IDN Archives: Why India Should Dump The FGFA Project?

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Yes, we do.
One heavy fighter is needed for air superiority roles, a medium one for multirole.
As second one (AMCA) is already in mid off second phase of development, we can wait for a while for making a heavy one too.
Sir PAKFA is will give us a lot of technology like GaN, IR countermeasures plus we can reuse the codes from PAKFA for our AMCA similar to how F 22 codes were used in F 35. Also we get a newer weapons suit . Also presently we the engine of AMCA is just a computer design, God forbid if it turns out like the older kaveri, the new PAKFA engine is in it last ground test with first air test in this year. By 2020 all the test will be completed and it will enter full production. Presently the sensors suit is completed and newer weapons are being tested. If wait a little longer we get plane whose only rival will be F22.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
I wonder why do we need a totally different aircraft then the Russian PakFa?
IAF wants have second pilot for more situational awareness while the VKS is going for a electronic pilot (AI and machine learning).
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,494
Likes
17,198
This generation of Russian tech is still relevant but in 30 years I don't see Russian tech as much better than east Asian tech and will be far behind western gora tech

that saiD

why do we need to use such strong language against the Russians? they've helped indian security and sovereignty tremendously. they warded off nuclear blackmail by America N UK in 71 war. it's bad Karma to forget who your true friends are when theyve become down and out. when India was a joke the rest of the world they supported India. .putting their existence on the line.

The rhetoric needs to be toned down

Come out of 1971 this is 2016. Achievement of 1971 victory goes to Indian Army and leadership of that time i.e Indira Gandhi and Russia is not giving us anything for free. As for the their Junk, it will only be call as Junk.


So keep your lecture to yourself.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
I had the opportunity to talk about this with a IAF test pilot about it, presently IAF just seen presentation of the jet capability and some result of test but The IAF wants to have test the aircraft itself while the Russian wants to complete their test first. IAF plans to fly at least one pak fa prototypes without any modifications and find out its performance so they get to know which all things the want to change.
Russia does not give technology, it gives assembly line only. If India is funding Russian fighter program for assembly and not intellectual property, it doesn't bear anything.
If FGFA project moves ahead, then,
IT IS A SCAM, RUSSIANS BRIBED SOMEONE
FYI, Chinese didn't reverse engineer American & Soviet technologies literally.
Instead, Chinese got direct technology transfers for space rockets, missiles, chips, aircrafts & even hydrogen bombs from Americans, Soviets, Britons & French between 1966-99.
China did copy equipment with deliberate violation of IPR . J 11 and J 15 are copy of Su 27 and Su 33. Plus mig gave them info on mig 1.44 platform for J 20. J31 look at it similarities with F 35. They again got Russian help for their attack helicopter. Plus J 10 had significant input form the Israeli.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,277
Likes
56,182
Country flag
Sir PAKFA is will give us a lot of technology like GaN, IR countermeasures plus we can reuse the codes from PAKFA for our AMCA similar to how F 22 codes were used in F 35. Also we get a newer weapons suit . Also presently we the engine of AMCA is just a computer design, God forbid if it turns out like the older kaveri, the new PAKFA engine is in it last ground test with first air test in this year. By 2020 all the test will be completed and it will enter full production. Presently the sensors suit is completed and newer weapons are being tested. If wait a little longer we get plane whose only rival will be F22.
It may give equipment for integration on AMCA so that we don't have to look at Israel (pushing behind our own products too),
But rest, if you are thinking of using technological expertise, we are not getting any sort of technology & intellectual property. It's been pure assembly. Have Russians ever given us complete intellectual property that they will give today?
India is literally funding a Russian project to buy it later which will also be used by Russian Air Force. But India won't be getting technological knowhow.
Sir PAKFA is will give us a lot of technology like GaN, IR countermeasures
GaN, we're close to have our own.
China did copy equipment with deliberate violation of IPR . J 11 and J 15 are copy of Su 27 and Su 33. Plus mig gave them info on mig 1.44 platform for J 20. J31 look at it similarities with F 35. They again got Russian help for their attack helicopter. Plus J 10 had significant input form the Israeli.
Even IPR violation & copying requires earlier technical knowledge base, leaked in last 1/3rd of 20th century.
Have a good read.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/how-china-conquered-america746/
February 15, 1996. A Chinese Long March 3B carrying a $200 million Loral satellite explodes 22 seconds after lilftoff.

March 14, 1996. President Clinton shifts control over regulating the export of communications satellites from the State Dept. which was primarily concerned with national security aspects of such exports, to the Commerce Dept., which is concerned with the economic benefits.

May 10, 1996. The Loral-led review commission investigating the February rocket explosion completes and passes on to Chinese officials its report, which according to the April 13, 1998 New York Times, discusses “sensitive aspects of the rocket’s guidance and control systems, which is an area of weakness in China’s missile programs.” The New York Times says that a Pentagon report concludes that, as a result of this technology transfer, “United States national security has been harmed”.

May 23, 1996. President Clinton calls for renewal of MFN for China, saying that renewal would not be “a referendum on all China’s policies,” but “a vote for America’s interests.”

June 8, 1996. China conducts an underground nuclear test.

July 21, 1996. Johnny Chung, according to the New York Times, brings Liu Chao-ying to two DNC fundraisers, including a $25,000 per couple dinner. Liu Chao-ying is a Lieutenant Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army and an executive at China Aerospace, which owns the Great Wall Industry Corp. that makes Long March rockets. Her father is the top commander of Chinese military forces. The New York Times says that Chung has told the Justice Dept. that Liu gave him the better part of $100,000 he contributed to the DNC in the latter part of 1996, and that the source of the money was the PLA.

July 29, 1996. China declares a moratorium on nuclear testing after conducting another nuclear test.

August 8, 1996. According to AP, Clinton meets again with Long Beach officials to advocate turning over the naval base to COSCO.

September 24, 1996. At the UN, President Clinton joins with the foreign ministers of China, France, Russia and Great Britain in signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty forbidding all testing of nuclear weapons.

November 5, 1996. President Clinton wins reelection. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the single largest Democratic donor during the election cycle was Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, who gave $632,000 in ‘soft money’ to the Democratic Party between 1995 and 1996. The State Dept. issues regulations shifting responsibility for satellite launching licenses to the Commerce Dept.

January 1997. The Panamanian government awards the contract to operate the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the Panama Canal to a Hong Kong company, Hutchison Whampoa. China takes control of Hong Kong six months later. The United States, which is set to relinquish control of the canal next year, does not protest.

March 25, 1997. While in Beijing for a meeting with Premier Li Peng and President Jiang Zemin, Vice President Gore attends signing ceremonies for Boeing’s $685 million sale of five jetliners to China’s state-owned Civil Aviation Administration as well as a $1.3 billion joint venture between General Motors and China’s state-owned Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp.

May 1997. According to the April 13, 1998 New York Times, a classified Pentagon report reveals that Hughes and Loral scientists “had turned over expertise that significantly improved the reliability of China’s nuclear missiles” following the February 1996 rocket explosion. Hughes and Loral deny the New York Times report when it is published in 1998.

May 19, 1997. President Clinton announces that he will authorize MFN renewal for China.

October 1997. Chinese President Jiang Zemin makes a state visit to the United States. During the trip, he stops at a Hughes site to discuss satellites.

January 15, 1998. After China promises that it will no longer aid Iran’s nuclear program, President Clinton certifies that China is a reliable partner for nuclear technology exchange.

February 19, 1998. Despite opposition from the Justice Dept, President Clinton signs a waiver approving the launch of a Loral satellite from a Chinese rocket and reportedly authorizing the transfer of the same type of technology that the Pentagon said had “harmed” US security and that the Justice Dept. was investigation Loral and Hughes for their illegally transferring in 1996.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,277
Likes
56,182
Country flag
I had the opportunity to talk about this with a IAF test pilot about it, presently IAF just seen presentation of the jet capability and some result of test but The IAF wants to have test the aircraft itself while the Russian wants to complete their test first. IAF plans to fly at least one pak fa prototypes without any modifications and find out its performance so they get to know which all things the want to change.
Ya, as I told before, program is being jointly funded but one party is scooping away entire cream.
 

Prayash

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
362
Likes
767
IAF wants have second pilot for more situational awareness while the VKS is going for a electronic pilot (AI and machine learning).
The AI pilot you mentioned sounds somewhat like the hollywood fictional ac, i think they should also develop a single seat AI fighter aircraft.

Fictional Pilotless AI aircraft from the movie stealth
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Ya, as I told before, program is being jointly funded but one party is scooping away entire cream.
Let the IAF fly the jet, it should be our priority to get at least one prototype flown for about 100 hr by our pilots so IAF has a idea of jet so we know what technology we want for full ToT and with IPR. Plus we need to increase the efficency of our manufacturing which can be done by acquiring advance machine and manufacturing technology to enable better production. Also let's bring the private sector in.
GaN, we're close to have our own.
Yes, we have just made a prototype of GaAs radar, it will take time to master the cooling, around 5 years if all goes well we will have a GaN prototypes but with cooling issue, we should ask them for GaN with cooling technology.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
The AI pilot you mentioned sounds somewhat like the hollywood fictional ac, i think they should also develop a single seat AI fighter aircraft.

Fictional Pilotless AI aircraft from the movie stealth
It going mainly be involve in data analysis but looking at new Russian weapons with a switch of button they will be almost autonomous killer. Look at T 14, it has the ability to find, acquire , lock and load the shell only require human input to fire. It will be similar.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
intellectual property. It's been pure assembly. Have Russians ever given us complete intellectual property that they will give today?
Look at nuclear submarine or GSLV, it depends on the negotiations and follow up work. Even with IPR we have to build the required infrastructure and maintain tight quality control. Instead of HAL, let's give Tata advance system a chance, the have better quality control.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,277
Likes
56,182
Country flag
what technology we want for full ToT and with IPR.
They will not give us ToT or Intellectual Property. If UPA was funding their program in hope of ToT, then they are no. 1 fools in word.
You are throwing money to them, why won't they pick it up? But stop hope of ToTs. Nobody has ever shared precious IPR with India nor they will ever. You will have to do their own. Sooner Indians realize it, better for them.
Yes, we have just made a prototype of GaAs radar, it will take time to master the cooling, around 5 years if all goes well we will have a GaN prototypes but with cooling issue, we should ask them for GaN with cooling technology.
Again, they will be sending assembly kits for the technology, not IPR. This will again be classified as imported.

FYI, they even sent assembly kits at best without any knowhow of metallurgy of a tank's gun barrel after crying for 10 years.
:(
Funding PAK FA and obstructing AMCA for nothing in return was utter idiocy.
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
Even GSLV engine was imported, nuclear material for powering sub was imported,

It's Ukraine actually who gave us ToT, not Russia.
ToT for what? I am not aware that we received any ToT from Russia or Ukraine about GSLV did we? Did Ukraine share something about the nuke sub?
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,277
Likes
56,182
Country flag
ToT for what? I am not aware that we received any ToT from Russia or Ukraine about GSLV did we? Did Ukraine share something about the nuke sub?
Engine tech IPR for rocket was directly bought from Ukraine.
Regarding nuclear material, it was usually directly supplied from Russia, not how.to synthesize it. I don't know if we have made our own or still using Russian one, but an attempt to make or making it at least.
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
Engine tech IPR for rocket was directly bought from Ukraine.
I think you are referring to the Indo-Ukraine agreement of 2005 which involved sharing of design blueprints for the semi-cryo (LOX-Liquid kerosne) engine being developed at LPSC. As far as I know, there were no transfers of Cryogenic engines or technology from Ukraine. The only transfers we received were 7 cryogenic engines that we purchased from from Russia.

Also given the MTCR restrictions (which we were not a member of then), the transfer stipulations appear to be very strict, if Wikileaks are anything to go by

the contract was for delivery of blueprints for the rocket engine that ISRO would use to build its own engine; Ukrainian companies simply did not have the capability actually to construct the engine themselves. He stressed that the information would allow ISRO to build only one model of engine and reiterated the point that Yuzhnoye would not provide any engineering or technical details on how the plans had been developed.
and also this

the contract does not foresee the delivering to the Indian Side the calculation methods used during the engine development and the appropriate software.
Once again, Unkil was involved in this. So it's evident that ISRO has had to do a lot to come up with a working version of our very own semi-cryo engine. The core elements have to be designed from scratch to allow for repeated testing and iterative refinement.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
Even GSLV engine was imported, nuclear material for powering sub was imported,

It's Ukraine actually who gave us ToT, not Russia.
Ukraine has no technology for power nuclear submarine or cryogenic engine. We only had to import material as we have no plant for making those material. The machining was done here.
Watch this round table to get a idea
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,672
Country flag
I am going to repeat my opinion.

FGFA doesn't solve any of our problem it will come late that too without a proper engine.
As for technology transfer for how many more decades are we going to fool ourselves. We started mki project in 90s and now in 2017 we are going to sign a contract to directly buy spares from Russian companies :bounce:if that doesn't open eyes nothing will .


Let's just buy 50 something f35 from USA and deploy them . Buy 36 more rafale and deploy them . That with existing su30 + LCA + jags + mirage will take care of whatever Chinese could throw till 2040.
J20 will take atleast a decade to become stealth with proper engine and I am optimistic for chinese here:biggrin2:

Let's dedicated these 20 years and 10-15 Billion $$ funds to develop our own technology from stealth to AESA to engines let the private sector smell the money trail and see the magic happen.

Our private companies can steal sensitive technologies for us in various ways if we could reward them appropriately.

Even still we go forward with FGFA first atleast force Russia to transfer all technology for scratch to end manufacturing for mki if they comply then consider it as a token of good faith otherwise know that you're being taken for the ride again.
 

Bahamut

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
2,740
Likes
2,259
So what was SCE-200? Really, India got SCE-200 overally itself.:shock:
On Topic: I'm still not in favour of funding FGFA at cost of AMCA.
There was transfer of blueprint, not of any hard technology to make the rocket engine like material, fuel etc. Plus AMCA and FGFA have different funding, they will not eat each other.
As for technology transfer for how many more decades are we going to fool ourselves. We started mki project in 90s and now in 2017 we are going to sign a contract to directly buy spares from Russian companies :bounce:if that doesn't open eyes nothing will
The HAL failed to absorb the technology . Making materials for such manufacturing is difficult but even when supplied the technology, home made MKI are twice the foster and take twice the amount to build. The same problem haunts lca, the carbon fiber is imported, the canopy is imported, engine is imported and most probably radar will be imported. It time to reform the hal
 

Filtercoffee

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
615
Likes
214
Country flag
With the type already in series production the thread became irrelevant very quickly.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top