PAK FA preliminary Stealth Assesment - Ausairpower

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Wrong, GTRE makes directionally solidified blades for Kaveri. Not SCB...

Shaping the alloys into engine parts is an equal challenge. GTRE has learned how to make "directionally solidified" turbine blades; but it has not mastered the making of "single-crystal blades", which are now standard.

Broadsword: Defence ministry goes global in search for Kaveri partner
Live in your bubble. GTRE has nothing to do with HAL or even MKI. You don't know even the basics of our industry and you come here making tall claims.

How about I make the claim it is Airbus which makes Rafale? Do you see how dubious your claims are?

[qoute]It is pretty funny when Russian MIC has to buy 25yr old fab machines from China. :lol: [/quote]

Does it matter?

Really? I heard it was because it wasn't a priority for Russia to develop so they told India no.
Check again. Time, money and degradation of stealth was the deciding factor, not Russian involvement. As a matter of fact, if we had the money required, we would have taken up development of the twin seater as easy as day. It has nothing to do with Russian decision, it is our decision. Russia has the PAKFA program as well.

Really, I don't see any Indian scientists working at NIIP. The leg work on the radar is already done. :rolleyes:
Oh, you were there were you? Indian scientists and technicians are already there in Russia. They left months ago.

You also conveniently missed the fact that India has a more specific requirement for a 360 degree radar capability along with possible IAF specific modifications.

DRDO is the research arm of Indian MIC. If India is going to learn anything from FGFA, it must go through them. HAL can't develop a toilet dispenser.
HAL has a full scale design industry as well. Many people don't know it. How else do you think they have been working on trainers and helicopters? There was a major debate within the military for not letting HAL handle LCA instead of giving the project to DRDO, who had no experience in the field.

The first aircraft designed in India, the HF-24 Marut, was a HAL project. The modification of the Gnat to Ajeet was also a HAL project. The current unilateral upgrades of Jaguar and Mig-27 are also HAL projects. DRDO cannot handle such projects.

FGFA really doesn't involve full scale development work. The aircraft is already 75% developed.
Give me proof for this number.

Russia wants India to pay $5 billion so it can upgrade its research centres and pay for flight testing to finish development. Whatever India gets is just a trinket for the price.
Lol. It is much better than the Rafale deal in comparison. Even if a lot of PAKFA work is done, it is still far from complete. More importantly, we have asked for 43 modifications which will need R&D and flight testing. If FGFA was already developed at the range of, as you so graciously quoted, 75%, then we wouldn't need a 8-10 year development cycle for FGFA. It would have been something like LCA Mk2, which is less than half that with just a 2 year flight testing cycle (compared to 9 years and counting on LCA Mk1), instead of the six years that FGFA has (same as PAKFA).

I wonder since when flying 4 prototypes means 75% of the development work is complete. :rolleyes:

That would mean the subsequent flight testing of 14 LSP models followed by one squadron IOC and one squadron FOC are the remaining 25% of the work. Wow! Oh, let's not forget that weapon testing and opening of the flight envelope is also part of the 25%.

Really? The fabrication and avionics of Rafale are what Russia only hopes they can develop with FGFA. Unfortunately their industrial capacity to develop such advances is still based on Soviet era infrastructure and an R&D budget that is so low it requires India to pick up the tab. :laugh:
Nonsense. The only reason France has a slight lead on AESA radar is because Thales outright bought American modules for testing before replacing it with their own. The Russians had developed their Zhuk-AE back in 2005, with Russian modules. They did not receive help that the French did. As a matter of fact, unlike the French the Russians have already developed multiple AESA fighter radars through two design houses, and for much larger arrays to boot. Heck, NIIP is developing multiple radars for PAKFA alone, as compared to Thales's one radar on Rafale.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
newbiee question: Will HAL be able to build how many ever FGFA's we want in india with out paying extra money to russia?? yes, assume we have developed a proper engine by that time ;)

But one thing is for sure.. we invetsed almost same amount of money what russians invested... now the real meaning joint development stands right only if they provide us with complete TOT including engine tech and Radar. They should allow us to build these things any in number unconditionally.. is it possible??
FGFA is a project with 50-50 IPR. That would mean we will have to pay royalty to Russian companies if we build more FGFAs. The F-16IN in the MRCA deal was similar, where we would have had to pay royalty to UAE.

There are no unconditional deals. Every deal is conditional. However, IAF will have far more flexibility in deciding what they want because of two reasons, one the engine and airframe are robust and can last well into the 2030-40 period where we can make multiple modifications and upgrades. For eg: We are talking about what could be a 16 tonne airframe with 36 tonnes of thrust. The T/W ratio is huge in that respect and the growth potential of the engine itself will be equally big. If we are currently making unilateral modifications on MKI for carrying Brahmos, then imagine what we can do on FGFA with a 50-50 IPR. We are even allowed our own weapons for FGFA, which we may develop within this decade. For all you know, IAF may already have requirements for new generation indigenous missiles beyond Astra Mk1 and Mk2.

Comparatively, our only other projects, MKI and Rafale cannot be modified to the same extent as FGFA. While there is a decent amount of flexibility with MKI due to the large amount of ToT, the French won't allow modifications at the same level for Rafale. As for LCA, it is a dead-end project with little or no upgrade potential. Meaning, we will have to buy engines directly from the US which are sanction prone. Also, the airframe itself will eventually reach its end due to the lack of a home grown engine. Any modification will require greater input and tougher work with tougher conditions due to the airframe's small size. FYI, in Jan 2013, MoD rejected GTRE's request to put K-9 and K-10 on LCA. Meaning the only engines for LCA will be GE's F-404 and F-414.

Two, it is in our interest to co-develop future variants of the FGFA with Russia. Meaning we are not in a position to take up such large projects even in 2020 on our own. The same goes for Russia and even the US to a certain extent.

FGFA is something like Brahmos. Both Sukhoi and Indian sources have claimed the deal will be similar to Brahmos deal. That would mean we would have the complete flexibility of manufacturing everything in India itself, including engine and radar, as it is for Brahmos.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
when we integrate the radar computer, mission computer avionics and weapon store software all developed by DARE for the LCA project on the FGFA where is the question of russians allowing us our own weapons for the FGFA,

They are buying 64 radar computers for their Russian Su- series order from HAl. SO the FGFA is just a glorified Su-30 MKi deal.

See HAL designed Marut without identifying a proper engine for it and it failed.This failure led to the creation ADA for Tejas LCA. So all the fighter design responsibility was handed over to ADA which was actually culled out of HAL. SO if at all there is any design JV between sukhoi and in any indian arm in designing greenfield 5th gen fighter it must have been with ADA and Sukhoi not HAL and sukhoi.

Ada was not there from the start shows that there is no design work for india.

All the Mig-27 , Mig-29 ang jag upgradation of avionics is done by DARE which is an arm of DRDO like ADA , not by HAL. HAl is just system integrator with stuff coming from DARE. This stuff was originally developed for Tejas on the request of ADA.

It is this same stuff that is now present on every modernized IAF fighter's cockpit including that of SU-30 MKI. For Tejas mk-2 and AMCA projects DARE will upgrade all these stuffs with foreign JV partners. And it is this upgraded stuff that is going to come in FGFA. And this is pretty much what indian design share is for FGFA.

So once again it is the same Su=30 MKi model with money paid in advance in the name of JV.If it is a true JV then did IAF gave any ASR specifying what is the frontal RCS of FGFA to the JV design team? No. Infact IAF is yet to know which specs are there in FGFA , and only recently came to know that there will be no twin seater version at all. then how can it be called a jv?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
Once again if HAL has single crystal blade tech in it's koraput engine facility transfered by the Russians , then won't it be available for GTRE K-9?
Saying it won't defies any logic.The truth is russians must have supplied Single Crystal Blades to Koraput and Koraput assembles them with all other non core engine parts being produced under Russian TOT.

There is no official press release of any sorts that specifically mentions that russians have transferred SCB tech to HAL. People are just making this up from the statement that Su-30 MKI is being made in HAL from the raw material stage itself.Of course other than the SCB tech HAL has all the tech composites, mission computers, RWRs, avionics, displays all developed by DARE and ADA and NAL for LCA.

HAl may get ASEA tech when LCA tejas mk-2 gets it. So other than the engine tech all other stuff meant for FGFA is already here. There may be few modifications needed for peculiar IAF demands doing that will be our job. Just like introducing composites to SU-30 MKI. So calling it a real JV is not fair.Any way the fighter is good and we buy it from Russians.


Thats why indian SUKHOI-30 MKI produced by HAL has far higher percentage of composites and a very fine finish to it. And HAL will get single crystal blade tech only when GTRE develops it for the k-9 or k-10 engine meant for tejas.There are conflicting reports about this being developed in small scale in the labs or not.

But with out any credible link keep on saying that Russians have given SCB tech to HAL for SU-30 MKI is just not fair.Show a link and make the claim . It is fair.


If it is a true JV then will we get 50 percent share of the profits that are gonna come from PAKFA export sales?

Or Will we be allowed to export our own FGFA version which was supposedly designed by HAL with russian engines to third countries as exports?

Will HAL supply 50 percent of the components to PAKFA exports from Russia to third countries?

. Then it is a true JV of EUROFIGHTE TYPHOON type regardless of whether we had any design share or not..Since in eurofighter typhoon production is shared among different countries with each having the tech only for the parts produced by them. Yet profits are shared as per their share in JV.

Even if 1000 eurofighters are made , say italy makes the wings, then all the wings of those thousand planes must be from ITALY. Say britain makes the engines and germany the avionics, then engines for all the 1000 typhoons must come from britain and avionics of all the 1000 fighters must come from germany SO it is a true production and profit sharing transparent JV.

Is there any arrangement like that in FGFA contract.

So do we get any production share and profit share for all the close to 1000 PAKFAs to be exported by Russia?

Then it is a JV regardless of who has the tech and who did the design.


It is not. Thats why our version has a separate name FGFA. So we are officially out of PAKFA.
Many nations are going to get Eurofighter Typhoon with different customizations in Eurofighter JV, yet all are called TYPHOONS only.

Then why indian customized version has a separate name FGFA? I suspect that it is to restrict any indian claim on larger PAKFA IPR and sale profit and design work.
 
Last edited:

santosh_g

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
54
Likes
29
@ersakthivel , leave about profit and all.. hope russians will allow us to build how many ever FGFA's we want without or with very minimal royalty.. yes I do agree that government made mistake by not including ADA in the deal which would have given much more exposure to upcoming homegrown 5thgen birds.. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh_g

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
54
Likes
29
FGFA is something like Brahmos. Both Sukhoi and Indian sources have claimed the deal will be similar to Brahmos deal. That would mean we would have the complete flexibility of manufacturing everything in India itself, including engine and radar, as it is for Brahmos.
sir , Brahmos is real joint venture where we can make how many brahmos we want and use the technology what we learnt from brahmos for the other projects without russian permission. We dont need to pay royalty for this and if i am not wrong , we can sell these missiles to other countries if we want. But that wont be the case with FGFA. It's now way equivalent to Brahmos till this point. But we cant tell any thing unless we read the agreement b/w sukhoi and HAL.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@ersakthivel , leave about profit and all.. hope russians will allow us to build how many ever FGFA's we want without or with very minimal royalty.. yes I do agree that government made mistake by not including ADA in the deal which would have given much more exposure to upcoming homegrown 5thgen birds.. :)
ADA shouldn't be involved in this deal. They will take the easy way out and lose focus on both LCA and AMCA. HAL is better equipped to handle Russian aircraft.

sir , Brahmos is real joint venture where we can make how many brahmos we want and use the technology what we learnt from brahmos for the other projects without russian permission. We dont need to pay royalty for this and if i am not wrong , we can sell these missiles to other countries if we want. But that wont be the case with FGFA. It's now way equivalent to Brahmos till this point. But we cant tell any thing unless we read the agreement b/w sukhoi and HAL.
We cannot use Brahmos technology on anything we want. It is unnecessary and Brahmos airframe and propulsion is obsolete compared to what's being planned. Brahmos 3 will have very similar specs compared to Brahmos 1, but the weight will be considerably lesser. 800Kg vs 3000Kg. This is not possible if we copy paste Brahmos 1 on Brahmos 3.

We need to pay royalty on Brahmos. We cannot avoid royalty, it goes against the tenets of business. It is a 51-49 project, in favour of India. Indeed we can manufacture and sell the missile to any country, but it will be the same with FGFA.

Export customers will opt for the country which can manufacture FGFAs at a cheaper rate. So the possible competitors will be Irkut, KNAAPO and HAL. Russia will have the added advantage of setting up a larger manufacturing base vs our lower cost. If Russia is chosen, the manufacturing deal will go to one of the Russian companies, but they will in turn pay royalty to HAL at a 50-50 basis. If HAL is chosen, it would be the other way round. More importantly, it would also depend on whether IAF will allow HAL to manufacture export jets before they can finish their own orders. Brahmos received export clearance very recently, that's last year. That's well after 600+ Brahmos missiles were manufactured for Indian forces and production ramped up to way more than 100 missiles a year.

There may be a workshare contract as well, and IMHO this is the most likely to happen. What I mean is parts of the aircraft will be manufactured in both countries, just like the case with EF-2000. Meaning, the front fuselage will be made in Russia, rear in India, wings and control surfaces by either. FBW could be coded in and installed in India while engine could be manufactured in Russia and the radar in India. Composites could be fabricated in India. Titanium structures in Russia. And so on. Final assembly may happen in the country the export customer has chosen. Meaning the Malaysians may opt for India while Vietnam and Venezuela may choose Russia and so on. Or an export customer may choose its own country for assembly if enough numbers are ordered. Export customers may also have the option of choosing between Indian and Russian weapons and the MLU contract may also be shared between Sukhoi and HAL.

PS: Cut out the "sir."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,762
Country flag
.FGFA – Quantum leap for Indian aerospace | Russia & India Report

Only MOD can clear the air over joint marketing. The link says IAF talking about joint marketing. until a of yea before IAF thought it was getting a twin seater version. Only now they are discovering that they are not going to get it. With this kind of deep involvement it is too much for IAF sources to talk about joint marketing.

First does the IAF source know what is the real RCS of PAKFA? And are IAF sources certain that air inlet will be redesigned with serpentine form masking engines blade?

The reporter says may be it is a part of the FGFA redesign!!!!!!!! So IAF sources haven't really conveyed to him whether it is on the cards or not.

The Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), a Moscow-based independent defence and foreign policy think-tank, says that while India will be the first FGFA export customer, Vietnam will be probably its second buyer. CAST Director Ruslan Pukhov believes every third user of the Su-27/30 f
The same link mentions that The Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), a Moscow-based independent defence policy think tank saying that India being the first export CUSTOMER of FGFA!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought we were partners in JV!!!!!!!!!

It mentions india as a first customer and vietnam as second!!!!

So are we Jv partners or standing in a Q in front of Vietnam as the first export customer.

Not a scholarly work by the writer to be called authoritative info. Looks like promotional item.
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Live in your bubble. GTRE has nothing to do with HAL or even MKI. You don't know even the basics of our industry and you come here making tall claims.
My bubble? You're the one in a bubble. GTRE is in charge of indigenous turbine blade design and they don't have SCB. You are saying HAL has it but won't share for Kaveri? :lol:

How about I make the claim it is Airbus which makes Rafale? Do you see how dubious your claims are?
Airbus doesn't make engines... so what? GTRE does and it is in charge of domestic design. If India absorbed SCB from MKI they would get it. Soo... your blind devotion to that ancient religion known as Soviet friend is dead.

Does it matter?
Sure, their production methods are 25 years behind us.


Check again. Time, money and degradation of stealth was the deciding factor, not Russian involvement. As a matter of fact, if we had the money required, we would have taken up development of the twin seater as easy as day. It has nothing to do with Russian decision, it is our decision. Russia has the PAKFA program as well.
Time and money was certainly a factor. So much so Russia wasn't going to waste it to develop a two seat bomber when they need all available resources to complete a single seat. So it is Indian decision to disregard their own requirements? No, it came from Russian inability to complete them on time.

Oh, you were there were you? Indian scientists and technicians are already there in Russia. They left months ago.
Oh, you were there were you? You had a send off for India scientists headed to Zhukovsky?

You also conveniently missed the fact that India has a more specific requirement for a 360 degree radar capability along with possible IAF specific modifications.
India already gave up the requirement for a two seater... so they gave that up too.

HAL has a full scale design industry as well. Many people don't know it. How else do you think they have been working on trainers and helicopters? There was a major debate within the military for not letting HAL handle LCA instead of giving the project to DRDO, who had no experience in the field.
Design industry for engines?... more like screwdriver assembly line. :laugh:

The first aircraft designed in India, the HF-24 Marut, was a HAL project. The modification of the Gnat to Ajeet was also a HAL project. The current unilateral upgrades of Jaguar and Mig-27 are also HAL projects. DRDO cannot handle such projects.
They also developed the HPT-32.... :rofl:

Give me proof for this number.
Airframe complete, flying AESA, Su-35 avionics... they don't need India except your monay.

Lol. It is much better than the Rafale deal in comparison. Even if a lot of PAKFA work is done, it is still far from complete. More importantly, we have asked for 43 modifications which will need R&D and flight testing. If FGFA was already developed at the range of, as you so graciously quoted, 75%, then we wouldn't need a 8-10 year development cycle for FGFA. It would have been something like LCA Mk2, which is less than half that with just a 2 year flight testing cycle (compared to 9 years and counting on LCA Mk1), instead of the six years that FGFA has (same as PAKFA).
Whatever modifications India pays for doesn't impact the Russian programme. They are separate from what will be their own completed aircraft. It is quite similar to the modifications made to MKI from other Su-30s. India didn't gain ToT from those mods. India isn't asking for many mods on Rafale because it is already the perfect weapon's platform.

I wonder since when flying 4 prototypes means 75% of the development work is complete. :rolleyes:
There are only 5 for A400M, it is entering service this month.

That would mean the subsequent flight testing of 14 LSP models followed by one squadron IOC and one squadron FOC are the remaining 25% of the work. Wow! Oh, let's not forget that weapon testing and opening of the flight envelope is also part of the 25%.
Operational testing begins next year... nothing India has done are on those aircraft.

Nonsense. The only reason France has a slight lead on AESA radar is because Thales outright bought American modules for testing before replacing it with their own. The Russians had developed their Zhuk-AE back in 2005, with Russian modules. They did not receive help that the French did. As a matter of fact, unlike the French the Russians have already developed multiple AESA fighter radars through two design houses, and for much larger arrays to boot. Heck, NIIP is developing multiple radars for PAKFA alone, as compared to Thales's one radar on Rafale.
The reason we have a huge lead in AESA radar is due to a $3 billion investment for indeginisation that started almost a decade ago. The last AESA radar Russia brought to trials failed miserably... so don't hold your breath. India will have to come to Thales.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
My bubble? You're the one in a bubble. GTRE is in charge of indigenous turbine blade design and they don't have SCB. You are saying HAL has it but won't share for Kaveri? :lol:

Airbus doesn't make engines... so what? GTRE does and it is in charge of domestic design. If India absorbed SCB from MKI they would get it. Soo... your blind devotion to that ancient religion known as Soviet friend is dead.
Yes, for two reasons. One, the company itself is different and completely independent from DRDO. Its like saying Intel will share tech secrets with AMD, or Ford with General Motors, irrespective of the fact that both are American companies. Welcome to the real world.

Second, the Russians will be sure of placing clauses that prevent usage of their SCB tech on our domestic programs. Duh!

Whatever tech HAL absorbed through MKI will belong to HAL, not GTRE or NAL. The same as how Ford will keep their secrets from General Motors. I am surprised how this simple fact always eludes logical thinking.

Sure, their production methods are 25 years behind us.
Okay. But it doesn't matter. Let it be 50 years old. The end product is what matters.

Time and money was certainly a factor. So much so Russia wasn't going to waste it to develop a two seat bomber when they need all available resources to complete a single seat. So it is Indian decision to disregard their own requirements? No, it came from Russian inability to complete them on time.
:facepalm:

Oh, you were there were you? You had a send off for India scientists headed to Zhukovsky?
More or less. Read relevant articles instead of mentally masturbating. True Spirit already posted an article saying Indian scientists are already in Russia.

India already gave up the requirement for a two seater... so they gave that up too.
Utter nonsense. This requirement was repeated multiple times. Has nothing to do with abandoning the two seater requirement.

Also the two seater requirement isn't completely abandoned. It may be taken up at a later date.
Sukhoi Holding Company will develop a two-seat export version of PAK FA - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM
Sukhoi Holding Company will export both single-seat and two-seat versions of fifth-generation T-50 (PAK FA) fighter, Lenta.ru reports.
«The details will be unveiled after the signing of corresponding contracts. After that we will provide the number of exported single-seat and two-seat aircraft », — president of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Mikhail Pogosyan, said at Aero India 2013 airshow held in Bangalore.
'The variants for Russia & India have common major systems' » Indian Defence Review
Speech by Mikhail Pogosyan, President of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) at Press Conference – Aero India 2013, Bangalore

2 seater variants may be developed depending on customer requirements.
Design industry for engines?... more like screwdriver assembly line. :laugh:
It will be far better than whatever we get from Rafale, including ability to export.

They also developed the HPT-32.... :rofl:
I already mentioned trainers.

Airframe complete, flying AESA, Su-35 avionics... they don't need India except your monay.
:facepalm:

They have taken loans for the project that requires Indian money to pay back. Or else they will have to look for other sources which they may not be able to. Reports indicate they themselves have spent $10Billion on their own for PAKFA and need much more to fully finish both PAKFA and FGFA.

Whatever modifications India pays for doesn't impact the Russian programme. They are separate from what will be their own completed aircraft.
Perhaps, we will know once more info is available.

It is quite similar to the modifications made to MKI from other Su-30s.
No, not even close. Hello! 360 degree radar. Ring a bell. 360 degree EO-DAS type system. Earth to Armand. Come back.

India didn't gain ToT from those mods.
Except for SCB tech and Bars radar tech.

India isn't asking for many mods on Rafale because it is already the perfect weapon's platform.
:facepalm:

There are only 5 for A400M, it is entering service this month.
That's not how it works here. Russia is developing the PAKFA to do everything the Rafale does and more and all within the development cycle. That means, Sukhoi isn't going to upgrade PAKFA in slow increments like Rafale was when converting it from F1 to F3 standard. PAKFA will see a direct jump to F3 equivalent standard. Same as LCA Mk2.

So a handful of prototype won't do. Also, bring A-400M insto the discussion once it has demonstrated a loop.

Operational testing begins next year... nothing India has done are on those aircraft.
I will repeat again, since it seems you are either unable to read or comprehend. PAKFA is not the aircraft we are developing. We are developing FGFA, it is a different aircraft. FGFA recently finished design phase, next step is prototype construction stage followed by flight testing. Hence a different project.

The reason we have a huge lead in AESA radar is due to a $3 billion investment for indeginisation that started almost a decade ago. The last AESA radar Russia brought to trials failed miserably... so don't hold your breath. India will have to come to Thales.
:facepalm:

India did not go to Thales even for LCA's radar, ELTA will handle it.

Btw, it is not a huge lead. Rafale's AESA may be operational just a year before Russian AESA.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
Yes, like I said, even though it is larger doesn't mean it is as overwhelming as you think.

Why is it that, even with a smaller budget, other countries are able to keep up with the US in terms of weapons systems. You have a nuclear sub, so do the Russians. For pretty much every thing you have, the Russians have an equivalent.

However, in some cases, the Russians have the An-225 and the Mi-26, US has no equivalent. The Russians are currently developing a 4th gen tank, US has no equivalent except for some old prototype. The Russians have built a new generation ballistic missile that the US has not yet contemplated building. The Russians are currently, possibly, testing hypersonic weapons while you only have an old experimental test bed.

It is possible all the US money is going into unnecessary projects. For eg: You spent huge amounts of money on the Zumwalt, Sea wolf class, F-22 etc, but cancelled all these projects midway, before proper completion, whereas whatever the Russians have worked on, they induct, more or less. The amount of money going into US projects are big, but the wastage of money is equally big. Imagine what would happen if you suddenly decide to cancel F-35. $40 Billion in investments will disappear overnight, as has happened with many other projects. Zumwalt and Seawolf class R&D budget is massive, as big as F-22, but all that money disappeared with its cancellation. So how will you account for that loss? USN incurred more expenses for developing the Virginia class instead, as replacement to Seawolf.

A huge amount of your budget goes into paying your manpower, let's not forget it is a very important fact. Then, let's not also forget PPP. A McDonald's burger may cost $5 in the US, but in India it costs around $1.5. That is PPP. So, what does this mean? It means you take India's or Russia's defence budget and multiply by 2 or 3 to get an actual figure and then compare it to the US defence budget.

So China's $120 Billion would become ~$250 Billion. Russia's $65 Billion would become ~$150 Billion. India's $46 Billion would become around $100 Billion and so on. So a combined Russia+India R&D budget would become all the more greater. A combined $11 Billion earmarked for FGFA would be around $20-25 Billion in American terms apart from the $10 Billion that has already been spent on PAKFA to date according to some sources. Plus the fact that a lot of labour and services cost comparatively lesser in these countries compared to the US. So on and so forth. All three countries have black budgets where China is considered to be even higher than the official $120 Billion, perhaps closer to $180 Billion according to Pentagon, which means a real budget figure of ~$375 Billion.
Your forgetting a few things such as
Despite rapid growth over the last decade, labour productivity in India is still much lower than in many other countries. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, 2001, it is only 15% of US productivity. There are also large variations in productivity levels within the country. Labour productivity in India, 15% of US productivity - Economic Times

Same for Russia and China productivity is just a fraction of that of the USA. Then you have to remember there are planes and then there are planes like the USA has that have 105 to 0 loss ratio, and there are tanks and tanks that have 100 to 1 loss ratio.

Why Is Russia's Productivity So Low? - Businessweek

According to one of the studies, by Strategy Partners, a Moscow management consultancy, Russia's average labor productivity is just 17% of the U.S. level. The amount varies by sector, from a low of 6% in machine building to a high of 22% in the natural resource industries. But the room for improvement is colossal everywhere. "If, in Russia, a mere 10% of workers had the same level of productivity as in the U.S., Russia's GDP would increase by one and a half times," notes Alexander Idrisov, managing partner of Strategy Partners.

You need a new theory.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Your forgetting a few things such as
Despite rapid growth over the last decade, labour productivity in India is still much lower than in many other countries. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, 2001, it is only 15% of US productivity. There are also large variations in productivity levels within the country. Labour productivity in India, 15% of US productivity - Economic Times

Same for Russia and China productivity is just a fraction of that of the USA. Then you have to remember there are planes and then there are planes like the USA has that have 105 to 0 loss ratio, and there are tanks and tanks that have 100 to 1 loss ratio.

Why Is Russia's Productivity So Low? - Businessweek

According to one of the studies, by Strategy Partners, a Moscow management consultancy, Russia's average labor productivity is just 17% of the U.S. level. The amount varies by sector, from a low of 6% in machine building to a high of 22% in the natural resource industries. But the room for improvement is colossal everywhere. "If, in Russia, a mere 10% of workers had the same level of productivity as in the U.S., Russia's GDP would increase by one and a half times," notes Alexander Idrisov, managing partner of Strategy Partners.

You need a new theory.
You are confusing yourself with a lot of garbage information. An employee working in a shoe factory will always be less productive than a highly qualified, educated employee in a defence industry.

The reason why US productivity level is higher than India is because low level factories have been moved out of the US.

On a one on one level, a car industry in the US without any automation will be less productive than a car industry in India without any automation because of the less stringent labour laws, lesser pay and more work time.

Your own post has the answer, the labour productivity varies by sector, with only a 6% difference in machine building in Russia. So a Russian industry worker is merely 6% less productive while taking a pay that is twice as lesser, which means Sukhoi can employ two people for the price of one and maintain a productivity level that is around 90% higher in comparison to LM due to the addition of that one extra employee. However, the statistics are untrue when it comes to the military since the Russian defence industry attracts the country's best minds, unlike the case in India or the US which have a much more lucrative and high paying civilian sector.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
In machine building it would take 17 Russians to build as many machines as one American. Basically aircraft are machines. Bottom line Russians are only 17 percent as productive as americans. The higher the technology the less productive Russians are. Of an 180 countries Russia is ranked around 66 in technology,
India and Russia rank close to that of most south American countries. Technology index statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Technology is a major component of productivity.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Russia/United-States/Economy
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
In machine building it would take 17 Russians to build as many machines as one American.
So now 6% became 17 Russians.

Basically aircraft are machines. Bottom line Russians are only 17 percent as productive as americans.
So 17 Russians means 17% productivity. Looks like its true. Americans suck at math.

The higher the technology the less productive Russians are.
Also your previous post claimed exactly the opposite which gave 6% to highly specialized fields and 22% for low specialization fields like digging for coal. It only means Americans are or more or less equal in high technology while being more productive when digging for coal.

Of an 180 countries Russia is ranked around 66 in technology,
You mean 65 other countries have sent and continue sending American astronauts to space. First try to catch up with the Russians in "space" technology and "missile" technology and then we will talk about technology. You don't need to know "rocket" science to understand this. Get it.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
To add to the previous point, such technology studies don't take military and space technology into the rankings, only civilian and industrial technology is quantified.

Simple facts always escape the ignorant.
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
440
Russian productivity is only 17 percent of the USA, the more complex and advanced the technology involved the less productive the Russians.

Ignorance is the inability to face reality.

Why Is Russia's Productivity So Low?

On the face of it, Russia's economic performance over recent years has been impressive. But today, amid plummeting gross domestic product and sharp falls in industrial production, there's a new awareness that Russia's economy is also beset by deep-seated problems. Despite almost two decades of market reforms, the country's labor productivity, a key indicator of overall economic efficiency, remains one of the lowest among industrialized nations. Several studies have been published recently underscoring the scale of the problem.

According to one of the studies, by Strategy Partners, a Moscow management consultancy, Russia's average labor productivity is just 17% of the U.S. level. The amount varies by sector, from a low of 6% in machine building to a high of 22% in the natural resource industries. But the room for improvement is colossal everywhere. "If, in Russia, a mere 10% of workers had the same level of productivity as in the U.S., Russia's GDP would increase by one and a half times," notes Alexander Idrisov, managing partner of Strategy Partners.

Similar conclusions have been reached by the U.S. consultancy McKinsey, which has also just published a report examining Russian productivity. McKinsey, which focused on six sectors, concluded that Russian productivity was around 26% of the U.S. level. That's an improvement on 10 years ago, when McKinsey estimated Russian productivity at 18% that of the U.S. But widespread inefficiencies remain. For example, it takes three times as many workers to produce a ton of steel in Russia as it does in the U.S.

Russia's productivity looks bad even in comparison with other emerging markets. In 2007, the World Bank estimated that revenues per worker in Russia were only around $7,000 per head per year. That's around 20% lower than in India, and 40% lower than in China. The figure is especially troubling when you consider that Russia's labor costs are about double the level in either India or China.

Outdated Technology

Why is Russian productivity so low? "Why should it be high?" asks Boris Kuznetsov, chief researcher at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. "Let's look at the history. Very few big enterprises were constructed in the last 20 years, so the technology is old. In China, you have very cheap labor and up-to-date technologies because they were imported recently."

But though outdated technology is often a problem, many experts emphasize that it isn't the actual root of Russia's productivity woes. "It's a big myth that we have low productivity because we have old technology," says Idrisov from Strategy Partners. "In general, the major factor is very ineffective business processes and organization."

For example, he notes that big Russian carmakers today produce around 85% of their own components. Such in-house producers are geared to one customer, so they are too small to reap the benefits of economies of scale. The lack of competition also means they have little incentive to innovate or improve quality.

Other Soviet relics are found in areas as diverse as worker compensation, sales and distribution, and accounting. In its recent report, McKinsey attributes just one-third of the productivity gap in the Russian steel industry to outdated manufacturing technologies. The remaining gap is caused by inefficiencies such as poor work organization, low levels of IT and automation, and bloated middle management.

Wide Range of Efficiency

But this prevalence of inefficient methods also provides some solace, implying huge potential for improvement. Another finding of recent research is just how much variation there is between firms in the same industry. McKinsey notes that despite the low sector average, the best Russian steelmakers have productivity that is almost as good as their U.S. peers.

Such variations are the norm in every industry. In a recent industrial survey, the Higher School of Economics found that, depending on the sector of the economy, the productivity of the top 20% of Russian firms is between 6 and 12 times higher than the productivity of the bottom 20%. "In any industry in Russia, you can find quite good and competitive firms, and very bad and uncompetitive firms," says Kuznetsov. That suggests that, properly managed, even companies in depressed industrial sectors have the potential to become competitive.

True, better management alone won't solve all of Russian industry's problems. Another finding of the Higher School of Economics' research is the key importance of geography in explaining the productivity gap. The worst-performing factories are typically located in small towns, often remote and with just one or two big employers. And in Russia there are many such towns. "Most inefficient enterprises can't be modernized. It would probably be better just to close them," says Kuznetsov. "But that is not very easy because it creates social problems."

The prevalence of single-company towns helps explain why Russia's politicians are often reluctant to allow factories to go bankrupt. As with governments in other countries, Russia has provided bailouts during the economic crisis (most notably a $1 billion package in April for Avtovaz (AVAZ.RTS), Russia's largest carmaker).

Beyond Bailouts

But in general, economists have been pleasantly surprised by the government's relatively hands-off approach to industry during the crisis. "The good news is that the government is saying, 'Stop asking for money,' " says Sergei Guriev, rector of the New Economic School in Moscow. He says that instead of bailing out inefficient enterprises, the government should fund retraining, small business creation, and labor mobility to mitigate the consequences of factory closures.

Another way the government can help is by improving Russia's overall investment climate. The analysts agree that foreign direct investment will be an especially important catalyst for industrial modernization. According to Strategy Partners' analysis, no less than 75% of productivity improvement in emerging markets is the result of FDI. In Russia, too, the most efficient industries tend to be those, such as the brewing industry, that have the highest share of foreign direct investment. Russian companies that have enhanced their efficiency invariably say foreign partnerships have been a crucial stimulus to change.

That's why the issue of Russia's industrial competitiveness can't be separated from the wider question of Russia's investment climate and image. Foreign investors are routinely put off by legal uncertainty, corruption, and bureaucracy. "If Russia had better institutions—competitiveness in a broad sense—it would be faster to react to the crisis and faster to restructure," says Guriev. "What needs to happen is for the crisis to change the mentality of policymakers and bureaucrats."

Under pressure from the crisis, Russian companies are beginning to change their inefficient habits. Perhaps the big question now is whether the crisis will also compel Russia's government to embrace reforms, now more essential than ever to support the transformation of the Russian economy.

Bush is BusinessWeek's Moscow bureau chief.
Why Is Russia's Productivity So Low? - Businessweek
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Let me repeat, military technology isn't part of the study. Only civilian tech is part of the study. Which part don't you get?

Should I tell you the difference between military and civilian?

Also it doesn't matter, these studies.

Send a man to space and then we will talk. That's 2020. So, hush until then.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Yes, for two reasons. One, the company itself is different and completely independent from DRDO. Its like saying Intel will share tech secrets with AMD, or Ford with General Motors, irrespective of the fact that both are American companies. Welcome to the real world.
They are both state owned entities... it does work that way in the world of central planning. :facepalm:

Second, the Russians will be sure of placing clauses that prevent usage of their SCB tech on our domestic programs. Duh!
Then what would be the point of ToT if you can't use it? It doesn't work that way.

Whatever tech HAL absorbed through MKI will belong to HAL, not GTRE or NAL. The same as how Ford will keep their secrets from General Motors. I am surprised how this simple fact always eludes logical thinking.
HAL is a state owned company... whatever tech they absorbed belongs to GoI... that includes GTRE.

Okay. But it doesn't matter. Let it be 50 years old. The end product is what matters.
If the production method is inferior, the product will be inferior... a la China.

More or less. Read relevant articles instead of mentally masturbating. True Spirit already posted an article saying Indian scientists are already in Russia.
Utter nonsense... True Spirit didn't post anything about Indian scientists headed to NIIP. India's workshare doesn't include radar. That is why it is a prerequisite in MMRCA. :facepalm:

Utter nonsense. This requirement was repeated multiple times. Has nothing to do with abandoning the two seater requirement.
The requirement was repeated, then dropped. It is now 144 single seat PMF. The exact model Russia is developing for itself.

http://--------------/fgfapmf-two-seater-canceled-30-bln-for-144-russian-kits/

It will be far better than whatever we get from Rafale, including ability to export.
Just like you have exported Brahmos?

I already mentioned trainers.
Not the HPT-32... :rofl:

They have taken loans for the project that requires Indian money to pay back. Or else they will have to look for other sources which they may not be able to. Reports indicate they themselves have spent $10Billion on their own for PAKFA and need much more to fully finish both PAKFA and FGFA.
$10 billion is the cost of the entire programme. It is more like $1.7 billion... :laugh:

No, not even close. Hello! 360 degree radar. Ring a bell. 360 degree EO-DAS type system. Earth to Armand. Come back.
Yes, quite close. There will be no 360 degree radar. Those supposed L bands displayed at MAKS had nothing to do with it.

Except for SCB tech and Bars radar tech.
Nope... :facepalm:

That's not how it works here. Russia is developing the PAKFA to do everything the Rafale does and more and all within the development cycle. That means, Sukhoi isn't going to upgrade PAKFA in slow increments like Rafale was when converting it from F1 to F3 standard. PAKFA will see a direct jump to F3 equivalent standard. Same as LCA Mk2.
Au contraire, Sukhoi is indeed making another standard that will be heavily upgraded, including engines, before the first model is even operational. Every fighter undergoes these upgrades.

So a handful of prototype won't do. Also, bring A-400M insto the discussion once it has demonstrated a loop.
You mean like this?



I will repeat again, since it seems you are either unable to read or comprehend. PAKFA is not the aircraft we are developing. We are developing FGFA, it is a different aircraft. FGFA recently finished design phase, next step is prototype construction stage followed by flight testing. Hence a different project.
Funny that FGFA now looks like PMF. :rolleyes:

India did not go to Thales even for LCA's radar, ELTA will handle it.
ELTA isn't handing over an AESA either. :rolleyes:

Btw, it is not a huge lead. Rafale's AESA may be operational just a year before Russian AESA.
Btw, it is a huge lead when the first production model was validated over two years ago while Russia's prototype just got off the bench.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top