As per a latest news report, there are differences between Sukhoi and HAL over the PAK-FA.

The fortunate news is as follows :-

Bangalore : Keen on replicating the success of the Indo-Russian supersonic BraHmos cruise missile project, the defence establishments of both the countries are willing to bury their differences over the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) and get the project kickstarted by the middle of this year.
The FGFA study programme which was initiated between India and Russia in 2007, has been a slow-starter as the Air Forces of the two countries have had differences over the aircraft project.
While the Indian Air Force wants a two-seat version to meet the requirements of India’s air superiority policy, the Russian Air Force wants a single- seat version.
“There have been differences between the two Air Forces as both have specific requirements.
These issues will be sorted out soon and by the middle of the year we expect to start work so that the aircraft is inducted by 2017,” M Fakruddin, Director-Corporate Planning and Marketing, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) told to The New Indian Express.

It may be noted that the usually biased Indian Express has finally brought this to the forefront; even then, instead of reporting “as is”, it’s headline is misleadingly titled, “PAK-FA set to take off”, and is trying project as though the so-called resolution of differences is “just round the corner”.
It quoted Mr. Fakruddin of HAL saying so (the same person, who in an interview posted in these forums, said that India will merely add a second seat to the PAK-FA, but claimed that adding a second seat is a “significant” improvement on the design).

The truth is that as the Russian media reported Mr. Pogosyan verbatim, after 2 years of negotiations only a “broad” agreement has been reached and he “hoped” that a “detailed” agreement will be reached by 2009 end.

But the most “intriguing” aspect of PAK-FA is that :-

1) Only the Indian media says that the PAK-FA will be a 50-50 JV between India and Russia. A dozen Russian reports on PAK-FA do not even mention India; only in a recent report, did Mr. Pogosyan say that he’ll “try” to increase India’s work share in PAK-FA to 50% “in the next 50 years”.

2) When it has reportedly already been decided between Russia and India (courtesy Mr. Fakruddin of HAL), that India will add a second seat to PAK-FA, how exactly does that translate into “differences” ? What we understood was that India will customize the single-seat PAK-FA into a twin-seater for itself, while Russia kept the single-seater.
Hence, what this probably means is this :- HAL wants to have the twin-seater design too to be tailor made from Russia and simply licence-produce it in India. Russia is disagreeing, saying that it’s own Air-Force just wants the single seater and it is not willing to make a twin seater just for India.

Thus, from all of the above it is abundantly clear that HAL and the biased Indian media are not accurately projecting the details of PAK-FA to India viz. India’s actual share of work (and what exactly it will “tinker” on, on an otherwise wholly Russian product), and about what are these differences between HAL & Sukhoi.

Whatever be the case, it can be said with full conviction and surety, that the PAK-FA has zero Indian contribution in terms of engineering and IAF’s design consideration from the drawing board stage. The HAL is simply seeking to licence produce this fighter in India, and the HAL, IAF and the Indian media are purposely misleading the Indian public into believing that the PAk-FA is a 50-50 JV between Russia and India. Thus, vested interests appear to be at play here.

Yeah sure, Russian stuff is cheaper than Western stuff.but when you start putting western stuff like French huds, Israeli jammers, etc.. it becomes more expensive. In addition, for aircraft that are the first ones to utilize such a combination, it is the customer that has to pay its integration! Don’t be fooled by the cheaper up front costs during the deal.

The above is inaccurate. Note that despite significant Indian and western avionics, Su-30 MKI costs $35 mn only, as compared to an estimated $60 mn – $70 mn for some western MRCA contenders.

Only a small fraction of the costs saved upfront will be “ploughed” back into slightly higher life cycle costs.

Fact is.. the radar will be Russian.. the airframe is still Russian. The engines are still Russian. and the reason why Russian aircraft have higher life cycle costs are in these 3 things. No French, Israeli upgrade exists for the engine or the air frame.

See, of late Russian jets in India have been subject to “controversies” because of a spike in the crashes of MiGs especially MiG-21s. The reason attributed was the poor quality of Russian spares. However, today the situation has changed.

Anyway, as per the excellent analysis by vivek ahuja from Bharat Rakshak forums, the Tejas can carry 8×250 kg bombs for a range of upto 600-700 kms. This range-payload specification is comparable to the typical combat profile of F-18 and F-16 also. Range is also likely to be the same because even though these 2 jets carry more fuel than Tejas, they are also proportionately heavier.

Now, the only “arena” in which Tejas may lack is number of weapons, which is 2 less than Gripen-NG and F-16. How to overcome this ?

Regarding this, vivek ahuja also opined that Tejas can carry dual missile launchers also. It is accurate, given Tejas’ huge wing area (second only to F-22) and large wing-loading. Note that EADs will provide consultancy on “stores separation” of weapons also, which undoubtedly means dual launchers or multiple bomb racks. This may increase pylon weight, but after EADs redesigns the underbelly of the fuselage to “shave off” 500 kgs of weight, Tejas Mk.2 will be lighter and at the same time, carry more weapons than Tejas Mk.1 (the current one).

Thus, the Tejas Mk.2 will be equivalent to Gripen-NG and F-16 in terms of range-payload performance. As regards avionics and weapons, it will also have all the latest avionics and that appear in the defence market from time to time, like Israeli Litening target pod, latest IRST, comprehensive Mayawi EW suite, Derby missile etc.

Lifecycle costs for Russian Jets are higher than that of American jets. The Russian array of A2G weaponary is also quantitatively and Qualitatively inferior to its western counter parts.

I disagree, because had the above been the case then MiG-35 would not have been entertained by IAF. The Su-30 MKI can similarly be upgraded to western standards, as it has significant Israeli and French components.

See, either IAF pays a high upfront cost and “relaxes” for lifetime (ala western jets); or else pays a low cost upon purchase, but pays a high cost through it’s lifetime (like Russian jets).

So IAF already has cheaper Su-30 MKIs and can install western systems in it to bring it’s lifetime quality on par with western planes.

Which is very good to know but i doubt the Tejas or Su 30 will be able to compare with the latest American/European tech.

See, the above is “prejudice” only, without proof. It has been “drilled” by the biased media and commentators.

Repeated official announcements have shown the following :-

1) Tejas has Litening target pod, whose next version is only on JSF.

2) It’s composite technology has been used on no less than Airbus A380.

3) It’s HMDS is a joint-venture between India and Israel. It is comparable to the latest.

4) It’s EW and RWR systems are already in use in Su-30 MKI, which is Asia’s best 4.5 gen fighter jet.

5) Su-30 MKI’s SIVA pod will be one of the best EW pods in use in the region.

It may be observed that Chinese always claim that J-10 is equivalent or superior to the latest Block 52 F-16 C/D, despite so much “secrecy” surrounding it.

I severely doubt as to the Tejas MK2 will be as good as the Gripen NG. .. . like I said let us wait and see.

I think let’s wait and see how exactly Tejas Mk.2 will NOT be superior to Gripen NG.

It will be 50-50 the link was posted by Otaku in another thread where he clearly states it will be a 50-50 joint venture. I don’t feel like digging up the thread at the moment.

He said he’ll TRY to make it a 50-50 JV in a span of 50 years.

I ask you again why do you judge planes by their weapon specs. As ajay pointed out European/U.S machines are easier on the maintenance side and have higher availability rate. The US/ European A2G weapons are more numerous and offer much more options.

The above is a logistics and maintenance issue only. Su-30 MKI can also be made to be “hassle free” in terms of maintenance etc.

Su-30 MKI will also be equipped with all types of A2G weapons, especially HARM-type missiles, precision guided munitions, Brahmos missile, etc.

The Flanker is an air superiority fighter the MRCA focus is more on A2G. The Flanker do not have the level of sensor fusion and related technologies offered by many of the MRCA contenders.

As per DRDO, Tejas will have significant sensor fusion. As Tejas’ technologies have extensively been adapted and tested on Su-30 MKI, it is likely that Su-30 MKI shall also be equipped with this too.

We don’t even know the specs of Tejas 2 yet. So anything you say like multiple launchers is speculation. Tejas is a fine indigenous project, but it will still have real technological gap compared to European and American platforms even in the MK2 form.

With the exception of AESA radar, Tejas will be at par with all other MRCA contenders in terms of Litening targetting pod (used in F-16 Sufa), datalink & networking, EW (Siva pod), RWR, sensor fusion, HMDS, IRST etc.

Since the fuselage will be redesigned, it is likely to allow for additional weapon stations under the fuselage, as it did for Gripen-NG.

That it is a 50-50 venture is confirmed by both the Russians and Indians. The MCA meanwhile is going to be an advanced fourth gen fighter according to some reports and not a fifth gen. However I see the MRCA as the last outright fighter purchase from IAF.

The above is inaccurate. As discussed earlier on the same topic, Mr. Pogosyan of Sukhoi stated that only a “broad” agreement has been reached after 2 years and a “detailed” agreement is only “hoped” to be reached by 2009 end. He stated that, they’ll “try” to include a 50-50 contrib from India in the “detailed” agreement that they hope to reach.

Thus, I may advise you to read your own report carefully (especially Pogosyan’s statements).

It is unlikely that India will find 50% workshare in the “crumbs” remaining from the PAK-FA, other than adding a second-seat and possibly some consultancy on composites. Thus, it may be hoped that Mr. Pogosyan’s deadline of 2009 end of reaching the “detailed” agreement is never reached.

It is Naive to believe that the number of engines and weapon carrying capacity are the only aspects an aircraft can be judged. In that case the MRCA can be picked out of the proposals, no need for trials or testing.

See, F-18, Rafale and Typhoon can carry as many weapons — by number & weight — as a Su-30 MKI does, for the same range and the same cost per hour. Thus, as their capability is met by the Su-30 MKI already, so their inclusion in the IAF is needless.

Their specs vis-a-vis Su-30 MKI matter. I used the phrase, “twin-engined contenders”, to specify which of the 4 contenders out of 6, I was referring to. Their engine number per se was not part of the argument.

The Tejas is incapable of doing the strike role or a2a a role as the MRCA. Tejas is the low option in a high med low mix.

The above is inaccurate. The 2 single-engined contenders carry the same number of weapons as Tejas Mk.2 (as it will get multiple-launchers). Combat radius will be same, because although total fuel carried is higher, their weights are also proportionately much higher than Tejas. Besides, after fuselage re-design Tejas Mk.2 will also carry more fuel.

Hence, between themselves Tejas and Su-30 MKI meet all the MRCA requirements fully.

You have to bear in mind that the MRCA is likely to be the last major Indian fighter procurement, the future will be of indigenous fighter and joint programmes,

The above is inaccurate. IAF is also “hell-bent” on purchasing the PAK-FA. Merely to give it some legitimacy as a ’50-50 joint venture’, India may “tweak” it to make a twin-seater (which itself is a duplicative effort because Russia will make the trainer version anyway).

Engines have hardly anything to do witht he capability of the aircraft. I can see the Su 30MKI roughly equating the Eurofighter in the A2A role and the Tejas MK2 equating the Gripen. But thats about it the Super Hornet F 16 and Rafale are excellent strike platforms better in that regard than the MKI even.

As repeatedly discussed earlier, the twin-engined contenders F-18, Rafale, and Typhoon can all carry 5 tons of weapons + 8 tons of fuel (internal + external). This is the same config. which Su-30 MKI typically undertakes i.e. 5tons of weapons + 8 tons internal fuel.

Hence, all the 4 twin-engined contenders are needless, as Su-30 MKI already executes their functionality. As regards the Gripen and F-16, their functionality is already met by future Tejas Mk.2.

Thus, MRCA is an exercise in “futility”, because between themselves, the Tejas and Su-30 MKI meet MRCA requirements.

The MoD is the ‘procrastinator’ not the IAF. The IAF and all of our forces do not get stuff in the timeframe they ask for it.

The above is inaccurate. The IAF formulated the RFPs, and former chief Mr. Tyagi said after retirement that he was “disappointed” that the RFP was not passed in his tenure. Every press conference used to center around the timeframe when the RFPs would be sent. Under Mr. Major, finally the IAF managed to “cobble together” an RFP and sent it to “all and sundry”.

As regards Kaveri, as per T Mohan Rao of GTRE, it will be integrated and flight-tested on Tejas this year. The “de-coupling” as spoken about at Aero-India 2009 does not imply that the project is being suspended till further notice, bu that an interim Eurojet or GE-F414 will be chosen till the time the Snecma-Kaveri JV fructifies.

It will be multirole yes. But it will not be able to handle the ‘missions’ as good as the MRCA especially the heavy weights like the Super Hornet, Rafale and Eurofighter.

See, as repeatedly discussed earlier the 4 twin-engined contenders are equated by Su-30 MKI, and the 2 single-engined contenders are equated by Tejas Mk.2.

Hence, when the Tejas Mk.2 and Su-30 MKI already meet requirements, no need for a foreign MRCA.

As per his interview the Tejas MK2 will be ready a year after the first MRCA is acquired. Ready means IOC IMO there is a long way to go from that to FOC and induction in large numbers.

Note that the Tejas Mk.2 will not repeat all the tests done in Mk.1 from Jan 2001. The Mk.2 will be treated as an upgrade only, and not a new aircraft. So it will receive it’s FoC by 2013 itself.

Again, 1 year makes hardly any difference to IAF because it is anyway a known “procrastinator”, when it delayed sending the RFP for MRCA for many years. 1 year is a very small price to pay for indigenising the IAF to 50% in a “swoop”.

And the Snecama core is for the Kaveri engine which has been officaly dissociated from the Tejas programme for the time being.

The above is inaccurate. As per a recent interview by T Mohana Rao, Kaveri will be integrated on Tejas by end of this year, though the Mk.2 will have foreign engine. This was also confirmed by rakall et. al from Bharat Rakshak when they visited Aero-India 2009.

Here I am not saying that the Tejas is not going to be a good plane, may be it will be as good as some of the MRCA contenders for some missions.

I disagree with the above. As repeatedly discussed earlier, Tejas Mk.2 will have all specs of MRCA and will be able to handle all the missions meant for MRCAs.

The problem is that Tejas is not ready yet and we cannot afford to wait.

See, as per Mr. Fali Major’s own estimates (given in the same interview), Tejas Mk.2 is expected in the same year as the MRCA winner. So, what problem does IAF have in choosing the Tejas Mk.2 as MRCA instead ?

I agree with Dr. Natarajan’s statement that, and I quote, ” the services prefer Parisan perfumes to our desi Hamaam”, end quote.

The ToT from the MRCA will help the LCA and the MCA. 🙂

Please note that for Tejas separate ToT is already sought like Kaveri-Snecma core, EADs consultancy etc.