BlackArcherBlackArcherIAF would be more than happy for someone to take the current batch off their hands. Maybe India can also do a very cheap deal for political reasons.
Chinese fighters are already flying in India’s east, west and south (China itself in North)
Not sure if internal politics in India will let HAL sell fighter jets to Sri Lanka though.
Yeah right..the ACM and other IAF retired ACMs and AMs talk about somehow increasing production rates to quickly induct the Tejas Mk1 and a Pakistani comes up with this absurd analysis..
But as Quantum FX put it, there isn’t any money for a fighter purchase as of now.
BlackArcherBlackArcherWell that is all very interesting guys but this is the wrong thread for it, Tejas discussions have no place in the Gripen thread.
It came up because someone posted about how a Gripen clone would be built in India and what the effect of a possible Gripen sale would be on the Tejas. Scroll up and see those posts.
BlackArcherIndia Russia fighter FGFA final agreement – India Compromises To Smooth FGFA Disputes
NEW DELHI — Ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Russia on July 7, the Defence Ministry is toning down points of conflict about the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program to reach final agreement with Russia, said an MoD source.
FGFA is proposed to be jointly developed and produced by India and Russia and a preliminary development agreement was signed in 2011 between Russia’s United Aircraft Corp. (UAC) and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) when India paid its 50 percent share of US $250 million toward initial development cost.
However, a final agreement, which will release a payment of about $6 billion as India’s share in FGFA development, has yet to be inked because of conflict over issues relating to work share, a firm aircraft order from the Indian Air Force, its desired mix of single- and double-seat aircraft, and changes demanded by the Indian Air Force.
The Defence Ministry wants to reach an agreement, will not insist on the Indian work share at this stage and will agree to delivery of single-seater aircraft as against the earlier demand of two-seaters, the source added.
A firm order of 154 FGFAs will also be included in the draft agreement, the source said...
A Russian diplomat here said India’s concern about low work share can be addressed and its workload gradually increased as Indian industry is better able to absorb technology and produce components for the aircraft in the years ahead.
The FGFA is based on the Russian T-50 platform and is already in prototype stage for use by the Russian Air Force and could be inducted in 2016 or 2017.
India wants about 40 changes to the Russian prototype and has a preference for a double-seater.However, the main sticking point has been resolving a dispute over an increase in India’s work share in the FGFA from the current level of less than 20 percent to 50 percent. The increase in work share would help the Indian aerospace industry get additional orders for the fighter.
“Signing of the contract is mainly based on agreement on work share on research and development. While Russians have already taken the lead in this and the Russian prototypes are already flying, there appears to be deadlock on this aspect between HAL and Rosoboronexport on behalf of UAC,” Daljit Singh, a retired Air Force air marshal, said.
“The work share would have to be finalized fast to get the project on track. Delay in this also dilutes the authority of the Indian side to have a say in major design of the aircraft. Final agreement can [be reached] if the contracts between the two agencies are signed,” Singh said.
While defense analysts and Air Force officers agree on India’s urgent need for the FGFA, they don’t want the parameters recommended by the service to be diluted to rush the deal.
“Given that India entered the project after the FGFA design had been frozen and prototypes were flying, any changes would face constraints. But India is going ahead with plans to fit indigenous avionics, navigation-communication systems, aero-structures and other components,” Kak said.
Singh says the essential features of the FGFA for both Russia and India will remain the same.
“The basic design of the aircraft is based on stealth, super-cruise and super-maneuverability features, and this would remain as the base design,” Singh said. “Therefore aircraft structure and power plant would be the same for both air forces and that would also ensure lower R&D costs. The IAF would be looking at some of its own requirements of sensors, avionics and weapon carriage capability. These issues are required to be finalized and mutually agreed and then the project would move much faster.”
However, Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia, retired Indian air marshal, said the service wants a greater share in development and production to give it an indigenous look.
“IAF questions the indigenous development aspect in this skewed ratio. The AL-41 engine, which is supposed to power the FGFA, is not yet developed. AL-31, which powers the Su-30 MK, is not capable of supersonic cruise. Avionics, including active electronically scanned array radar, do not have any visibility.”
..
BlackArcherIt will be a relief if Mk2’s design is not unfrozen by revised thinking as to what it should do. In an environment where decision making is slow the last thing you want where system development can take years (and typically does) is an inability to commit to a requirement and implicitly a design.
It does not matter too much if Tejas Mk1 is a dog providing it’s less of a dog than MiG-21. Where Mk1 is concerned I would say it should be produced at a high rate of knots to start alleviating the looming squadron strength problem. At least 20 a year. Based on historical performance Mk2 will arrive several years later than envisaged in which case Mk1 production can be used to help satisfy the need for light fighters until Mk2 is eventually ready to go into production.
It doesn’t matter too much if Tejas Mk2 falls short of Gripen E either. What matters is that it is an indigenous platform which is (a) cheap to develop (b) cheap to manufacture (c) cheap to fly.
Well, to start off, its not a dog. Former ACMs Fali Major and PV Naik have both gone on record stating that its a top notch aircraft as per all IAF personnel associated with the program, including test pilots (who know best) and, much much better than the MiG-21.
I’ve even quoted their exact words on the Tejas thread to dispel the myths being propagated by a media that sometimes serves as a mouthpiece for vested interests. Believe me, the Radia tapes blew the lid on an already well known fact- how the media served corporate interests, both Indian and Western. And we all know how much is at stake if the LCA program to be canned- its worth tens of billions of $ for foreign OEMs.
The problem as of now is how to get HAL to ramp up production fast enough to be able to deliver the first 40 in a compressed schedule. the new LCA-Mk1 P with Elta 2052 AESA that is being planned as an interim to the Mk2 will act as a bridge and hopefully the IAF will order enough of those to justify the ramp up in production capacity.
And for the few parameters where the LCA Mk1/Mk2 may fall short of the Gripen C/E, it kinda makes up for it with a much cheaper price tag and affordability is key for the IAF to be able to get anywhere near 45 squadrons.
BlackArcherSending a team of engineers and technicians to participate in a program in a different country doesn’t do much to develop infrastructure for a home grown program in your own country. All it does is allows your nation to be a participant in the process and provide inputs and perhaps to manage the program since you provide the funds. The next “joint” program with China will require that you do the same, with precious little in terms of systems coming from Pakistan or developing the aerospace eco-system beyond Chinese assisted and directed assembly lines.
Anyway, clearly that was not the goal of the JF-17 program. Its goal was quick induction and a multi role capability at a cheap price point, and that has been achieved, albeit with some riders on technology levels.
As for the success of the LCA program, it hasn’t been an unqualified success in that it has been delayed well beyond expectations. Yet, there is no turning back, and the program has crossed a point where there were doubts on its capabilities. Today, the primary issues that need to be resolved relate to production and not the aeroplane itself.
As for not engaging in any discussion with me in the future, I couldn’t care less, although to be honest, discussions with you are more civil than with some other posters who repeatedly flame bait on other threads.
BlackArcherI find Black Archer doing the same chicanery he accuses Mountain of doing over in IAF threads. Trolling just for trolling’s sake. Same old hackneyed points being rehashed again & again.
He pretends to know what Pakistan wanted from this program better than PAF officers or Pakistan military watchers, has continuously been countered by members over here yet again & again he come back angling for more & Fedaykin has him pegged correctly.
Also Mountain a humble request, stop replying in their threads but I guess even that won’t dissuade him from spewing forth here.
Fact none of you know exactly how far along the JF-17 is in it’s development curve, fact none of us will ever know for sure except for what is released to the industry media by the officialdom.
Heck my dad’s younger brother is an Air Commodore at the appropriate posting yet even I don’t know anymore than what is open source & what ever there is puts JF-17 squarely ahead of BA’s assertions.
Mods please clean this thread up.
Thanks
I have no intention of trolling unlike Mountain. So I’ll ask you if what I’m stating here is incorrect or not.
– PAF wanted to replace its aging and obsolete or obsolescent fleet of A-5s, F-7s and Mirages and needed a cheap single engine fighter. With the A-5s fast approaching retirement age and no other options to replace it but more F-7PG or second hand Mirages or F-16s, the PAF needed a fighter to be developed fast.
– Cheap + quick development meant that the specifications were not kept ambitious, so that China would be able to deliver the aircraft within the PAF’s required timeline. Hence all alloy construction and hybrid FBW, since back when this program started, even China wasn’t as experienced with these technologies as it is today.
I’m quoting from an earlier article on the hybrid FBW and how it was cost considerations that kept it to this simpler hybrid system, something that no other contemporary aircraft features.
“Cost reduction has been a priority from the very beginning and for JF-17 selected simpler and cheaper hybrid control system. Compared to modern electronic systems, hybrid is just one electronic channel, the angle for the other two, the tilt and direction mechanically. It was a technological minimum, monitoring the angle of attack and G loads through own aircraft.”
“However technology has progressed significantly since then and today we can offer modern electronic control system that is only 10% more expensive than the existing hybrid. For now, “on the drawing board” but if someone wants to, we can not certify a period of two years, “said Zhu Zeng, a representative of the Chinese aircraft manufacturers CAC at Airshow China.
here is where it differs from the LCA since the LCA was from the initiation meant to spur local technology bases to be able to achieve competency in certain areas. Specifications were kept contemporary as a result. Those areas were composites, radar, all glass cockpit, engine and FBW. They succeeded in composites and FBW, failed in engine and radars was a partial success since the current LCA radar uses the older MMR’s front end and the 2032’s back end. Today to a great degree, India has significant competence in all these areas.
– Within Pakistan there hasn’t been significant investment in aerospace infrastructure to be able to develop a home-grown fighter. Note, I mentioned develop, not assemble..I know that where the K-8 Karakorum involved 25% assembly in Pakistan, with the JF-17, that number is closer to 50%. What is there is transfer of technology and equipment for establishing an assembly line at PAC Kamra. But since Pakistan didn’t establish the infrastructure to develop a fighter, it has to some degree kept development costs low, since they’re utilizing China’s already established facilities for the development program.
Now if you were to compare this to scene in India, South Korea and Turkey, all have plans to develop their own fighters and that has required a lot of investment in their aerospace industry. Both money and time, with different types of programs being used as stepping stones to reach the eventual goal- of near self sufficiency. Tejas for India, Hurkus for Turkey, T-50 for South Korea..Different levels of ambition, with differing goals that gave different results.
But if you were believe a certain troll, just squadron service entry is the parameter for success of a program, whereas the goal of the program was not just to deliver a fighter, but also build an aerospace ecosystem that had atrophied over a couple of decades or never existed.
Even with that, all 3 nations will require varying degrees of assistance in their development programs. For its next generation fighter, Pakistan will again look to China, which will meet PAF requirements, but does precious little to develop an indigenous fighter. You guys will say that Pakistan doesn’t aim to have an indigenous fighter, which is fine, its their call. But at least India does- and the LCA is the biggest stepping stone towards that eventual goal.
Sign In
