Sorry, … that’s equally wrong too !! The J-8 in its very early form was based on the MiG-21F-13’s technology and so on manufacturing technics but not a “a direct copy of the MiG-21”.

Deino 😉

Deino, though not to be discussed further, as per sinodefence.com, the J-8 was an enlarged version of the MiG-21 only (only the latter ‘II’ variant had side-intakes). This is similar to the J-11, which is an enlarged copy of the Su-30.

Incidentally, in 1988, the J-8 was also included in the list of programmes, which the US firm Northrop Grumman was meant to upgrade.

Firstly, if Brazil is to join the programme (which is still uncertain ’cause there’s been no official Russian Govt./Sukhoi admission yet) I’d be surprised if they’ll get manufacturing rights and the level of ToT remains uncertain, they will also act as financiers with production of PAK-FA-MKB delegated to HAL. That in itself may be an indicator of spiralling EMD costs.

Secondly, this is a huge coup for Moscow- ‘partnering’ an economic superpower like India and courting an emerging one like Brazil with a prestige project such as an FGFA, is sure to pay huge dividends in the future- F-35 well and truly usurped (hehehehehe!!!).

Otaku, in my view, this may be similar to the F-35 model of development in which various countries contributed funds to the US, in return for subcontracts to locally produce parts and varying levels of ToT, which was proportionate with their percentage of funding.

Thus, India and Brazil will get subcontracts of manufacturing components of the PAK-FA, in proportion to their investment in the PAK-FA. India may be a “level 1” partner, whereas Brazil may be a “level 2” partner. There may also be disputes in the level of transfers of source-codes etc. as in the case of USA’s refusal to transfer the source codes of the JSF to the UK (a level 1 partner in JSF). The PAK-FA could even be under the “remote control” of Russia, which could “switch-off” the software as and when it wishes.

Again, this makes the PAK-FA a highly disadvantageous and unviable option for the IAF.

References :-

US refused to transfer JSF source codes to UK

Britain warns US over jet software codes

In my view, that the PAK-FA is fully a Russian plane, with little or no Indian involvement, may be exampled by 2 case studies.

Su-30 MKI : In the early 1990s, the IAF evaluated the Su-27 derivatives in Russia. They concluded that with its large range and high payload-capacity, it can be used for deep surgical strikes in enemy territory. However, it seemed to lack the avionics to fully utilize its potential.

Thus, as the Su-30 could be Asia’s F-15 Eagle, the IAF sought avionics upgrades—foreign as well as indigenous—to enable it to deliver weapons more efficiently. Core avionics equipment like mission computers cum radar computer, core avionics computer, RWR, etc. were developed by DRDO. The long-range precision Bars radar was installed, that utilized DRDO’s radar computer. The Rafael Litening target pod was installed, which may soon be replaced by DRDO’s SIVA target pod.
Apart from these, Elbit’s HMS and UOMOZ’s IRST system and datalink pod were also installed.

Thus, India’s contribution which although significant, was limited only to avionics, whereas the airframe, engine, weapons and the radar remained Russian. This amounts to avionics modification only, while the fighter plane being essentially & wholly Russian. India only got licence rights to manufacture the Su-30 in India from either Russian kits, or from local parts.

Exactly the same model of procurement is evident in the PAK-FA :- Russian airframe, Russian engine, weapons, radar and even most avionics. The design has been given final stamp of approval by Russian establishment and has already begun production, hence erasing all chances of whatever little say India could have had in deciding its airframe design or engine, or weapons in such a late stage.

As per a Reuters news report, India will only be given rights for “modification” of the PAK-FA. But it is evident that this “modification” or “tinkering” will only be in avionics, as the airframe design, engines and weapons have entered production after all being frozen and digitalized by Russia. This is no different from the Su-30 MKI model. As in the case of the Su-30, India will be given licence production rights. This right to licence manufacture the PAK-FA and modify some of its avionics, is being marketed as “joint development” by the IAF and the defence ministry.

JF-17 Thunder : The JF-17 started in 1988-89, as a project to upgrade the MiG-21 by installing US avionics. This was also a postlude to the earlier attempt at the J-8 whose ‘A’ version was a MiG-21 variant, but whose latter versions featured side-intakes.

However, unlike the J-8 fighter, the FC-1 was required to be more agile and have better maneuverability. For this, flight data of western planes was required. But the US ceased all technological assistance to China in 1989, after the Tiananmen square massacre.

Hence, sometime in the mid-1990s (still unclear), Pakistan approached China to join the development of the near-abandoned FC-1 by offering 2 inputs :-

a) funding to the tune of 0.5 billion dollars, or half the project cost
b) flight data of the western F-16 from its own inventory

In 2003, the JF-17’s finalized design begun production. Although being a descendant of the MiG-21, its wings are a copy of the F-16’s “trademark” ‘flaperon’ wings. This flight data for the same was provided by F-16s in PAF inventory. Mikoyan also provided design initial consultancy.

In 2005, the licence production facility at Kamra was inaugurated, but assembly (not production) hasn’t begun as yet. The airframe will be assembled and painted here, using Chinese kits. By 2010, the facility will have progressed to the manufacture of the JF-17.

The parallels between the JF-17 and the PAK-FA are obvious. Various Flanker derivatives and descendants like the Su-35, Su-37 and the forward-swept Su-47 were “languishing” since the late 1980s, for want of funding. During the early part of this decade, Russia began to market “partnerships” for its FGFA, which was to be a more advanced version of the Sukhoi family. China refused because it was already pursuing the J-XX, whereas India raised objection in 2006 because it was not included since the project was on the drawing board.

However, it overruled all objections in 2007, and entered negotiations that are still ongoing. As per the MoU, India will fund 50% of the PAK-FA project i.e. about $8 billion. This will NOT include any Indian say in the design of the airframe, engine, radar, weapons and other assemblies. The PAK-FA will only be “modified” for India at its own risk. HAL will be the joint developer (read : licence manufacturer) in India.

Sukhoi’s chief Mr. Mikhail Pogosyan has already mentioned that India’s primary role will be that of a financier only. Hence, the PAK-FA can be India’s JF-17 : angelic investment from India to “resurrect” it in return for licence production rights. In fact, the JF-17 is more Pakistani than the PAK-FA may ever be Indian, because atleast the JF-17 used flight-data of the PAF’s F-16, whereas the PAK-FA has already begun production without an ‘iota’ of Indian input, or specifications.

King Vulture, those 4 attachments are indeed some measurement instruments or may even be some sensor equipment.

As per a news report, the plan to install the F-414 engine was canceled by ADA, as it was estimated that many changes to the airframe would have to be done, which may lead to delays of a few years. Currently, only the F-404 shall be used for the first tranche of production variants.

Regarding the Kaveri engine, a foreign partner is proposed to accelerate the project to completion. It has met full thrust in dry, but meets only 90% in afterburner, besides being overweight by 15%. However, in ground tests it has shown greater than expected performance. The IAF was dissatisfied at the sea-level trials at Arakkonam, because the GE F-404 engine could not provide sufficient thrust at sea-level. But the Kaveri being flat-rated can provide much higher thrust than the F-404, and may hence ultimately be preferred by the IAF.
Snecma is likely to be the preferred partner, because it already provides some rare alloy blades for the Tejas.

References :-

1) Error 404 – Performance Not Found

2) Questions over Tejas’ induction

3) Kaveri engine for Tejas: more talks on French, Russian offers

F-15C is not 12 tons. u consider Maximumtalke off weight with 6 tons of internal fuel. F-15C needs external fuel tanks to produce any decent range.

I disagree with the above, as empty weight is exclusive of any internal fuel. The empty weight of F-15C is 12 tons only, as compared to >17 tons of the Su-30.

At the above mentioned prices, I think all the 3 European contenders for the Indian MRCA tender will be eliminated before any negotiations itself. These prices may escalate even further considering licence production rights.

I do think that Tejas programme still has considerable ‘respect’ amongst fighter enthusiasts, but that it has lost a lot of ‘credibility’ after so many delays and new deadlines. While i always pointed the finger of blame at the incompetent project management for these and other able contributors have pointed out different factors, i fail to understand why the same thing keeps happening again and again and again. Why are they still so ambitious with the handout of their deadlines only to quitely announce delays later? One recent example ‘the trainer version of Tejas PV-5 will take off by August 2007‘ from the following site;
http://www.lca-tejas.org/updates.html
Its April 2008. Has it happened?

vikas, this news report mentions that trainer version shall be ready in 3 months. The enlargeable photo in it, was taken in Feb this year. The writer is a known news anchor and an ex-army personnel.
Although not to be discussed further, the IAF has also been primarily responsible for delays in the Tejas by demanding midstream changes.

In my view, unlike the programs of other countries where a plane is unveiled “one fine day”, with little or no information about its making, the Tejas programme has by far been one of the most scrutinized fighter projects of all times.

The Indian media has written “scathing” and “unforgiving” criticism about it since the past few years. ADA has released detailed technical documents of AoA testing (with results), high altitude testing, papers on avionics components, flight control etc. It can be safely said that NO fighter plane in history has a flight-by-flight record of each and every test-flight open to public access.

I think all this implies honesty, which in turn implies confidence.

Although not to be discussed further, it must be mentioned that in 2003, Pakistan’s Air Chief, Mr. Kaleem Sadat claimed that serial production of JF-17 will begin in Jan 2006, whereas in actuality it is yet to begin as of April 2008. As per a 2005 report of Flight International, ‘flaws’ were present in JF-17, that led to a redesign.

However, never has the Pak media questioned the reason for the 2 year delay in the date for serial production of the JF-17, and no questions were raised about the reported flaws in the design. This, for a program that actually began work on and off since 1989 (and not 2003, as often wrongly claimed).
The Chinese WS-13 engine for the FC-1 too is yet to meet any success, like India’s Kaveri.

Hence, Tejas is not the only example of ‘delays’ or ‘failures’. Gripen’s example can be cited for a crash during flight-testing. However, unfortunately for Tejas, the media, ex-Force personnel, and govt. have “swords out” towards it.

References :-

1) Air Marshal Kaleem Sadat’s estimation of JF-17 serial production in Jan. 2006

2)Test flaws prompt rethink on FC-1

star49, you are right that I mistakenly refered the fact sheet of F-15 Eagle, and not the Strike Eagle. However, after considering the Strike Eagle too, the difference in difference in empty weight is ~ 3 tons. Yet, combat ranges are the same, with max. external capacity of the SE being 4 tons more than the Su-30.

I think this thread must be closed as such ‘A’ vs. ‘B’ threads may degrade to quarrels only.