AbhimanyuActually that is amongst the most confusing issues and is hardly “known” for e.g. the MTOW published by mig for the K is 24500kgs! Go figure.
Again I don’t follow you here, but even so the 35, is at least 800kgs lighter, which would make it close to 11700kgs, the F-15C is approximately 14500kgs according to http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102
Please note that the above factsheet is for F-15E Strike Eagle and NOT F-15C, which is older. F-15C weighs around 12.8-13 tons in empty.
Besides, if as you said above MiG-29 K has MTOW of 24,500 kgs then it’s empty weight is in fact greater than F-15C, as per the calculations done earlier (earlier we assumed MTOW of 22,500 kgs which equalized it’s weight to F-15C).
I thought (could be wrong) that the MKI can take off with a full load @ 38000kgs. Further, iirc, under NTOW conditions, the MiG-29 flies with full internal fuel.
Usually, fighters cannot do that. That is why, they specifically publish MTOW figures, else it can easily be arrived at by simply summing the empty wt + internal fuel + external load. However, I’m not aware of Su-30 MKI.
3) If you feel the MiG-35 is too heavy to be in the MRCA race, then what about the Superhornet? It is clearly heavier
I agree with the above. In other threads, we have discussed how the Superhornet, Rafale and Typhhon would be redundant additions in the IAF vis-a-vis the Su-30 MKI. Thus, these 3 fighters would be totally useless additions in the IAF, if selected for the MRCA. In my view, the upcoming Tejas Mk.2 (empty weight : ~ 6,700 kgs, MTOW : ~ 14,000 kgs ) that shall be ready in 2014 would be the ideal MRCA.
AbhimanyuThere were rumours that Pakistan was developing a cruise missile, so this was nothing new, many people were discussing this possibility…and many people dismissing this because they thought it would not be possible.
There was specific information that Pakstan was developing a cruise missile after salvaging misfired Tomahawks, along with Chinese help. The question was not “if” it would test, but “when”. That came in Aug 2005.
I don’t believe the indians knew, if they were that good at their “intelligence”, why didn’t they pick up on Kargil or the bombay attacks.
Both were picked up early, but were dismissed only to realize the enormity of the situation later. Local sherpa informers warned the army in Kargil a long time back. In Mumbai, the hotel managements were forewarned many months back. But neither warnings were taken too seriously.
This month too, 158 infiltrators infiltrated the Gurez sector in Kashmir, but the army intercepted them.
References :-
1) http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20080074669&type=News
2) http://www.indianexpress.com/news/upto-158-sneaked-into-gurez-with-arms-arrested-militant/449874/
AbhimanyuBabur test was not “secretive”. I distinctly remember an Indian member on PakDef forums, Arjun Mk.2 who posted a news report on Pak’s new cruise missile, 1 month before the Babur was first tested in August 2005.
If someone can search Pakdef’s archive’s dating to June-July 2005, Arjun’s post may be found (unless the moderators have deleted it).
Now, India’s test of ABM shield indeed was very secretive and took not only Pakistan, but even China by surprise. China has access to technology of S-300 and Patriot missiles (via Israel), but has been unsuccessful so far in deploying a credible ABM.
Reference :-
Abhimanyumatt, I agree with your views. The F-16 IN is only the marketing term for the UAE’s Block 60 F-16 (in Aero-India 2009, the US flew F-16’s that bore insignia from the UAE Air-Force; it may be noted how their country’s Air-Force was forced to lend their fighters for an airshow by US).
As regards assembly lines, the Mirage-2000 lines were shutdown in 2005 which precisely led to this MRCA “saga”. No wonder Dassault’s chief was quoted saying that the original RFI was for a single-engined fighter, but now any nation that makes fighter jets (except adversaries) has been invited.
Similarly, as the F-16 and F-18 have begun gradual phasing out from the USAF and UN respectively, the Republican administration under Bush ensured that Lockheed’s assembly lines in his home constituency of Texas are kept running by orders from nations like India, Pakistan, UAE, and various Latin American states. The same may be said of F-18 also.
Now, as regards MiG-35, the RuAF has only ordered a token number of the fighter in it’s own air force. It is the last of the MiGs, and before Mikoyan Gurevich group is shut down by UAC corp (led by Sukhoi), one last attempt is made to sell this to a “cash cow” like India. It is no more than a “second hand” product.
Typhoon is also a plane under completion, i.e. it got some certain weapons certification only last year. Strictly speaking it must be disqualified from the competition. It is also not likely to be any more advanced than Tejas Mk.2 in terms of avionics, barring 1-2 types of A2G munitions.
Abhimanyumatt, I agree with your views. The F-16 IN is only the marketing term for the UAE’s Block 60 F-16 (in Aero-India 2009, the US flew F-16’s that bore insignia from the UAE Air-Force; it may be noted how their country’s Air-Force was forced to lend their fighters for an airshow by US).
As regards assembly lines, the Mirage-2000 lines were shutdown in 2005 which precisely led to this MRCA “saga”. No wonder Dassault’s chief was quoted saying that the original RFI was for a single-engined fighter, but now any nation that makes fighter jets (except adversaries) has been invited.
Similarly, as the F-16 and F-18 have begun gradual phasing out from the USAF and UN respectively, the Republican administration under Bush ensured that Lockheed’s assembly lines in his home constituency of Texas are kept running by orders from nations like India, Pakistan, UAE, and various Latin American states. The same may be said of F-18 also.
Now, as regards MiG-35, the RuAF has only ordered a token number of the fighter in it’s own air force. It is the last of the MiGs, and before Mikoyan Gurevich group is shut down by UAC corp (led by Sukhoi), one last attempt is made to sell this to a “cash cow” like India. It is no more than a “second hand” product.
Typhoon is also a plane under completion, i.e. it got some certain weapons certification only last year. Strictly speaking it must be disqualified from the competition. It is also not likely to be any more advanced than Tejas Mk.2 in terms of avionics, barring 1-2 types of A2G munitions.
AbhimanyuThe above news report is from September last year and quotes Mr. Baweja only.
One may post as many news reports quoting Mr. Baweja as one finds, but one will never find him admitting that it is Russia that will design the twin-seater too, and HAL will merely licence produce the same. In the above news report also, he does the same. He simply repeats how exactly the Indian version is different from the Russian one — i.e. it has a second seat. People in India read his comments and end up wrongly assuming that India will take the baseline single-seat PAK-FA from Russia, and re-engineer it’s wings and fuselage to add a second seat.
AbhimanyuThe above news report is from September last year and quotes Mr. Baweja only.
One may post as many news reports quoting Mr. Baweja as one finds, but one will never find him admitting that it is Russia that will design the twin-seater too, and HAL will merely licence produce the same. In the above news report also, he does the same. He simply repeats how exactly the Indian version is different from the Russian one — i.e. it has a second seat. People in India read his comments and end up wrongly assuming that India will take the baseline single-seat PAK-FA from Russia, and re-engineer it’s wings and fuselage to add a second seat.
AbhimanyuI thing you guys have missed some fundamental points.
Firstly, it appears the IAF will be inducting some RuAF standard single-seat PAK-FAs i.e. same 5G engines, FCS, AESA radar, avionics, (weapons?), barring software/source-code differences. Not vanilla/monkey/downgraded versions.
The above is inaccurate. As per an interview of Mr. Fakruddin of HAL, IAF has expressed interest only in a twin-seat version of PAK-FA.
Work on the IAF’s 2-seater version is NOT analogous to Su-27 & Su-30, more like F-22 & FB-22. The second seat and different dimensions of the wings/control surfaces are not bolt-on modifications, but clearly an attempt not to compromise the aircraft’s range and/or stealth.
The same was mentioned by Mr. Baweja also in this news report that adding a second seat is very significant, because implies a “new dimension, new wings and new control surfaces”, end quote.
We may also take your assumption to be true, that because stealth characteristics have to be preserved, adding a second seat requires significant re-engineering of the airframe.
However, what Baweja did not mention is this :- HAL will not add the second seat, Sukhoi will. HAL won’t do any of the re-engineering, Sukhoi will. Till now HAL and IAF were giving the false impression that the twin-seater will be redesigned in India. However, the latest developments indicate that even that will be done by Sukhoi and HAL simply seeks to be “spoonfed” the readymade twin-seat so that it can begin mass production asap.
Also, please note that FB-22 was a bomber version of F-22, and not merely a twin seat version.
I don’t think these details were suddenly sprung on the IAF/MoD the other week @ AeroIndia, these negotiations have been ongoing for over two years. More details will filter out when the specific contracts are signed later this year.
These details were “sprung” to us from the Russian media, Reuters and Aviation Week. The HAL and IAF (and possibly the Indian media too) knew this all along, but still kept on giving falsehoods like :-
1) FGFA is a 50-50 joint venture. The 50-50 JV is for the modification of the original PAK-FA for the IAF. This makes it more like 4-96 instead of 50-50, in terms of engineering and R&D.
2) India will customize the PAK-FA by re-designing the twin-seater right here in India. The twin-seater will also be redesigned in Russia itself. India will merely purchase the design and mass produce it at HAL’s facilities.
As such I doubt that Mikhail Pogosyan’s current objections will last more than a few months and that FGFA’s requirements will still get to shape the PAK FA’s evolutionary period from prototype to production aircraft.
See, the question is not about whether Pogosyan’s objections will be sorted out or not. It is about the falsehood that was propagated by HAL and IAF so far, that the PAK-FA is a 50-50 JV between India and Russia and that India will contribute 50% to the PAK-FA in terms of R&D and technology.
India is only bankrolling the project, nothing else.
My apologies, I had the two organisations confused. I stand corrected.
We do not yet know that it is just a license manufacturing project, as the deal has not yet been finalised. However I do agree that the Indian contribution to the design phase is not what your media are making it to be.
Nevertheless, I maintain that even if all India were doing with the PAK FA was license production, which two and a half years of negotiation suggest is not the case, surely it will be more capable than anything else India can acquire with the same price tag, availability, or level of transfer of technology on offer here.
I may kindly request you to not use words like “apologize” etc. It is a voluntary, ad-hoc debate only.
See, from what we have already deduced, India has nil contribution in PAK-FA in terms of engineering and R&D. So it practically amounts to purchasing the licence-production rights only.
Because the negotiations have been on for 2.5 years, it is an implication that the HAL is trying hard to put a “garb” over what is essentially a licence-production agreement, to make it appear as though it truly is a “joint development”. This befooling is motivated in part by a) to avoid the sure backlash that it will generate from the Indian public, over what is yet another mega-expensive Banana republic purchase and b) by the hectic lobbying that local private manufacturers of spare parts/non-critical components have done to HAL so that they get sub-contracts for this fighter jet. It may not be surprising to know if vested interests of some IAF officials is also unearthed in this.
As far as ToT is concerned, it must be noted that at this moment in Asia, a 5th G fighter jet implies the consolidation of different technologies that exist in different 4.5 G fighter jets. For example, TVC is present in Su-30 MKI and sensor fusion in F-16 Block 60. India’s MCA will have both. Besides the “ubiquitious” internal weapons bays and the “ritualistic” AESA radar, in Asia, a 5th G fighter means little else, for now.
DRDO has the expertise to develop and integrate all these technologies, as it has already made the 4.5 G Tejas. As regards internal bays, DRDO’s scale model already possesses it. It can integrate a TVC engine and AESA radar also, along with sensor fusion “gizmos”.
I’ve heard nothing to suggest that India will bear half the development costs.
As per various Indian news reports, India will bankroll $5bn of the total of $10 bn.
The impression I get of MCA is that it is an LO rather than VLO platform, and while the technologies you mention should mean that it will be considerably more capable than the MRCA contenders the IAF must think that there is a good reason to want both FGFA and MRCA simultaneously. While we don’t yet know PAK FA’s stealth characteristics, I would assume that it is in the VLO category if it has been specifically designed to provide a match for the F-22, though I don’t believe it will be quite as stealthy as the latter.
As already discussed above, India’s MCA incorporates the “essentials” of a 5th G fighter jet, like internal missile bays, significant composites (DRDO is a global leader in aircraft composites now), TVC engine, supercruise, AESA radar, sensor fusion, etc & etc.
Thus, MCA is likely to be in the class of F-35 JSF.
AbhimanyuI thing you guys have missed some fundamental points.
Firstly, it appears the IAF will be inducting some RuAF standard single-seat PAK-FAs i.e. same 5G engines, FCS, AESA radar, avionics, (weapons?), barring software/source-code differences. Not vanilla/monkey/downgraded versions.
The above is inaccurate. As per an interview of Mr. Fakruddin of HAL, IAF has expressed interest only in a twin-seat version of PAK-FA.
Work on the IAF’s 2-seater version is NOT analogous to Su-27 & Su-30, more like F-22 & FB-22. The second seat and different dimensions of the wings/control surfaces are not bolt-on modifications, but clearly an attempt not to compromise the aircraft’s range and/or stealth.
The same was mentioned by Mr. Baweja also in this news report that adding a second seat is very significant, because implies a “new dimension, new wings and new control surfaces”, end quote.
We may also take your assumption to be true, that because stealth characteristics have to be preserved, adding a second seat requires significant re-engineering of the airframe.
However, what Baweja did not mention is this :- HAL will not add the second seat, Sukhoi will. HAL won’t do any of the re-engineering, Sukhoi will. Till now HAL and IAF were giving the false impression that the twin-seater will be redesigned in India. However, the latest developments indicate that even that will be done by Sukhoi and HAL simply seeks to be “spoonfed” the readymade twin-seat so that it can begin mass production asap.
Also, please note that FB-22 was a bomber version of F-22, and not merely a twin seat version.
I don’t think these details were suddenly sprung on the IAF/MoD the other week @ AeroIndia, these negotiations have been ongoing for over two years. More details will filter out when the specific contracts are signed later this year.
These details were “sprung” to us from the Russian media, Reuters and Aviation Week. The HAL and IAF (and possibly the Indian media too) knew this all along, but still kept on giving falsehoods like :-
1) FGFA is a 50-50 joint venture. The 50-50 JV is for the modification of the original PAK-FA for the IAF. This makes it more like 4-96 instead of 50-50, in terms of engineering and R&D.
2) India will customize the PAK-FA by re-designing the twin-seater right here in India. The twin-seater will also be redesigned in Russia itself. India will merely purchase the design and mass produce it at HAL’s facilities.
As such I doubt that Mikhail Pogosyan’s current objections will last more than a few months and that FGFA’s requirements will still get to shape the PAK FA’s evolutionary period from prototype to production aircraft.
See, the question is not about whether Pogosyan’s objections will be sorted out or not. It is about the falsehood that was propagated by HAL and IAF so far, that the PAK-FA is a 50-50 JV between India and Russia and that India will contribute 50% to the PAK-FA in terms of R&D and technology.
India is only bankrolling the project, nothing else.
My apologies, I had the two organisations confused. I stand corrected.
We do not yet know that it is just a license manufacturing project, as the deal has not yet been finalised. However I do agree that the Indian contribution to the design phase is not what your media are making it to be.
Nevertheless, I maintain that even if all India were doing with the PAK FA was license production, which two and a half years of negotiation suggest is not the case, surely it will be more capable than anything else India can acquire with the same price tag, availability, or level of transfer of technology on offer here.
I may kindly request you to not use words like “apologize” etc. It is a voluntary, ad-hoc debate only.
See, from what we have already deduced, India has nil contribution in PAK-FA in terms of engineering and R&D. So it practically amounts to purchasing the licence-production rights only.
Because the negotiations have been on for 2.5 years, it is an implication that the HAL is trying hard to put a “garb” over what is essentially a licence-production agreement, to make it appear as though it truly is a “joint development”. This befooling is motivated in part by a) to avoid the sure backlash that it will generate from the Indian public, over what is yet another mega-expensive Banana republic purchase and b) by the hectic lobbying that local private manufacturers of spare parts/non-critical components have done to HAL so that they get sub-contracts for this fighter jet. It may not be surprising to know if vested interests of some IAF officials is also unearthed in this.
As far as ToT is concerned, it must be noted that at this moment in Asia, a 5th G fighter jet implies the consolidation of different technologies that exist in different 4.5 G fighter jets. For example, TVC is present in Su-30 MKI and sensor fusion in F-16 Block 60. India’s MCA will have both. Besides the “ubiquitious” internal weapons bays and the “ritualistic” AESA radar, in Asia, a 5th G fighter means little else, for now.
DRDO has the expertise to develop and integrate all these technologies, as it has already made the 4.5 G Tejas. As regards internal bays, DRDO’s scale model already possesses it. It can integrate a TVC engine and AESA radar also, along with sensor fusion “gizmos”.
I’ve heard nothing to suggest that India will bear half the development costs.
As per various Indian news reports, India will bankroll $5bn of the total of $10 bn.
The impression I get of MCA is that it is an LO rather than VLO platform, and while the technologies you mention should mean that it will be considerably more capable than the MRCA contenders the IAF must think that there is a good reason to want both FGFA and MRCA simultaneously. While we don’t yet know PAK FA’s stealth characteristics, I would assume that it is in the VLO category if it has been specifically designed to provide a match for the F-22, though I don’t believe it will be quite as stealthy as the latter.
As already discussed above, India’s MCA incorporates the “essentials” of a 5th G fighter jet, like internal missile bays, significant composites (DRDO is a global leader in aircraft composites now), TVC engine, supercruise, AESA radar, sensor fusion, etc & etc.
Thus, MCA is likely to be in the class of F-35 JSF.
AbhimanyuMy apologies Abhimanyu, but I think you’re totally misreading the source here. Let me put part of it back to you, the part that is the emphasis of the article:
CommanderJB, I have addressed Mr. Fakruddin’s assurance that “all issues will be sorted out soon”. Please note that Mr. Pogosyan stated that he “hoped” that a detailed agreement will be reached soon.
However, as per Aviation Week, he does not have “time” to develop a two-seater for India that the Russian Air Force doesn’t need, which apparently is the cause for consternation :- HAL wants the two-seater PAK-FA as soon as possible, so that it can begin mass copying, but Pogosyan has stood his ground and said that Russian Air Force first, and IAF later.
This isn’t HAL about to scrap a project and devote everything to MCA,
MCA is a project by DRDO, and not HAL.
which they’ve already said isn’t a true 5th generation aircraft at any rate;
Again, DRDO’s chief said that, and not HAL’s chief Mr. Baweja.
I can’t recall a multinational aircraft project with international production lines and user modifications in recent history which hasn’t suffered from lengthy negotiations between the involved parties.
It is a licence manufacturing project for all practical purposes.The so-termed 50-50 JV is a facade, acharade to give it a legitimacy in the eyes of the Indian public, that does not distinguish between “joint development” and a licence production.
I’d be absolutely floored if they took one look at the aircraft Russia was building and said ‘yep, that’ll do’ – they haven’t, and though the version they’ll start off with is not going to be radically different (again, I’d be surprised if it was in all honesty),
Actually, they have said, “whatever you dole out, will do; we just want a second seat”. Note that the IAF evaluated the Su-27 in the early 1990s but settled for the Su-30 which essentially is a twin-seater version of the Su-27. This is not to say that the Su-30 hasn’t been the most successful in the IAF, but the point being that that’s what was done in case of the PAK-FA.
they’ve made UAC accept a twin-seat version which was not originally planned
Please note that it’s not a question of having made UAC accept it because making a twin-seater from a single-seat is EASY. Examples are Su-27 to Su-30, F-16 to F-16 Sufa, and Tejas to Tejas trainer.
HAL is merely throwing “tantrums” on UAC to have it’s twin-seater earlier, whereas Pogosyan is asking it to wait because he wants to service the RuAF first, that’s all.
(India) can take part in all the advanced systems testing and design refinements that will come over the next seven years – which, as I said, is where the Indian contribution can be used to its greatest.
System testing and “refinements” is not exactly critical work that Russia cannot do on it’s own. I think that the main point of debate was 50-50 JV between India and Russia, which it is not.
What Austin and yourself are essentially talking is : So what if we only get “crumbs” and not 50% of the cake ? This cake is rare and merely tasting the crumbs is a huge privilege and will benefit us a lot. . . So waht if we’re not getting half the cake but are paying 50% of the total cost of $10 billion (in other words, merely angel investors) ?
I’m sure the crumbs will bloat in the stomach so much, that it’ll be as good as eating half the cake, and then we’ll digest it so well that we’ll conceive the MCA just from thought !
MCA just can’t match it, and HAL have said so, or they would be following your advice and not bothering with FGFA if they could conceivably make it redundant.
The above is inaccurate. HAL has made no public statement on the MCA so far, DRDO has. Although DRDO’s chief said that it will not be a 5th Gen aircraft, responding to a question he also said that the MCA will be more advanced than all of the MRCA contenders, because the MCA will have technology from 10 years hence.
He always strangely refers to the MCA as a “next generation fighter”, though the brochure shows it to have all the “trappings” of a 5th G plane like stealth, concealed bomb-bays, super-cruise, TVC, significant sensor-fusion, etc.
AbhimanyuMy apologies Abhimanyu, but I think you’re totally misreading the source here. Let me put part of it back to you, the part that is the emphasis of the article:
CommanderJB, I have addressed Mr. Fakruddin’s assurance that “all issues will be sorted out soon”. Please note that Mr. Pogosyan stated that he “hoped” that a detailed agreement will be reached soon.
However, as per Aviation Week, he does not have “time” to develop a two-seater for India that the Russian Air Force doesn’t need, which apparently is the cause for consternation :- HAL wants the two-seater PAK-FA as soon as possible, so that it can begin mass copying, but Pogosyan has stood his ground and said that Russian Air Force first, and IAF later.
This isn’t HAL about to scrap a project and devote everything to MCA,
MCA is a project by DRDO, and not HAL.
which they’ve already said isn’t a true 5th generation aircraft at any rate;
Again, DRDO’s chief said that, and not HAL’s chief Mr. Baweja.
I can’t recall a multinational aircraft project with international production lines and user modifications in recent history which hasn’t suffered from lengthy negotiations between the involved parties.
It is a licence manufacturing project for all practical purposes.The so-termed 50-50 JV is a facade, acharade to give it a legitimacy in the eyes of the Indian public, that does not distinguish between “joint development” and a licence production.
I’d be absolutely floored if they took one look at the aircraft Russia was building and said ‘yep, that’ll do’ – they haven’t, and though the version they’ll start off with is not going to be radically different (again, I’d be surprised if it was in all honesty),
Actually, they have said, “whatever you dole out, will do; we just want a second seat”. Note that the IAF evaluated the Su-27 in the early 1990s but settled for the Su-30 which essentially is a twin-seater version of the Su-27. This is not to say that the Su-30 hasn’t been the most successful in the IAF, but the point being that that’s what was done in case of the PAK-FA.
they’ve made UAC accept a twin-seat version which was not originally planned
Please note that it’s not a question of having made UAC accept it because making a twin-seater from a single-seat is EASY. Examples are Su-27 to Su-30, F-16 to F-16 Sufa, and Tejas to Tejas trainer.
HAL is merely throwing “tantrums” on UAC to have it’s twin-seater earlier, whereas Pogosyan is asking it to wait because he wants to service the RuAF first, that’s all.
(India) can take part in all the advanced systems testing and design refinements that will come over the next seven years – which, as I said, is where the Indian contribution can be used to its greatest.
System testing and “refinements” is not exactly critical work that Russia cannot do on it’s own. I think that the main point of debate was 50-50 JV between India and Russia, which it is not.
What Austin and yourself are essentially talking is : So what if we only get “crumbs” and not 50% of the cake ? This cake is rare and merely tasting the crumbs is a huge privilege and will benefit us a lot. . . So waht if we’re not getting half the cake but are paying 50% of the total cost of $10 billion (in other words, merely angel investors) ?
I’m sure the crumbs will bloat in the stomach so much, that it’ll be as good as eating half the cake, and then we’ll digest it so well that we’ll conceive the MCA just from thought !
MCA just can’t match it, and HAL have said so, or they would be following your advice and not bothering with FGFA if they could conceivably make it redundant.
The above is inaccurate. HAL has made no public statement on the MCA so far, DRDO has. Although DRDO’s chief said that it will not be a 5th Gen aircraft, responding to a question he also said that the MCA will be more advanced than all of the MRCA contenders, because the MCA will have technology from 10 years hence.
He always strangely refers to the MCA as a “next generation fighter”, though the brochure shows it to have all the “trappings” of a 5th G plane like stealth, concealed bomb-bays, super-cruise, TVC, significant sensor-fusion, etc.
AbhimanyuIn my view, what may be even more unfortunate is that Mr. Major also chooses to freely talk about the PAK-FA and it’s induction schedule, when India is yet to formally enter the programme and allocate funds for it. But till date, he hasn’t uttered a word on the indigenous MCA, when it also has been formally presented to the IAF and DRDO has begun preliminary work on it, off it’s own budget (i.e. taxpayer money).
Though a bit unrelated, the same occured on Bharat Rakshak forums also. A member started a thread dedicated to MCA. It was “shouted down” on the grounds that no “official” funding has been allocated etc & etc. Arey baba, as though India has formally joined the PAK-FA and has already alloted billions of angel funding to it ! But still, a PAK-FA thread has been maintained since quite some time there. Ironic.
Such is the hold of the Indian media, that it creates a “web” of pre-conceived notions, prejudices. It is often built on plain falsehoods like, India is a 50% partner in the PAK-FA, when the fine-print clearly says it is a 50% partner only on the modification crumbs. This was reported by Reuters and some Russian news reports a year ago too, which was posted but was again dismissed by some members.
Some other things that the “free & fair” media won’t let people know :-
1) The Bush family has had business relations with the bin Laden familiy since the 1970s. It’s very common knowledge now thanks to Michael Moore, and topplebush.com. But, it has never even been hinted by Fox, CNN etc.
2) The world’s foremost rogue state is not N. Korea, Iran or Syria. It is Switzerland. Top Swiss companies and even Swiss officialdom have been “hand-in-glove” with A Q Khan’s nuclear smuggling network. Details of his work and clandestine Swiss collaboration was ordered destroyed by top echelons of the Swiss government itself.
Also, Swiss banks have hundreds of billions of dollars of “bad” money that is amassed by smuggling, drug lords, warlords, illicit funds, laundered money, terror money, politicians’ illegal funds etc. Global order mandated by the UN (of which Switzerland is not part of) demands that such money is never accepted and the source of such funds is shared between nations to fight terror, smuggling etc. But Swiss “secrecy laws” prevent any such probes.
Many such “obvious” facts are extant but are never reported by the media.
AbhimanyuIn my view, what may be even more unfortunate is that Mr. Major also chooses to freely talk about the PAK-FA and it’s induction schedule, when India is yet to formally enter the programme and allocate funds for it. But till date, he hasn’t uttered a word on the indigenous MCA, when it also has been formally presented to the IAF and DRDO has begun preliminary work on it, off it’s own budget (i.e. taxpayer money).
Though a bit unrelated, the same occured on Bharat Rakshak forums also. A member started a thread dedicated to MCA. It was “shouted down” on the grounds that no “official” funding has been allocated etc & etc. Arey baba, as though India has formally joined the PAK-FA and has already alloted billions of angel funding to it ! But still, a PAK-FA thread has been maintained since quite some time there. Ironic.
Such is the hold of the Indian media, that it creates a “web” of pre-conceived notions, prejudices. It is often built on plain falsehoods like, India is a 50% partner in the PAK-FA, when the fine-print clearly says it is a 50% partner only on the modification crumbs. This was reported by Reuters and some Russian news reports a year ago too, which was posted but was again dismissed by some members.
Some other things that the “free & fair” media won’t let people know :-
1) The Bush family has had business relations with the bin Laden familiy since the 1970s. It’s very common knowledge now thanks to Michael Moore, and topplebush.com. But, it has never even been hinted by Fox, CNN etc.
2) The world’s foremost rogue state is not N. Korea, Iran or Syria. It is Switzerland. Top Swiss companies and even Swiss officialdom have been “hand-in-glove” with A Q Khan’s nuclear smuggling network. Details of his work and clandestine Swiss collaboration was ordered destroyed by top echelons of the Swiss government itself.
Also, Swiss banks have hundreds of billions of dollars of “bad” money that is amassed by smuggling, drug lords, warlords, illicit funds, laundered money, terror money, politicians’ illegal funds etc. Global order mandated by the UN (of which Switzerland is not part of) demands that such money is never accepted and the source of such funds is shared between nations to fight terror, smuggling etc. But Swiss “secrecy laws” prevent any such probes.
Many such “obvious” facts are extant but are never reported by the media.
AbhimanyuAustin, I think both of us missed the news report posted by Otaku above. As per the report, and I quote :
It looks like the Indian Air Force will initially get the same PAK FA fifth-generation fighter as their Russian colleagues. Sukhoi general director Mikhail Pogosyan said Thursday that he would seek to unify the Russian and Indian requirements for the new aircraft. “The basic version of the fighter will be common”, he explained. “The difference will be only in software”. (Note this)
But following “takes the cake” :-
According to the bilateral agreement, the development of the modification for the Indian Air Force will be split 50:50 between Sukhoi and India’s HAL.
I think the above clears it all. The “fine print” clearly says that the 50-50 “stuff” will only be in the modification, whereas the Indian media has “gone to town” claiming that the whole project from the start is a 50-50 JV.
Thus, on a whole India’s contribution is no greater than 4-5%.
The following is the last excerpt :-
But now it looks like Pogosyan doesn’t want to waste efforts and time by developing a special Indian version at this stage, but to focus on rolling out the first prototype by August this year, as already promised by top Russian government and military officials.
The above confirms what was discussed earlier, that HAL does not even want to go through the “trouble” and efforts of making the two-seater also (contrary to what Fakruddin claimed earlier). They want a “ready-made” two-seater from Russia and do what it is best at :- mass photo-copying or in other words, licence production only.
Hence, the PAK-FA is no different from the Su-30 MKI model :- Russian airframe, engine, radar, weapons, and some avionics. Only some customized avionics for IAF.
Indian verison will only be ready by 2015-17
I think now it will be ready only by 2022.
AbhimanyuAustin, I think both of us missed the news report posted by Otaku above. As per the report, and I quote :
It looks like the Indian Air Force will initially get the same PAK FA fifth-generation fighter as their Russian colleagues. Sukhoi general director Mikhail Pogosyan said Thursday that he would seek to unify the Russian and Indian requirements for the new aircraft. “The basic version of the fighter will be common”, he explained. “The difference will be only in software”. (Note this)
But following “takes the cake” :-
According to the bilateral agreement, the development of the modification for the Indian Air Force will be split 50:50 between Sukhoi and India’s HAL.
I think the above clears it all. The “fine print” clearly says that the 50-50 “stuff” will only be in the modification, whereas the Indian media has “gone to town” claiming that the whole project from the start is a 50-50 JV.
Thus, on a whole India’s contribution is no greater than 4-5%.
The following is the last excerpt :-
But now it looks like Pogosyan doesn’t want to waste efforts and time by developing a special Indian version at this stage, but to focus on rolling out the first prototype by August this year, as already promised by top Russian government and military officials.
The above confirms what was discussed earlier, that HAL does not even want to go through the “trouble” and efforts of making the two-seater also (contrary to what Fakruddin claimed earlier). They want a “ready-made” two-seater from Russia and do what it is best at :- mass photo-copying or in other words, licence production only.
Hence, the PAK-FA is no different from the Su-30 MKI model :- Russian airframe, engine, radar, weapons, and some avionics. Only some customized avionics for IAF.
Indian verison will only be ready by 2015-17
I think now it will be ready only by 2022.
Sign In
