official than this. We are talking about the VP of Dassault, chief of IAF, the chief of UAC and the chief designer of the PAKFA, along with the RNAF. And this also answers why the IAF decided to choose the more risky, and more "expensive," FGFA over the F-35. The FGFA is simply more stealthy and more capable. And joint development was only a part of the reason why IAF picked the FGFA.

 

[Scyth]

I didn't want you guys to miss this, so I'm linking this here.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...-military-news-thread-33-5867.html#post321250

A sparrow's RCS is 0.0006m2.

Point being, the IAF thinks FGFA is further ahead compared to Rafale. And official Russian sources like Pogosyan and Davidenko said the PAKFA's RCS requirements are similar to the F-22's.

Now we have an idea on why the RNAF put the F-35 and Rafale at the same level.

I don't know how it can get more official than this. We are talking about the VP of Dassault, chief of IAF, the chief of UAC and the chief designer of the PAKFA, along with the RNAF. And this also answers why the IAF decided to choose the more risky, and more "expensive," FGFA over the F-35. The FGFA is simply more stealthy and more capable. And joint development was only a part of the reason why IAF picked the FGFA.

You've raised multiple times the Dutch evaluation of the Rafale and the JSF and how they scored very closely to each other. It is my belief that you are taking this evaluation out of context for your proposition.

What has been published by the Dutch ministery of Defence in 2008 (which is not much, a lot of information is confidential) is that the Rafale scores almost the same as the JSF IF the Stealth characteristics of the JSF were ignored. When Stealth characteristics were taken into account, the JSF had the best operational capabilities. Important to note is that the scores of the Rafale were based on a upgraded version of the Rafale F3 standard. This Rafale F3 UPGRADED version would have new upgraded radar and engines and would have been developed if The Netherlands would have chosen the Rafale. The evaluation of the JSF was based on the minimum standards that had to be met that was set out by the Pentagon.

This means your claim in post #75 of this thread:

The same for the Dutch evaluation. The only difference is while the Rafale was actually tested in Netherlands, the F-35 evaluation was paper based.

is False. The Rafale "F3 UPGRADED" version was not even developed in 2008 during the Dutch evaluations and so it was also a "paper airplane" like the JSF.

What is also published is that Rafale, Eurofighter and the Gripen could only meet the lower end performance of the JSF IF the Eurocanards were further developed to their "ultimate" version (F3/ Trance 3) AND the JSF would be stuck below the block 4 version. When the JSF reaches the block 4 version and beyond, it'd outperform all Eurocanards in all the six evaluated missions: offensive counter air, defensive counter air, close air support, air interdiction, non-traditional intelligence/surveilleance/reconnaisance, supression and destruction of enemy air defence.

Therefore, you cannot use the Dutch evaluation of the Rafale and the JSF and claim:
1) they are closely matched without specifying the conditions and versions.
2) the Rafale and the JSF were evaluated as closely matched so their stealth performance should be the same.
3) the Rafale and the JSF were evaluated as closely matched so the PAK FA should have better stealth performance.

Based on the Dutch evaluation you can only claim:
1) The JSF is the best out of all fighters available to the Dutch based on the criteria set out in the evaluation which included, but not limted to: the mission effectiveness of the six earlier mentioned missions, (lifetime)costs, development risks and other (smaller) factors like could it fit into our hangars.
2) Other fighters that were evaluated can only match the JSFs (lower-end) performance under very specific conditions.
3) The Stealth characteristics of the JSF is a big advantage of the JSF compared to non-stealthy competitors.

 

[b787]

You've raised multiple times the Dutch evaluation of the Rafale and the JSF and how they scored very closely to each other. It is my belief that you are taking this evaluation out of context for your proposition.

.

New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019
America’s $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is slated to join fighter squadrons next year—but missing software will render its 25mm cannon useless.
That means the F-35 will be almost entirely reliant on long-range air-to-air missiles. It doesn’t carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when it’s in a stealthy configuration. One pilot familiar with the F-35 added that “they will not have a large enough air-to-air [missile] load to be on the leading edge” of an air battle in any case.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Equation]

Cost shouldn't have been a factor. That's because the time we are talking about everybody thought the F-35 would come at $65 Million and will see a production run of 3500 aircraft from just the partners while being as cheap as a F-16 to operate.

But money does plays a big factor in sustaining a program. No money, no honey (5th gen. fighter program). It's that simple.

 

[tphuang]

If we are strictly talking about the navy versions, then the IN should have the exact same requirements as the USN. Of course, as a Lo-end aircraft, the IAF will be quite satisfied with the F-35 too. So, I don't see why India will ask for impossible to achieve requirements.

And let's be realistic about one more point, nothing was negotiated when the IAF decided to go for the FGFA. The actual negotiations started only after 2010. The earlier contract was just the PDP with the airframe and engine decision. Workshare, ToT, configuration, industrial production etc came into the picture after that, and still being negotiated. Until the negotiations progressed up to a certain point there was no way of knowing what we were getting into. You see the same with Rafale today.

If the two-seat F-35 is designed jointly by India and the US, it's going to help the Indian industry as much as the FGFA. The only difference being, the IPR will come only on a few frames that the export nations would induct, but that's not what the IAF is looking for because they don't want the FGFA exported. A successful joint venture here would mean extensive involvement in the development of later block versions of the F-35.

Oh, btw, it doesn't mean the US will offer the F-35 development right off the bat. The IN will have to commit to a decent number of aircraft, and it is possible the direct orders IN will place the first time will be much bigger than what's happening even with the UK. The options and extra orders will eventually push us past even the USN's current orders. Do you really believe the US won't allow greater involvement looking at the possibilities the F-35 presents in India?

Coming back to the point, had the F-35 not been delayed, we would have seen the F-35 in the MRCA competition. LM pointed out the timeframe in which IAF wants the aircraft doesn't match the F-35's development path. Of course, IAF pointed out early on that the aircraft should already be in production at the time of the competition. They didn't want to waste time waiting for a development aircraft like Gripen NG or Mig-35. At the really cheap cost the F-35 was supposed to come in with the most advanced tag attached to it, the IAF would have jumped at the opportunity to induct the F-35 at numbers greater than 126, possibly even ignoring the FGFA. The MRCA deal by itself is expected to cross well over 200.

The two-seat version alone would cost more than $10 Billion to develop. LM and Pentagon would welcome a partner willing to spend half that amount. There are two reasons for that. One, it will ease the budgetary pressures. Second, the US won't have to sign an offset clause. The US will actually make more profits that way.

India doesn't have the same level of security clearance as Britain, Canada and Australia. So the idea that India's level of partnership would be higher than Britain if it orders more just completely ignores that very basic point. US has plenty of money. It doesn't need India.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You've raised multiple times the Dutch evaluation of the Rafale and the JSF and how they scored very closely to each other. It is my belief that you are taking this evaluation out of context for your proposition.

What has been published by the Dutch ministery of Defence in 2008 (which is not much, a lot of information is confidential) is that the Rafale scores almost the same as the JSF IF the Stealth characteristics of the JSF were ignored. When Stealth characteristics were taken into account, the JSF had the best operational capabilities. Important to note is that the scores of the Rafale were based on a upgraded version of the Rafale F3 standard. This Rafale F3 UPGRADED version would have new upgraded radar and engines and would have been developed if The Netherlands would have chosen the Rafale. The evaluation of the JSF was based on the minimum standards that had to be met that was set out by the Pentagon.

This means your claim in post #75 of this thread: is False. The Rafale "F3 UPGRADED" version was not even developed in 2008 during the Dutch evaluations and so it was also a "paper airplane" like the JSF.

What is also published is that Rafale, Eurofighter and the Gripen could only meet the lower end performance of the JSF IF the Eurocanards were further developed to their "ultimate" version (F3/ Trance 3) AND the JSF would be stuck below the block 4 version. When the JSF reaches the block 4 version and beyond, it'd outperform all Eurocanards in all the six evaluated missions: offensive counter air, defensive counter air, close air support, air interdiction, non-traditional intelligence/surveilleance/reconnaisance, supression and destruction of enemy air defence.

Therefore, you cannot use the Dutch evaluation of the Rafale and the JSF and claim:
1) they are closely matched without specifying the conditions and versions.
2) the Rafale and the JSF were evaluated as closely matched so their stealth performance should be the same.
3) the Rafale and the JSF were evaluated as closely matched so the PAK FA should have better stealth performance.

Based on the Dutch evaluation you can only claim:
1) The JSF is the best out of all fighters available to the Dutch based on the criteria set out in the evaluation which included, but not limted to: the mission effectiveness of the six earlier mentioned missions, (lifetime)costs, development risks and other (smaller) factors like could it fit into our hangars.
2) Other fighters that were evaluated can only match the JSFs (lower-end) performance under very specific conditions.
3) The Stealth characteristics of the JSF is a big advantage of the JSF compared to non-stealthy competitors.

Which engine did Netherlands want on the Rafale? A 90 KN version? The M88-2 itself has undergone one major upgrade since the first version. The newest one is M88-4E. It is already operational. As far as I know only UAE has asked for a 90 KN engine. Even the IAF is not interested in it. And the radar has indeed been upgraded to the AESA. The Rafale has progressed to the F3R version now, that's two versions above the F3.

Anyway, Netherlands did test the Rafale, while they never tested the F-35. Paper evaluations are paper evaluations. At least flying earlier version aircraft throw out a lot of details about the aircraft. Flying the Rafale F1/F2 and expecting new things on the F3 is easier than just looking at brochure specs of a new aircraft and deciding it's the next best thing since the F-22.

The graph does indicate the best versions of Typhoon and Gripen match the lower end of the F-35. However, since the evaluations, Dassault has initiated new programs for the Rafale. This includes technologies like GaN for Spectra, GaN based conformal arrays with active 360 degree surveillance capabilities, new stealthy demonstrator etc, all meant to arrive around the same time as the F-35 achieves FOC and progresses to Block 7. So, Rafale has progressed far beyond the evaluations of the RNAF while the F-35 is still stuck where it was since 2008, a prototype.

The Rafale is not an all aspect stealth aircraft as long as active cancellation is not operational. If it is, it leaves the F-35 in the dust. It is a big if, but a possible one.