Well, BAe made good profits by having a 49% stake in many companies and programmes.
This way, they managed to become the largest defence contractor in Europe.
Why should they change that strategy ?

It depends who the real shareholders of BAE benefiting from those profits. I doubt BAE is serving UK interests alone. It is more connected to Middleast/Pentagon contracts.

I remember when 2008 was reasonable……….let’s not forget it will be two or three years before she is completed. Assuming the cost increases can be resolved shortly??? Further, that wouldn’t include Sea Trials or India working up the Carrier when she is finally handed over.

Cost increase has nothing to do with Gorshkov completion dates now. it isnt 2004-07 period. Russians will continue to work on the ship as they are working on so many other ships. At the end India will have two choices pay the increase cost or ship will go Russian Navy.

The question is when………..2018?:eek:

I think from 2001-12 is reasonable estimate. Once it finish this ship has alot utilitiy. And it is not IN is losing any money this project. They gave $500m spread over 5 years now. U cannot even order a frigate for this money from France now.

Star, seriously that whole semicondutors, economics, industry , X vs Y, and “if they would get more money” debate has nothing to do with the thread, go to the general discussion for that….

Now, can someone tell me what is the real size of the PAKFA?, will be heavier than the 22? or will have the “20 tons normal take off weight”?

In every thread F-22 fanboys points out $18B spend on single project. (Not big amount considering two decades spent on development). and related commerical advances in technologies.
PAK-FA NTOW will be between MIG-29 and Su-27. Russian fighters have not increased in weight. so it is not heavier than F-22 but size maybe the same with multirole and increase fuel capacities.

Military industrial messenger. “[OBORONKA]”. Ex-hawseIV. №30 (196) on August 8 to 14, 2007
Under your management it was created, it successfully underwent flight tests 2000- m to year, but for a number of reasons so was not accepted for the armament turbojet engine for the multifunctional fighter of the 5th generation “article 1.44”. What it is possible to borrow from that project for the engine within the framework of competition PACK [FA]?

– Practically everything. “Article 1.44” – this is the multipurpose tactical fighter, which was a little heavier than Su-27. We developed for it engine AL -41[f], moreover it is not simple engine, but the most serious program taking into account of materials science, newest technologies, any innovations and so on. But we obtained order for its creation even in the times of the Soviet Union, and since then changed technical task – logic of today’s Russian servicemen a little another. Then there was need in the heavy fighter and the lung. Let us say, in Su-27 and MiG-29. Or as now in Americans, in F -22 and F -35. We made heavy fighter weighing 30 and the more of tons, and in the shifting version to 40 tons. It was assumed that will be created even and the light tactical fighter. To now be armed with two types of fighters it is superfluous; therefore as a result very prolonged disputes and negotiations they agreed about the creation of the intermediate version of fighter – the promising aviation complex of front aviation (PACK [FA]). This logic was supported by Defense Ministry, and by military industrial commission, and by government. Since THE PACK [FA] will be more easily “articles 1.44”, but it is heavier MiG-29 and all its modifications, requirements for the engine also changed: the dimensions of aircraft and its power decreased, the thrust characteristics of engine entirely others. Since by development and with the finishing of engine for [MFI] we dealt from 1985 until 1990, we not only take into the new engine everything which was in AL -41[f], we pack here all our serious operating times of the last years and still in addition risk – we make certain “step into the unknown”, as spoke Pavel Solovyev, in the part of the materials, our knowledge in the region of aerodynamics, our understanding of integration. Indeed the engine of fighter must be deeply integrated into the composition of fighter itself, must participate in the fulfillment of combat mission, ensure super-maneuverability, stability, reliability and so forth now i do not have absolutely any doubts, that we an engine of the fifth generation, or “5+”, as still they call it, will make

Our KB, of course, occupies center section in this cooperation, indeed we develop gas generator, and this is the most stressed and most important engine component. Therefore the resolution of the technical review board to cooperation on [NPO] “Saturn” entrusted authorities to be of interests of the enterprises in the competition named above, conducted of the RF Ministry of Defense on the development of promising engine for PACK [FA]. And if we succeed in actually realizing this collaboration, then we all will be with the matter, and engine will be created, this is already accurate. Already there is a design of the bright fighter, with which deals Mikhail [Aslanovich] [Pogosyan] and its command, we have a design of outstanding motor, there is cooperation (although, believe me, it was complex to combine these creative personalities – this they preceded complex negotiations). Tactical-technical task also is located – servicemen already developed it. Is necessary only final decision – President’s Decree on this question.

This cockpit is worse than M2K-5 cockpit of early 90s. The advantage of Sweden is that so few aircraft are ordered that is easily to implement modernization. dome firms have more test beds.

They would still be dependent on Russia. Indian-built Su-30MKIs have a very large percentage of Russian components. The usual deal is that re-export requires the permission of the original supplier.

Apart from LCD screens/External jamers. 90% of MKI is russian from engines to Radar/Weopons/IRST/datalink etc.

That is price of PAK-FA. $35 to $40B in R&D.

http://data.cbonds.info//comments/30226/Machinery_Mch1.05e_031008.pdf
The state considers development of the aviation sector to be a priority for industrial policy: the state will invest
RUR200 bn into civil aircraft construction by 2015, and will also invest up to RUR1 bn per year into aircraft leasing.
The state will spend RUR100 bn annually on R&D, and will spend RUR1 trillion to develop a 5th generation fighter jet.

I’m talking about the whole package, from R&D to production to figuring out how to support the thing in the field. Like I’ve said in the past- the difference between theory and practice. And I don’t think it’s all that easy to design one. Make a mockup? Sure. Make a computer model for RCS predictions out of some hypothetial material? Sure. Knowing how to actually MAKE that material? Not as easy. Making all the parts fit together in a way that your aircraft matches your predictions? Harder still. There’s a reason everyone and their dog aren’t actually producing stealth aircraft today.

There is reason no one can even produce 4th generaton fighter by itself. its economically not feasable nor there is requirement. If u just compare Money/Industrial precision machinery/computing/software/aerodynamics/vectoredthrust engines/FBW/fibre opitcs/lighter LCD screen/composites/ceramic engine blades experiance that is available to Russia today is far greater scale than what was available to US in 80s and 90s. This things effect overall weight and hence aerodynamic shape of aircraft for supersonic speeds and Stealth can be tested against better fire tracking radars based on GaNs modules rather than old slot arrays which were comon in 80s and 90s. Infact anything from that era is obsolete already design wise. Russian aircraft weights have actually decreased in modernized forms but they have become Multirole with increase MTOW and increase fuel capacities with TVC engines. Russians know how to manufacture aircraft in most efficient way. airframe is not a big deal.