Abhimanyuvikasrehman, earlier I used JF-17’s “yardstick” of ‘normal’ weight i.e. 2,500 kgs of fuel + weapons in addition to empty weight. If Tejas weighs 10,000 kgs at ‘normal’ as the IAF source claims, then it’s empty-weight would be 7,500 kgs.
Using T-50’s definition of ‘normal’ weight, i.e. without external load and full inner fuel, the Tejas would weigh either 8,000 kgs or 9,000 kgs. 8,000 if it’s empty weight is 5,680 kgs (as per Aero I-07) and 9000 if it’s empty weight is 6,500 kgs (as per S’pore A-08).
As per the S’pore ’08 placard, the clean weight of Tejas is 9,500 kgs and empty weight is 6,500 kgs. Thus, it includes full internal fuel of 2,500 kg + 500 kg of rail-mounted weaponry.
This is but obvious, and the IAF surely did not expect 8,000 kgs to be the deadline at which full internal fuel and some weapons can be carried by any measure or definition. But it seems that it did.
Regardless of the above, it is surprising that Tejas’ empty weight is shown to be 6,500 kgs, whereas at DefExpo 2008, it was shown as 5,680 kgs. The possibility of it being heavier than the larger JF-17 or T-50 is neigh.
One may argue that JF-17 has a far smaller wing area than Tejas, but it must be remembered that it also has 2 tails and a far higher wing-loading.
Thus it can only be concluded that the S’pore ’08 figure is after the addition of substantial electronic equipment, whereas the DefExpo ’08 figure is the “naked” figure. This equipment could be radar, sensors and testing equipment. Engine is excluded, because it is more “intrinsic” an addition.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu, I dont think i quite understand you. The weight you quoted for T-50 (11,974 kgs) is it ‘maximum takeoff weight’ which would be substantially more than its ‘normal takeoff weight’ (around 9,500 kg?; emptyweight + internal fuel + couple of missiles and rails).
vikasrehman, as per the link, the weight of the T-50 with external weapons is 11,974 kgs, and without any external payload is 8,890 kgs. The key words in this context are ‘with’ and ‘without’ any payload; whether it is maximum or not is immaterial. I was emphasizing that its payload ‘without’ any external load whatsoever is ~9,000 kgs.
I dont think IAF is stupid enough to have wanted LCA to be only 8000kg with its full internal fuel and external payloads.
The figure I have seen floating around for normal takeoff weight for LCA is around 8,500 kg (i guess this includes internal fuel and couple of missiles with rails…radar is normally included in empty weigt as its an integral part of the aircraft just like engine), and i think the airforce source was probably talking about the normal takeoff weight.
I concur with you that the IAF meant ‘normal’ — or in other words — ‘fighter’ config only. In my earlier post too the same was implied.
As per ADA’s official website, the ‘clean’ take-off weight for Tejas is 8,500 kgs, which you have also found. Let us assume empty weight of Tejas as 6,500 kgs (as per a Singapore Air show ’08 placard)**.
Now in ‘normal’ config, upon addition of 1,000 kgs internal fuel and 1,000 kgs weapons, Tejas will weigh 8,500 kgs only. This is consistent with ADA’s figure and only 500 kgs more than the IAF source’s figure.
But, the IAF sources who were quoted, claimed that Tejas weighs 10,000 kgs when loaded instead of 8,000 kgs that IAF wanted. It is impossible that after being loaded with just 1000 kgs internal fuel and a “couple” of rail-mounted missiles, the Tejas weighs as much as 10,000 kgs. It would mean that the empty weight of Tejas is 8,000 kgs (1,200 kgs more than JF-17 and 1,000 kgs more than Gripen). This is not possible given it’s size, composites and most importantly, the IAF source’s own admission that, “it doesn’t have any flab”.
The normall take off weights (persumably fighter configuration?) for other lightweight fighters such as Ching Kuo and FC-1 are 9,525 kg and 9,072 kg, respectively. Even Gripen in its basic fighter configuration was meant to around 8,500 kg.
As PER PAC Kamra’s official webpage, empty weight of JF-17 is 6,411 kgs and ‘normal’ take-off weight is 9,072 kgs. This implies internal fuel + external load of ~2,500 kgs.
Using this “yardstick” from the JF-17, for the Tejas to weigh 10,000 kgs at ‘normal’ take-off, it would have to weigh 7,500 kgs (1,000 kgs more than the larger JF-17), which is a physical impossibility.
Over G, the IAF’s complaint is over the combat performance over using the GE-404 engine (the only one used on 6 prototypes since the past 8 years). Your contention that the extra weight came from added weapons and fuel is probably what the IAF was careless about.
** There is a discrepancy in the figures of Tejas’ empty weight displayed at Aero-India 2007 and at Singapore Air Show, 2008. As per the former, the Tejas’ empty weight stands at 5,680 kgs whereas as per the latter, it is 6,500 kgs.
Presently, a substantial amount of testing and instrumentation equipment is onboard the Tejas to measure or record flight performance during testing. Once IoC is achieved, most of these will be removed which can weigh a few hundred kgs. Thus, the Singapore placard displayed the current weight, whereas the Aero-India 2007 displayed the weight devoid of extra calibration equipment.
AbhimanyuPerformance on the GE-404 Is available in books and from GE 😉
That article discusses GE-404’s performance vis-a-vis the Tejas.
2 newspapers have now reported that as per IAF sources, the Tejas is overweight by 2 tonnes, only after changes effect it, i.e. when weapons, fuel, radar, etc. are added on to it. As per the same sources, the Tejas does not have any “flab”, which implies it is not overweight.
I think what has happened here is this : the IAF specified that the normally loaded weight i.e. after being loaded with internal fuel and weapons, the Tejas should not have weighed over 8,000 kgs. It was not concerned by empty weight and such forth.
The fact is this : No aircraft will weigh just 8,000 kgs after being loaded with 2,000 kgs internal fuel and “enough” weapons. Not even trainers like the T-50, which has a weight at 8,800 kgs without external weapons. After loading external weapons, the weight goes up to 11,974 kgs.
Similarly, assuming Tejas’ empty weight to be 5,680 kgs (as per Aero India 2007), after the addition of radar (350 kgs), internal fuel (1,700 kgs), there is no room left for any external weapons whatsoever to accommodate. A “decent” weapon load of 2,000 kgs will obviously increase the load to over 10,000 kgs.
In short, the IAF wanted a Mirage-2000’s weapon-load and fuel-range — in the airframe of the size of a MiG-21.
Now, after realizing it’s “folly”, the IAF wants to offset the drop in performance due to the extra load, by increasing the thrust.
References :-
2) IAF sources comment that Tejas weighs 10 tonnes AFTER being loaded
AbhimanyuScooter had started similar thread a while ago, well at that time it was just a speculation. Now based on this news it seems certain that LCA is looking for NEW Engine
See, there have been no speculations about any aspect of Tejas at any point of time. The details of Tejas’ engine have been reported by most newspapers and magazines since 2005, with quotes from officials and publicly available defence ministry reports.
Thus, the Tejas is not “mired” in “secrecy”. It is one of the most widely publicly observed fighter projects in development of all time.
In 2005, it was widely reported that SNECMA, NPO-Saturn and Pratt & Whitney would bid for a tender to take part in a 50-50 joint venture to complete the Kaveri engine. This tendering process extended till Feb 2007, where these companies responded to the RFPs sent by DRDO (GTRE). In 2005, Snecma however was given a preferential treatment by DRDO because it was already a supplier of some rare alloy blades to the Kaveri. It had already officially communicated its willingness to be part of the Kaveri development in a 50% risk-sharing and profit-sharing agreement. Snecma’s intent was to export the Kaveri once it was developed.
This continued till December 2006, when the DRDO finally sent renewed RFPs to a few companies including Snecma and NPO-Saturn amongst others.
In August 2007, just after the Tejas’ sea-level trials at Arkakkonam, the IAF was reportedly “unsatisfied” over the Tejas’ performance. It was because the GE-404 engine did not meet the required thrust levels, as unlike the Kaveri, it is not flat-rated. By December of the same year, it was reported that the IAF was unsatisfied over the RFPs submitted by Snecma and NPO-Saturn in response to the Dec 2006 RFPs, because it thought they did not meet the ASRs; however, an ad-hoc technical committee was of the opinion that Snecma came closest to meeting the IAF’s ASRs.
In the review meeting of Dec 2007, it was reported that the IAF finally communicated its “concern” over the Tejas not meeting its ASRs. It was compounded by two issues : the empty weight being reportedly greater by nearly 2 tons than the maximum, and the below par thrust of the GE-404. Already having rejected Snecma and NPO-Saturn, it suggested ADA to investigate the GE-414 engine instead; however, ADA refused because it would involve redesigning the Tejas’ airframe to accommodate it, which in turn would lead to further delays.
Anyway, by now it was reported that the Kaveri had improved performance, and it was fully meeting dry thrust, but met only 90% of the required after-burning thrust. It was due to its being 15% overweight.
Now, though not reported, the ADA still insists on the Kaveri despite its thrust being lower than GE-414 because it would not involve redesigning the Tejas’ airframe, and most importantly, because the Kaveri is flat-rated i.e. it provides constant thrust at varying altitudes. In contrast, the GE series of engines are not flat-rated : they compensate the lack of this feature by maximizing thrust (and hence size and weight).
Finally in April 2008, Eurojet makes an offer of a new engine for India’s Tejas.
References :-
1) DRDO looking for global technical partner to develop Kaveri engine(Jun 20, 2005)
2) Cabinet gives approval for HAL-Snecma joint venture, (Jun 24, 2005)
3) Talks on to finalise partner for Kaveri engine development (Feb 2, 2007
4) Error 404 – Performance Not Found (GE-404)
5) Panel finalises partner for co-developing Kaveri engine (Dec 2007)
6) Crucial review meeting on Tejas aircraft (Aug 2007)
7) Light Combat Aircraft: questions over installed thrust (August 2007 after sea trials)
8) Kaveri engine for Tejas: more talks on French, Russian offers (Oct 2007)
AbhimanyuAnother potentially attractive project for overseas investorsis the next-generation PAK-FA fighter. This provides less opportunity for foreign suppliers, but there are opportunities to participate in export versions such as variant to be developed jointly by India and Russia
Flying the flag at MAKS, FlightGlobal 13/08/07.
Otaku, the above implies that India has invested in the PAK-FA only as an investor, and to offset the costs of introducing newer equipment in the Su-30 MKI.
The PAK-FA MKI may be the Indian export variant, locally modified for the IAF. This method of making localized export variants is the same one as followed for the Su-30 MKI. However, unlike the Su-30 MKI, and as is usually the norm with export variants, the Russian variant could be the most developed one, whereas the export copies (Indian or Brazillian) may be downgraded versions.
AFAIK the business model is we will make our own and offer you the basic aircraft structure and the bits we are prepared to export if you want them… these might be parts from the Su-27SM or the Su-27BM rather than what we put in our PAK-FA. If those parts aren’t good enough for you then you can ask for these parts to be changed for international parts or parts you make yourself.
In other words it is pretty much the same business model as for the Su-30MKI.
GarryB, I agree with the above. As in the Su-30 business model, the PAK-FA’s Russian airframe, Russian engines, weaponry, flight-control, radar etc. will be provided to the investor-customers i.e. India and Brazil. Apart from localized avionics, any other component may be custom-made, if the purchasing air-force so desires.
In the Su-30 MKI, apart from the vast Core Avionics by DRDO, the IAF sought an Israeli target pod, and Israeli HMDS. However it retained the Russian IRST system.
However, in case of the PAK-FA in addition to the above, HAL will be handed over only routine testing and some tasks to find optimum measures in some aspects of the Russian prototype that is in production already.
If I were Brazil or India I would ask Sukhoi how long is too long to develop if we are getting what we want?
As per Sukhoi, the PAK-FA will be completed by 2015 regardless of any Indian or Brazillian participation.
As far as “getting what we want” is concerned, the PAK-FA is being built solely as per Russian ASRs, which the BAF and IAF have to “sequester” within their own ASRs. Currently, IAF has been told of the PAK-FA’s characteristics and expected specifications. It is for the IAF to decide whether to purchase the PAK-FA or not.
It has already been stated that the Su-27BM was testing new systems for the PAK-FA and that the first PAK-FA will have modified systems of the Su-27BM. The PAK-FA will however be upgraded well beyond that level in service… and of course it will be stealthy.
In that case, the IAF may as well ask for the Su-27BM’s avionics to be included in the Su-30 MKI (excluding those developed by DRDO and from third vendors), instead of having them in a much more expensive PAK-FA.
Do you actually think the Russians will introduce BrahMos into regular service? They are not limited by international treaty and can extend the range of their Anti Ship and land attack missiles beyond 300km. I would expect Onyx will receive the guidance improvements of BrahMos rather than the Russians introducing BrahMos.
Well it is a Sukhoi led product, so much of their design solutions will have been influenced by the joint development of the Su-30MKI, but then I doubt they will want foreign parts in their #1 fighter.
I fully agree with the above. That is exactly the treatment the locally “Indianized” PAK-FA will be accorded in Russia. The Russian PAK-FA will recognize Russian ASRs and Russian technology only; the IAF’s local customization will be at the sole risk and liability of the IAF.
Sukhoi will not take responsibility for IAF’s localization and “tinkering” with the PAK-FA.
The Russian model is being built to Russian specs, because their requirements are different from Indias and Brazils. The Russian PAK-FAs will be facing directly NATO aircraft and will include land based F-35s very likely from the day they start operating. Indian PAK-FAs might see a few naval F-35s but not in the same numbers and they are unlikely to be seeing any F-22s in their neighbourhood any time soon. Brazil on the other hand has different needs again… who is arrogant enough to think one export lower tech model of PAK-FA will suit everyone… well apart from those signed up for F-35.
The MCA could have been best moulded as per IAF’s every “whim” since conception and initial sketches. In contrast, the PAK-FA already incorporates Russian ASRs that have been finalized, approved and sent to manufacture.
The super customizing model (Buisness model) will be succesfull for those nations wanting custom SPEC , and TOT Like say India however what about those nations that just issue RFP’s and major beureus have to respond ? What will they put in the tender in that case ??
I think even in the above case, the downgraded export variant will be offered as a base model. Then, the customer can customize it with whatever equipment it desires.
As an example, the Malaysian Su-30’s have DRDO’s Radar Computer-I and Radar Computer – II with associated software. Thus, the customer could choose Indian or Brazilian fitments.
that there are many organizations in India which have resources available to assist in finetuning the PAKFA
The above word “Fine-tuning” is the keyword, and is actually all that India will do to the totally Russian PAK-FA.
AbhimanyuAs for the Russian case, here is some research from Amiganguli of the SDF that shows how Russia has no case on this case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/wipo_trips.htm
(g) Security Exceptions28. The Agreement provides a general exception for matters which are deemed to be essential to national security interests. In particular, a Member is not required to furnish any information if it considers disclosure to be contrary to its essential security interests. In addition, it may take any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived, relating to traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment, or taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations. It may also take any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security (Article 73).
crobato, the above appears to apply only to fissionable materials and derivatives thereof.
Whatever be the case, this non-disclosure agreement does not imply that the agreement of licences, agreement of royalties etc. can be wavered or be impinged upon. It only states that the 2 parties need not disclose any information to the other party just on demand, because such information can be sensitive in matters of defence.
Hence, the above clause does not mean that China can clandestinely reproduce any number of examples of the Su-27 without Russia’s permission, only because it is a sensitive matter.
AbhimanyuAbhimanyu,
That was never realistic – in fact, I don’t remember seeing that anywhere.
Anyway, even if India is supposed to be a 50-50 partner financially, it was never going to be a 50-50 partner in terms of the development programme. Russian 5th gen fighter development started a long time ago, before the PAK-FA programme, and it would be ridiculous to expect India to jump on at some point and claim to be a 50-50 partner. I’m sure nobody at HAL or the IAF, let alone at Sukhoi, thought India and Russia were going to develop the PAK-FA together from scratch.
ink, I agree with your views fully. The IAF and defence ministry are totally ‘misleading’ the Indian public by claiming that the fully Russian PAK-FA has a 50% Indian infusion of technology, ever since it was on the drawing board in 2002.
A trip to HAL by getting passes may seem to be of little consequence, now that Sukhoi’s official releases, Mr. Pogosyan’s comments on India’s role as just a financier, and Mr. Fedorov’s statements have established firmly that the PAK-FA is solely a Russian plane being built as per Russian specifications only.
It is an extremely unfortunate state for the MCA, for which I’m sure DRDO would have lodged a protest just as it has severely criticized the Army for “fussing” over the Arjun.
PS Its hard to tell on forums because I cannot judge your tone, but it sounds like you are hoping to score some points by ‘proving’ that India isn’t a 50-50 partner. If you are, then I have to wonder what you are hoping to achieve. If not – I apologise for jumping to conclusions.
ink, please note that there are no “points” to be scored here, but the motivation is because one can feel very sorry for the indigenous MCA. The way the Army has treated Arjun and the IAF has the Tejas, seems to be repeating here.
The previous Indian defence minister had mentioned the MCA in Parliament (and did not infer the PAK-FA). He said it would be a successor to the LCA. The Defence ministry expressed dissatisfaction over Russia at not being invited to the PAK-FA project from “scratch”. The DRDO released new concept images of the MCA last year and exclusively mentioned it at a major conference.
Thus, it is unclear whatever happened to all of the above.
There is no doubt that the PAK-FA will be a capable product — but a Russian product, not Indian.
References :-
Indo-Russia joint stealth fighters programme flies into turbulence
AbhimanyuI think that the news report posted by star49 may also prove conclusively that the PAK-FA is solely and entirely a Russian project only. It clearly mentions that the T-50 is being equipped with technologies of Su-35. It has already begun construction in a plant near Moscow.
Again, there is no mention of India which is supposed to be a “50-50” partner. It is thus clear, that this is a Russian product which will be exported to India, which can locally customize or modify it thereafter. If sold to third nations, India will only get a share of profits equal in proportion to its investment.
In my view, Russia has now established the “customized export” paradigm in all defence sales with India. Previous examples of this are Su-30 MKI and T-90 tanks. The PAK-FA or T-50 also follow this only. Thus, the PAK-FA can be said to be based upon the Su-30 model of development i.e. Russian designed and built product that is locally modified or customized for the purchaser. However, like the JF-17 project, India is also investing in the PAK-FA for future profit-sharing.
Note that only Brahmos was a joint-venture more in the true sense of the term, as the onboard guidance was developed by India. However, unlike Brahmos, Russia is not obliged to adopt local Indian modifications in avionics in the PAK-FA, thus once again negating the aspect of the so-termed “joint venture”.
AbhimanyuEver seen a MiG-21F and a J-8II up close? Yes, it’s inspired by the MiG-21, but if you think it’s a copy you must get your sensory organs checked. It’s vastly different. I don’t care what Sinodefence says. Why else do you think it had been given a new designation?
Arthur, as we have discussed twice earlier, while the J-8 is a lengthened copy of the MiG-21, only the the J-8 II shifted the MiG-21’s central air-intake to the sides. This expertise of shifting the MiG-21’s central intake to the sides was also employed on the FC-1 (to be re-designated as J-9).
BASED ON foreign planes is most likely true. But again: what is the original non-Chinese design of the J-8II?
The original J-8 is a derivative of the MiG-21; however, the J-8 II shifted the central air-intake to two lateral ones.
AbhimanyuNever mind that the J-8 is no MiG-21 copy and the J-10 is no Lavi copy, you are forgetting such products as the JJ-1, J-12, Y-10, Z-6, WZ-10 and a few others.
Arthur, note that I mentioned that I mentioned fighter planes, whereas the above products are not fighters, but range from airliners, trainers to helicopters. I would like to ask if the J-12 is J-XX.
As per sinodefence.com, the J-8 was a copy of of the MiG-21. Only the J-8 II featured side-intakes instead of the centre. In 1988, the J-8 II was part of the cancelled US technical assistance program. Either the J-7 with side-intakes, or the J-8 II with sides already, were later to become the FC-1.
In PLAAF, the FC-1 will be designated as the J-9.
JH-7 is a designation in the bomber range (mental note: look up what the H-5 and H-6 are). It’s original engines were British, by the way. Second-hand yet refurbished Phantom FG1/FGR2 engines. FC-1 is an export designation as it wasn’t developed under a PLAAF contract/requirement.
As we discussed earlier, JH-7 is a fighter-bomber (as per sinodefence). Regardless of whether it is empirical or consciously done, the entire J-X series are locally made foreign planes only.
As for the unlicensed J-11B; i seriously doubt China will get away with this without any consequences. Things will probably remain hush-hush because of the saving face issue, but a Russian embargo regarding engines/engine tech will seriously hurt China’s aviation industry. I’m pretty sure something will be worked out.
China must realize that these are not Cold-War times, when a MiG-21 could be copied as the J-7 without legal implications. The implications of this may be that Russia may be hesitant to export military equipment to China in the future.
J-8 and J-10 are inspired from concept, that’s different from being a copy. The J-7 and J-11 are actually licensed.
crobato, as per sinodefence.com, the J-8 is an elongated MiG-21 only, whereas the J-10 is based on the canceled Lavi plane, the designs of which were sold by Israel to China.
The J-7 is not a licenced copy, as China exported J-7s to many nations but without paying any royalty or proceeds to Russia. India too produces MiG-21s under licence, but has not exported it till date. Some units of the J-11 B are unlicenced copies, as per the news report posted earlier, and for which Russia is seeking legal options.
Any different from India giving Russian ships and subs a class “name” on their own? Or Japan calling that F-16ish fighter, the F-2? Or why the USAF decided to call Kfirs in aggressor service, F-21s?
Please note that the IAF also gives “code” names to fighters, such as “Baaz” for the MiG-29, “Bison” for the MiG-21, “Vijay” for MiG-23 etc. These are to facilitate inter-communication only.
Again, note that India does not re-export these fighters or ships under a new nomenclature.
AbhimanyuIn my view, the only fighter plane that China has developed fully indigenously is the JH-7A fighter bomber. All other planes i,e the J-7 (MiG-21), J-8 (MiG-21), J-10 (Lavi) and J-11 (Su-27) are mostly unlicenced or unaccounted copies of foreign planes.
The practice of giving local designations is only to apply legitimacy to it. Only those planes which are either indigenous or which are a “mixture” of foreign planes are given other designations. Hence, the indigenous JH-7A fighter-bomber is a “break” from the tradition of J-X. FC-1 being a mixture of the J-8 II and F-16’s wings is also not given the designation of J-9 (a slot which is empty).
AbhimanyuSu-35 is 100% better than Su-30MKI without single foreign screw. PAK-FA will be even more as Russians are this time going for full Industrial cycle revamp that inculding modern fabs. I have yet to see a single news item of Russia buying Industrial machinery form China/India/Brazil. All news item are related to worker training in Germany/EU and imports from Japan. So base on this known facts technical contribution from Brazil/India/China are of no interest to them.
star49, I agree with your view fully. In my view, nothing more need be concluded after the statements of Mr. Pogosyan and Mr. Alexei Fedorov themselves, who have said that India is just a financier and that India will not play any any role in the finalized design of the PAK-FA.
The PAK-FA has been under development since 2002 — without an Indian “whiff” so far — and has begun prototype production, with India formally still out of it. All its design, engine, avionics and weaponry have been frozen i.e. digitalized by Russia.
IAF’s initial QSRs were sent back to India (rather rejected) on the grounds that it is too late to incorporate them. The PAK-FA is to be inducted in Russia, in just 6 years after its first flight in 2009. In this scenario, it may be subjectively very difficult for the PAK-FA to be called a “joint venture”.
It must be observed that there is often not even a passing mention of India in the various news Russian reports about the PAK-FA. At the “eleventh hour” before its first flight next year, Brazil is also being invited to the project. Thus, the claim of PAK-FA being a 50-50 joint partnership or 50-50 IPR between India and Russia now stands false.
I think it would be naive to believe that Sukhoi is in “dire” need of HAL. It can be safely stated that Sukhoi is well equipped and capable of making a 5 G fighter plane by itself, but for lack of funds.
At most, HAL will be outsourced testing and reportage, and “mundane” R&D work like analysis/process consultancy/info mining, thats it.
AbhimanyuBah, how silly can you bloody well get? Go get yourself a press pass from some press agency or get some accredited guy and talk to the HAL or IAF folks? Instead you waste so much time, writing reams of speculative nonsense in flowery language!! You (and for that matter 99% of the press and public) have no idea of what has been finalized in the PAK-FA and what has not! Instead, you are writing absolute nonsense with such certainty! So if everything has been finalized, show us the schema, the avionics and what not, eh? FYI, the IAF and the Russians are still working out whats best!!!
See, all I could “glean” from your post is the suggestion (and a constructive one at that), is that HAL passes are available and that HAL’s middle and even top level management is accessible to discuss about the PAK-FA, its contribution, prospects, and the like. This would make us know hitherto unknown aspects of HAL’s contributions in it, that are otherwise unavailable to the media and general public. Otherwise, an “acre” of (contrived) criticism and abuse does not make for a smooth read.
Now that your suggestion is in the public domain, I’m certain that people like me, for whom this is a know for the first time, will make use of it when they get the opportunity.
You talk such absolute nonsense and I can bet you have nowhere been near an aircraft production floor or even talked to anyone associated with such programs! Some “CFD testing”, “efficient riveting analysis”, “some composite layout work” – what absolute nonsense- do you even know what stage these different things are done at, and what design and development entails vs what is manufacturing process optimization??? Son, please do us all a favour – and do a simple thing- either educate yourself by talking to folks who do this for a living, and show some humility or stop making such stupid categorical pronouncements about what the 5G program will be and what it wont be!! There is nothing worse than ignorance passed off as fact, and you demonstrate this.
The above mentioned tasks are likely to be handed to HAL for a “riveting analysis”, which would mean doing an “insightful” examination of the various aspects of the finalized Russian airframe, that would have already been constructed.
As per the first hand report of known defence journalist Mr. Shiv Aroor, the chief of United Aircraft Corporation Mr. Alexei Fedorov confirmed that the design of the PAK-FA has been frozen and the production will begin. In 2006, the IAF’s initial QSRs were actually returned by Russia on the grounds that the design had been finalized already.
As per older Indian reports, the APK-FA is known to have been under development since the five years before the MoU that was signed in Jan. 2007. These efforts from 2002 have not seen any Indian participation or active involvement, or even passive observation or knowledge shared, because they have unilaterally been Russian. Indian ASRs have never been catalysed upto the stage when the plane has begun heightened full-scale production. Heightened, because Russia has set a target of 2015 for induction of the PAK-FA into the services of their air-force. The Chief of IAF, Mr. Major has also expressed confidence in its induction into the IAF by 2017 — just 8 years after its first flight that is scheduled in 2009.
Thus, it is unlikely that HAL will make any contributions in the PAK-FA that wil even shift its fundamental basis of being solely a Russian aircraft, designed as per the ASRs of the Russian Air Force since 2002.
What nonsense is this. Russia is streets ahead of India in terms of design bureaus and aircraft integration and manufacture capability thanks to the immense human and financial investment made during Soviet times. Misplaced hubris gets nobody anywhere. Fact is that the IAF wants a 5G fighter asap, while ADA is still working on productionizing the LCA. Once that is done, the MCA will come about.
The above is exactly the crux of my argument — India does NOT bring anything unknown to the Russian aviation industry. Thus, Mr. Pogosyan’s statements about India being a financier only, are but obvious.
Russian news reports (like the one posted by medal64 above) rarely even mention India whenever they report about the PAK-FA. At most, they mention about Indian funding probably because as per medal64’s Ria Novosti report above, the pilot production has already begun in Russia even as India is yet to formally enter the programme.
Now, with the development of a 4.5 G fighter plane like the Tejas, the ADA has also reached contemporary throes of modern fighter plane development. It can “embark” on a 5 G project like the MCA and has expressed great confidence in the capability to do so. Like the ADA, Russia too will be developing a 5G fighter for the first time, albeit with much more array of experience, but for the first time nonetheless. In such a case, it is my strong view, that ADA must be given preference by the IAF.
I have already shared what I know, that HAL has indeed been promised a lot of workshare and it is busy working on a consortium of DRDO, public and pvt firms that can assist it.
The above mentioned workshare is unlikely to be part of designing the airframe, engine, avionics, and weaponry besides other technologies like stealth of the PAK-FA, as it has already begun prototype production. The HAL is highly likely to be relegated testing, reportage and consultancy at the sub-structural level only.
AbhimanyuGo to HAL, ask to speak to their PRO and get access to the directors and you will become aware of what the IAF and HAL plan for the 5G. HAL is going to tap everyone, from pvt sector to other DPSUs to DRDO for design contribution. Your assumption that this will be licensed assembly of non critical assemblies is laughably wrong, especially given what we are doing with the MKI already.
Please note that I do not have access to HAL’s directors, PRO etc. (and have neither claimed to have such access). If you indeed have access, then I request you to share whatever is permissible on a public forum. I reiterate that as per various Russian and Indian reports (including Reuters) that have been posted earlier, the airframe design has already been finalized, approved and has begun production already. The finalizations also include the engine, weapons, and avionics also.
The agreement between India and Russia only allows for the modification of the PAK-FA to locally customize it for the IAF. This will not be binding on Russia. Thus, HAL’s contributions will primarily be only in the field of sub-contractual manufacture. If at all, some CFD testing, efficient riveting analysis, and possibly composite layout work may be contracted for future prototypes (as the current one’s production is already underway).
The 5G will have to meet Indian standards as well, as set down by the IAF in its ASRs and individual systems will be type tested by CEMILAC. Your cut and paste of Reuters and what not, is a waste of my time and yours. If you are based in India, finagle a visit to HAL Corp HQ and you will learn more.
Any plane that the IAF purchases is evaluated whether it meets requirements. None of the planes in IAF’s current inventory (except Su-30 MKI) have ben built as per IAF’s ASRs from “scratch”. At most, the PAK-FA will be like the Su-30 MKI only, developed over a model similar to that of the JSF consortium.
Because there will be no MCA till the LCA development is complete.
The above is exactly the bias which the IAF has, even though Russia too has no prior 5G plane and is yet to fully demonstrate it’s latest fighters (both Sukhoi and MiG boards) and is wanting in its quality and supplies. The preference must be given to ADA only, as it is the home firm.
IAF will get a chance to “dictate” its ASRs from the drawing board. From the ASRs, sketches, CAD prototype, flight-models, CFD testing, all the way upto the first full-scale prototype production, the IAF will continuously have maximum arbitration. All these stages have singularly been foregone in the PAK-FA as it began prototype production. Only maximizing efficacy in production & construction/blending and testing work will not change the design, which remains solely Russian.
India doesnt have the resources to launch 2 fighter programs simultaneously where it does everything. After the LCA attains FOC, then the MCA will be tapped for replacing all the upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage2000s that the PAK-FA wont be substituting for. DRDO themselves are quite confident that the MCA will come about, but their focus, justifiably, remains the LCA for now.
It is acknowledged that except USA, no nation can afford or has the need for 2 types of 5g fighters. However, in India MCA should be given that opportunity for the IAF to be completely in the decision and vetoing process since the drawing board.
The ADA has already released conceptual sketches of the MCA twice and presented it briefly at seminars also. The IAF however, is non-committal to a project that it can oversee and “command” from “embryonic” level for the first time since many decades — till now it has had to proximate or approximate all foreign purchases to its ASRs. The MCA will provide it a preparation of war right from conception.
Please keep the discussion resonant with the kind of response received. A genuflection of civility, rather than adjectives and will help in a coherent discussion. Again, if you know something not discussed earlier then you can share it here.
AbhimanyuThat is nonsense. J-11 is just the chinese designation for the Su-27 they operate. There’re no chinese copies of the Flanker family. The J-11B just uses some chinese technologies replacing the russian stuff, very much like the Su-30MKI for India includes foreign technologies as well.
Scorpion82, though not to be discussed further, all copies of the J-11 are not licenced, (China is known to re-designate unlicenced copies to give “legitimacy”).
This is a stupid argument. If such were true, India could develop its own source code like in the case of BrahMos. Your opinion is not unbiased.
lordofjedi, as per the report which was posted earlier, ‘the US could “switch-off” softwares in the JSF’. Though not a “remote-control” in the literal sense of the term, it means that because the exclusive codes were present with the US, they may “tweak” it to (un)behave in a manner under some conditions.
Abhimanyu, your posts are littered with errors especially with regards to the MKI vs PAK-FA model. This time around, HAL is getting deep access to the PAK-FA program and has drawn up a list of areas where indian industry – HAL, Pvt and DRDO can contribute. So take a chill pill and dont let your fanaticism for the PAK-FA being a bad deal overtake your common sense. And no, the MKIs Siva pod will not replace the Litening. The Siva is an ESM pod meant for SEAD, whereas the Litening is a FLIR cum LDP.
Nick76, although there have been no reports that detail HAL’s role in the PAK-FA, it must be noted that the design of the PAK-FA’s airframe, engine, avionics (Russian side) etc. have been approved, digitalized and been given the ‘go-ahead’ for the first production of the prototypes even as India is still negotiating.
Thus, HAL’s role may be limited to contract manufacture of non-critical sub-assemblies and components only. Even if major parts of the fuselage will be manufactured, it must be remembered that it would amount to no more than licence production of a Russian design.
As you said above, the so-termed “fanaticism” may be in the MoD and IAF making the Indian public actually believe that the PAK-FA is a 50-50 joint venture, when in fact the design is totally of Russian origin formulated as per Russian standards only. As per Reuters, the venture is only to modify the PAK-FA for local use by India (unlike Brahmos, Russia won’t adopt Indian inputs).
Finally, as Mr. Pogosyan himself stated, India’s role will initially be only that of a financier. There is little scope to provide ”last minute” inputs to an in-production prototype.
And no, the MKIs Siva pod will not replace the Litening. The Siva is an ESM pod meant for SEAD, whereas the Litening is a FLIR cum LDP.
I agree that this is accurate.
You’re wrong. I write this at Correio Braziliense and BBC just translate my material. I’m Janes Defence Weekly Brazilian correspondent and I can assure you Brazil will participate at PAK-FA.
Pepe, thanks for bringing and translating that news report. It proves that the PAK-FA is modelled on the JSF model of development, where many nations contribute finance to the 5th G plane and the nodal country (US) delivers know-how that is commensurate with their contribution.
In the JSF, there were various disputes between the donor nations and the US regarding transfer of source-codes, and other technology. It may also happen in case of the PAK-FA.
The MCA has been mentioned by the DRDO chief a few times in interviews and seminars last year. It also finds mention in the previous Standing Committee report on defence. Thus, it is unclear why the govt. is pursuing the PAK-FA even though there was acknowledgement of the MCA.
References :-
Sign In
