LCA $1b to develop? $26m each. it is built with imported components and it has very low production rate. there is no chance it is so cheap.
it was couple of years back costs.

$1.2 billion at the current exchange rate for the Tejas Mk1. And most of the import value for the aircraft is owed to the GE engine. Like it or not, it is ‘so cheap’.

I would be very carefull using these figures.. they are after all taken out of thin air by the media at this point. Nobody knows whats going on on the table between Sukhoi and HAL.

Given how widely quoted the figure is, someone whether they’re from HAL, MoD, UAC, IAF, should have advised circumspection if not an outright denial. You’d expect information to eventually seep out of the Indian MoD.

HAL and IAF have missed a lot of trains on the Pak-Fa/FGFA program. They are simply too late in getting a deal signed and thus cannot enter the program.
But why is this? It would have been in Indias best interest to get into this program ASAP! Do HAL and its sub suppliers have nothing to contribute at this point?

Agreed completely. But seeing as the train’s been missed, it makes sense to scrap the FGFA program entirely. Treat it entirely as a weapons acquisition deal proceeding on the merits of the aircraft and its cost. No reason why the HAL is still involved at all, instead of being represented solely through the MoD.

If the co op with HAL will be much less on the FGFA, imo an domesticaded T-50. Then it will never be a $ 6 billion figure, but something far less.

I can see very little scope for HAL’s involvement. What would co-op with HAL under the present circumstances involve, in your opinion?

I think that is the core of the problem. India is not going to be able to field and fund the FGFA (PAK-FA), Rafale, and LCA.

The LCA has cost India $1 billion so far to develop, with the majority of it going improving the state of the domestic aviation industry. And at $26 million each (maybe $30 million for the Mk2), that’s a level of cost-effectiveness that’s not available from any of its traditional suppliers. On the other hand, there is a fair case for questioning the short term affordability with regard to the Rafale.

But as far as the FGFA is concerned, it was supposed to be a long term project with production possibly running past 2030. The current economic slowdown is not a factor coming into play. What does matter is, that tech transfer is evidently too low, the potential for customization is low, the performance/specs aren’t completely clear and most importantly the price is unknown. Bottom-line is, there is little point in signing up for the program today (instead of waiting until its ready).

It was only more ambitious in the minds of Bharat Rakshak posters.

It was blatantly obvious from the start that any Indian PAK-FA would be at best a “domesticated” bird, not something more capable. This is the RuAF’s premier air superiority project, and one of the biggest defense spending Russia has ever made post USSR. I am seriously curious how anyone thought India would improve it.

‘Domesticated’ how? And worth spending $6 billion on?

“The Russian Air Force, which has less ambitious specifications than the IAF”

Lol. Every article about PAK-FA coming out of Indian media has been an absolute joke. This is no exception.

In this case it refers to statements made by the IAF’s Deputy Chief of Staff, so I wouldn’t be as dismissive, considering the IAF has cut its orders from 244 to 144.

The point of the FGFA (aside from the now abandoned 2 pilot flexibility) was that it was more ambitious. It is now blatantly obvious that there is relatively little value addition being made through the FGFA venture and its certainly not worth investing valuable capital on.

Russia can’t deliver on Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft: IAF

The Indian Air Force alleges Russians reluctant to share critical design information, besides technical and cost issues

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has done a stunning about-turn, sharply criticising the showpiece Indo-Russian project to co-develop a futuristic Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA). Even as New Delhi and Moscow finalise a $6 billion deal to co-develop an FGFA with capabilities tailor-made for India, the IAF has alleged the Russians would be unable to meet their promises about its performance.

So vital is the FGFA considered for the IAF’s future that Defence Minister A K Antony has publicly rejected any prospect of buying the American fifth generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, declaring the FGFA would suffice. In 2007, New Delhi and Moscow highlighted the fighter’s criticality by signing an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) placing the project above MoD procurement rules. Moreover, Indian scientists say the expertise gained from the FGFA will provide crucial momentum for developing an all-Indian fifth generation fighter, designated the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Yet, with so much riding on the FGFA, the IAF has taken aback the MoD with its complaint that it would not be good enough. On December 24, in a meeting in New Delhi chaired by Gokul Chandra Pati, the secretary of defence production, top IAF officials argued the FGFA has “shortfalls… in terms of performance and other technical features.”

Business Standard has reviewed the minutes of that meeting. The IAF’s three top objections to the FGFA were: (a) The Russians are reluctant to share critical design information with India; (b) The fighter’s current AL-41F1 engines are inadequate, being mere upgrades of the Sukhoi-30MKI’s AL-31 engines; and (c) It is too expensive. With India paying $6 billion to co-develop the FGFA, “a large percentage of IAF’s capital budget will be locked up.”

On January 15, the IAF renewed the attack in New Delhi, at a MoD meeting to review progress on the FGFA. The IAF’s deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), its top procurement official, declared the FGFA’s engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India’s work share too low, and that the fighter’s price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.

Top MoD sources suspect the IAF is undermining the FGFA to free up finances for buying 126 Rafale medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) for an estimated $18 billion, an acquisition that has run into financial headwinds because of budgetary constraints. In October 2012, then IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, announced the IAF would buy only 144 FGFAs instead of the 214 that were originally planned. Having cut the numbers, the IAF is now questioning the very benefit of co-developing the FGFA with Russia.

Fifth-generation fighters are qualitatively superior to current “Generation 4.5” fighters like the Sukhoi-30MKI. They are designed for stealth, which makes these near-invisible to radar; they “supercruise”, that is, fly at supersonic speed without lighting engine afterburners (which some current fighters like the Rafale also do); and they have futuristic avionics and missiles.

The MoD and HAL have countered the IAF’s objections to the FGFA. Russian officials have clarified that the current prototype’s engine, the AL-41F1, is a temporary solution to let the flight-test programme continue. A new engine being developed in Russia will eventually power both the FGFA and PAK-FA.

Officials also say the FGFA programme involves co-developing radar far superior to the one on current prototypes. The Russian Air Force wants conventional radar for its version of the FGFA, which looks only towards the front. The IAF wants two additional radars that look side-wards, allowing the pilot vision all around. Now the Russians are evaluating a similar requirement.

Asked for comments, the IAF has not responded. The MoD and HAL, who were requested for comments via email, have also remained silent.

While the MoD, HAL and the IAF continue discussions, Russia has gone ahead with developing a fifth-generation fighter. The Sukhoi Design Bureau has designed and done 300 test-flights of the T-50, the stealth fighter Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) plan to refine into the FGFA in about eight years. The Russian Air Force, which has less ambitious specifications than the IAF, plans to induct into service its own version of the T-50, the PAK-FA (Perspektivny Aviatsionny Kompleks Frontovoy Aviatsii, or ‘Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation’) by 2017-18.

After the IGA of October 2007, a General Contract was signed in December 2008 between HAL and Rosoboronexport, Russia’s defence exports agency. This laid out general principles of cooperation, such as work share, cost sharing and sale of the FGFA to third countries. In December 2010, a Preliminary Design Contract was signed, which led to the FGFA’s basic configuration and selection of its systems and equipment. With that completed in June 2013, the crucial R&D contract is now being negotiated. This will encompass the actual design and development of the FGFA.

Business Standard

What i said is that you use the claim that PAKFA is all metal to rubbish PAKFA/FGFA and that others also use the HAL exec`s claim that the Indian FGFA unlike the PAKFA will have composites to support India`s continued participation

And when have I ever ‘claimed that PAK FA is all metal to rubbish the PAKFA/FGFA‘ and where have I ever used HAL exec’s claim or any other such thing to ‘support India’s continued participation‘?