vikasrehmanIf I recall correctly-was it 2002 or 2004 Zhuhai airshow when it was displayed?-the designers claimed that their ‘non-fbw’ (and cheap) fighter with the help of extra control surfaces would equal a ‘fbw-equipped’ (and expensive) fighter. It would be interesting to see the concept being demonstrated in real life.
vikasrehmanThe PAKFA is a pure Russian bird and it does not meet Indian ASRs for FGFA atleast in some respects.All the agreement/contract/co-development bit is regarding the development of the India specific variant.And that agreement is yet to be finalised.Contribution of India in development of the PAKFA is very less if not altogether nil.Maybe some finances and production of some components in India(for both the Russian and Indian versions).Remember that the PAKFA has not flown yet and it will need lot more cash regarding clearing IOC,FOC and productionizing.These are the only places that India can chip in w.r.t the original PAKFA.
Now regarding the Indian FGFA , Indian contribution there could be quite a bit..ala MKI even more than that.Contributions can come in terms of avionics,use of composites (stealth?) ,productionizing many components in India ,integration of third party hardware.contributions regarding radar – not likely ,engines- zilch..other than locally producing them.From the reports it seems that the agreement to be finalised most probably also concerns modifying the original bird sufficiently to increase endurance (more fuel capacity) ,double seating and other things to meet Indian ASRs(which makes it different from just MKIzing) and that may require changing some basic design parameters which is not possible without Russian help.Hence negotiations.
We are talking about a brand new 5th gen fighter here, not some upgrade of a 3rd gen fighter. India has only recently handed the ASR to Russia. There would be negotiations and only then a contract would be signed, and God alone knows how long this would take. Shri Antony is talking of inducting FGFA into IAF by 2017. PAK-FA has not yet flown. Even PAK-FA (as it would be) is EXTREMELY unlikely to make the 2017 date (you are talking about around 2020 at the earliest), let alone FGFA. If FGFA would involve (as you put it) modifying the original bird sufficiently, ANY serious work could only begin onCE PAK-FA has proven itself as a concept, and the induction date slips to beyond 2025 or so. So, either those dates given by Shri Antony are extremely optimistic or FGFA won’t differ too much from PAK-FA, i.e. MKIzation.
PS. My personal opinion regarding FGFA is that currently its the best option for IAF but not Indian aviation industry’s goals.
vikasrehmanDoes the above data give any indication to the numbers of fighters upon which these figures are based based? Whether you 6 fighters or 60 or 600, fixed cost is something that would always be there, and fixed cost per unit would go done with increasing units.
vikasrehmanWhat “IAF specifications” ? Other than a twin-seater what else is IAF-specific in that ? Radar ? Engines ? Stealth ? Avionics ? Anyway, we’ve seen that Sukhoi will design and construct the twin-seater, and not HAL.
Although Im not aware of this single/twin seater issue, I find it a little strange to find myself standing on the same side of the fence as you on this issue. 🙂
According to the ToI article posted by Austin, India and Russia, after protracted negotiations and some glitches, are now going full steam ahead to finalise the joint project for the stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). Since FGFA is a Russian concept and the joint project is yet to be finalised, isn’t it logical to assume that ADA/HAL etc. could not have had any INPUT (be it design or development) into this project so far?
The article also states that IAF, in fact, recently finalised the technical requirements for its FGFA, which will have long-range strike and high-endurance air defence capabilities, and submitted them to Russia. So the requirements have been submitted. Russia would review them, negotiate them with India, and so on. Now for the sake of argument, lets assume that the actual contrat for this joint venture would be signed sometime next year.
Finally, Antony, on his part, has already declared India wants the FGFA’s development to be completed by 2016 to ensure IAF can begin inducting it by 2017. Now I dont know if this is also a part of ASR or not, but what sort of contribution would Indian aviation industry be able to make to this 5th generation 50:50 project in 6-7 years times, be it the development of Radar, Engines, Stealth, Avionics etc.?
vikasrehmanvikasrehmanIsn’t that strange? Dec 2009 delivered to de US government… 6 months later to the PAF? Will Pakistani pay for 6 months parking fee?
Im not sure why that is the case, or if this is norm. But as I said they might have brought the delivery dates forward???
vikasrehmanFirst 4 f16 block52 to be delivered dec 2009.
Not to PAF, but to US govt.
Unless, some changes have been agreed to the already agreed dates-which ispossible though we have not heard anything-PAF should get them in June 2010.
vikasrehmanAustin, while Abhimanyu might be reducing any Indian involvement in FGFA to very little, I think he does have a point in saying that Indian aviaition industry (design & development) would not benefit from such a project to an extent it could from something like MCA (a pure Indian project from scratch to finish). Take a look at what HAL chairman said (see post no! 609 in this thread)…The Indian version obviously cannot be very different from the Russian version. Certain modifications according to the technical requirements will be incorporated in the Indian version and these have already been discussed in detail between HAL and IAF. Hence, even though India would be an equal partner, and we can only speculate for the time being what Indian FGFA would be like, dont you think that the above makes it sound a bit like FGFA-MKI made to fit IAF requirements…obviously more Indian involvement and equal production rights etc.??
It is a join development not a lic production for sure , or we would have waited for 10 more years let Sukhoi get PAK-FA inducted and would have gone for MKI type model.
The fact that we joined at the beginning shows its beyond the lic production approach.
When did India join this project? The fact that this 5th gen machine is meant to fly either this year or next and that the target date for its induction is around 2017 (wont happen) clearly indicates that Russians must have already been working on this for years…unless its going to be new airframe only recently developed filled with souped up 4th gen avionics, and call it 5th gen.
think the other way around , cancel MCA let ADA focus on LCA and its variant for the next decade and get them inducted in number the IAF wants and then move over to UCAV.
Agreed. Though I would say get into UCAV right now, so they would have time.
PS. Its a totally different debate whether FGFA, MCA, or UCAV is the best approach for Indian aviaition industry.
vikasrehman21Ankush, IAF does have a different threat perception and hence both the numbers and quality are important. Yet as you say that MRCA is required right now because of numbers shortfall, this shortfall is mainly due to the fact that Indian aviation industry has not been able to deliver LCA on time. Based on the current trends, how sure are you that Indian aviaition industry would be able to deliver an indigenous MCA in required configuration once China starts fielding J-xx (say around mid 2020s)?
Regarding your point about MSA, PESA, AESA, I think I was not clear enough when I made my point. What I meant was that while some countries radar industries developed MSA then PESA and then AESA (an evolution), others have gone from MSA to AESA skipping PESA. In a somewhat similar manner, perhaps Indian aviaition industry could consider skipping developing a completely new design 5th gen machine like MCA (they would be playing catch up for a very long time) and concentrate on the next generation UCAV in a JV. One could perhaps compare it to re-inventing the wheal-and keep doing so-or doing the ground breaking research yourself. To be frank, Im not all that familiar with the limitations of Indian aviation industry, and may be they are not yet ready for something like a UCAV type JV (all major future projects are likely to be JVs purely due to the costs). If so, a fair point. But if they have resources (financial are definitely there) then starting UCAV development would bring it to a totally new level more quickly than following into the footsteps of others, i.e. 4.9-5th gen and then 6th and so forth.
vikasrehmanfirst of all, its a question of whether or not the primary customer, the IAF, has a requirement for a medium-weight stealth fighter to complement the PAK-FA, and to provide the IN with a possible stealth naval fighter as well, in the class of the MiG-29K. I personally don’t believe that a manned fighter can be totally done away with by UCAVs or that a large PAK-FA can fulfill all the tactical roles required to be carried out by the IAF. this is especially true for the sub-continent where fighters inducted in the 2000s are likely to be in service till 2030 and there are no major UCAV projects on-going. the IAF orbat by 2025 will be consisting
PAK-FA (a few squadrons)
Su-30MKI MLU (15 squadrons)
MRCA (12 squadrons)
LCA Mk.1 and Mk.2 (5-6 squadrons)
Jaguar DARIN III with service life remaining (2-3 squadrons)
Mirage-2000-5 (close to retirement with possibly 5 years of service left)
MiG-29UPGs (close to retirement, with possibly 5 years of service left)
At the end of the day it would depend on IAF’s operational requirements, but do those requirements have to be met through a totally new design, i.e. MCA? How about a derivative of PAK-FA? I know we are only speculating for the time being, as we dont even know what MCA might be like or what it would incorporate…it might turn out to be closer to PAK-FA than I think. On another note, I think any fighter aircraft rolling off production line in 2030 or so should be a stealthy design and not LO. As for the number of different types, dont you think its a few too many for any modern AF in 2030?
1) a new fighter program that makes sure that the knowledge and technologies gained through the LCA program, the supplier base within India, all of that is not eroded and India’s aerospace industry has enough work to attract and retain the engineering and scientific talent within India
Do you need MCA for that? How about keeping that base through working on LCA MK.2/3, PAK-FA, and UCAV (through a JV). As for UCAV I think Saab have recently made an entry into this field, and almost all major aerospace companies in west are working on such projects. Anyone who wins the present MMRCA contest could be approached for a very lucrative JV (if poss).
2) access to key technologies on the PAK-FA will do nothing to progress the Indian aerospace sector unless they can apply it somewhere and actually cut their teeth on it- its not until you try to develop and productionise a particular component that you can really understand the technology associated with it. ToT can never do that- you’ll never know what thought went into the product, what issues/problems were faced and how they could be tackled. and without that, you cannot move to the next generation because the industry is not static and state-of-the-art changes every 5-10 years
UCAV would do the very same thing. Just like not every country has gone from MSA radars to PESA to AESA gardually, some have gone from MSA straight to AESA. SAAB are currently developing NG and they are already working on UCAV…though I must admit that there may be links with the korean 5th gen type fighter. But from an aviation industry pov, wouldn’t it be better to put you full resources into a UCAV type right now and field one in 2040 instead of working on a 5th gen to field it in 2025/30 and then starting on the next gen. I know work on UCAV could be carried out simultaneously, but would there be enough resources?
vikasrehmanThe above is inaccurate. As far back as 2005, it has been suggested that the management of Tejas must be taken over by the IAF, as ADA’s job is only to innovate and demonstrate the technology. This, the IAF has failed to do which is why the Tejas has been delayed.
Abhi, this is more like a blame game. On the one hand, we see this sort of opinion, i.e. its IAF’s fault (for example,they kept changing the goal posts etc), and on the other armed forces seem to blame DRDO and other defence PSUs as seen in the above article by the retired Admiral.
So who is to blame? Is it DRDO/DPSUs or the armed forces or does the truth lie somewhere in the middle (as is usually the case with such things)?
vikasrehmanRussia could be tapped, if they are willing to share technology developed for the PAK-FA on the MCA. this is just an example, but there are plenty of such systems that need to be developed for a 5th gen fighter and India cannot possibly develop them all on its own without really delaying the in-service dates for the MCA.
21Ankush, what I am trying to understand is the exact nature of benefits MCA programme would bring to Indian Aviation industry?
I assume India would get the ToT for many key technologies in PAK-FA…I mean it would be rather stupid to share 50% (???) of the development costs ($8 billion???) and not get the know how for any key techs especially when Russia needs a funding partner to develop this fighter for its own force. Anyway PAK-FA is suppose to make its first flight next year and enter enter service in 2017 or so. But knowing how such projects normally evolve and delays associated with them, I cant really see PAK-FA in operational service before 2020s. This is PAK-FA we are talking about. As for MCA, I dont think even the ASRs are out yet. And if not, I cant imagine it to enter service before 2025 or so, even if PAK-FA derived avionics are used for this. And by this time a western UCAV would only be round the corner.
So what is MCA suppose to do for Indian aviation Industry? No doubt it would do what LCA has done for Indian aviation industry. But then India would always be playing the catch up game. So why not do away with MCA and use PAK-FA & its derivative to meet Indian needs? This would allow India to concentrate on a UCAV in a JV with Russia or West, and they should be able to field a UCAV by 2030 or so. Wouldn’t this be a better approach for Indian aviation industry in the long run?
vikasrehmanADA/HAL would be kept busy and focus on delivering the Tejas Mk1 and then the definative Tejas MK2 and later a advanced variant of Tejas Mk3 , the work is enough to keep them busy for ~ 1 and half decade.
Since FGFA decision is already taken at political and military level , it is important to involve HAL and ADA into this so that they learn what they can and assimilate technologies and production know how in house to develop a 5th Gen fighter in the next 2 decade.
The MCA in its present form should be cancelled and R&D work should be initiated for UCAV by ADA , with atleast a decade in hand for them to work on UCAV technologies involving armed forces , so that atleast by period 2025-2030 they can develop such unmanned supersonic fighter and many variants of UCAV
I really see no need to develop yet another 5th gen minus manned fighter just to support ADA , when FGFA is something they should get involved with and UCAV is something they should look ahead for.
Spot on. If MCA is meant to keep the team together so that India does not lose the talent (the way i happened between marut and LCA), then this could be more effectively achieved through concentrating on LCA MK.2 and UCAV. A recent article implied that Indian FGFA would be largely similar to the Russian one, albeit with modifications. I might be wrong on this but it appears that Indian FGFA might end up as another MKI though with more Indian input than SU-30 MKI. If so, would that give Indian desginers enough expertise to design/build/test a 5th gen fighter completely on their own or would they still be dependent on foreign consultancies and JVs to achieve this task? If its the later, then by the time IAF is fielding MCA, western nations would be fielding UCAV, and India would probably have to join another FGFA type project so they could field a UCAV.
All in all, Indian aviation industry seems to be standing on crossroads. It could keep following the cycle, i.e. 4th to 5th and to 6th gen etc. Although it is getting more & more experience, it would keep playing the catch up game for a long time. The other alternative is to miss one step (as Austin suggested) and take the tisk, i.e. go to UCAV. Another possibility is to start working on MCA & UCAV simultaneously.
vikasrehmanThe F-16 & F-18E will be in US service for quite a long time, especially the latter. The last USAF F-16 was delivered in 2005, & the F-18E will be in production for the USN for a few more years. I’d say at least 20 years before they retire the last F-16, more for the F-18E.
Support for the F-16 should be no problem even after the USAF retires it, because there are very large numbers in service. LM will want to keep making money out of that fleet, & there are other firms with the expertise to provide support & upgrades, in Europe & the USA, which will compete for business. Costs of upgrades should go up, though, as it will cease to be possible to piggy-back on upgrades for which the US military pays the development costs.
Agreed. Latest is that Egypt might be interested in acquiring more F-16 units…and there may yet be even more countries…, and I would say that they would remain in service for at least another 30 odd years. As for the upgrades, one only has to look at Israeli companies who are providing/offering upgrades for Mig-21/F-4 etc., and I think this would become a lucrative business as long as the exporter does not raise any objections when the time comes (this issue should be dealt with right at the beggining). OTOH, full ToT & if India gets its own production line should take care of spares issues.
vikasrehmanI think the admin should made it compulsory for every new comer to practice clicking on the report button as part of the registration process. But then oldies like myself who hardly tend to use it also need a bit of practice.:)
Sign In
