Sukhoi PAK-FA / FGFA: Updates,News & Discussions

[Reviewer21]

@Abingdonboy bhai what is going in the FGFA project, how much work have been completed?

We will get the first prototype by late 2016 and will be ready to be inducted by 2020.

Bro wiki is showing first flight of FGFA in 2014

 

[DacterSaab]

Bro wiki is showing first flight of FGFA in 2014

wiki is not very reliable

 

[Abingdonboy]

I dont have any updates and we will induct a mix of PAKFA and FGFA.

From what I understand, the PAK-FA was offered to the IAF as an interim/stop-gap solution until the FGFA is ready (2020/21) much like how the IAF initially got the SU-30Ks whilst the MKI was still under development. However the IAF has rejected this offer and now will only get the India-specific FGFA, meaning they have to wait a bit longer for a 5th gen fighter in their fleet.

 

[sancho]

From what I understand, the PAK-FA was offered to the IAF as an interim/stop-gap solution until the FGFA is ready (2020/21) much like how the IAF initially got the SU-30Ks whilst the MKI was still under development. However the IAF has rejected this offer and now will only get the India-specific FGFA, meaning they have to wait a bit longer for a 5th gen fighter in their fleet.

Not exactly, the initial Pak Fa offer was mainly rejected because IAF prefered twin seaters and Pak Fa is a single seater. Now they want both versions, but still reject the Pak Fa in it's first version, as it doesn't meet the IAF requirements for a 5th gen fighter as it seems. The fact that they still reject hints on, that the Pak Fa offer was not like the Su 30K deal, where Russia bought back the fighters in return for new MKIs, otherwise we could have bought early Pak Fas now and replaced it with fully developed single seat FGFAs later. So Russia might want us to buy a propper batch of their versions to increase the numbers for their production line, without the issues to sell them afterwards.

 

[godofwar]

Not exactly, the initial Pak Fa offer was mainly rejected because IAF prefered twin seaters and Pak Fa is a single seater. Now they want both versions, but still reject the Pak Fa in it's first version, as it doesn't meet the IAF requirements for a 5th gen fighter as it seems. The fact that they still reject hints on, that the Pak Fa offer was not like the Su 30K deal, where Russia bought back the fighters in return for new MKIs, otherwise we could have bought early Pak Fas now and replaced it with fully developed single seat FGFAs later. So Russia might want us to buy a propper batch of their versions to increase the numbers for their production line, without the issues to sell them afterwards.

I thought IAF is only going for single seater version now...

 

[sancho]

I thought IAF is only going for single seater version now...

Unless I have missed something in the last few weeks, they want both versions according to the last air chief and personally I think the twin seat is even the better one for Indias or even future requirements.

 

[godofwar]

Unless I have missed something in the last few weeks, they want both versions according to the last air chief and personally I think the twin seat is even the better one for Indias or even future requirements.

This is from Oct 2013

MOSCOW, October 25 (RIA Novosti) – India’s share in research-and-development work for the joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia is currently limited by India's domestic industrial capabilities but will gradually increase with the project’s implementation, a Russian military expert said Friday.

India’s The Economic Times newspaper reported on October 17 that Indian military officials were concerned over the country’s work share in the FGFA project, which is currently only 15 percent even though New Delhi is bearing 50 percent of the cost.

According to the paper, India’s defense minister is expected to raise that issue during his visit to Russia beginning November 15.

“The figure cited by the Indian side reflects current capabilities of India’s industry, in particular the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [HAL] corporation,” said Igor Korotchenko, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade.

“With the progress in the implementation of this project, we expect the Indian engineers and designers to approach the share determined in the [Russian-Indian] agreement: 50 percent,” Korotchenko said in an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti.

Russia will certainly provide all necessary knowledge and logistics support to Indian specialists, but developing skills and acquiring experience in design and development of advanced fighter aircraft takes a long time and substantial effort, the expert added.

The FGFA project began following a Russian-Indian agreement on cooperation in the development and production of the perspective multirole fighter, signed on October 18, 2007.

The Indian fighter jet will be based on the Russian single-seat Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter, which now has four prototypes flying, but it will be designed to meet about 50 specific requirements by the Indian Air Force (IAF).

In December 2010, Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Russian aircraft maker Sukhoi Company signed a preliminary design development contract worth $295 million for the new aircraft.



© RIA Novosti.
Russian Fith-Generation t-50 Fighter Jet



Currently the $11 billion final design and research-and-development contract is under negotiation between the two countries. The total program is expected to cost India about $25 billion to 30 billion.

The IAF had initially planned to order 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but India’s chief of air staff said in October last year that New Delhi would now go for only 144 single-seat jets, with domestic production slated to begin in 2020.

India’s Share in Joint Fighter Project With Russia Likely to Grow | Defense | RIA Novosti

 

[sancho]

This is from Oct 2013

That is only about the first batch of fighters and is more a cost control measure than a change of the requirement. IAF still wants twin seaters, but with the 2nd lot of Pak Fa and the first FGFAs being in a similar production standard, the bigger order can keep costs reasonable. The costs for the twin seater can later be reduced through exports again and the success of the Su 30 compared of the failure of the Su 35 on the export market, shows the potential.

 

[godofwar]

That is only about the first batch of fighters and is more a cost control measure than a change of the requirement. IAF still wants twin seaters, but with the 2nd lot of Pak Fa and the first FGFAs being in a similar production standard, the bigger order can keep costs reasonable. The costs for the twin seater can later be reduced through exports again and the success of the Su 30 compared of the failure of the Su 35 on the export market, shows the potential.

I wonder why they want to spend so much money on modifying a single seat plane into a twin seat version and sacrifice performance a& RCS.
What advantages does that give exactly ?
Are the twin seaters meant for Strategic Air Command ?

 

[sancho]

I wonder why they want to spend so much money on modifying a single seat plane into a twin seat version and sacrifice performance a& RCS.
What advantages does that give exactly ?
Are the twin seaters meant for Strategic Air Command ?

Advantages in strike roles or recon roles, in long endurance operations (air superiority over a large area), in future joint operations with UAVs or UCAVs (WSO controls, Rustom H or AURA), the advantages of the twin seat config especially for fighters that are meant for both roles like the F15 Strike Eagle, the F16 Sufa, the Rafale, or the Su 30 shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[45'22']

After India, Russia Offers Brazil Joint Development Of T-50 Fighter Aircraft

 

[longlong]

Advantages in strike roles or recon roles, in long endurance operations (air superiority over a large area), in future joint operations with UAVs or UCAVs (WSO controls, Rustom H or AURA), the advantages of the twin seat config especially for fighters that are meant for both roles like the F15 Strike Eagle, the F16 Sufa, the Rafale, or the Su 30 shouldn't be underestimated.

1) One side you want to take out human to make UAV, another side you want put one more human into the cockpit to make FGFA.
2) That's why all 5th gen fighter ever flown are single seat.

 

[sancho]

1) One side you want to take out human to make UAV, another side you want put one more human into the cockpit to make FGFA.
2) That's why all 5th gen fighter ever flown are single seat.

Where did I stated that I want to take out human for UAVs? I am talking about joint tactics of mixed UCAV and fighter formations in which twin seaters are the first choice, since the WSO will take over control if needed. That is even visible today, where F18 twin seaters, or the latest batch of Apache helicopters are modifed to take over control over UAVs. That is part of modern netcentric warfare and will be even more important in future, when fighters and UCAVs are mixed.

Btw, the F22 as well as the F35 were planned with two seat configs too, several F35 operators like Israel even asked for it, but in both cases budget constrains killed the developments.

 

[DacterSaab]

Advantages in strike roles or recon roles, in long endurance operations (air superiority over a large area), in future joint operations with UAVs or UCAVs (WSO controls, Rustom H or AURA), the advantages of the twin seat config especially for fighters that are meant for both roles like the F15 Strike Eagle, the F16 Sufa, the Rafale, or the Su 30 shouldn't be underestimated.

Hi sancho,
there are disadvantage to a twin-seat config like
additional cost of training and maintaining double number of pilots
RCS penalties (I believe they can be technologically overcome)
additional cost of equipment in the cockpit (although it's not a considerable sum)

I also read somewhere that research done by Americans shows that use of advanced avionics, 360 degree scanning radars and helmet mounted display and targeting systems reduce pilot workload sufficiently to allow him to concentrate on more comprehensive missions.

 

[sancho]

Hi sancho,
there are disadvantage to a twin-seat config like
additional cost of training and maintaining double number of pilots
RCS penalties (I believe they can be technologically overcome)
additional cost of equipment in the cockpit (although it's not a considerable sum)

I also read somewhere that research done by Americans shows that use of advanced avionics, 360 degree scanning radars and helmet mounted display and targeting systems reduce pilot workload sufficiently to allow him to concentrate on more comprehensive missions.

Everything has it's pros and cons, yes they are more complex and therefor more expensive, but in operational terms a twin seat configs have clear advantages for multi role fighters. Take the Libyan conflict as an example, where single EF had difficulties to guide the LGBs in strike role and needed assistance of twin seat Tornados. That although the EF is one of the most advanced fighters when it comes to avionics and the fact that the fighters had freedom to fly over Libya. In the Indian scenario with far more capable enemies, the workload for a single pilot will be far higher and more difficult to handle, especially for the top line fighters like MKI, that are meant for long endurance and range missions.