Sukhoi PAK FA

[nags_simha]

You are spot on.. probably Indian think tank should consider investing on single engine 5th gen and buy T-50, we have a balanced air force. I do not understand why IAF is pursuing MRCA, rather than acquire more su 30 and invest the rest in T-50.

 

[p2prada]

Last I heard Russia and India plan on only 250 PAK-FA's each! So, 187 F-22 don't sound so bad...........Especially, considering the F-22 is likely to have better availablity rates. That is if history has anything to do with it. Plus, like another member already stated. The US will have thousands of F-35's to support them.

Let's also not forget Allied F-35's that would fight along the US in any major conflict.........

Those numbers are only initial orders. Indian and Russian orders always happen in batches. Newer batches will be modified further as the fighter evolves.

It is like how the Su-30 MKI shot up from 190 initially to nearly 300 today. The MRCA may also go up from 126 today to maybe 200, probably more.

 

[p2prada]

Your dreaming............Russia's record on Serviceability, Life Cycle Costs, and Maintainability is poor compare to Western Standards.

It is not Russia, but Soviet Union. Russian industries have increased their quality by many folds. The quality of Indian MKIs is better than anything Russia has today. It is lagging behind the west in some parameters, but costs have been reduced drastically.

EDIT: Also, lets not forget Russia wants the PAKFA to cost only $1500 per hour of flight time. That is cheaper than every other fighter available in the market and way cheaper than the $10000 that goes into the Su-30 for every hour it is in the air. In comparison, Gripen costs $3000 for a flight hour while F-15 costs $30000/ flight hour and F-22 $44000/flight hour. Compare that to PAKFA's $1500.

 

[anoop_mig25]

It is not Russia, but Soviet Union. Russian industries have increased their quality by many folds. The quality of Indian MKIs is better than anything Russia has today. It is lagging behind the west in some parameters, but costs are reduced because the Russian fighters have a cheaper initial investment rate compared to western contemporaries.

so d u think mig-35 is better then other begin offered to us in mmrca contest?

by the way i had heard that russians fighter planes are better in dog-fights/(or making complex turs in sky) then compared to western is it true

 

[p2prada]

so d u think mig-35 is better then other begin offered to us in mmrca contest?

It depends. The Mig-35 is very good. It's airframe is improved over previous models and modified to carry a wide assortment of weapons along with better engines. Now, if the avionics are as good as the F-18 is subject to debate since we do not know anything about either except names.

by the way i had heard that russians fighter planes are better in dog-fights/(or making complex turs in sky) then compared to western is it true

If you compare it to the F-22 then it is false. We will need the PAKFA to better the F-22 in dog fights. Even MKI is not enough.

 

[neo29]

@ crusader

Even your beloved F-35 has huge maintenance issues and cost. Already reports of the escalating costs are buzzing around. If its expensive for the US, India cant afford it.

Sukhoi planes are best maneuverable fighters, something essentials for dog fights. The EF and Rafale have matched F-22 in dog fights, waiting when they will test the F-35 against it.

India will never ever sign CISMOA and never buy a fighter without technology transfers something US will probably never agree too. RFI for F-35 is just a formality.

 

[nags_simha]

It is not Russia, but Soviet Union. Russian industries have increased their quality by many folds. The quality of Indian MKIs is better than anything Russia has today. It is lagging behind the west in some parameters, but costs have been reduced drastically.

EDIT: Also, lets not forget Russia wants the PAKFA to cost only $1500 per hour of flight time. That is cheaper than every other fighter available in the market and way cheaper than the $10000 that goes into the Su-30 for every hour it is in the air. In comparison, Gripen costs $3000 for a flight hour while F-15 costs $30000/ flight hour and F-22 $44000/flight hour. Compare that to PAKFA's $1500.

.

I am skeptical about the fact that T-50 operation cost will hover around $1500 per hour of flight. Unlike western engines, Russian engines require lot of maintenance and engine life is shorter. Moreover T-50 is supposed to be 5th gen fighter, The RAM coating needs extensive maintenance. RAM is easily affected by weather conditions unless Russians have come up with RAM that need less maintenance. RAM coating on F-22 is major cause for its maintainability cost burning a big hole in USAF pocket.

 

[p2prada]

.

I am skeptical about the fact that T-50 operation cost will hover around $1500 per hour of flight. Unlike western engines, Russian engines require lot of maintenance and engine life is shorter. Moreover T-50 is supposed to be 5th gen fighter, The RAM coating needs extensive maintenance. RAM is easily affected by weather conditions unless Russians have come up with RAM that need less maintenance. RAM coating on F-22 is major cause for its maintainability cost burning a big hole in USAF pocket.

Well, this is an official figure. Even if it doubles, that would equal the Gripen's lifecycle costs.

The Russians have been giving high priority on quality. That's why some Russian equipment has become more expensive than before. Earlier the Mig-29 used to give 2250 hours and that has been increased to 6500 hours, which is a big deal. Even the AL-31FP we have has increased MTBO to 1000 hours up from 500 hours a decade ago.

If the westerners are sceptical then let them be. They are always sceptical about Russian technology, that's what they are paid to do. It doesn't hurt much to give a negative press statement on a paper product.

 

[ppgj]

.

I am skeptical about the fact that T-50 operation cost will hover around $1500 per hour of flight. Unlike western engines, Russian engines require lot of maintenance and engine life is shorter. Moreover T-50 is supposed to be 5th gen fighter, The RAM coating needs extensive maintenance. RAM is easily affected by weather conditions unless Russians have come up with RAM that need less maintenance. RAM coating on F-22 is major cause for its maintainability cost burning a big hole in USAF pocket.

you are right. that $1500 figure was given by some fancy russian media guy "supposedly" quoting some russian source. it will be much much higher than $1500 though IMO less than the western 5th gen fighters because russians have not given sooo much importance to "stealth" as F-22. they have given much higher importance to maneurability at the expense of stealth.

Mig 29's engine life has been increased to 4000hrs and not 6500hrs from the previous 2500 hrs.

 

[p2prada]

you are right. that $1500 figure was given by some fancy russian media guy "supposedly" quoting some russian source. it will be much much higher than $1500 though IMO less than the western 5th gen fighters because russians have not given sooo much importance to "stealth" as F-22. they have given much higher importance to maneurability at the expense of stealth.

Mig 29's engine life has been increased to 4000hrs and not 6500hrs from the previous 2500 hrs.

I was talking about Mig-29s airframe not engine.

And wasn't the $1500 figure given by Makarov. I may be wrong though.

 

[ppgj]

I was talking about Mig-29s airframe not engine.

normally when a fighter's life is considered, the engine life is the major factor in determining it. airframe can even exceed 40 years provided they are well maintained with mid life stress analysis . case in point our Mig 21s which have already gone beyond 40 yrs. there was a recent article where a "stress analysis" on our jaguars threw this interesting fact that they still have 25 more years of life!!! they are going for an engine upgrade hence.

also noteworthy here russian Mig 29s had started showing up cracks recently due to bad maintainence while our's did not have such problems!! :happy_2:

And wasn't the $1500 figure given by Makarov. I may be wrong though.

it is simply laughable if he did say that!!

even our own LCAs, being single engined and non stealthy, may not have that sort of figures. i guess it must be $15000 which is actually beleivable considering it is double engined with stealth being part and meant for deep penetration. makes sense when our SU 30MKI's will have no less than $10000 per hour cost. even the article i posted long back in PAKFA thread talking $1500 per hour cost must be having a typo error or the person was in delusion.

 

[p2prada]

normally when a fighter's life is considered, the engine life is the major factor in determining it. airframe can even exceed 40 years provided they are well maintained with mid life stress analysis . case in point our Mig 21s which have already gone beyond 40 yrs. there was a recent article where a "stress analysis" on our jaguars threw this interesting fact that they still have 25 more years of life!!! they are going for an engine upgrade hence.

That is in the operational sense. I was talking about manufacturing quality that has improved compared to before. The Mig-21s we have are not 40 years old. The Bisons we have now were among the last to be inducted in the IAF.

Our Jaguars always gave 40 years. Also, our Mig-29s was supposed to be retired in a few years according to the original draft from the late 80s. The airframe life was only 2250 hours. That is being doubled with our new Russian upgrade package. Was pointing out that the Russians are doubling the life of our fighters simply because they are using better quality parameters.

Our Mig-29s suddenly giving 40 years has nothing to do with our maintenance.

it is simply laughable if he did say that!!

even our own LCAs, being single engined and non stealthy, may not have that sort of figures. i guess it must be $15000 which is actually beleivable considering it is double engined with stealth being part and meant for deep penetration. makes sense when our SU 30MKI's will have no less than $10000 per hour cost. even the article i posted long back in PAKFA thread talking $1500 per hour cost must be having a typo error or the person was in delusion.

Considering Makarov did not say it then even I find it sceptical, unless of course the Russians have found kryptonite. Anyway, the source of the article is Pravda.

 

[sunnyv]

1500 , looks too optimistic .
Considering even after a single hour flight , even for minor panel adjustments or taking oil sample ,for an aircraft where surface integrity (low reflecting surface RCS) determines its lethality .
Chance can't be taken whole aircraft has to be handled very smoothly . The technicians involved can not be as relax as with 4th gen fighters are . Even a very slight disruption of surface coating can create a corner reflector to increase RCS . Perfect tool and specialist in that handling has to be called .

Don't want to have above reflectors after every repair , or in flight rains/dust . Need lot of careful handling and extra manpower . Not just frontal aspect but whole airframe .
I doubt 1500 would allow so much man-power + sophisticated tools to have .

 

[ppgj]

That is in the operational sense. I was talking about manufacturing quality that has improved compared to before.

indeed it has improved by a notch. just a look at the Mig 29k vis a vis Mig 29s will suffice.

The Mig-21s we have are not 40 years old. The Bisons we have now were among the last to be inducted in the IAF.

but we still operate Mig 21Bis/M/MF/FL. these are much older ones. here is the fleet strength of IAF updated as of oct 19th 2009.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Others/281-Fleet.html

Our Jaguars always gave 40 years. Also, our Mig-29s was supposed to be retired in a few years according to the original draft from the late 80s. The airframe life was only 2250 hours. That is being doubled with our new Russian upgrade package. Was pointing out that the Russians are doubling the life of our fighters simply because they are using better quality parameters.

i don't know which draft you are referring to. can you link me to that?? would be interesting to read but i would be surprised if they were to be retired in a "few" years considering they have not crossed 30 years and IAF has a habit of sucking every ounce from it's fighters!!

i agree the build quality has indeed improved but maintainence is the key!!

Our Mig-29s suddenly giving 40 years has nothing to do with our maintenance.

IAF is very particular on this. they do stress analysis regularly. even Malaysia used to get their Mig 29s serviced in india!! :happy_2:

Considering Makarov did not say it then even I find it sceptical, unless of course the Russians have found kryptonite. Anyway, the source of the article is Pravda.

right.

 

[p2prada]

1500 , looks too optimistic .
Considering even after a single hour flight , even for minor panel adjustments or taking oil sample ,for an aircraft where surface integrity (low reflecting surface RCS) determines its lethality .
Chance can't be taken whole aircraft has to be handled very smoothly . The technicians involved can not be as relax as with 4th gen fighters are . Even a very slight disruption of surface coating can create a corner reflector to increase RCS . Perfect tool and specialist in that handling has to be called .

Don't want to have above reflectors after every repair , or in flight rains/dust . Need lot of careful handling and extra manpower . Not just frontal aspect but whole airframe .
I doubt 1500 would allow so much man-power + sophisticated tools to have .

I know that. Perhaps that's where the Plasma stealth mumbo jumbo comes in. We need to see what the Russians are using as RAM and that info will never come out in our life times, probably. If rain and dust does affect PAKFA's stealth then that's a different matter.

 

[p2prada]

indeed it has improved by a notch. just a look at the Mig 29k vis a vis Mig 29s will suffice.

It has improved quite considerably. Doubling airframe life is not easy.

but we still operate Mig 21Bis/M/MF/FL. these are much older ones. here is the fleet strength of IAF updated as of oct 19th 2009.

Our last set of Mig-21s were built between 1977 and 1985. 200+ were built during that time. That would amount to 25 to 33 years old until 2010. Only the last batches of the Mig-21s were converted to Bisons and that's just 125 of them. The 40+ year old Mig-21s have either crashed or phased out.

i don't know which draft you are referring to. can you link me to that?? would be interesting to read but i would be surprised if they were to be retired in a "few" years considering they have not crossed 30 years and IAF has a habit of sucking every ounce from it's fighters!!

This is from the late 80s. The aircraft had a life of only 25 years, same as the engine life at that time. The current upgrade plan proposes to increase the Mig-29 life to 40 years, as is the Mig-35 and Mig-29k. Life extension was part of the upgrade deal we signed with Russia.

i agree the build quality has indeed improved but maintainence is the key!!

Of course. But I was not talking about maintenance at all. Only build quality which is nearing western standards at cheaper prices.

right.

You don't have to be narcissistic at every turn.

 

[ppgj]

You don't have to be narcissistic at every turn.

0_0

you said -

Considering Makarov did not say it then even I find it sceptical, unless of course the Russians have found kryptonite.

and i agreed.

what is "narcissistic" about agreeing??

 

[Crusader53]

Those numbers are only initial orders. Indian and Russian orders always happen in batches. Newer batches will be modified further as the fighter evolves.

It is like how the Su-30 MKI shot up from 190 initially to nearly 300 today. The MRCA may also go up from 126 today to maybe 200, probably more.

True Indian and Russia may order more PAK-FA's down the road. Yet, the US could order more F-35's. That said, even if they don't the Combined Fleet of F-22's and F-35's will likely be more nonetheless.......So, what's your point???

 

[Crusader53]

It is not Russia, but Soviet Union. Russian industries have increased their quality by many folds. The quality of Indian MKIs is better than anything Russia has today. It is lagging behind the west in some parameters, but costs have been reduced drastically.

EDIT: Also, lets not forget Russia wants the PAKFA to cost only $1500 per hour of flight time. That is cheaper than every other fighter available in the market and way cheaper than the $10000 that goes into the Su-30 for every hour it is in the air. In comparison, Gripen costs $3000 for a flight hour while F-15 costs $30000/ flight hour and F-22 $44000/flight hour. Compare that to PAKFA's $1500.

I think you've been reading to much Russian Propaganda??? Do you really expect the members to believe the PAK-FA will cost less the the F-35 or even F-22 to operate per flight hour. Especially, when Russia has never been cheaper than its Western Contemporaries during the last 60 years.

==no+=way==


Please, provide a source to support your wild claims. As I am all ears........

 

[Crusader53]

@ crusader

Even your beloved F-35 has huge maintenance issues and cost. Already reports of the escalating costs are buzzing around. If its expensive for the US, India cant afford it.

Sukhoi planes are best maneuverable fighters, something essentials for dog fights. The EF and Rafale have matched F-22 in dog fights, waiting when they will test the F-35 against it.

India will never ever sign CISMOA and never buy a fighter without technology transfers something US will probably never agree too. RFI for F-35 is just a formality.

The F-35 is not expensive to operate and any "buzz" is just that and nothing more. As a matter of fact the F-35 will be cheaper to maintain than any current generation fighter and much cheaper than the PAK-FA or F-22.

BTW The Typhoon and Rafale are not more maneuverable than the F-22. Plus, the F-35 is almost the equal of the latter. Which, has been proven by comments made by F-22 and F-35 Test Pilot Jon Beesley.


Oh, as long as you bring up "Agility". The PAK-FA may have some advantage in very slow speed and very high AOA like the F-22. Yet, that is only one small aspect of aerial combat. Plus, the fact that HOBS Weapons and HMD's negate most of that advantage.

History is full of Highly Agile Fighters that have lost miserably in Air Combat.