BlackArcherPLAN went to Russia to negotiate a Su-33 buy with technical brief for domestic production line. Russia refused (or can not agree to a term).
your #1 export customer wants to ensure stability and security of their supply chain. you can not garantee that.
what do you expect happen in case of a customer with other options….it will pursue other options.Rookh’s post above may shed some insight into this question too.
….
I think Russian Aerospace companies and PLA Staff both need to change their mind set.
If Russia were to become a stable supplier and fully involved in chinese domestic arms acquisition chain, it must shown reliability.
something close to how Nato internally procure amongst its allies.
the truth was that the Russians sensed what the real intention behind the Chinese interest in the Su-33 was. They claimed to be interested in a 50 aircraft buy, but wanted just 2 for “trial” purposes.
A large arms deal between Russia and China has not taken place over a possible violation of intellectual property rights. Russia has refused to sell Su-33 deck-based fighter jets to China, The Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper wrote.The talks about the deal began quite a while ago. China intended to buy up to 50 jets for its aircraft carriers, although the country originally wanted to buy only two Su-33 jets on a trial basis. This intention became the bone of contention in the talks between the two countries: Russia believed that the Chinese customers could copy the Russian technology for the production of their own clones of the Russian fighters.
Russia had a motive to think so, the newspaper wrote. In 1995, China received a license for the production of 200 Su-27 fighters of specific modification, complete with Russian avionics, radars and engines. However, Russia terminated the agreement for the purchase of 95 planes in 2006, because Chinese aircraft-makers began to produce a similar fighter, although it was equipped with Chinese avionics and systems.
To put it in a nutshell, China has an experience of cloning the fighters of Russia’s renowned Sukhoi jets. The problem was discussed at the 13th meeting of the Russian-Chinese Committee for Military Cooperation in December. It is obviously highly unprofitable for Russia to let cheaper Chinese analogues of its reputable jets appear in the region.
Russia declined China’s offer to increase the purchase to 14 jets: at least 24 aircraft must be shipped to overbalance the production of planes.
It is too early to say that the problem has been entirely solved. China is extremely interested in the deck-based aircraft for its aviation. The nation plans to complete its conventional destroyer in 2010 and pass into service a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 2020. It is worthy of note that China used to purchase a number of incomplete Soviet vessels of a similar class, which were also reportedly used to copy Russian defense technologies.
China purchased a fair amount of used and incomplete aircraft carriers of the Soviet production within 25 years, BFM business portal said. China could reportedly use the vessels to borrow Russian defense production technologies.
Russia officially notified China at the end of April 2008 that the production of J11 fighter jets, the copies of Russia’s Su-27SK fighters, was a violation of international agreements. Moscow promised to launch legal proceedings to defend its intellectual property. If China learns to build its own version of Russia’s Su-27, the country will easily oust Russia from the arms markets of third world countries. Russian experts believed that it would take the Chinese about ten years to develop their own aircraft engine, but China made it a lot faster.Russia has delivered 76 Su-27SK to China since 1992, and sold the license for the production of 200 more jets in 1995. China started building its own J11 planes in 1996 with the use of Russian spare parts, The Moskovsky Komsomolets wrote.
The modernized J11 fighter of the Chinese production, presumably made of Chinese spare parts, was outfitted with the enhanced Chinese radar and could carry made-in-China missiles to strike ground targets in the beginning of the 2000s. In 2007, China demonstrated the first prototypes of J11B model, which was almost a complete copy of the Su-27SMK jet.
BlackArcherMy contention is not with the question of legality,
but with someone implying being seen “illegal”, or prim-and-proper, somehow equals less effort.
if anything the real world is other way around.
copy an existing design, make a few structural changes here and there and add some new avionics and that is more difficult than doing it all from scratch ? utter nonsense.
BlackArcheryou mean uphold the face of idealism but in the back doing just the pragmatic thing?
if India were to be so idealistic then its whole acquisation strategy wouldn’t invole ToTs.
at least they pay for what they get through ToT.
:rolleyes:
There is a big difference in what India does and what China does. Only fanboys like you cannot face that.
BlackArcheralways wanted to get in the last word in don’t ya 😉
and always going for that moral superority angle.
actually if we want to talk about “those designs are based on their own effort”…
I actually know quite a few guys who worked on LCA as consultants.
needless to say the whole schpew about “own efforts” only live in ardent nationalist like you.hehe.
more rubbish.
Anyway, nobody has denied that the LCA has had Dassault and BAe consultants. But they never took a Mirage-2000 or any other existing design and simply modified a few structures and avionics and pretended that it was a completely indigenous airplane of their own.
BlackArcherI think biased is one you are.
There is a difference between plan to make something work to actually make something work, on target, on time, on performance.
It’s not like China can’t chew gum and walk at same time.
if we want to talk about programs in R&D stage than the new round of 5th gen programs would put a stealth fighter in size of JSF onto a chinese carrier.
pot calling the kettle black.
Of course there is a difference between plans to make something work and actually making something work- the Chinese knew that so decided that copying an existing design was the easier way out..nothing to be crowing about and I don’t see any need for you to be boasting about that or to try and poke fun at other’s efforts, especially when those designs are based on their own effort, rather than tinkering around with known solutions.
BlackArcherGiven that the RuAF’s definitive PAK-FA standards have not been yet met, what basis is there to say the IAF’s requirements are more stringent? None. Who seriously believes PAK-FA as it is today is the final product the RuAF wants?
India may (I think very likely) be contributing funding towards system developments that are currently happening in Russia for both the RuAF and IAF definitive planes, but the fact is, the PAK-FA as of today, is a 100% Russian product. When I see actual numbers as to what system Indian money went into, then I will be happy to change that assertion.
The fact is that “5th gen” without Indian money claim is stupid and inaccurate. What futures does the IAF want, exactly, that make the plane 5th gen, and that the RuAF itself did not desire when Sukhoi won the tender back in the early 2000s?
These feel-good Indian media reports are hard to credit with much, to be frank.
that wasn’t a feel-good Indian media report there- it was GoI press release. vetted of course before it was released. Anyway, this argument will go nowhere. When more information is available on how Indian money is being used for the PAK-FA development, we’ll discuss further.
BlackArcherThat article seems to imply that money is towards the joint project based on the PAK-FA. Doesn’t disprove that PAK-FA has been funded 100% out of Russia so far.
So if that money hasn’t been spent on the PAK-FA then what has it been spent on?
I do know that some HAL engineers underwent some 20 odd courses to qualify to work on the FGFA project and that was completed in July this year..that alone doesn’t cost $295 million now does it? So, obviously that money (or at least a very very significant portion of it) has been spent on the PDP phase of the PAK-FA derived FGFA (or PMF as the quote below shows). Implies that there is a significant amount of engineering effort STILL going on even after the prototype was flying. Could only mean one thing- that the FGFA requires significant changes, and it is THAT variant that will enter IAF service, not the PAK-FA as it is today. And THAT variant (PMF or FGFA, what you will), requires a lot of Indian money to see light of day. And that is what Mr Shukla was referring to.
What even the GoI’s press release states clearly is that the PAK-FA as it stands doesn’t meet the IAF’s requirements of a 5th gen fighter and hence it is being modified (what modifications, not clear) to meet those more stringent requirements.
Indian Government Press Release (December 21, 2010)
A Contract for Preliminary Design of the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft was signed between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi here today. The Project involves design and development of a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft that will have advanced features such as stealth, supercruise, ultra-maneuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities.
The aircraft to be jointly developed is termed Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications which are much more stringent. The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the design & development of the PMF, its productionization and joint marketing to the third countries. Programme options include the design & development of a twin seater variant and the integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage.
Today’s contract is only the first in a series of such contracts which will cover different stages of this complex programme. The total cost including options and the value of production aircraft will make this the biggest Defence programme ever in the history of India involving production of over 200-250 aircraft.The Contract was signed by Mr. A Isaykin, General Director, Rosoboronexport and Mr. M Pogosyan, General Director RAC MiG & Sukhoi from the Russian side and Mr. Ashok Nayak, Chairman, HAL and Mr. NC Agarwal, Director (D&D), HAL from the Indian side at Delhi.
Preliminary Design
The formal agreement signed on December 21, 2010, included a Preliminary Design (PD) Contract.“The cost of preliminary design is estimated at $295 million. The work is expected to be complete within 18 months,” Nayak said on December 16, 2010.
A second PD contract is to be finalized before September 2012. (via PIB).A training program for Indian engineers covering nearly 20 courses was completed in July.
BlackArcherNot too sure about it Rii, but AFAIK right now they are just a simple purchase of pre-built engines.
Actually, the ToT is a part of that agreement as well. GE will supply an initial batch of F414-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured at HAL under licence through ToT.
John Flannery, President & CEO, GE India said, “The LCA selection is a big step forward for GE and demonstrates our strong commitment to India. GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement.”The F414-GE-INS6 is the highest-thrust F414 model and includes state-of-the-art technology to meet India’s demanding Air Force and Naval requirements. Technical advances include a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) and added single-engine safety features.
BlackArcherCorrection. 100% of the funding.
Correction- India has already paid $295 million towards the PAK-FA contract. So 100% of the funding for the PAK-FA is not Russian.
2010-12-17
Russia and India have agreed the estimated cost of a design contract for their joint fifth-generation fighter project at $295 million, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Chairman Ashok Nayak said in an interview with RIA Novosti.
“The cost of preliminary design is estimated at $295 million. The work is expected to be complete within 18 months,” Nayak said. Russia’s Sukhoi holding and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) agreed in early 2010 to jointly develop a fifth-generation fighter jet based on the prototype T-50 design. India confirmed that it had finalized a draft contract at a meeting with Russia in early October.
BlackArcher5. The Approval & DCSA notification comes only when there is a near surety of sale as in the case of C 17, C 130 and Appaches. There was no notification for the Super Hornet or Viper, so if and when the deal nears the above State Dept approval/DCSA notification to congress etc will come with it.
That may be the case in general, but there is no necessity that they appear when there is a certain sale. For instance, when the IN looked into the P-3C Orions and a possible lease, DSCA had a notification to US Congress of a possible lease deal. but it never materialised.
On 14 November 2005, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to India of logistics support for two leased P-3C aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $133 million.
The Government of India has requested a possible sale of logistics support for two leased P-3C aircraft. Also included are training devices, support and test equipment, engineering technical services, supply support, operation and maintenance training, documentation, spare/repair parts, publications, personnel training, training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements. The estimated cost is $133 million.
BlackArcherUh….
They did actually.
Chengdu offered an Navalized verison of J-10 and some thingelse.
PLAN went to the route with which schedule risks are minimized.
@blackarcher.
all this moral superiority crap about indigenious solution not withstanding.
The above tidbit shows it’s not like Chinese aviation industry doesn’t have the capability.
whatever that may be, your original post implied that IN was interested in just an off-the-shelf fighter rather than building one of its own which is what PLAAF wanted to do. Which obviously is not the case. India is doing the entire naval fighter program on its own without just modifying an existing design with some new structures and avionics. I don’t care what you say about it, because I know you are biased and that won’t change. But the facts don’t back you up.
BlackArcherThe guy who founded BYDs started in Auto business by buying mercedez/toyota/lexus/bmw off the show floors in autodealerships and give them to his 20 something engineers to disassemble so they learn how to build a car. His young engineers used stare at those shiny new cars they could never be able to afford, and couldn;t bring themselves to destroy them. so he would take the keys and scracth those car up. so his young engineers could bring themselves to taking the cars apart.
now he has a passenger car business that is ready to take-in his batteries.
so, why am I telling the story in an Britian based aviation forum populated by Indian and Russian aviation enthusiasts?
the point is, its like comparing apples to oranges.
IN is a good customer only interested to getting a new shiny car. ” look at those new features, it has 18 inch rims, boss stereo speakers, 450HP V8 engine AND a new rear facing camera! beat that!”PLA is a bad customers who like the guy in interested in the car making business. of course. their cars would suck and be scratched up, and be laughed at because they are knock offs! but, they are in for the long game. they are into the game of copying so that one day they may be able to MAKE their own.
Again, it’s a way of looking at things and nothing else- the IN is already into the game of MAKING their OWN naval fighter, without stealing someone else’s IP. That is the N-LCA. It may not be a Rafale, but it will do the job it was intended to do and will be done without resorting to theaving.
BlackArcherOh I think it’s quite obvious that the Chinese are admitting that the J-15 is a Su27K/Su-33 “rip-off”. What seems to be the problem is that Indians and some Russians are incapable of admitting that the rip-off is still superior to the Mig-29K. :diablo:
superior in what sense ? hardly anything verifiable is known about the J-15, so what it is that the J-15 has which is superior to the MiG-29K/KUB? And I’m talking about the capabilities, don’t bring in range or such things into the picture.
BlackArcherNo people are arguing that the flanker variant would be a superior aircraft to the fulcrum variant on aircraft carriers and they would be right. What you and many others are doing is operating under the grossly mistaken impression that aircraft performance is the singular feature dictating buying decisions for reasons of national bias and that money and politics or other factors are not involved.
You only need to look at the U.S. experience with the Super Hornet vis-a-vis the TomCat. An upgraded Tomcat variant would have inevitably had an advantage over the super hornet in radar capabilities, range, payload, speed, etc. Yet this option was not chosen because of financial and political considerations. First the Tomcat was considerably more expensive to operate than the Hornet, the second is the changed political theater in which it would operate. The Tomcat was envisioned as a long range interceptor and air-superiority asset of the carriers to defend them against Soviet strike packages. This threat disappeared after the demise of the Soviet Union. The US Navy made a conscious decision to go for the cheaper Super Hornet alternative and sacrifice the range and air superiority advantage of the Tomcat for more efficient ground pounding.
Taking us back to the naval Flanker / Fulcrum debate one sees the same. The PLAN primarily envisages the J-15 as a long range defensive asset to sweep the surrounding area of air threats because it’s theoretical theater of operations is much more dangerous than one the IN operates in. Strike capability is really secondary to it’s needs and they are in part being filled by dedicated platforms such as the H-6K, Su-30MKK’s, JH-7’s, and the DF-21D.
The Indian Navy on the other hand really doesn’t face any significant aerial threats in its operational theater and more critically is severely lacking in land based naval strike assets. India only has about 126+ operational flankers and cannot afford to dedicate them to specific tasks as the PLA can (nearly 400 flankers). Hence the Mig-29’s more multi-role capability (i.e. Super Hornet).
Of course there are also other reasons why India and Russia ended up with an upgraded MiG-29 and not an Su-27K, chief of which as I mentioned in my previous post was to bail out the MiG corporation itself. What was not one of them was the notion that the MiG-29 could match the Su-27K in its role originally envisioned by the Soviets or the Chinese today.
All this is your own interpretation and not backed by facts.
The IN’s own chief is on record stating that both the Su-27K and MiG-29K were on the table as options for the IN, but for purely technical reasons (space aboard the Admiral Gorshkov primarily and weight restrictions) they went for the MiG-29K. Neither of these fighters was in production, so it didn’t matter one bit to India whether or not MiG stayed solvent or not. In fact, considering MiG’s record at that time (of supplying spares to the IAF) and Sukhoi’s large order with the IAF, it was riskier for the IN to go with a MiG-29K that didn’t even exist as yet.
As for saving MiG, the MiG-29M was offered multiple times to India in the 1990s, as was the MiG-29SMT and neither interested the IAF. One might argue that a slightly larger order of MiG-29s from the IAF would’ve done far more for MiG than a MiG-29K order from the IN. So, keeping MiG in the business of fighters was obviously not the IN’s goal.
The notion that the IN didn’t consider the capability of the MiG-29K to match the un-upgraded Su-27K capability wise is rubbish. There is a very good reason as to why the IN set demanding specifications for the MiG-29K as it exists today.
BlackArcherIIRC, the IN would have preferred an MKIzed version of the flanker for their ship ,however, Gorky had too much of a space constraint, and the MiG-29 was chosen. There is little doubt imho, that a suitably upgraded flanker will edge out the fulcrum performance wise. Whether it is range, combat persistence, payload, or early detection, the uber flanker wins.
USS.
the IN chose the MiG-29K due to both space and weight constraints on the Admiral Gorshkov. In the words of Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash
“Having used the ski-jump for many years with the Sea-Harrier on the carriers INS Vikrant and INS Viraat, we were comfortable with it, but this choice automatically excluded aircraft like the Hornet or the Rafale and narrowed the options to either the Sukhoi Su-27K or MiG-29K- these being the only conventional (non-VSTOL) fighters capable of launch from a ski-jump. For dimensional and weight considerations we have chosen the MiG-29K.
Sign In
