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

[Zool]

Well, usual Soviet practice was to develop two-seater training version of their single-seater fighters , with somewhat diminished capabilities (well known UB versions) . Russians on the other hand tend to make those two-seater versions fully combat capable (example Mig-29 KUB and Su-30 developed from Su-27 UB) . I suspect there will be two-seater operational conversion trainer version for PAK-FA too at some point , especially when they move from expert pilots to average joes . Russians are more conservative in this regard compared to let's say USAF, which doesn't use two-seater trainers for F-22 and F-35 .

True for past aircraft, but based on Russia's earlier rejection of India's request for a 2-seat T-50, I'm skeptical. Beyond cost and timing there is also the technical hurdles of changing the airframe to support a second seat, which I suspect would affect the internal weapon carriage capacity/setup. That's a pretty significant trade-off for arguably little gain when it comes to a 5th Gen aircraft that should have superior avionics and data processing to compensate for lack of a RIO.

From the perspective of flight training, I again just don't see it being needed. Russian Su-30SM & Su-35S quals can be used to certify a pilot to fly PAK-FA (and assuming there is no dedicated Flight Simulator developed for the aircraft). Once a pilot has basic flight certification they can begin air combat training for the unique capabilities the new jet brings. But that does not require a second seat.

Another wait and see I suppose.

 

[Brumby]

The VVS does not "yet" have a two-seat requirement. And even if they don't have one, there is a plan to develop a two-seat aircraft because the export market demands one.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And it appears that the FGFA will see a two-seat sooner that anticipated.

That news article is dated 11/02/2013. In that same article, it was also stated that a FGFA prototype will be delivered to India in 2014. Unless the delivery was as stealthy as the claim on the plane itself, no news agency radar detected that delivery.

With this type of projects, I will believe it when I can actually see something tangible.

Anyway, both India and Russia will share costs, this is just like the Brahmos program. There are new versions of Brahmos being designed that both the countries are paying for, even if one of them doesn't plan to use all the versions.

The final development contract is not inked and so final details on cost sharing will be known when the terms are finalised. I think development cost sharing up to stage 2 on PAK FA is straight forward and clean. The issue in my opinion is with FGFA because that is essentially an "Indianised" project. I will be very surprised that the Russians will go with even sharing on cost for that part of the development as it is counter intuitive commercially unless the FGFA is also the export version of the program.

 

[A Bar Brother]

That news article is dated 11/02/2013. In that same article, it was also stated that a FGFA prototype will be delivered to India in 2014. Unless the delivery was as stealthy as the claim on the plane itself, no news agency radar detected that delivery.

With this type of projects, I will believe it when I can actually see something tangible.

The prototype meant for India is T-50-6-1, Stage-1. Considering we have seen pictures of T-50-7, it probably means the T-50-6-1 is in an advanced assembly stage, or already assembled.

The timeline for development has not changed a lot even though the contract itself was delayed. It only means delivery of the first prototype will be delayed.

The final development contract is not inked and so final details on cost sharing will be known when the terms are finalised. I think development cost sharing up to stage 2 on PAK FA is straight forward and clean. The issue in my opinion is with FGFA because that is essentially an "Indianised" project. I will be very surprised that the Russians will go with even sharing on cost for that part of the development as it is counter intuitive commercially unless the FGFA is also the export version of the program.

Cost sharing is 50-50, that was already decided very early on. FGFA falls under that. What we do not yet know of is whether costs for IAF specific equipment is 50-50 or not.

It does not look like IAF is keen on exporting their version too. That's why Sukhoi was talking about their new two-seat export aircraft in 2013.

We are potentially looking at multiple variants within the next decade. The single seat PAKFA, the single/two-seat FGFA, single/two-seat export variant and the unmanned variant.

 

[Brumby]

The prototype meant for India is T-50-6-1, Stage-1. Considering we have seen pictures of T-50-7, it probably means the T-50-6-1 is in an advanced assembly stage, or already assembled.

The timeline for development has not changed a lot even though the contract itself was delayed. It only means delivery of the first prototype will be delayed.
.

In an earlier post you told me that India had no interest in the stage 1 configuration and so I am confused by your latest post.

Cost sharing is 50-50, that was already decided very early on. FGFA falls under that. What we do not yet know of is whether costs for IAF specific equipment is 50-50 or not.

It does not look like IAF is keen on exporting their version too. That's why Sukhoi was talking about their new two-seat export aircraft in 2013.

We are potentially looking at multiple variants within the next decade. The single seat PAKFA, the single/two-seat FGFA, single/two-seat export variant and the unmanned variant.

As I understand this project, FGFA is essentially the Indian version of the program. I don't know how to reconcile between FGFA and FGFA with IAF specific equipment. What is the difference?

 

[A Bar Brother]

In an earlier post you told me that India had no interest in the stage 1 configuration and so I am confused by your latest post.

The development of the Stage-1 is related to the Stage-2 and the FGFA. IAF will be buying the FGFA, but HAL will receive three prototypes, including the Stage-1. Explained later.

As I understand this project, FGFA is essentially the Indian version of the program. I don't know how to reconcile between FGFA and FGFA with IAF specific equipment. What is the difference?

For that you need to know how the development of the FGFA will proceed.

First is the Stage-1 PAKFA. VVS will be buying a couple of regiments worth and will form the basis for the Stage-2.

Then comes the Stage-2 which will be the standard for the FGFA's development. While the VVS will start inducting and operationalizing the PAKFA Stage-2, FGFA will undergo a further 3 years of development where the Stage-2 will be MKIzed to IAF specifications. That's why the current schedule for the FGFA development is 10 years (which the IAF wants reduced to 8 years).

So from the time the Stage-2 PAKFA is ready for the VVS to the time the FGFA is available, IAF will ask for specific equipment. We don't know how the cost sharing is for that.

HAL will receive a Stage-1 PAKFA, an early Stage-2 PAKFA with 117 and finally the production variant of the Stage-2 with the Izd 30 engine.

The first set of dates for the prototypes were 2014, 2015 and 2017, 2019-20 IOC. The dates were later changed to 2014, 2017 and 2019, 2022 IOC. The dates have been revised again. The first prototype's delivery has been moved to 2015, but they are probably aiming for a 2022 IOC. If that's not possible, IAF may induct the pre-MKIzed Stage-2s to make up for the delay.

Regardless, development has been ongoing between the two sides even though the R&D contract hasn't been signed.

 

[Brumby]

So from the time the Stage-2 PAKFA is ready for the VVS to the time the FGFA is available, IAF will ask for specific equipment. We don't know how the cost sharing is for that.

In short, FGFA is the Indian version which is PAKFA (MKIzed) plus Indian specific equipment. In other words, without India as a partner, this development path is not required. If they are solely India specific, I question why Russia will agree to pick up the development cost. The logic equally applies whether it is development or equipment specific.

Please don't bring up the Brahmos arrangement as a reason because commercial arrangements are by nature structure specific and not precedent based. .

 

[A Bar Brother]

In short, FGFA is the Indian version which is PAKFA (MKIzed) plus Indian specific equipment. In other words, without India as a partner, this development path is not required.

It's a bit more complex than that. The entire Stage-2 will be modified for Indian requirements, and this is also parallel to the VVS Stage-2. IAF has asked for 43 modifications from the VVS's version of Stage-2, we know of only one among them.

India isn't paying only for the MKIzation of PAKFA, but paying for the entire program. Without India as a partner, Russia has to spend twice the money to develop the PAKFA.

What we are doing here is developing the T-50 first together, and then the Russia-specific and India-specific T-50s in parallel. The only difference being the India-specific T-50 should take a little longer.

If they are solely India specific, I question why Russia will agree to pick up the development cost. The logic equally applies whether it is development or equipment specific.

That's the deal. The same with Brahmos. Brahmos is an India-specific weapon where Russia paid for half the development. The profits come from the sale of the missiles. Of course, India is also paying for the VVS specifications. It's a JV. So when the Russians want an air launched version, they generate more orders.

Royalty earns money. With equal share, the Russians earn money through royalty. If the Russians don't pay for IAF specific equipment, then only Indian companies make money, though it will get a lot more expensive to develop it. When it is exported too, the Russians won't make money, and the Russian know that the export market for the PAKFA is big. Why wouldn't they want to be part of it?

Please don't bring up the Brahmos arrangement as a reason because commercial arrangements are by nature structure specific and not precedent based. .

The agreement for FGFA is following the same rules as Brahmos. Russia will develop its part of the workshare, India will develop its part. The money is shared, along with foreground IPR. In the end, they bring everything together. Brahmos was tested entirely in India while PAKFA/FGFA will be partly tested in both countries. Naturally more money goes to Russia because they have a larger workshare. The arrangement is in Russia's favor since India's capacity for research is lower.

And just like Brahmos, production share will be 100% in both countries.

Of course, the right comparison to FGFA would be the Brahmos II and Brahmos-M programs since Brahmos was based on existing technologies.

 

[thunderchief]

True for past aircraft, but based on Russia's earlier rejection of India's request for a 2-seat T-50, I'm skeptical. Beyond cost and timing there is also the technical hurdles of changing the airframe to support a second seat, which I suspect would affect the internal weapon carriage capacity/setup. That's a pretty significant trade-off for arguably little gain when it comes to a 5th Gen aircraft that should have superior avionics and data processing to compensate for lack of a RIO.

From the perspective of flight training, I again just don't see it being needed. Russian Su-30SM & Su-35S quals can be used to certify a pilot to fly PAK-FA (and assuming there is no dedicated Flight Simulator developed for the aircraft). Once a pilot has basic flight certification they can begin air combat training for the unique capabilities the new jet brings. But that does not require a second seat.

Another wait and see I suppose.

If look at PAK FA picture, there is definitely enough room to place second seat . It could be done in usual manner by somewhat reducing fuel capacity without sacrifice of weapons load . PAK FA is a large aircraft and it could accommodate that .

Would they do it is another question, but IMHO they would eventually because currently Russia uses relatively old Su-27 UB for operational conversion on all of its Flankers, cause Su-30s in Russian service don't have dual controls (unlike Indian) . Of course, I'm assuming relative success of PAK FA with copies sold all over the world , not just few examples for Russian and Indian airforces . If they manage to repeat commercial success of Flankers they would eventually need to train pilots who didn't have prior experience with supersonic jets, and at that time Su-27 UB (or Su-30 with dual controls) may be too old to be useful . On the other hand, if PAK FA remains rare bird , trainer version may be superficial because only experienced pilots would get to fly on it .

 

[Zool]

If look at PAK FA picture, there is definitely enough room to place second seat . It could be done in usual manner by somewhat reducing fuel capacity without sacrifice of weapons load . PAK FA is a large aircraft and it could accommodate that .

Possibly. But the structure of a fighter with internal weapon bays is going to be significantly different from one that handles munitions from external pylons only (as in the example of legacy 2-seaters). I think the additional weight and changes to internal volume and stress-bearing structures resulting from a second seat would be more profound than it might seem from looking at an external photograph. No doubt it could be done but I think the overall airframe would require major modifications to the point where the assembly line may need to be a separate animal from the base model. If the Mission Systems are up to snuff I can't see a reason for it.

 

[thunderchief]

Possibly. But the structure of a fighter with internal weapon bays is going to be significantly different from one that handles munitions from external pylons only (as in the example of legacy 2-seaters). I think the additional weight and changes to internal volume and stress-bearing structures resulting from a second seat would be more profound than it might seem from looking at an external photograph. No doubt it could be done but I think the overall airframe would require major modifications to the point where the assembly line may need to be a separate animal from the base model. If the Mission Systems are up to snuff I can't see a reason for it.

If you look at the picture you would see that pilot sits well ahead of nose wheel bay , and weapons bay is more to the back . Second crew member would still be ahead and above nose wheel , not above weapons bay . I don't know internal schematics of PAK FA, but my guess is that they use spinal part of fuselage for fuel tanks (usual layout on many aircraft) and/or for avionics . Again, as I said before, conventional wisdom dictates reducing the size of fuel tanks to gain space for second aviator .

From the point of manufacturing, airplanes in modern times are built almost manually (small series) , therefore it is quite possible to introduce various changes . We already have that with Su-30 (canards, no canards, TV engines , different radars etc ... ) Twin-seat PAK FA version would require its own assembly line and would have redesigned front part, but that is not something extraordinary or unheard off .