Sukhoi PAK FA

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
Its not about Wikipedia, its about common sense. HAL is joining the project only to make it more potent.
Project is more than potent enough without HAL. But HAL and Bharat need to learn much to be able to produce G4 and 5 fighters themselves.
Indians cannot contribute anything into this project, even money (PAK FA program is financing by RU MOD alone from 2004).
But they can learn a lot from it.
Its not about Wikipedia, its about common sense. HAL is joining the project only to make it more potent.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

rohit b3

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
821
Likes
1,407
Country flag
Project is more than potent enough without HAL. But HAL and Bharat need to learn much to be able to produce G4 and 5 fighters themselves.
Indians cannot contribute anything into this project, even money (PAK FA program is financing by RU MOD alone from 2004).
But they can learn a lot from it.



Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Naah, HAL is one of the better Aerospace companies in the World today. Any Joint Venture or more accurately Joint Work benefits both. HAL is definitely gonna take away many good lessons, as well as help Sukhoi to perfect and improve various technologies.
If India was just to take T-o-T and Make it in India...the process wouldn take more than 2 years to start production.
However 8-10 years of Developmental time frame is not a short period.
We would know the exact workshare of HAL when the 2nd phase of developement is officially signed.

However, im surprised to see the low self esteem of most Indians out here. I blame the mainstream media for this.
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Our version is double seater one.
I say it will take 2025 for fully fledged operational for IAF.
Don't forget that its new platform.
Our boyz need some hand over them.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00LD using Tapatalk
I think India will take some single seat versions also, with most planes now having serious data fusion, there is no real need for second pilot/WSO, one pilot can handle the work load. When IAF actually had the need for Twin seaters that time IAF ignored it, and now when most planes have high level of data fusion that one pilot can carry out the job, the need for TWIN SEAT version is stupid. The present requirement for twin seat for PAKFA complex is like having twin seat glider plane, .... doosra pilot kya ghanta bajayega??
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Its not the media to blame, firstly are the IAF top brass, They had given the requirement for LCA to HAL to replace MiG-21 but then when the project started they have gone to the media and asserted that they will not even induct LCA as it was falling short. Tejas was an ambitious program with many technologies having required to be developed together to make the plane, such as aircraft design, avionics, engines etc. The engine proved to be the biggest challenge and main cause for delay. Also they had to contend with the changing ASQRs which made it challenging. The past 3 ACMs have been on record saying that Tejas is not what IAF wants. And that is what started the MRCA rade (to replace MiG-21 with Mirages)

IAF top brass is incompetent at best. They are far behind the others in terms of vision and operational requirements. The requirement of twin seater planes was need of 80 to 2000 where the pilot had the load of flying as well as using the weapons without much help. But with the serious level of data fusion available even on basic planes, a single pilot can focus on the mission as well as do multi tasking without even drawing a sweat. Thats basically wanting to play chess ...D O U B L E S. I dont mean to say it cannot be done (there are always others advising) but its not required.
In future if you ever record the cockpt convesation of the FGFA pilots it might be something like this
2nd Pilot: Main kya karoon, main bore ho gaya hoon
1st pilot : chup chap ipad pe khelte baith.
2nd pilot: look there is missile warning system. main kuch karoon?
1st pilot" the Avionics package took care of it, agli baar mooh khola to main tuzhe eject kar doonga
2nd pilot: Sorry sir,

Rather 2nd pilot might be the best seat that the ist pilot can rag ... officially

Naah, HAL is one of the better Aerospace companies in the World today. Any Joint Venture or more accurately Joint Work benefits both. HAL is definitely gonna take away many good lessons, as well as help Sukhoi to perfect and improve various technologies.
If India was just to take T-o-T and Make it in India...the process wouldn take more than 2 years to start production.
However 8-10 years of Developmental time frame is not a short period.
We would know the exact workshare of HAL when the 2nd phase of developement is officially signed.

However, im surprised to see the low self esteem of most Indians out here. I blame the mainstream media for this.
 

Yumdoot

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
That above is how the westerners depict a future combat scenario. And it may be true for them. They have the money and time to put all that into their machines.

But countries with finite budget may actually still go in for a WSO.

At least till 2007-08 period the WSO in IAF was still an evolving position. So a completely data fused scenario replacing the WSO is not exactly an impossible thing. It should be easier to define and train for WSO role in the current scenario.

But personally I believe WSO will remain important. Let me just give you a few examples and you can decide how best to deal with it (WSO or Data Fusion):

1) FGFA datalinks are not compatible, not available, undergoing upgrade at a rate different from that of say LCA/Mirages/transporters/awacs. In fact difference in upgrade scheduling for communication equipment, will be the biggest headache at Vayu Bhavan during a real fight and they cannot be saddled with an unresponsive high-tech software. For context the F-35 software still has massive problems despite years of programming and they still face blackouts of sensors during testing.

2) FGFA pilot is dodging a SRSAM/AAM or tracking a target of opportunity in a furball, while the AWACS that was the designated high value target is moving out of the field of regard of both the radar. Or the ground target that actually was to be killed by the onboard Brahmos (waypoints already programmed) now has to be reprogrammed.

3) The FGFA crew is flying in GPS denied/compromised conditions and is actively being hunted IOW, cannot rely on external data sources and simply has to fall back to onboard recalculation of their route and mission. If you remember a recent revelation where Chuck Yeager interrogated our pilots, suspecting the use of Russian made AWACS, when in fact the IAF pilots were using good old manual techniques of calculating their & target's positions.

4) The FGFA crew is part of a large force deployment under extreme ECM by opposing forces. And the stressed out pilot is having trouble sifting the false targets (or the computers are not deleting false targets, fast enough). Meantime something more important has been instructed by the ground command.

5) The FGFA needs to connect to or radio search the ground forces, who are not in a position to follow SOP that would facilitate designation as own forces. Or even ships in distress for example. Thus necessitating expenditure of considerable time switching channels of communication.

6) The FGFA actually has 2/3 other UCAVs to vector into the target area, each of these UCAVs/UAVs, itself facing significant ECM problems. The solution is to fly the FGFA and UCAVs taking advantage of geographical features which on the flip side create problems for inter-se communication.

7) The airforce actually decides to maintain a significantly higher ratio of type conversion trainers for their best beast in the air.

If the westners were really that confident of actually data fusing everything then they would not have asked specifically for a man in the loop for their UCAVs/UAVs.

Things are only going to heat up in the future battlefield and WSO role is an ever-evolving one. WSO role has undergone more changes then even the pilots role since history. WSO were primarily derived from Navigators and all helos and all multi-crewed aircrafts have some or the other human involved, besides the pilot. Fighter aircrafts are the only one type of aircrafts that have resisted the WSO and nobody controls the future.
 

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
I see only the 3 purposes of WSO existance onboard:
1 - LR CAP missions (MiG-31 like ALCMs LR intercept) where WSO takes function on "living data link" selecting the most important targets from the swarm and building attack maneuver for the pilot.
2 - LR LA deep strike mission (Su-34 like) where pilot must concentrate on LA maneuvers and unwanted threats avoidance while WSO points targets and hits them out. And also WSO controls ESM/ECM suit and drone swarms as well.
3 - LR Maritime missions.
All those mission types (espeecially maritime ones) require not a WSO in particular, but just a co-pilot for psychological comfort and friendly hand nearby which encreases flight efficiency and survivability in a harsh conditions.
I think (and TsNII-30 agrees with me :) ) that generic tactical fighters don't need the second crewman for their missions anymore since data fusion and decision making assistance from the mission computer systems is enoufg for taking co-pilot role for themselves.
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
Planes like FGFA are there to firstly help the pilot to make a better judgement in most of the cases provided by you. Indian pilots are well trained to fly in most of the conditions, If there is an instrument failure, the pilots are trained how to fly in those too. Its not for example that our pilots are taught to use a smart phone and they have and then an instrument failure is done and they are ask to call their best friend manually (whose number they do not recall because the phone is doing that) Pilots are trained with HPT, IJT and AJT so that they can have the experience in most of the scenarios that you mentioned except a few.

FGFA datalinks will be compatible with what we use in present fighters or they might be upgraded as deemed fit.

Re-programing of Brahmos should be easily be possible via the softwarre in use. But yes it should be fun to watch WSO trying to program the BRAHMOS when the pilot is trying to dodge the missile. Should be a sight to watch. And by the way, how many times is such situation going to occur? All the time?

One of the question that you put forth was
If the westners were really that confident of actually data fusing everything then they would not have asked specifically for a man in the loop for their UCAVs/UAVs.

The answer is simple, the weakest link to UAV/UCAV is the controling SATCOM link which can be tinkered with / hacked. it is not a fool proof fully secure system. It can be very much like how when DVD was introduced and it was considered secure till someone came with 16 line code called CSS which undermined the lines of code written to make DVD secure.

The difference between manned aircraft and UCAV/UAV is flying, where one is directly controlled by the man, the other is indirectly controlled by man via satcom . Which are not 100% secure or just that people are not really guaranteed of their reliability. Someone can hack it or the system can simply misunderstand or have a wrong judgement. So thats why they insist on man in the loop . The moment we have better AI which is more reilable, we might see autonomous UCAV raining death



That above is how the westerners depict a future combat scenario. And it may be true for them. They have the money and time to put all that into their machines.

But countries with finite budget may actually still go in for a WSO.

At least till 2007-08 period the WSO in IAF was still an evolving position. So a completely data fused scenario replacing the WSO is not exactly an impossible thing. It should be easier to define and train for WSO role in the current scenario.

But personally I believe WSO will remain important. Let me just give you a few examples and you can decide how best to deal with it (WSO or Data Fusion):

1) FGFA datalinks are not compatible, not available, undergoing upgrade at a rate different from that of say LCA/Mirages/transporters/awacs. In fact difference in upgrade scheduling for communication equipment, will be the biggest headache at Vayu Bhavan during a real fight and they cannot be saddled with an unresponsive high-tech software. For context the F-35 software still has massive problems despite years of programming and they still face blackouts of sensors during testing.

2) FGFA pilot is dodging a SRSAM/AAM or tracking a target of opportunity in a furball, while the AWACS that was the designated high value target is moving out of the field of regard of both the radar. Or the ground target that actually was to be killed by the onboard Brahmos (waypoints already programmed) now has to be reprogrammed.

3) The FGFA crew is flying in GPS denied/compromised conditions and is actively being hunted IOW, cannot rely on external data sources and simply has to fall back to onboard recalculation of their route and mission. If you remember a recent revelation where Chuck Yeager interrogated our pilots, suspecting the use of Russian made AWACS, when in fact the IAF pilots were using good old manual techniques of calculating their & target's positions.

4) The FGFA crew is part of a large force deployment under extreme ECM by opposing forces. And the stressed out pilot is having trouble sifting the false targets (or the computers are not deleting false targets, fast enough). Meantime something more important has been instructed by the ground command.

5) The FGFA needs to connect to or radio search the ground forces, who are not in a position to follow SOP that would facilitate designation as own forces. Or even ships in distress for example. Thus necessitating expenditure of considerable time switching channels of communication.

6) The FGFA actually has 2/3 other UCAVs to vector into the target area, each of these UCAVs/UAVs, itself facing significant ECM problems. The solution is to fly the FGFA and UCAVs taking advantage of geographical features which on the flip side create problems for inter-se communication.

7) The airforce actually decides to maintain a significantly higher ratio of type conversion trainers for their best beast in the air.

If the westners were really that confident of actually data fusing everything then they would not have asked specifically for a man in the loop for their UCAVs/UAVs.

Things are only going to heat up in the future battlefield and WSO role is an ever-evolving one. WSO role has undergone more changes then even the pilots role since history. WSO were primarily derived from Navigators and all helos and all multi-crewed aircrafts have some or the other human involved, besides the pilot. Fighter aircrafts are the only one type of aircrafts that have resisted the WSO and nobody controls the future.
 

Yumdoot

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
So @smestarz basically you are agreeing that a man is needed even when extraordinary amounts of R&D money has already been spent over a very long period of time.

And just to remind you the man in the loop is not mandated merely for Satcom dependent UAVs. The smaller UAVs that are mostly in LOS and no Satcom needs will also have a man in the loop.

Your faith in AI is very progressive. Its just that man will always be the controller, inside the cockpit or outside. And there are significant PNT inputs that are available only inside the cockpit ergo reset-rematch-reprogram.

I don't know of the future as well as some other people. May be the WSO is not needed. But then in that case the pilot will have to double up for those duties. The work is not going to go away merely because somebody else wrote a large amount of code in the labs.

More tech will only make the man's role that much more critical. Without tech only thing the man needs to worry about is the mission. With tech the man has to worry about the tech too. Remember days when we could just hit the old CRT TVs and get the reception done again. Those days are gone. Now either you have to have a routine to troubleshoot or if that fails you have to junk the device. And as Ii mentioned earlier the F-35 too is facing blackouts, which sets a benchmark of sorts for similar technologies.
 

smestarz

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
1,929
Likes
1,056
Country flag
The technology is not yet mature enough (for UAV/UCAV) to have an entire offensive force depending on them.
Recently almost a year back, the Iranians got hold of an American drone almost intact, the Iranians claimed that they hacked it, The Americans claimed that it lost control,.. but in either of the case you see a top notch tech falling into hands of your enemy. The tech you spent billions of dollars developing and they get it almost free.
A software failure or plane failure (manned plane) is just one step where the man in the loop can still ensure that the tech does not fall into eneny hands by sabotaging the sensitive avionics, but in case of UCAV you have to send in manned planes to get the job done, It is better in a way to build lo tech Drones that can carry out ISR and Strike missions something like a low cost sniper (less than 10 million dollar a plane) where the tech used though is top notch its not the sensitive that the enemy learns a lot by getting his hands on it, Best drone as per me now is one that uses off the shelf parts but with some customisation on our part,,,
The future that I foresee will be the WSO being replaced /complimented by Sensor fusion and that in the future being replaced by AI which also gives the pilot the various options and scenarios and also the probabilities. Further the advantage (or disadvantage ) of AI is that it would lack emotions and hence the judgement will be done on basis of calculations as per the lines of the code that is wirtten to make it, it will lack the human aspect or empathy that some pilots have.

So @smestarz basically you are agreeing that a man is needed even when extraordinary amounts of R&D money has already been spent over a very long period of time.

And just to remind you the man in the loop is not mandated merely for Satcom dependent UAVs. The smaller UAVs that are mostly in LOS and no Satcom needs will also have a man in the loop.

Your faith in AI is very progressive. Its just that man will always be the controller, inside the cockpit or outside. And there are significant PNT inputs that are available only inside the cockpit ergo reset-rematch-reprogram.

I don't know of the future as well as some other people. May be the WSO is not needed. But then in that case the pilot will have to double up for those duties. The work is not going to go away merely because somebody else wrote a large amount of code in the labs.

More tech will only make the man's role that much more critical. Without tech only thing the man needs to worry about is the mission. With tech the man has to worry about the tech too. Remember days when we could just hit the old CRT TVs and get the reception done again. Those days are gone. Now either you have to have a routine to troubleshoot or if that fails you have to junk the device. And as Ii mentioned earlier the F-35 too is facing blackouts, which sets a benchmark of sorts for similar technologies.
 

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
A very interesting parts found on T-50-7 (static tests airframe) rear fuselage zones near jet engines ejectors.
Some experts and insiders say that these are cold plasma emitter electrodes to shield nozzles in RF:

 

Prashant12

New Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
3,027
Likes
15,002
Country flag
Indian pilots will fly Russian fifth-gen fighters



The Indian pilots will finally get to fly the Russian prototype of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) once the contract between New Delhi and Moscow on the joint development of futuristic combat jet is finalised.

Access to the Russian next-generation jet was one of the key sticking points between the two countries leading to the enormous delay in the project taking-off. Cost escalation and questions on serious technical deficiencies in the offer on plate were other breaking points.

The issue was resolved after intervention at the highest political level after officials failed to break the deadlock that had threatened to derail the much anticipated project that would have addressed Indian Air Force's requirement for a futuristic fighter jet. It is an important breakthrough as New Delhi had been trying to have a closer look at the Russian prototype (T-50) of PAK-FA on which the Indian version, called the Prospective Multi-Role Fighter (PMF), is based. Despite India paying $ 295 million for the preliminary design, Russia was not keen to share technical details of the prototype. Six prototypes of PAK-FA are currently flying. The project, which started in 2007, has now been resurrected. The projected cost agreed in 2011 was $10.5 billion.

DEFECTS IN DESIGNS

India had found several problems in the preliminary design as it was worried about the maintenance, the engines, stealth features and the weapon carriage system. Sources said that once the research and development contract is finalised, for which negotiations were underway, the Indian pilots will get to fly the prototype. The aircraft forms part of the IAF's future fighter matrix. Under the initial plan, it was proposed that 94 months will be taken after the signing of the agreement to complete the development programme.

With the plan already running significantly behind schedule, the inductions will have to wait until the contract is finally sealed. As reported by Mail Today, Russia had held a demonstration flight of the aircraft for the Indian experts which ended in disaster as the plane caught fire.

The incident had added fuel to the Indian concerns about the platform. The political push now has provided fresh thrust to the programme. India had initially sought around 40 trainer versions of the aircraft but the plan was shelved as the Russians had earlier refused India access to the aircraft. developed single pilot combat jet.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-pilots-will-fly-russian-fifth-gen-fighters/1/705080.html
 

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
Indian pilots will fly Russian fifth-gen fighters



The Indian pilots will finally get to fly the Russian prototype of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) once the contract between New Delhi and Moscow on the joint development of futuristic combat jet is finalised.

Access to the Russian next-generation jet was one of the key sticking points between the two countries leading to the enormous delay in the project taking-off. Cost escalation and questions on serious technical deficiencies in the offer on plate were other breaking points.

The issue was resolved after intervention at the highest political level after officials failed to break the deadlock that had threatened to derail the much anticipated project that would have addressed Indian Air Force's requirement for a futuristic fighter jet. It is an important breakthrough as New Delhi had been trying to have a closer look at the Russian prototype (T-50) of PAK-FA on which the Indian version, called the Prospective Multi-Role Fighter (PMF), is based. Despite India paying $ 295 million for the preliminary design, Russia was not keen to share technical details of the prototype. Six prototypes of PAK-FA are currently flying. The project, which started in 2007, has now been resurrected. The projected cost agreed in 2011 was $10.5 billion.

DEFECTS IN DESIGNS

India had found several problems in the preliminary design as it was worried about the maintenance, the engines, stealth features and the weapon carriage system. Sources said that once the research and development contract is finalised, for which negotiations were underway, the Indian pilots will get to fly the prototype. The aircraft forms part of the IAF's future fighter matrix. Under the initial plan, it was proposed that 94 months will be taken after the signing of the agreement to complete the development programme.

With the plan already running significantly behind schedule, the inductions will have to wait until the contract is finally sealed. As reported by Mail Today, Russia had held a demonstration flight of the aircraft for the Indian experts which ended in disaster as the plane caught fire.

The incident had added fuel to the Indian concerns about the platform. The political push now has provided fresh thrust to the programme. India had initially sought around 40 trainer versions of the aircraft but the plan was shelved as the Russians had earlier refused India access to the aircraft. developed single pilot combat jet.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-pilots-will-fly-russian-fifth-gen-fighters/1/705080.html
This article is a complete BS from guys who don't know about PMI-1-2-3...

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

sjmaverick

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
66
Likes
78
Country flag
The United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) recently tested the eighth serially produced fifth-generation T-50 fighter jet in Komsomolsk-on-Amur (8,700 km east of Moscow, in the Far East – editor’s note). The T-50 is also called the Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation (Sukhoi PAK FA).

The Corporation has entered the final stage of design work and test flights, before delivery of the first squadron (12 aircraft – editor’s note) of PAK FA to the country’s armed forces. (Pamphlet with photos of the T-50)

What will the T-50 be like?
Dmitry Litovkin, military analyst at Izvestia, said the T-50 will still be worked upon first few years after a decision to place it into service, to bring it up to the generally accepted principles and indicators of a fifth generation fighter aircraft.


Who needs to down the FGFA?


“The Type 30 engine needed for a fifth-generation fighter does not yet exist. The T-50 will go into serial production with engines that are today used on the Su-35s, a 4++ generation aircraft. They still cannot provide the ratio of the weight/thrust/fuel consumption needed by a fifth generation fighter, despite having the ability to develop supersonic cruising speeds,” said Litovkin.

He noted that to accelerate research, development, and testing work, it is necessary to work with Russia’s strategic partners in defence cooperation: India, Algeria, and Vietnam.

“These countries have independent military-technical policies, and have the money to purchase advanced types of weapons. Joint R&D work will accelerate the creation of a “typical” fifth-generation fighter,” said Litovkin.

A new contract for delivery of fifth generation aircraft will be discussed with the Ministry of Defence at the end of 2016, Litovkin said, by when the Ministry would have determined the number required to meet the needs of the aerospace forces.

Features of the T-50
The newest Russian jet fighter was built as the main competitor to the F-22 Raptor. The ‘American fighter’ has already been in service with the US Air Force for more than five years and has been used in action over the skies of Iraq.

Domestic arms manufacturers did not disclose how much was spent on research and production work to design the T-50, however, it is known that the figure was several times less then what the US spent on the F-22. Washington invested more than 74 billion dollars to build the F-22 Raptor, and received a “product” worth 146 million dollars. Under contract with the US defence industry, the Pentagon bought 187 fighters, after which the F-22 Raptor programme was closed.



FGFA story: Tale of an aircraft


“The T-50 will go into serial production much later than its American counterpart. This will allow all the pros and cons of the existing machines to be developed, and then taken into account when creating our own aircraft. A similar situation existed at the time they were developing the multi-purpose fourth-generation fighter – the Su-27. The domestic prototype came out much later than the F-16, and took into account the errors made by the Americans. As a result, the domestic Sukhoi was able to surpass the ‘American’ in terms of combat characteristics,” Vadim Kozyulin, Professor at the Academy of Military Sciences, told RIR.

Kozyulin noted that the T-50 is “able to carry the entire range of current high-precision air-to-air” missiles, as well as all guided bombs.

“As part of the concept of ‘stealth’, special missiles were developed for the PAK FA, with a square cross section, which enables more warheads to be loaded when flying on combat missions,” he said.

https://in.rbth.com/economics/defen...of-gen-5-fighters-to-russian-air-force_609321
 

sjmaverick

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
66
Likes
78
Country flag
@gadeshi any update on contract to be signed with India ?.....It was about to be signed after a news came out with a revised lower value ?
 

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
@gadeshi any update on contract to be signed with India ?.....It was about to be signed after a news came out with a revised lower value ?
I have no such an info, but 3 prototypes for India are in production (PMI-1-2-3), that will tell about something, isn't it? :)

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
 

tejas warrior

New Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
1,268
Likes
3,723
Country flag
I have no such an info, but 3 prototypes for India are in production (PMI-1-2-3), that will tell about something, isn't it? :)

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk
Do you know, how much time generally they can take to be ready ? And with what Engine ?

Also, will those prototypes will be transferred to India ? OR further development will happen Russia ?
 

gadeshi

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,636
Do you know, how much time generally they can take to be ready ? And with what Engine ?
Also, will those prototypes will be transferred to India ? OR further development will happen Russia ?
Different insiders say different...
But the most sane is late 2018 for the first one.
It will be powered by Item 117 but it is irrelevant because 117 fullfills all the 5G requirements for a single-seating version. Twin seaters require Item 30 to supercruise loaded.
117 and Item 30 are unified by sizesm hard points and connectors, so PMI prototype will be remotorized at once when Item 30 will be ready.
 

Articles

Top