PAK FA preliminary Stealth Assesment - Ausairpower

[average american]

Raytheon develops 13-pound 'smart bomb' for drone aircraft [Video]

LAS VEGAS -- When it comes to munitions, Raytheon Co. usually thinks big.

Multi-ton bunker-busting bombs. Jet engine-powered cruise missiles. GPS-guided 500-pound bombs.

Now the Waltham, Mass., defense giant believes it has something small to offer.

After developing a 13.5-pound "smart bomb" for four years, Raytheon has carried out a successful test flight at the Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The bomb, called Pyros, was dropped from a drone flying at 7,000 feet and hit the designated bull's-eye on a target that lay below.

The target had two dummies, which simulated insurgents planting an improvised explosive device. (See in the video below.)

"It went right through the center of the target board," said J.R. Smith, a company business development manager. "We demonstrated everything works end to end."

Raytheon revealed Pyros' capabilities Tuesday at the Assn. for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International trade show in Las Vegas, where hundreds of robot makers have gathered to show off their wares.

Raytheon's idea is that the small bomb could be slung under a small drone's wing, be dropped to a specific point using GPS coordinates or a laser-guidance system, and blast apart "soft" targets -- such as pickup trucks and people -- below.

Raytheon does not have a contract for the bomb and is building it entirely with its own money. But the company said there is plenty of demand.

Marines in Afghanistan have said there is urgent need for a weapon that is small and powerful enough to protect them from insurgents planting roadside bombs. Marines already have small spy drones with high-powered cameras. What they want is a way to destroy the enemies that their drones discover.

"Those guys don't necessarily need a 500-pound bomb to take out the whole block," Smith said. "They need something small and precise."

The nearly 2-foot-long Pyros bomb is steered by a GPS-guided system made by L-3 Interstate Electronics Corp. in Anaheim.

Pyros could also be used on larger robotic aircraft, such as the lethal Predator and Reaper drones that are currently deployed and typically carry 100-pound laser-guided Hellfire missiles or 500-pound GPS-guided smart bombs.

"You could put 12 of these small bombs on a Predator," Smith said. "It would be especially useful in a target-rich environment."

In the 21st century, the Pentagon is increasingly looking to cheaper, smaller weapons to wage war.
Raytheon develops 13-pound 'smart bomb' for drone aircraft [Video] - Los Angeles Times[/Video][Video][/video][/Video]

 

[TrueSpirit]

That's a wise move. Such armaments are need of the hour in the era of asymmetrical warfare. Btw, what is the existing solution with USAF for such challenges ?

 

[p2prada]

I have few of my own queries: Is PAKFA's stealth really 20 years behind Raptor? If not, how much is the gap (if quantifiable ) & are there any workarounds in sight to bridge the capability gap?

PAKFA's stealth is comparable to Raptors. While we do not yet know the degree to which stealth has been achieved, PAKFA will have a slightly different principle in the means of achieving stealth with respect to Raptor. Raptor is heavily dependent on shaping and very less on RAM coating. PAKFA seems to be dependent on both airframe shaping, materials used and even RAM coating. It is still too early to say which is more stealthy once PAKFA is fully ready. One thing is for sure, where shaping alone is concerned, the Russians have clarified that the conventional stealth capabilities of PAKFA will be lesser than Raptor, but comparable. The added benefits of RAM coating and the infamous plasma stealth is still up for speculation.

Is WVR warfare & era of dogfight passe, even in Asian geography ? How prepared is IAF for that ( in terms of training, equipment, skill & vision), especially w.r.t. PLAAF & PAF ?

I would say adequate. But you won't find this answer on a forum.

Does Rafale or FGFA stand a chance against J-20 (hypothetical scenario) ? If so, how exactly would a typical combat between the 2 aircraft would look like?

All up to how good J-20 really is.

Is the following statement 100% true under all circumstances : No matter how good a conventional fighter is, and how good its missiles and sensors are, an engagement flown against a stealthy fighter aircraft is a no win proposition ?

Nearly 100%, because we never know if the stealthy aircraft is capable of combat at any given time. For eg: It has expended all its missiles and is heading home, or it is only carrying a strike package and so on.

Would Su-30MKI becomes completely vulnerable in skies dominated by SU-35 + J-20 ? Would they be rendered useless for Air-superiority missions?

There are minor differences between Su-35 and MKI. MKI will have to work in tandem with FGFA in order to beat the Su-35 and J-20 combination. Meaning the MKI can provide target intercepts to silent FGFAs.

What would be Indian strategy to dominate & defend its airspace in such cases ?

Strategy and tactics is beyond the scope of this forum.

How relevant is Rafale as a Air-superiority fighter, especially in formations with SU-30MKI ?

Very relevant, due to its low altitude flying capabilities. It affords stealth in a simple way that it flies below the radar horizon.

If stealth is really such an incredible game change & Russia is nowhere to be seen in the stealth game (&, if their stealth tech. are really limited to RAM coating & some nozzle shaping/internal weapons-bays), wonder what tech. absorption we might gain from investing billions in FGFA....&

It is fallacy to assume the Russians are nowhere in the stealth game. It is true that they could not build a stealth equivalent, but those had more to do with political and economic issues rather than technological.

The Russians designed and made the Mig-1.44 and Su-47 Berkut as a counter to the F-22. While the RCS figures achieved are not really comparable to F-22, they were quite comparable to aircraft like Rafale, EF and SH. Again, we may only be talking about figures achieved through shaping alone and not RAM. Both programs were funded by their respective companies and not by the state after the Soviet split.

& finally, how do think AMCA would shape up in absence of any relevant technical inputs from anywhere (stealth related) ?
Defence R&D in India has not produced results (especially aviation-related IP). Funding is not going to see much improvement in future, as well.

For whatever reasons, AMCA has been put on hold. It may continue once Tejas Mk2 flies or may be replaced with new requirements in the next few years.

Tejas has given enough experience to ADA in order to design a stealth aircraft. Current Tejas Mk2 RCS figures may match EF/Rafale figures, maybe better them. Overall, Tejas wasn't designed to be a stealth fighter, so if ADA is allowed to design a proper stealth fighter, they may do a better job of at least building a fighter that is at F-35 level or better in the next 15 years.

HAL will gain experience through Rafale first (2017-202x), followed by FGFA (202x-203x) before starting serial production of AMCA (203x-) or whatever name they come up with next.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Thanks @p2prada. Good to know that FGFA in tandem with MKI can get the job done. Well, I am still expecting a bit more info on J-20's perceived capabilities.
AMCA program cancellation is news to me.
On a lighter note, your silence on few matters implies that you know far too much than you care to admit or share.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective.

 

[TrueSpirit]

PAKFA's stealth is comparable to Raptors. While we do not yet know the degree to which stealth has been achieved, PAKFA will have a slightly different principle in the means of achieving stealth with respect to Raptor. Raptor is heavily dependent on shaping and very less on RAM coating. PAKFA seems to be dependent on both airframe shaping, materials used and even RAM coating. It is still too early to say which is more stealthy once PAKFA is fully ready. One thing is for sure, where shaping alone is concerned, the Russians have clarified that the conventional stealth capabilities of PAKFA will be lesser than Raptor, but comparable. The added benefits of RAM coating and the infamous plasma stealth is still up for speculation.



I would say adequate. But you won't find this answer on a forum.



All up to how good J-20 really is.



Nearly 100%, because we never know if the stealthy aircraft is capable of combat at any given time. For eg: It has expended all its missiles and is heading home, or it is only carrying a strike package and so on.



There are minor differences between Su-35 and MKI. MKI will have to work in tandem with FGFA in order to beat the Su-35 and J-20 combination. Meaning the MKI can provide target intercepts to silent FGFAs.



Strategy and tactics is beyond the scope of this forum.



Very relevant, due to its low altitude flying capabilities. It affords stealth in a simple way that it flies below the radar horizon.



It is fallacy to assume the Russians are nowhere in the stealth game. It is true that they could not build a stealth equivalent, but those had more to do with political and economic issues rather than technological.

The Russians designed and made the Mig-1.44 and Su-47 Berkut as a counter to the F-22. While the RCS figures achieved are not really comparable to F-22, they were quite comparable to aircraft like Rafale, EF and SH. Again, we may only be talking about figures achieved through shaping alone and not RAM. Both programs were funded by their respective companies and not by the state after the Soviet split.



For whatever reasons, AMCA has been put on hold. It may continue once Tejas Mk2 flies or may be replaced with new requirements in the next few years.

Tejas has given enough experience to ADA in order to design a stealth aircraft. Current Tejas Mk2 RCS figures may match EF/Rafale figures, maybe better them. Overall, Tejas wasn't designed to be a stealth fighter, so if ADA is allowed to design a proper stealth fighter, they may do a better job of at least building a fighter that is at F-35 level or better in the next 15 years.

HAL will gain experience through Rafale first (2017-202x), followed by FGFA (202x-203x) before starting serial production of AMCA (203x-) or whatever name they come up with next.

Regarding Tech. Absorption for license production or even joint collaboration, this is what @Armand2REP had to say: "Honestly, don't expect too much tech absorption from either deal. Aircraft makers are not in the business to give away their secrets".

I tend to agree with this but would like to understand from you, how true is that ? What good investing in Russian R&D does to us ? Were we not better in buying "arms" off-the-shelf ?
We already know for sure that no one is willing to part with critical engine, propulsion, stealth or AESA radar technologies. I believe, we can design/manufacture the lion's share of remaining components & integration within India.

So why not pour a few billion dollars in indigenous R&D for development for these crucial technologies that would not be shared, anyway ? Anyway, FGFA would have remained open for sale to us, irrespective of our participation.

 

[p2prada]

Regarding Tech. Absorption for license production or even joint collaboration, this is what @Armand2REP had to say: "Honestly, don't expect too much tech absorption from either deal. Aircraft makers are not in the business to give away their secrets".

I tend to agree with this but would like to understand from you, how true is that ? What good investing in Russian R&D does to us ? Were we not better in buying "arms" off-the-shelf ?
We already know for sure that no one is willing to part with critical engine, propulsion, stealth or AESA radar technologies. I believe, we can design/manufacture the lion's share of remaining components & integration within India.

So why not pour a few billion dollars in indigenous R&D for development for these crucial technologies that would not be shared, anyway ? Anyway, FGFA would have remained open for sale to us, irrespective of our participation.

It doesn't matter what Armand has to say. MKI's entire production facility was transferred to India along with SCB tech for engines, which we make here. It is different if the French do not give as much as the Russians have.

The industrial benefits of joining in the R&D of the FGFA is immense. For one, IAF has greater say and flexibility in what they want from FGFA. We can make modifications on our own in the future when we make a FGFA Mk2. We can even go alone, like how Irkut and KNAAPO make their own designs of the Flankers. Irkut made MKI while KNAAPO made the Su-35UB, the equivalent of MKI which they tried selling to Korea. Tomorrow HAL will make its own FGFA version.

The FGFA project also allows 5000 flight hours (possibly) of testing in India itself. What HAL would have taken 15 years on their own can be done in just 6 years with Russian assistance. So the benefit here is even greater than simply manufacturing the aircraft here.

Lastly, FGFA will allow India to be a major exporter of defence goods in the world. Not just FGFA, but we can even include Brahmos and IL-214.

 

[Armand2REP]

Regarding Tech. Absorption for license production or even joint collaboration, this is what @Armand2REP had to say: "Honestly, don't expect too much tech absorption from either deal. Aircraft makers are not in the business to give away their secrets".

I tend to agree with this but would like to understand from you, how true is that ? What good investing in Russian R&D does to us ? Were we not better in buying "arms" off-the-shelf ?
We already know for sure that no one is willing to part with critical engine, propulsion, stealth or AESA radar technologies. I believe, we can design/manufacture the lion's share of remaining components & integration within India.

So why not pour a few billion dollars in indigenous R&D for development for these crucial technologies that would not be shared, anyway ? Anyway, FGFA would have remained open for sale to us, irrespective of our participation.

It doesn't matter what p2prada has to say. MKI ToT hasn't brought anything to advance LCA or Kaveri. They never even recieved the long toughted SCB tech for engines, which are not made in India, but only serviced. A deal between France and Russia is no different, except whatever France gives will be a higher tech production capability. The tooling kits coming out of Russia are a joke.

The industrial benefits of joining the FGFA programme are close to nill. Russia has already developed the airframe and most of the subsystems for the fighter, so there is little left for India to do except pay Russian engineers and get no ToT out of it. For one, IAF demanded FGFA to be two seater, but Russia said no, it must be a single seat. India demanded more technical partnership to develop avionics, Russia said no. Tommorow, HAL will have trouble even producing FGFA in knock down kits, much less fabricating parts.

Lastly, DRDO needs a major restructuring, accountability process and funding to attain a truly indigenous R&D establishment. FGFA is just a project where India pays Russia to develop its next gen fighter where the Rafale is already developed and tech ready to be transferred yesterday. That ToT will be far less than the $5 billion Russia wants from India to pay their engineers.

 

[TrueSpirit]

MKI ToT hasn't brought anything to advance LCA or Kaveri. They never even recieved the long toughted SCB tech for engines, which are not made in India, but only serviced. The tooling kits coming out of Russia are a joke.

That's a fact. Anyone who differs might have a soft-corner for.....

The industrial benefits of joining the FGFA programme are close to nill.

That's debatable.

Russia has already developed the airframe and most of the subsystems for the fighter, so there is little left for India to do except pay Russian engineers and get no ToT out of it. For one, IAF demanded FGFA to be two seater, but Russia said no, it must be a single seat. India demanded more technical partnership to develop avionics, Russia said no. Tommorow, HAL will have trouble even producing FGFA in knock down kits, much less fabricating parts.

All of it is fact. In last 4 + decades, I do not see any substantial benefit gained out of licensed production of Mig's in our country. ToT is a joke in "ärms-industry". Just being capable of manufacturing a couple of spare parts & occasional servicing is not the real deal. T-90 MBT is another sob story. I would not go there for its irrelevance to the thread.

Further, HAL is simply not ready for assembling a 5th generation fighter.

Lastly, DRDO needs a major restructuring, accountability process and funding to attain a truly indigenous R&D establishment.

Not posible in our lifetime. One reason is : Union-ism & I am sure you are all too familiar with it :cool2:

FGFA is just a project where India pays Russia to develop its next gen fighter

Well, I little more than that. We would able to customize it somewhat in accordance with our requirements. We would actually earn dollars (drafted in ink) through export (& no dearth of customers) & p2prada is right about the gain/learning obtained in flight tests in a significantly a shorter duration.

where the Rafale is already developed and tech ready to be transferred yesterday

.

Rafale is great for us, if we can close the deal quick. However, Rafale comes close but still a 4.5 Gen fighter cannot be compared with a 5th fighter, however limited its stealth is (something that you have agreed to earlier).

That ToT will be far less than the $5 billion Russia wants from India to pay their engineers.

Don't worry about the dollars in India. There would no shortage of taxpayers' money to be squandered, especially in guise of nation's defense. We have documented history of being taken for a ride in all arms procurement. The whole system ensures that thing do not get any better.

Be it Irkut, BAe/EADS, Augusta Westland or Dassault, it has been a "free for all" open season here & would remain so in foreseeable future.

 

[TrueSpirit]

MKI's entire production facility was transferred to India along with SCB tech for engines, which we make here. It is different if the French do not give as much as the Russians have.

AFAIK, we source components in knocked-down state & assemble them here. How helpful is that in creating a worthwhile aviation industry in India with an indigenous ecosystem of private players ?

For one, IAF has greater say and flexibility in what they want from FGFA

.

Well, PAKFA design was already freezed by the time the agreement was inked & we were absent during the Design phase. It's common knowledge (you can comment on it's veracity).

We can make modifications on our own in the future when we make a FGFA Mk2

Prognosticating & planning for future is okay, but design experience we got in this project is questionable. I am no aviation expert but I wouldn't mind getting educated by experts.

The FGFA project also allows 5000 flight hours (possibly) of testing in India itself. What HAL would have taken 15 years on their own can be done in just 6 years with Russian assistance. So the benefit here is even greater than simply manufacturing the aircraft here.

Quicker availability of a 5th Gen fighter was one of the prime motivators for the decision-makers in India. Flight-testing in India is definitely useful. Actually these are the only benefits I see coming out of this project.

Lastly, FGFA will allow India to be a major exporter of defence goods in the world. Not just FGFA, but we can even include Brahmos and IL-214.

Hope, at least some fraction of it materializes in our lifetime.

 

[p2prada]

AFAIK, we source components in knocked-down state & assemble them here.

MKI deal was conducted in 4 phases. Phase 1 was an outright purchase of 50 aircraft. Phase 2 was assembly with SKDs. Phase 3 involved assembly with CKDs. However Phase 4 was an entirely different ballgame.

In phase 4 the plan was to manufacture 60 aircraft from scratch using raw materials. Raw materials came from Russia for the production run while raw materials from Indian sources were used to make spares, according to the terms of the contract. Raw materials are casing, forgings, circuit breakers etc. Stuff that can be easily made here, if the need arises. The same with the engine as well, the hot sections, primarily the SCB, is all made here. The radar is made here as well. Only some aspects of the aircraft were not transferred due to the unnecessary need to manufacture it in India, namely the landing carriage and ejection seats. It was uneconomical to make both in India and hence is imported.

How helpful is that in creating a worthwhile aviation industry in India with an indigenous ecosystem of private players ?

I had explained all of that here,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ia-may-stop-arms-sale-india-3.html#post721425

If you have questions regarding that, you can ask it here. But I suppose it should answer all your questions and even Armand's silly jibe about ToT being useful or not for our domestic programs. I will also point out that none of the ToT that will come from Rafale will find its way in LCA, AURA or AMCA.

The point of ToT was never about helping the domestic programs after all.

Well, PAKFA design was already freezed by the time the agreement was inked & we were absent during the Design phase. It's common knowledge (you can comment on it's veracity).

Prognosticating & planning for future is okay, but design experience we got in this project is questionable. I am no aviation expert but I wouldn't mind getting educated by experts.

We signed a MoU with the Russians on PAKFA in 2005, but design phase started in 2004. Out first agreement was inked in 2008, but first prototype was ready in 2007. We signed out first PDP deal in December 2010, but first flight had already happened in Jan 2010. So yeah, we missed the design stage. But that is not all when it comes to aircraft development.

The issue that we are facing with LCA has little to do with design of the aircraft and more to do with flight testing. All the delays are primarily attributed to flight testing. We are entering the PAKFA program when the flight testing is starting. That's where the biggest benefit will lie. Its not like our design houses had any major experience in the design of PAKFA anyway. Meaning, even if we had joined the program in 2004, we wouldn't have had any major contribution in terms of work involved. As a matter of fact, we would have had lesser work at the time compared to today, where we have a much more mature industry. Imagine where we were in 2004 compared to where we are a decade later in 2013. Had we joined the program during design stage, we would have received even lesser share of work than we have today. It is fatuous expecting that us joining the program during the design stage would have benefited us in anyway. Sure, the IAF would have had some say in the matter, but expecting IAF to have come out with a better RFP than VVS could have isn't enough justification for this point.

Quicker availability of a 5th Gen fighter was one of the prime motivators for the decision-makers in India. Flight-testing in India is definitely useful. Actually these are the only benefits I see coming out of this project.

Quicker availability benefits IAF more than the industry. Flight testing helps the industry while IAF will also benefit from getting their pilots on the bird before IOC, so modifications can be done before serial production.

Overall, I see only benefits from such an arrangement. We have a partner that can fund equally and absorb losses. They will be an equally big market. So funding issues are taken care of compared to that useless European consortium with EF. Technological hurdles can be cleared even earlier. Unlike the European countries, we have multiple partners, greater manpower and greater assortment of infrastructure to fix the issues that may plague PAKFA in the future, all headed by a very experienced development partner like Sukhoi, NIIP and Saturn. An export market is assured with multiple countries ready to pitch in after 2025.

As for IAF, FGFA is pretty much their own aircraft. As indigenous as LCA or AMCA can be. A product doesn't become indigenous simply by developing it in house. What matters to IAF is how well can the product be maintained, serviced and modified over its lifetime. With FGFA, we will can run our own individual upgrades without Sukhoi's involvement like it is the case for MKI and will be for Rafale. Both T-90 and MKI are much more indigenous than LCA and Arjun. Fact is both T-90 and MKI are more than 85% indigenous and 90% indigenous resply. Whereas, LCA is 60% indigenous and Arjun is also somewhere around that figure. Heck, both MKI's and T-90's engines are made in India while LCA's and Arjun's are imported as fully finished products. That's a huge difference as it is. Nevertheless, FGFA will be more primed for modifications and upgrades compared to T-90 and MKI simply because we will hold an equal share in IPR.

FGFA will be different compared to PAKFA even though it will use the same airframe. We are talking about an entire design, development and production cycle for FGFA that is as big a project as PAKFA. All at half the actual price it would take to run a similar program alone. We are talking about a single seater now, we may start talking about a twin seater in the future. HAL may end up designing the twin seater with lesser help from Sukhoi. That alone is a big fillip to our industry and our armed forces. This is the best way to go indigenous and the country is warming up to this fact.

 

[p2prada]

MKI ToT hasn't brought anything to advance LCA or Kaveri.

Correct.

They never even recieved the long toughted SCB tech for engines, which are not made in India, but only serviced.

Incorrect.

A deal between France and Russia is no different, except whatever France gives will be a higher tech production capability.

Speculation. Let's see if France really hands over engine tech.

The tooling kits coming out of Russia are a joke.

The last I heard, tools are used to make an aircraft. If Russian tooling kits are so funny that a MKI comes out of it, I would like it if the Russians tickled our funny bones everyday.

The industrial benefits of joining the FGFA programme are close to nill. Russia has already developed the airframe and most of the subsystems for the fighter, so there is little left for India to do except pay Russian engineers and get no ToT out of it.

Fallacious nonsense. With the Russians we are talking more in the range of IPR let alone ToT.

For one, IAF demanded FGFA to be two seater, but Russia said no, it must be a single seat. India demanded more technical partnership to develop avionics, Russia said no. Tommorow, HAL will have trouble even producing FGFA in knock down kits, much less fabricating parts.

It is IAF which turned down the need for a two seater due to the additional cost of $2 Billion and 15% decrease in stealth.

Russia has not said no to anything. They are more than willing if the R&D budget goes up due to IAF demands. Russia is willing to co-develop the radar as well, compared to the earlier stance of merely developing the radar on their own. They must have identified that HAL is capable of providing inputs to the radar.

Lastly, DRDO needs a major restructuring, accountability process and funding to attain a truly indigenous R&D establishment.

Agreed. DRDO needs a decent change. However DRDO has nothing to do with FGFA. Why is it so hard for people to differentiate between HAL and DRDO? It is HAL which has the FGFA partnership, not DRDO. DRDO is more into LCA and AMCA. ADA is the design house that is under DRDO. Just for facts, NAL is another design house that makes passenger aircraft, possibly the company that may make our first bomber in 50 years. So let's not get confused so easily, people.

FGFA is just a project where India pays Russia to develop its next gen fighter where the Rafale is already developed and tech ready to be transferred yesterday. That ToT will be far less than the $5 billion Russia wants from India to pay their engineers.

Rafale deal cannot even be compared to FGFA. FGFA involves full scale development work, Rafale is simply a pay and use system like MKI. FGFA includes equal partnership, decent development work, full flight testing cycle and 50-50 IPR. India gets much more work than UK got for the F-35 program. Add 100% manufacturing to boot and we have a winner.

Rafale tech is what can be considered obsolete compared to what's planned for FGFA.

 

[lookieloo]

...FGFA includes equal partnership...

Four years into flight testing... and how many Indian pilots have been allowed to fly it exactly?

 

[average american]

What people failed to realize is just much more advanced US weapons are compared to other countries.
]
]Think about this India spends about 44 billion on its entire military, men, materials, research, development support, weapons purchases , etc. the USA spends almost twice as much or 80 billion , down to 69 billion budgeted this coming year on research and development alone. Russia spends about 64 billion on their entire military including research and development.

Not only is an it just the money, but the US brings together the best minds and talent in the world into defense research an also an enormous infrastructure that's supports that research and development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhZLkmQ0jUE&feature=player_detailpage

Some say the F22 contains a version of this weapon to be used against enemy aircraft, ground targets and missiles, Rumors are it has a 75 mile range and that is the reason its not sold to even the USA closest allies.

Am not sure the above was really a missile, but could be disinformation, Also there is drone technology and real drone technology .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiGnaqouUfA&feature=player_embedded

 

[p2prada]

Four years into flight testing... and how many Indian pilots have been allowed to fly it exactly?

That's not FGFA, that's PAKFA. There is a difference.

Currently FGFA is under design phase. They may very well be wrapping it up. Prototype construction stage is set to happen after that and the first FGFA will be handed over to HAL in 2014.

What people failed to realize is just much more advanced US weapons are compared to other countries.
]
]Think about this India spends about 44 billion on its entire military, men, materials, research, development support, weapons purchases , etc. the USA spends almost twice as much or 80 billion , down to 69 billion budgeted this coming year on research and development alone. Russia spends about 64 billion on their entire military including research and development.

True, but it isn't as simple as that.

USAF spent $60 Billion on F-22, that's development + production of 187 frames.

India and Russia will spend a combined total of anywhere between what is estimated as $70 Billion ($35 Billion for each country) today to anywhere over $100 Billion over the course of 20 years and maybe more beyond that, when PAKFA and FGFA undergo iterative modifications like the Flanker did.

Overall, PAKFA is only second to F-35 and much bigger than F-22 as a project. In terms of work involved, avionics wise, PAKFA is bigger than F-35 as well even though the volumes built will be lesser. Meaning PAKFA is a 1000 aircraft project at its initial stage while F-35 is a 3000 aircraft project.

Apart from that American projects are simply more expensive due to the massive difference in labour costs.

 

[average american]

US military budget is 670 billion dollars, 80 billion last year on just military research and development. As a country Russia and India only spend a few billion on research and development, for their military and not very much for research and development as a country mostly the depend on the other countries. US, Europe, or Japan.
List of countries by research and development spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[p2prada]

US military budget is 670 billion dollars, 80 billion last year on just military research and development. As a country Russia and India only spend a few billion on research and development, for their military and not very much for research and development as a country mostly the depend on the other countries. US, Europe, or Japan.
List of countries by research and development spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[TrueSpirit]

That's not FGFA, that's PAKFA. There is a difference.

Currently FGFA is under design phase. They may very well be wrapping it up. Prototype construction stage is set to happen after that and the first FGFA will be handed over to HAL in 2014.

@p2prada: Would you mind elaborating the differences between PAKFA & FGFA ? I mean,in term of Air Staff Requirements (ASR) & low-level technical differences...whatever info I seen from open sources doesn't really elaborate much except for the fact that FGFA is meant for India.

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada: Would you mind elaborating the differences between PAKFA & FGFA ? I mean,in term of Air Staff Requirements (ASR) & low-level technical differences...whatever info I seen from open sources doesn't really elaborate much except for the fact that FGFA is meant for India.

PAKFA will have 4 radars + 2 L-band arrays for 360 degree radar capability which is unique. It will have F-35 EO-DAS style OLS systems which will give it 360 degree IR capability, only F-35 will have this capability, perhaps Su-35, if the customer opts for it.

IAF has asked for 43 modifications, which we do not know yet. The articles mentioned something about a 360 degree radar, now I don't know if it means a proper 360 degree radar(???) or the 360 degree capability that is planned for PAKFA already.

As of today, it is confirmed that FGFA will simply be a MKIzed PAKFA with some extra IAF specific equipment and possibly the 43 modifications that IAF has sought for. Now, what are these 43 modifications, we are clueless. But Sukhoi mentioned something about how they will fulfil IAF demands, but that VVS is not demanding as much as IAF is and hence the extra costs to be borne apart from the $6 Billion will have to come out of Indian pockets.

Apart from that PAKFA will see two production variants, one with the 117 engine with 165KN thrust and the Izdeliye 30 with possibly 176KN thrust. We don't know when this second PAKFA will be ready. Similarly, we do not know if the IAF has opted for FGFA with 176KN engine or they will do what the Russians are doing today and simply develop the 165KN version first and then go for a FGFA Mk2 with 176KN engine.

Izdeliye 30 will undergo bench tests in 2014 before flight tests. FGFA is set to undergo various modifications as compared to PAKFA. Meaning, India will receive 3 prototypes in 2014-15, 16-17 and 18-19. Once the final prototype is ready in 2019, it will undergo a MKIzation before production starts. So there is a chance FGFA may start off with the Izdeliye 30 directly. It will most probably depend on how deep our pockets are at the time.

Things may change as more news comes out. Overall, FGFA will look the same as PAKFA, but will have India specific hardware and software along with some India specific weapons.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Thanks for elaborating. My knowledge in this matter was patchy, at best.

 

[lookieloo]

That's not FGFA, that's PAKFA. There is a difference...

Weak sauce prada. One of your so-called *equal partners* is still quite a bit more-equal than the other. Wow, 2014!? India's prototype should be lookin good on the shop floor by now in that case... haven't heard about it though... or about India actually buying one for that matter. Maybe the Russians just haven't figured out the whole capitalism thing yet.