WitchaRussia keen to reopen talks on Su-33 fighter
Moscow is wooing Beijing to resume negotiations on the purchase of Su-33 fighters for future Chinese aircraft carriers after talks collapsed last year, a Macau-based military researcher with strong PLA connections says.
Russia is keen to reopen the Su-33 production line after a 10-year hiatus but realises time could be running out after China successfully tested an indigenous carrier-capable fighter, the J-15, which many say is a copy of the Su-33, Macau International Military Association president Antony Wong Dong said, citing a mainland military insider.
…Earlier reports said Russia had planned to sell China up to 50 Su-33 Flanker-D fighters.
“However, my military connection told me that China’s indigenous J-15 successfully completed its first test flight on August 31 last year, which means China doesn’t need to rely on the Su-33,” Wong said.
Research and development of the J-15 formally began in 2006, after Beijing revealed it was planning to develop an aircraft carrier battle group.
“However, so far we don’t know whether it is using the Chinese-made FWS-10A engine, or Russian-made turbo engines,” Wong said. “It is an open secret that China’s technology in aircraft engine development still does not compete with Russia’s, and Russia threatened not to sell its engines to China early this year.”
Full Story
Will not happen. They had their chance.
WitchaWitcha, unless we were part of these discussions, there is no way one can say for sure, it was the IAF that was interested in the MiG proposal, versus the MOD trying to dovetail it with the AMCA (and save money). Also the decider is the IAF planning, if the IAF was interested only in a 5G medium weight platform, their orders for the 5G PAK-FA aircraft would be much more conservative (same as MMRCA, around 5-6 squadrons).
Not intending to start another heated argument on confirmed facts and whatnot, but back then many articles including at least a couple of IAF quotes(and some right here I believe) said that the IAF saw things differently from the Russians and were looking at a ’20 ton’ class fighter, and were thereby impressed with the MiG MFI proposal.
Going by those, I concluded that the IAF ultimately going for the 30-ton proposal in the end and the MCA not getting merged with the PAK-FA(as many thought initially given the economic sense in funding only a single 5th-gen fighter) meant that they were going to rely on MCA for a lighter 5-th gen solution. This may be my own deduction, but the paragraph above is true.
On the move to heavy fighters:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-spend-over-25-billion-to-induct-250-5th-gen-stealth-fighters/articleshow/6685002.cmsIn other words, the number of Heavy Aircraft, FGFAs & Su-30 MKIs are more than double the number of MMRCAs & LCAs (which are both at the same level, 120 aircraft each). Even with additional MMRCA & LCA orders, the Heavy category will remain predominant.
That’s assuming there won’t be a repeat order for MMRCA, as well as disregarding the AMCA.
The point is not to look at just range but payload with range, and the overall capability. A heavy fighter simply brings more to the table, in many areas than a smaller one (and loses out in cost/logistics expense). Look at the radar range est. for a new F-15 class platform for instance, versus that on the F/A-18 or the F-16
Curiously, the Rafale also has a larger payload than the MKI, and with its sensor suite is at least as capable overall.:D
Witcha^The MiG proposal was what the IAF was initially interested in, because it was similar to their/HAL’s own MCA proposal. That’s one of the reasons why the agreements weren’t finalised till this year: the RuAF had already decided on Sukhoi and could not afford to finance a second project, so the IAF changed its mind and decided to go with what they could get: a heavy Su-30 class fighter. Simultaneously AMCA continued as a separate program instead of being merged with PAK-FA. In the end the IAF intends to buy at least as many MCAs as FGFAs.
Also medium fighters need not necessarily be short-legged. The Rafale, for instance, has a larger combat radius than the MKI.
Witcha^Deino, Teer can be rather… passionate on these matters. Without commenting on the issue in question, it is best you leave it at this. He has given you an answer. You may not entirely agree, but if so no point pushing it further.
WitchaI wouldn’t exactly say the MMRCA has ‘picked up pace’ when the deadlines keep getting extended again and again, none of the participants are formally eliminated and the threat of getting cancelled due to allegations of irregularities is ever-present.
Conceded on the FGFA, though being the only fifth-gen fighter project in development and with a certain future(at this point) the IAF would want as many as they could order.
Witcha^It may not mean much to the U.S., but I’m sure that if Europe had comparable technology they would be willing to part with it for the billions India is investing.:diablo:
I have a query about how the PAK-FA’s 3D-TVC capability will be affected by square nozzles. Won’t there be performance limitations due to the altered geometry?
WitchaThere is a gradual trend of the IAF adding more airframes to the “Heavy” category, this has come at the expense of the light & medium categories, but it was to be expected, with the capabilities a Su-27 class airframe brings, plus the fact that the PLAAF is not sitting still either.
I have a suspicion the multiple MKI repeat orders owed more to the IAF’s frustration on the slow progress in acquiring more medium fighters after their original Mirage-2000 request was replaced with the MMRCA tender. Being a ‘repeat/follow-on’ of an already-signed current contract the Su-30s would be relatively immune to political controversy over a single-vendor deal.
WitchaSo have the weight issues been worked out or is the payload capacity being reduced? Will it still be able to carry 37t as advertised?
WitchaAm I right in thinking that the Mk1 is too under-powered to perform well as a fighter and too heavy to carry a useful weapons load as a strike aircraft? If so, is it still a suitable MiG21 replacement? If it is, I suggest the IAF order a load more to maintain squadron strength in spite of its shortcomings. Given the Mk2 time line suggested by the air marshal, I suspect that the IAF will otherwise need to order a lot more MMRCA’s than intended. If the IAF ends up with 250 or so MMRCA on order, how many Mk2 Tejas will it need?
Assuming that suggested timeline is accurate, the Tejas can no longer serve as a MiG-21 replacement given they will be mostly retired by then. So more MMRCA orders are a given. Even so, with IAF ultimately wanting 45-50 squadrons(their optimal requirement was 55-60, the MoD only sanctioned 40 due to budget considerations but that may change) there is still room for the Mk2.
If the currently proposed GE414 Mk2 Tejas will not be available until near the end of the decade, my thinking is that it would have been better to redesign the Kaveri, increasing thrust to a level adequate for Mk2 Tejas and MCA and to design the Tejas Mk2 around the redesigned Kaveri.
Unfeasible. HAL intends to integrate the new engine by 2013 and test-fly the Mk.2 as early as 2014-15 and that would not be possible if they were still waiting for an uprated Kaveri-eco to be designed, built, ground tested and flight tested.
WitchaExcerpts from P Rajkumar Interview to Force on Tejas Mk2
I don’t understand the argument of reducing the payload to meet performance. The IAF requires a certain level of performance to be delivered for the payload that is being asked for.
I had read that as a result of the added weight the Tejas mk.1’s effective payload capacity had been reduced to 2000-2500kg. I can quite understand if this was a factor in the IAF’s dissatisfaction given it rather compromises the fighter’s utility in any strike role.
By when do you see these changes being completed and the LCA Mk-2 taking to the air with the GE-F414 engine?
I will be extremely happy if the LCA Mk-2 flies by 2015 and all these changes are completed in the next five years. If they are changes in chord of wing and length of fuselage, then the FCS will also need changes. All these would again require flight testing, though not as extensive as that of the LCA Mk-1. This will require a flight test schedule that will take 2 to 2.5 years in my opinion. The LCA Mk-2 would then attain operational capability by 2018 and enter operational service with the IAF by 2020. If we can achieve this, it would be commendable.
2020…! Well, that pretty much negates the LCA’s original purpose of replacing the MiG-21s(not saying that it has no purpose in case any one here interprets it as such). I guess the IAF will be issuing a repeat order for the MMRCA then.
Is it also time to review the role of the LCA in IAF, considering it will be operating next to the Su 30 MKI and MMRCA followed by the FGFA?
The LCA will be a frontline fighter capable of protecting itself and carrying out a useful strike role. But its theatre of operations will depend on the threat levels it will face. If we develop the LCA Mk-2 with the necessary Electronic Warfare (EW) and countermeasure dispensing capability, I don’t see why it cannot be used in any theatre of war. Given our geographical size and the need to face two fronts, we still need numbers with the IAF talking about 40 squadrons. The LCA will be the 3rd tier after the Su-30 MKI/FGFA and MMRCA. The IAF says that they will take 40 LCA Mk-1 aircraft and those aircraft are important for the simple reason that it will enable both ADA and HAL to obtain spares consumption data as to how many maintenance hours are required per flying hour. This data can be accumulated by using the LCA Mk-1 over this decade to put product support in place. The hope is that by the time the LCA Mk-2 is ready to enter service; all these problems would have been ironed out. The LCA Mk-1 could also be used to create an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) if required to feed pilots into the system as the IAF will be inducting large numbers of aircraft over the next two decades. The LCA Mk-1 will serve the IAF extremely well for at least the next three decades.
Sounds like the IAF ranks the Tejas below all its other future fighters. Occupying a third tier and making up the numbers. One would think all this redesign work would produce something on the same level as the MMRCA by 2020.
Do you see the Snecma-Kaveri engine entering service in the LCA?
I definitely do not see the Snecma-Kaveri engine powering either the LCA Mk-1 or Mk-2. However LCA Mk-1 will be used as a flying test bed to put the engine through its paces, before it enters service. However we have to develop the Snecma-Kaveri engine because we cannot call ourselves an aeronautical power in any sense of the word unless we have our own engine. As we speak the Kaveri engine is getting ready to fly in Russia which will give us an enormous amount of confidence. After the 100 hour programme we will have a significant amount of data. With the French coming in the Kaveri will now become a reality and it will get test flown on the LCA airframe at some point of time. My estimate is that this will happen sometime between 2015 and 2018, once we sign on the dotted line. That is the engine that the MCA will be designed around and it will power this aircraft.
So mating Kaveri on the Tejas mk.1 will only be for testing after all? The MCA part sounds plausible provided the IAF doesn’t revise their requirements and ask for a 95+kN engine.
What needs to be done to ensure that MCA flies with an Indian engine?
This will also require a large number of designers and currently there is a serious manpower constraint in the design bureaus of HAL, ADA and elsewhere. You just have to look at the number of projects ongoing currently, HAL is now developing the LCH, LUH another helicopter in the 10 tonne class followed by programmes for the LCA, MCA, FGFA, Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA), Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), Hindustan Turboprop Trainer (HTT-40) followed by upgrades for Jaguar, Mig-29, Mirage 2000, etc. All this, requires a large number of designers working concurrently as these programmes are being run side by side.
Would it be overly optimistic to hope the MoD realises how overburdened HAL is and allows the private sector to participate in some of these projects?
WitchaI don’t think the IAF’s potential battlefield conditions really suit a platform like the Su-25 or A-10. They may do well in environments with low-level anti-air threats(like MANPADS in Afghanistan) but armour plating alone won’t make up for the inadequate A2A capability and subsonic speed and performance limitations. Given Pakistan and China’s increasingly modern SAM networks and fighter inventories the IAF is better of relying on fighters like the Su-30s and Mirages with PGMs. Any additional tactical A2G capability can be provided by attack helos.
WitchaBy his own admission he got the info in question from a public symposium and was fairly willing to share, so I’m not sure where you got that idea.
Witcha^Ah. But I think the point behind those arguments is that such conflicts are unlikely to involve the UK, secure as it is (relatively) inside Europe with the NATO security blanket. But I won’t get into an argument over that. Certainly not with you, sir!:D
WitchaThe simple point is that with the Kaveri India has a 40Kn -50Kn class turbofan engine, which it can use/modify anywhich way it wants. At any rate, a variety of applications are possible with the basic design itself, as the KMGT shows!
And how many applications are going to get sanctioned? You know about as many concrete facts as I do, so kindly hold the line until such a time as we see this Kaveri-AURA. Or do you want to get the last word in?
How many AWACS do you think India needs, and how many do you think we are acquiring so far?
Numbers of 3-4 for additional Phalcons and 12 for the DRDO AWACS have been thrown around. Should be enough.
No cancellations, These are in addition to, not replacements of, the current requirements.
Given their current headaches with the variety of aircraft types in service some standardisation would do them good.
It did mention a paratroop specific variant for special missions..but no further details were provided.
Sounds close enough.
Witcha^You argue that the Kaveri’s significance lies in the competency India has gained in gas turbine design. To that I can only replied that I acknowledged that from the very start, in which case you ought to stop arguing. The AURA may have Kaveri or a new engine design. Neither your words nor mine is going to affect that decision, so there’s nothing more to be said.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember the civilian side of things at that public event, but the roles which were discussed included a variety of homeland security roles, special mission roles (e.g. AEW&C, special forces kit etc) plus non IAF roles such as Maritime Patrol for the Navy etc. There were also a couple more, but lets leave those out now. Interestingly, HAL was mentioned as being closely involved with overall design, including the critical wing structure, and ADE with the Flight control system.
Interesting. You’ll pardon me for saying I have a feeling the AEWC thing may not happen(since CABS has said that after the first batch is delivered they’ll be looking to switch to a larger platform) but I can see MPA and SIGINT versions. I wonder if the Navy’s new MPA tender is going to be scrapped then.
What about a special forces version akin to the MC-130?
Sign In
