Sukhoi PAK FA

[p2prada]

Thats the GPV 2020 , Russia plans to spend 20 Trillion Roubles as part of arms procurement by 2020 , Air Force will get the third largest share , you can read it here

Interesting. That investment is good for a resurgent Russia.

Ofcourse the Indian Order will make their order book strong and financial status better , although I dont expect any deep TOT on Rafale from them except for source code to radar and stuff that would give IAF operational independence but the Rafale deal will bring good offset to indian industry i think about 50 %

I think the same as well. The last I heard, radar ToT was supposed to be 60% as a benchmark. It seems to be good enough. France cannot cut short on the airframe and I doubt they will have any problems handing over engine ToT. The problem comes in ToT on avionics and the lack of foreign systems and subsystems like the Litening pod. Spectra will also come with limited ToT. Thales will be biggest beneficiary in the deal. Take everything, give nearly nothing.

Offsets with France is questionable. They don't like handing over control of tech development to anybody. So, anything to do with France has to be started anew. Expecting work in new areas like UCAVs can be nearly impossible.

I think we have digressed enough. A Rafale debate will be interesting though.

Well you can still have 4 fighter at two different bases but you cant have 1 PAK-FA are two differnt location so number matters.

This is questionable as well. We are still talking about the force as a whole and not individually. A squadron of PAKFA can cover much larger distances while being more capable throughout the flight profile. A 10 minute afterburner Mig-31 is inferior to a 30 minute supercruise capable PAKFA. While numbers are necessary, it does not have to be aircraft to aircraft.

PLAAF was a 3000 fighter force. A quick look shows they have reduced that number to 600 (around 300 Flankers and 250 J-10s) modern and relatively modern aircraft and 600(all the single digit Js and Qs) obsolete aircraft. Only a little above us if we include Jags in the relatively modern list. Of course the potential growth of PLAAF will surpass that of both Russia and India, but I don't expect them to go back to being a 3000 fighter force anytime soon. Near 2000 maybe, but very difficult.

PLAAF will have around 250(or 300) J-11A/Bs at a similar time as IAF will have 270 MKIs. I suppose they have a 100 J-11s pending manufacturing as of late 2011 and their current J-11s may match IAF's current MKI numbers. Their J-10 numbers can potentially exceed 500 before the J-20 is introduced. Some of this is my opinion. So, by the time we have MKIs and Rafales inducted, PLAAF will be twice our strength.

VVS may go for a similar force structure as IAF. What I mean to say is I don't expect them to induct 400+ PAKFAs. They may go for a new Mig development instead for the low end of the force while essentially halving their current force of Su-27 and Mig-31 while inducting 60 new flankers. Even the hundreds of Su-24s are being replaced by only 124 Su-34s. I have a feeling their air force size will be as much or little more than what IAF is today.

Well I have read of insane engagement numbers of 200:1 for F-22 versus F-15.

Strictly speaking those dont make much sense in a complex battle field environment aided by AWACS,Ground Based Radar operating in multi band and in Many Very Many engagement scenario.

So take those 200 versus 1 and 0.0001 RCS of F-22 with a bucket full of salt , it makes perfect sense for LM to propagate such stuff in paid magazine and other media.

No. I am not talking of 1v1s. I am talking of a large scale engagement involving multiple F-15s and F-16s. I have forgotten some of the details, but I remember there were 8 Raptors and 12 F-15Es on one side with around 32-36 F-15Cs and F-16Cs on the other side. I may be wrong with some of the numbers, but the numbers favoured the less advanced side. The fight was entirely one sided and I am not talking of AESA advantage at all. The F-15/16Cs were completely destroyed and overall only one (or 2) F-15E was engaged and destroyed. F-22s were the primary killers throughout and none used radars.

We know from Congressional Report that F-22 needs 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour it flies and its A2G capability is quite limited with smaller payload capability ( can carry just 2x1000 lb bomb in its internal bay ) and now they also have some issue with Oxygen which makes its flying restricted , I think they havent found the cause it that problem yet.

Capability always comes at a cost. The 30 hour maintenance is not needed after every flight. Of course the bird will stay on the ground more than a F-15, but the Americans can still manage 250-300 hours on the F-22 every year with extra investment.

Btw, the oxygen problem was related to the G-suit and not the aircraft. Read it here.

Well after Cope India there was this gentle man from USAF in some veteran discussion was boasting of F-15 , only to be told by IAF later that MKI won all the engagement was it 22:1 or something in favour of MKI.

I don't think IAF mentioned that. I think it was a journalist, maybe Vishnu Som who gave figures for MKI's turn rate as well. 35 degrees I suppose.

Su-35 would be kinemetically superior to all Flanker series built so far as its improved Aerodynamics and new 14 T engine affords that , but MKI can get to Su-35 level in sensors and weapons ,PAK-FA would certainly better Su-35 how much remains to be seen.

The current radar specs are expected to be doubled. I am sure we will see a new generator kit in the aircraft, which may mean a more powerful engine. An uprated AL-31 may be on the cards. I hope.

Neither F-22 or PAK-FA or F-35 can evade a Metric Band Radar only B-2 can because the size is larger than the wavelength of the radar

I was taking of this radar Мощь воздушно-космической обороны возрастает! - Алмаз-Антей

It integrates X, L and Metric Band and is first AESA Metric Radar ....good to deal with Stealth Targets at long range and accurate enough to put a missile close to target.

It's capability against 5th gen aircraft is untested and unproven. More importantly, such radars have various other problems like a poor power aperture, low gain, low directivity, low resolution, poor sidelobe performance and also poor LPI capability. All of this is bad for radars during war time. While it can claim capable performance against small targets in a normal environment, a high concentration electronic environment can cause major problems and can decrease it's capabilities by many times. A claimed 1000Km detection range can be reduced to 200 or 300. It is easily detected and even more easily attacked because it is easily found and not easily redeployed(it is massive). Jamming signals can disrupt it's capabilities by many times through the larger than necessary side lobes. Side lobe cancelers dont really help against such radars. An AESA can alleviate such an issue, but it is not a magic bullet against stealth.

Btw, it does not integrate X and L bands. There is no radar which does that because even antenna size and make matters. The front end components cannot handle that many frequencies. It is a VHF band radar and is only a redesigned legacy radar.

I would suggest reading APA's analysis on the Nebo. It uses Russian open source information and was also used during Lockheed Martin's briefing on the F-35.
NNIIRT Nebo SVU / RLM-M Nebo M / Assessing Russia's First Mobile VHF AESAs

If there is a chance that the Russians are correct, the IAF will be among the first to know. The Chinese have the JY-27, as mentioned at the bottom of APA's analysis.

 

[Austin]

P2P due to lack of time let me reply to some of the good points you have raised.

On Rafale/TOT: Honestly I dont know how TOT really works and helps Indian Industry other then helping to keep deal independent from importing some stuff on which TOT is provided and without having to pay Lic fee for the IP's

Like we had some Deep TOT for AL-31FP engine as sounded great but then when it came to Tejas and SCB we started looking else where as it was not possible to transfer SCB technology from AL-31FP to Kaveri SCB and now Snecme-DRDO deal seems to come to the rescue ...not sure if the next great engine for the next great fighter will be another TOT from xyz country .....I personally think TOT is a glorified name for Lic Production and at best TOT is limited to certain class of product and its usability in other class of similar product is impossible without using a good amount of brain power and some good experience under your belt. The higher the complexity of product the lesser is the usefulness of TOT other than lic manuf it using your own materials.

On PAK-FA: If if you reduce your force level you still need certain level of numbers inspite of new stuff being 3-4x times better then the previous one , because your advesary might still get 3-4x improvement in his weapons system at the same time that you might look to defeat ....unless he is hopelessly outcasted in Technology and Numbers like the US-Iraq 1991 war or NATO-Kosovo war.

I dont want to speculate on VVS force strength and how that will shape up , eventually they will reduce the numbers where it is possible.

From the news I could gather there wont be any new light fighter developed i.e LMFS , till 2020 there are just two types under development PAK-FA and a new CAS to replace Su-25 . There is a classified project of 15 T UCAV under development which might take the role of light fighter........Likely the Su-35 and Mig-29M2/35 and upgrades like Su-27M2 etc will take the lower tier role.

Su-34 is not fully replacing the Su-24 ...they are upgrading the Su-24M to M2 standard and Su-34 is being added ( 124 + 24 ) that was ordered earlier.

Any ways here is a tabular list of VVS Program and Force levels updated to current level RuAF Programs

On F-22: Yes it is no doubt a good fighter and I suspect if the cold war never ended US would have pursued the program pumping in more money. But the only AF that is rich as USAF is the USAF itself ......so high maintenance , specialised Air Superiority fighter is something they could have afforded.

Plus they also mentioned in GAO report it had problems with its stealth ,any ways even USAF is betting on F-35 as its future which is more versatile if not as capable as F-22.

Su-30MKI : Actually i never heard of IAF interested in upgrading its engine and considering we have paid for TOT and lic fees for AL-31FP the engines wont get a drastic upgrade not atleast to 117/14T class.

Any ways the upgrade on MKI or superMKI is quite decent and its good enough for the subcontinent to maintain superiority.

On Nebo-M I did had a private email conversation with Dr Carlo and he thinks that Nebo-M is quite capable to detect Stealth at long ranges and accurate enough to get a S-300/400 close to the aircraft where the missiles own radar can track and lock the target.

Most stealth like F-22,F-35 and PAK-FA are optimised for X band and since most weapons MFCR today are X band based they get most bang on those band but getting similar LO for L band is not the same and for metric radar is impossible .

Most talks on stealth today on forums are just what it is not suppose to be .........even USAF was not confident on B-2 LO and Opponents ability to track it down so on all mission except one in Kosovo the B-2 was accompained by a group of jammers to reduce its vulnerability.

BTW by integrating of X,L and Metric band I mean these sensor fuse the data from all three bands and present it as single source.........the other effective method is Bi-Static system.

 

[p2prada]

On Rafale/TOT: Honestly I dont know how TOT really works and helps Indian Industry other then helping to keep deal independent from importing some stuff on which TOT is provided and without having to pay Lic fee for the IP's

Like we had some Deep TOT for AL-31FP engine as sounded great but then when it came to Tejas and SCB we started looking else where as it was not possible to transfer SCB technology from AL-31FP to Kaveri SCB and now Snecme-DRDO deal seems to come to the rescue ...not sure if the next great engine for the next great fighter will be another TOT from xyz country .....I personally think TOT is a glorified name for Lic Production and at best TOT is limited to certain class of product and its usability in other class of similar product is impossible without using a good amount of brain power and some good experience under your belt. The higher the complexity of product the lesser is the usefulness of TOT other than lic manuf it using your own materials.

About this. Assume I purchased a circuit board from Asus or MSI like your desktop motherboard. You paid good money for it, but you have no ToT on it. If you pay for ToT then you will get a schematic or breakdown of the circuit board to it's individual components and the software that is required to run it. That is ToT. This ToT is of no use beyond maintenance or making changes on the existing motherboard.

ToT is only to ensure the IAF has no problems running the equipment they purchased and performing maintenance or upgrades whenever required.

So, let's assume what would you do if your motherboard ha a problem. Without ToT you will depend on MSI or Asus fixing it. With ToT, along with knowledge and the right tools you can fix that motherboard yourself. This is pretty much what ToT is and is simply very crucial when it comes to military technology.

Now you can go the China way and start manufacturing the same item without buying a license for it. That's a copyright violation, but at the same time you don't have the capacity to extensively modify or re-design the motherboard to make it work better. That's because you don't have access to the extensive test and R&D data that was used to design the motherboard in the first place. All you know is how to maintain and upgrade the device when necessary. ToT was never about utilizing the same technology in your own development. Rather it only has relevance to maintain what you purchased with better guarantees from failure.

On PAK-FA: If if you reduce your force level you still need certain level of numbers inspite of new stuff being 3-4x times better then the previous one , because your advesary might still get 3-4x improvement in his weapons system at the same time that you might look to defeat ....unless he is hopelessly outcasted in Technology and Numbers like the US-Iraq 1991 war or NATO-Kosovo war.

Better capability has always come at a higher cost. VVS has always reduced numbers during induction whenever a new technology was released. This was right from the 50s until 1991. Anyway my point was the PAKFA numbers you quoted was too much looking at Russian economy, nothing more.

From the news I could gather there wont be any new light fighter developed i.e LMFS , till 2020 there are just two types under development PAK-FA and a new CAS to replace Su-25 . There is a classified project of 15 T UCAV under development which might take the role of light fighter........Likely the Su-35 and Mig-29M2/35 and upgrades like Su-27M2 etc will take the lower tier role.

I am not so sure about the UCAV. I hope they at least get good UAVs flying before we talk about that. A fifth gen Su-25 is a given and will be a significantly cheaper program than a second tier fifth gen fighter like the LMFS. There was talk of LMFS program happening depending on the progress of the PAKFA. I guess it is too early to speculate.

Plus they also mentioned in GAO report it had problems with its stealth ,any ways even USAF is betting on F-35 as its future which is more versatile if not as capable as F-22.

Agreed. They have better prospects with the F-35 than the F-22.

Su-30MKI : Actually i never heard of IAF interested in upgrading its engine and considering we have paid for TOT and lic fees for AL-31FP the engines wont get a drastic upgrade not atleast to 117/14T class.

I have my fingers crossed on this one. Yes, I am not expecting the 117S or a similar thrust equivalent like the AL-37FU either. But even a AL-31FM1 level is fine.Unfortunately it is from Salyut. This gives an increase of 1.5 tons from the base level AL-31FP along with better reliability. It is the same engine meant to be used on Su-34. So, there could be a Saturn equivalent for the MKI.

On Nebo-M[/B] I did had a private email conversation with Dr Carlo and he thinks that Nebo-M is quite capable to detect Stealth at long ranges and accurate enough to get a S-300/400 close to the aircraft where the missiles own radar can track and lock the target.

While I don't doubt it's capability against existing aircraft, it's capability against 5th gen has never been tested. So, the claims are suspect.

Most stealth like F-22,F-35 and PAK-FA are optimised for X band and since most weapons MFCR today are X band based they get most bang on those band but getting similar LO for L band is not the same and for metric radar is impossible .

I wasn't just talking of EW physics. I was talking about flaws on the radar itself which can be used against it.

Most talks on stealth today on forums are just what it is not suppose to be .........even USAF was not confident on B-2 LO and Opponents ability to track it down so on all mission except one in Kosovo the B-2 was accompained by a group of jammers to reduce its vulnerability.

There is always a bit of uncertainty when using a new system. The B-2 costs $2Billion too. Not something they would want to waste because of a wrong calculation.

BTW by integrating of X,L and Metric band I mean these sensor fuse the data from all three bands and present it as single source

Hmm, that's what NCW is about.

Even aircraft will be linked to such information from L band, C-band and S band radars.

.........the other effective method is Bi-Static system.

Bistatic systems require a widespread array of radar systems on the ground or in the air. The angle of the incident and reflected ray matters too along with the information that was received. I think Gambit had explained very well on the limitations of such a system in this forum. Bistatic radars do offer a lot of capability against stealth. But currently there are technology and financial limitations that don't allow the utilization of such systems effectively.

I will look for it and post it here.

 

[p2prada]

A simple search helped.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...rs-discussions-5th-generation-technology.html

 

[LurkerBaba]

PAK-FA completes initial refuelling approach trials

Aerial refueling approach sucessful

Sukhoi's T-50 PAK-FA fifth-generation stealth fighter has completed initial approach trials to a flight refuelling aircraft, the company said on 21 August.

Aircraft T-50-2 made approaches to an Ilyushin Il-78 tanker accompanied by a Su-25UB aircraft.

Sukhoi's second prototype, T-50-2, is undergoing a range of flight trials to test the new plane's flight envelope in subsonic and supersonic regimes and in different configurations.

The first prototype, T-50-1, is being prepared for a flight-test programme involving flight at super-critical angles of attack and super-maneouvrability.

In August, T-50-3 will start full tests of the aircraft's new active phased-array radar system and avionics, which the company says has already produced impressive results in air-to-air and air-to-ground tests.

The active electronically scanned array radar will allow T-50 to attack targets at long-range in simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-surface modes, detect and classify group and single targets and simultaneously attack several targets with precision-guided weapons and perform electronic warfare functions.

A fourth T-50 will join the test programme later this year.

PAK-FA completes initial refuelling approach trials

 

[p2prada]

India can learn a lot from the Russians in only flight testing the aircraft. It is so fast.

 

[Jim Street]

We did miss the designing part of PAKFA which would have been great knowledge to gain at that time. Well, FGFA will bring much needed know-how.

 

[Austin]

P2P I think i agree on most of what you had said and ofcourse there are some known unknowns and i think there is no point in speculating on that.

On TOT that was what I thought as well that TOT helps you maintain the product much better without running to OEM at at drop of pin or without resorting something as drastic as reverse engineering it.

But then how does it works in case we get TOT say for 30 % in FGFA and say 40 % in Rafale deal , you are still left 50 % at the mercy of OEM ?

I mean there would still be substantial number of blackboxes that you have to import directly or not feseable to make it here due to economic reasons.

Did you also had similar lic deal for Russian Migs or Western Jaguar ? How did it worked in these deal ?

 

[p2prada]

But then how does it works in case we get TOT say for 30 % in FGFA and say 40 % in Rafale deal , you are still left 50 % at the mercy of OEM ?

Let's say you have Windows on your PC. Do you have the source code for it? No. But can you reinstall Windows if your OS crashes? Yes. Do you require ToT for it? No. This allows for continuous use of the equipment without having to send it to the OEM. Now if the OEM did not provide you with a Windows CD, that's a major problem.

There are some aspects where ToT is not required at all. There are some aspects where ToT is crucial. For a country the size of India and the geographical diversity, if we are not allowed to calibrate the radar, then that's going to cause a lot of problems. But, in order to calibrate the radar we don't need data on the construction of the radar, only working is enough. So, during manufacture of the RBE-2AA the French may only provide KD kits which can be assembled while the IAF can calibrate the radar however they want. This will keep both sides happy. So, this will amount to 50 or 60% ToT that is expected for MRCA deal.

About the FGFA, I am pretty sure we are going to get a lot more ToT than the MKI. At least the Brahmos worked that way where the propulsion system is being (or soon will be) made in India, the last I heard. The radar on FGFA will be from our own funds, at least most of it. So, the R&D effort could be something like K-100 where India will manufacture and perhaps even export it to Russia.

FGFA development could be way more comprehensive too. For eg: If we want to make a test bed for heavy UCAVs we can use the FGFA for our own development without any Russian involvement. For such things we are going to need the complete blueprints for the design.

It is too early to speculate on FGFA ToT when all we know is we will get 50% ownership of the program. Even MKIs deep ToT may not be a good comparison. But I don't think there has been a better technological transfer than in the MKI program.

I mean there would still be substantial number of blackboxes that you have to import directly or not feseable to make it here due to economic reasons.

Yes. It may not be entirely feasible to make everything in India. At the same time Dassault believes a lot of spares can be made in India for ALA/MN and any other export customer because manufacturing parts here is a lot cheaper than in France. Maybe in time a lot more of the export related production could be moved to India.

There is a lot of negativity about ToT because none of it has helped our indigenous efforts. But that's wrong. Without this ToT and the experience that came with working on it, there is no way our country would have even attempted something like LCA. So, while there was no direct technological input into indigenous development, the scientists and technicians had enough experience to make similar components on their own.

Did you also had similar lic deal for Russian Migs or Western Jaguar ? How did it worked in these deal ?

Mig-21 and Jaguar had similar levels of ToT. Both aircraft had role specific avionics. So, ToT rules are different for a fighter equipped with a radar and one without, especially from different countries. ToT clauses also change over time. While Russia is more than willing to give away engine and radar technology for the right price, France and the US may not.

Jaguar ToT was for the complete airframe but not so sure about the engines. The Adour Mk811 was always license manufactured, but I have no idea if we have complete ToT or not. The Adour Mk 871 meant for Hawk is assembled only. Since we know the Adour Mk 811 is similar to Mk 871 we can say no significant ToT was provided for full manufacture of the engine in India. However even this may not be an indicator of ToT. Maybe we have complete ToT on both aircraft, just that we only have a license to assemble the engines and not manufacture so that the supplier is also able to profit from the venture in the form of jobs and revenue while building on their own experience. Perhaps the user(IAF's) quality requirements are so high that HAL may not be able to completely manufacture the engine on their own at similar levels of quality. This could play a part too.

RD-33 manufacture in India is mostly assembly as well. I think we are making our own spares though. So, that's a relief, not like Mirage-2000 where everything needs to come from France. We can say for sure the ToT on Mirage-2000 wasn't that great though.

Too bad weapons are always out of ToT agreements.

 

[LurkerBaba]

India's FGFA stealth fighter set 2014 roll-out

India's fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), which the country is co-developing with Russia, is set to be rolled-out in 2014, the Indian air force's (IAF) top uniformed officer says.

"The first prototype of the FGFA is scheduled to arrive in India by 2014 after which it will undergo extensive trials at the Ojhar air base," Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne says. "We are hopeful that the aircraft would be ready for induction by 2022."

A second prototype is expected to arrive in India in 2017 while a third should arrive in 2019.

India's FGFA stealth fighter set 2014 roll-out

 

[The Messiah]

2022 is to far out!

It should be inducted by 2016.

 

[p2prada]

2022 is to far out!

It should be inducted by 2016.

I had mentioned this before. 2022 for FGFA and 2017 for PAKFA.

We had ordered 166 PAKFAs. Not sure if the plan still stands, so we will need confirmation.

 

[Jim Street]

I had mentioned this before. 2022 for FGFA and 2017 for PAKFA.

We had ordered 166 PAKFAs. Not sure if the plan still stands, so we will need confirmation.

I thought nreakdown was with 166 FGFA and rest PAK FA

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I thought nreakdown was with 166 FGFA and rest PAK FA

We are getting 166 single seat and rest double..

Its is not clear that the Single seat will be of same specs of PAK-FA or not..

Its VERY possible it that single seat will be tuned up same as the double seat as per IAF requirements..

 

[p2prada]

I thought nreakdown was with 166 FGFA and rest PAK FA

The earlier plan was 166 PAKFAs and 48 dual seat FGFAs. Now IAF will go for a single seat FGFA. FGFA is still our own version of PAKFA and may have modifications to house the 360degree capability radar system(most likely distributed system or a conformal system for greater rear view capability apart from the 3 arrays for the front and sides).

So, HAL will get the certification for the final FGFA version in 2019. First delivery of FGFA will be in 2022.

VVS will get their first PAKFA in 2015 though. Since we had also opted for 166 PAKFAs similar to Russia's version, it is unknown if the new plans for FGFA may stop plans for the PAKFA or even accelerate the plan because of the delay in FGFA.

 

[p2prada]

@Austin

The MKI's undercarriage and ejection seats are sourced from Russia directly. It is uneconomical to make them here and hence license wasn't transferred.

 

[Austin]

There are lot of stuff they would be importing for sure due to economic or other reasons ......you will have to develop a 100 % parallel industry with thousands of subcontractors to make every stuff here and plus any OEM may not be very happy with that kind of arrangement.

On TOT thing , I see the way it would be is they would let us know the material composition , design , process and machinery to build those components in India in areas where TOT is agreed ......so you can build those components using materials from country which will end up being cheaper.

What TOT wont tell you is why you have used these composition and not some thing else and how did you arrive at it , why did you choose this design and not something else , what made you choose design when you look at the over all aircraft , factors like speed , heat with choosing materials , Aerodynamic Testing data from wind tunnel to flight testing .......

Any ways its good to help you maintain your product better and if you are smart and can invest time and money you will do more research on them and develop something better in some cases or develop something cheaper.

But what we could learn from Tejas program is not something a TOT of Rafale or FGFA will teach you. The learning curve with former is much much higher.

 

[p2prada]

What TOT wont tell you is why you have used these composition and not some thing else and how did you arrive at it , why did you choose this design and not something else , what made you choose design when you look at the over all aircraft , factors like speed , heat with choosing materials , Aerodynamic Testing data from wind tunnel to flight testing .......

Even if we get such data, it won't help us in any of our own development because by the time we start studying and testing it the technology will become obsolete. R&D is done so that you have relevant capability in the future. For eg: The Chinese working on the AL-31F and Su-27 now are nowhere close to where the Russians have progressed with the Flanker. What the Russians had 15 years ago, the Chinese are making it now. That's where ToT has gotten them. Even with a 20 year head start in R&D the Chinese are actually behind us in Flanker technology.

It is our state policy to not blatantly copy other's IP. It is actually a waste of time. Rather, if we cannot make the same thing at home, we can make something better in a JV with a more experience foreign company. For eg: We failed at Trishul, so we did not simply copy paste the Barak 1 on it, rather we signed a JV with Israel to make a significantly superior Barak 8 and even IAF will have its version of the Barak 8 as a LRSAM. The same with FGFA. We cannot make such a fighter at home, so a JV was initiated. But at the same time, we don't need this kind of assistance in tanks. We can simply conclude Arjun with a satisfactory result like Mk2 and follow it up with FMBT. The same thing happened with Agni, where the thin and long design of Agni II was overshadowed by the short and stubby design on the Agni III. Now the Agni V gives 3 times greater range while being 4m shorter than Agni II. ToT won't get such results.

But what we could learn from Tejas program is not something a TOT of Rafale or FGFA will teach you. The learning curve with former is much much higher.

While I would agree on the Rafale and Tejas analogy, I wouldn't put FGFA in the same bracket as in the FGFA program we are development partners. While the R&D data may not be as much as what we can get from Tejas, we will still have a much more significant technology share in the program.

The problem with PAKFA is that we missed out on design stage where we could have learnt a lot more of the how and why of the program. But there is still a lot we can learn from the prototype and testing stage and is the very area where Tejas is failing at. Even AMCA is pegged to have a development stage of 7 years followed by a testing stage of 9 years. There is no guarantee an AMCA type aircraft will continue to be relevant after 16 years in the 2025-30 period. Maybe PAKFA can help us reduce time and increase efficiency in a lot of our own programs, maybe even better it.

At least the FGFA will see some design inputs from India followed by it's testing at Ojhar instead of Russia. Perhaps FGFA is like the LCA Mk2 of Russia. So, any flaw that we may have identified can be fixed. IAF has supposedly submitted a list of 45 modifications if my memory serves right. If we are involved in making those modifications then we have some of the how and why right there.

 

[Austin]

As far as Indian Contribution goes this is what HAL D&D chief said in interview to FORCE

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will have a substantial role in the development of the 5th generation Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF) being developed for the Indian Air Force (IAF) over the next decade. N.C. Agarwal who retired as director, Design and Development, HAL, last month told FORCE that, "Indian designers would contribute over one-third of the total share of R&D (including all prototypes) for the project along with Russia, by the time aircraft is certified." The India team will have access to all the design data and information and a number of agreements with the requisite confidentiality clauses have been signed in this regard".

According to Agarwal, "The changes would mean keeping a close eye on the Radar Cross Section (RCS), the engines will remain the same and should not affect stealth as the IR signature primarily comes from reheat".

 

[p2prada]

The India team will have access to all the design data and information

You see, the FGFA program will come with the how and the why too. This definitely helps the industry a lot more than something like the Rafale.

So, nobody can deny the ToT will be lesser than MKI, which alone is significant. Russian-Indian relationship has never been better if they are so willing to share data.