What's new

India Could Have Doubts About Russian Fifth-gen Fighter Buy

ashok321

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
17,942
Reaction score
4
Country
Canada
Location
Malaysia
t-50_in_flight.jpg


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...ve-doubts-about-russian-fifth-gen-fighter-buy


India could be about to re-examine its decision to acquire fifth-generation fighters from Russia, after the Indian Air Force (IAF) produced a report questioning the reasoning behind the program.


A number of Russian media reports in late October stated that India will decide not to press forward with participation in the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program. The aircraft proposed by the Russian United Aircraft-Building Corporation (OAK) is a variant of the Sukhoi Su-57/PAK-FA incorporating a long list of design changes specified by the IAF to comply with its requirements.

Both Russian print and online media and Echo Moskvy radio reported that the official IAF report has criticized the concept of continuing with the program. Among other findings, it states that the Su-57 design is compromised by being based on obsolescent technology. There are also questions about the overall cost of the program, since India would be required to commit some $6.7 billion to proceed to the next phase.

The overall assessment of the IAF report is that the FGFA would never be an aircraft in the class of the U.S. Lockheed Martin F-35 and that the maintenance costs would be prohibitively high. One of the chief concerns with regard to maintenance is that the engine currently flown in the Su-57 is the Saturn 117S/AL-41F1 design. The Indian report criticizes the engine for being too expensive to operate as it is not a “modular design.”

COMPARISONS WITH F-35
For their part, Russian industry officials said this is not a credible position and “this [engine issue] is a long-running Indian complaint.” IAF used the same rationale several years ago to exclude the Mikoyan MiG-35 from the M-MRCA competition before the final down-select.

The other Russian response is that the long-promised follow-on, fifth-generation engine for the Su-57–referred to as Izdeliye 129/Engine No. 30–was to be flown in one of the Su-57 prototypes before the end of this year. This engine is supposed to weigh significantly less, operate at higher fuel efficiency and have fewer moving parts, but details about its true status remain sparse.

Russian military technology commentators also state that the Indian assessment of the F-35 as a superior aircraft is not an honest one and that its initial design requirements have compromised its performance characteristics.

“The main focus in creating the F-35 was made on the basis of two main requirements: short takeoff and landing, as well as the stealth technology. The first aspect makes the plane a single-engine aircraft that can actually take off and land vertically on a short air strip. The stealth technology degrades flight quality and provides for a number of other restrictions,” said Aleksei Leonkov, from the Russian military publication Arsenal of the Fatherland. “If we compare the performance and combat capabilities of the F-35 and Su-57, the Su-57 leaves the U.S. aircraft considerably behind,” he claimed.

OWNERSHIP COSTS
Indian aerospace specialists maintain that, performance issues aside, there is a larger concern within the MoD that the FGFA program could turn out to “become another sinkhole of money greater than the 1990-era Su-30MKI.” Their concerns are based on the many open-ended questions as to what the complete costs will be for a new engine, as well as the many other design changes that the IAF originally recommended after a requirements team inspected the initial T-50-series prototypes in Russia.

The public understanding of the program in India is also not complete, say some of the same specialists. “The 36 Dassault Rafales that India procured after the demise of the M-MRCA program had a total cost of $9 billion. The commitment that Russia is asking for on the Su-57 is $6.7 billion, for a program that will produce around 130 aircraft,” explained one Indian military aerospace analyst.

“From the public perspective, people look at those numbers here in India and get the impression that the Russian offer is a real bargain: 130-plus aircraft for $2.3 billion less than the price of 36 Rafales. This is what they think,” he explained. “But what no one realizes is that the $6.7 billion pays only for the program set-up costs and the production of the initial four FGFA prototype aircraft. The 127 aircraft to then be license-built in India will be at least another $135 million apiece, which is another $17.1 billion on top of the initial $6.7 billion outlay.”

The final numbers put the per-unit cost of the Su-57 at $183 million compared with $250 million for the Rafale, although the same Indian analysts suggest those comparisons are not “apples for apples.” There are additional costs for weapons systems and other infrastructure expenses that are not folded into the estimate for the Su-57. However, those line items are included in the price tag for the Rafale program, they say.

“The Su-30MK was an existing, working airplane in the Russian Air Force, and turning it into the Su-30MKI was not a huge leap in capability,” said the same Indian military aerospace analyst. “Even those comparatively modest enhancements cost more than $700 million,” he added.

“The big worry for India is there is a much greater distance between the Su-57 as it exists today and the requirements for the FGFA, and there is no reliable methodology to predict that cost for closing that gap,” concluded an analyst who chose not to be named.
 
Russia is India's only chance to get ToT for a 5th generation fighter jet.

No one else will sell that tech. The USA won't even give India ToT on the F-16 which is a 1970's platform.

Bribes talk in India. It would be laughable if India goes for F-16 .A totally obsolete platform.
 
gotta keep the arms lobby happy, India will probably go for a US plane that seems to be the recent trend.
 
$250 million for Rafale
$183 million for Pak-Fa

Why buy more Rafale over a next generation aircraft that's cheaper :what: either bribes are in play; or IAF, now having had a taste for western equipment, no longer considers Russian equipment as good.
 
i think this russian jet is very good design but maintenance cost is very high.indian air force probably made a wrong decision because they allowed progress in this project but now wants to part ways.it will hurt russia india relations.russia needs money right now.
 
Russia is India's only chance to get ToT for a 5th generation fighter jet.

No one else will sell that tech. The USA won't even give India ToT on the F-16 which is a 1970's platform.

You see, I will mind a dime over dozen with no TOT.
 
Why buy more Rafale over a next generation aircraft that's cheaper
Jinn, Rafale is a pretty mature platform whereas Su 57 is still in prototype stage with FGFA concept only on paper. IAF knows for sure that even if India commits to the amount Russia is asking for, they will not be able to get hands on FGFA in next 10 years atleast.
Secondly Russian interest in Su 35 is casting shadow of doubt over future of Su 57 and its variants. besides if you see european theater (even though its quite peaceful with little chance of confrontation), very little consideration is being given to fifth generation fighter with only a handful of nations purchasing F 35. Something that should tell you about progress being made on Su 57 and its deployment.
Third, Russian flipflop on FGFA is a cause of concern. India from beginning wanted FGFA to which Russia agreed but little or no progress is made. It has even offered India Su 57 as stop gap arrangement which clearly tells that it has not been able to muster up enough number purchase to justify production when ready.
Fourth, India knows that only fifth generation fighter it is likely to encounter in near future is J 20 which we know little about.
If you add up all, you would realize that Rafale with SPECTRA suite is a pretty formidable combination (@Taygibay @Storm Force ) and its wise to spend money on it.
rafale_english_0.jpg

Further that cost (unit) you've mentioned incorporates capital cost of setting up maintenance and training facilities at 2 bases. As these numbers increase, unit cost per rafale will come down to under $ 175 million. This is a big number, but then you get what you pay for.
Cheers!
 
Jinn, Rafale is a pretty mature platform whereas Su 57 is still in prototype stage with FGFA concept only on paper. IAF knows for sure that even if India commits to the amount Russia is asking for, they will not be able to get hands on FGFA in next 10 years atleast.
Secondly Russian interest in Su 35 is casting shadow of doubt over future of Su 57 and its variants. besides if you see european theater (even though its quite peaceful with little chance of confrontation), very little consideration is being given to fifth generation fighter with only a handful of nations purchasing F 35. Something that should tell you about progress being made on Su 57 and its deployment.
Third, Russian flipflop on FGFA is a cause of concern. India from beginning wanted FGFA to which Russia agreed but little or no progress is made. It has even offered India Su 57 as stop gap arrangement which clearly tells that it has not been able to muster up enough number purchase to justify production when ready.
Fourth, India knows that only fifth generation fighter it is likely to encounter in near future is J 20 which we know little about.
If you add up all, you would realize that Rafale with SPECTRA suite is a pretty formidable combination (@Taygibay @Storm Force ) and its wise to spend money on it.
View attachment 436227
Further that cost (unit) you've mentioned incorporates capital cost of setting up maintenance and training facilities at 2 bases. As these numbers increase, unit cost per rafale will come down to under $ 175 million. This is a big number, but then you get what you pay for.
Cheers!

Thanks for the detailed and helpful response.
 
Why buy more Rafale over a next generation aircraft that's cheaper :what: either bribes are in play; or IAF, now having had a taste for western equipment, no longer considers Russian equipment as good.

Since Anant asked, let me provide a complement of information.

Generations in jet fighters is not something clearly delineated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter
https://theaviationist.com/2011/01/13/fighter-generations-comparison-chart/

Most of the above include for example AESA, sensor fusion and an EW suite that
contributes to RCS "manipulation" and yet, because they were written around
2010 or prior, they exclude the Rafale which has those but got the AESA in 2013.

The US vision is that of physical stealth almost exclusively simply because they
invented it -B1, B2, F-117, F-22 and now F-35. In their view, systems are more
of a concomitant development so that as found in the Wiki classifications, only
the Su-57, J-20 and FC-31 if produce fit the bill. You get why they want it so?

But an aircraft that can do the job today is up to date regardless of how it achieves
those results. It's like saying that Western infantry is 5th gen and that of Pakistan
3rd or 4th gen due to electronics and high tech systems the former own and so on.
And yet, these modern forces did not truly defeat the Talibans in Afghanistan even
though these were less equipped than PAK forces.

Because in the end, the tactics chosen fit the light and nimble mountain goat-men.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284389.pdf
https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/

The British Army has had similar problems. In 2011, a senior British Army officer wrote that
the Taliban refer to British soldiers as “donkeys” who move in a tactical “waddle”
because of the weight they carried in Afghanistan, which averaged 110 pounds.
The officer continued, explaining that “our infantry find it almost impossible
to close with the enemy because the bad guys are twice as mobile.”

The excerpt is from the second link, both US but from different eras.
What it shows is that to each their solution and to each solution a counter-measure.
The same is true of jet fighters. For example, the Americans do not favour multirole
as a defining feature whereas others do simply because they are still rich enough to
devise and deploy a solution for each : air superiority = F-22, battle ground support
= F-35 and long reach destruction through either B-52s et al. & cruise missiles shot
at safe distances from ship and subs.

For most nations that have lesser means ( let's exclude China ), those types are gone
or yet absent and it's fighters that will do these strikes so that multirole > stealth.
And, and... in any case, you adjust tactics to fit your tool's capabilities set in the end.

This said, please also consider the ПАК ФА timeline to address your impression about
the IAF's ( more precisely dev agencies ) judgment.
When it all began, it was the 1970s and the name was Istrebitel. That became the MFI
in the 1980s & gave us the MiG 1.42/1.44 and the Su-47 prototypes as well as a Yakovlev
aircraft now forgotten [ Yak 43].
By then though, a wall fell in Europe in 1989 and the USSR folded in 1991.

Due to its deleterious monetary situation, the new entity ( Russian Federation ) was
unable to keep all these competing designs and in 1997, the PAK-FA was started after
a rationalisation of their mil avia industry, getting a true start in 2001.
20 years later, it is not inducted, waiting for its engine and its flight testing is now 7
years running. The FGFA was an ambitious idea ( as always with Bharat : Too ambitious )
adding over 40 modifications supposed to begin in India by 2014 and IOC in 2022.

So now, about that Russian equipment [ very high tech let's precise as Russia has
always made excellent stuff in the more rugged categories ] comment you made?
The Rafale, also first envisioned in the 1970s and prototyped in 1986, flew in 1991
the same year the USSR crumbled. It was supposed to get IOC 5 years later but due
to budget cuts after the end of the Cold War ( same event as above, you know) was
delayed until introduction in 2001 ... the same year as PAK-FA got definitively cleared.

Since that first ( of incomplete capacity by far ) acquisition by La Royale ( French Navy ),
it went through ... youth, war and about 10 standards all retrofitted to previous builds
and clearly won the two toughest and non-politically influenced evaluations held since.

It now sports on top of its fine Spectra suite, an AESA radar ( the first one so equipped
apart
from America and Japan ) and will get planned upgrades in 2018, 2022 and 2025.
It flies with 2 nations and is getting other upgrades for the next 2 that bought it such as
the HMD/CS for Qatar.
Meanwhile, the Su-57 is expected to get its M-88 comparable engine and IOC in 2020!

I'll let you draw your own conclusion?

Have a great day, mate, Tay.
 
Last edited:
Russia is India's only chance to get ToT for a 5th generation fighter jet.

No one else will sell that tech. The USA won't even give India ToT on the F-16 which is a 1970's platform.

No one will part ways with stealth tech, no matter how much you pay.

As for stealth plane, the only chance India will get one is to wait in line for F-35. To build a fifth gen plane require money and technology. So the only realistic 5th generation platforms in the next 20 year are US and Chinese platforms. I don't see India get anything from China. So US is the only option. And good luck for India to even bring up TOT on F-35. I wonder if India would even bother to ask.
 
Since Anant asked, let me provide a complement of information.

Generations in jet fighters is not something clearly delineated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter
https://theaviationist.com/2011/01/13/fighter-generations-comparison-chart/

Most of the above include for example AESA, sensor fusion and an EW suite that
contributes to RCS "manipulation" and yet, because they were written around
2010 or prior, they exclude the Rafale which has those but got the AESA in 2013.

The US vision is that of physical stealth almost exclusively simply because they
invented it -B1, B2, F-117, F-22 and now F-35. In their view, systems are more
of a concomitant development so that as found in the Wiki classifications, only
the Su-57, J-20 and FC-31 if produce fit the bill. You get why they want it so?

But an aircraft that can do the job today is up to date regardless of how it achieves
those results. It's like saying that Western infantry is 5th gen and that of Pakistan
3rd or 4th gen due to electronics and high tech systems the former own and so on.
And yet, these modern forces did not truly defeat the Talibans in Afghanistan even
though these were less equipped than PAK forces.

Because in the end, the tactics chosen fit the light and nimble mountain goat-men.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284389.pdf
https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/

The British Army has had similar problems. In 2011, a senior British Army officer wrote that
the Taliban refer to British soldiers as “donkeys” who move in a tactical “waddle”
because of the weight they carried in Afghanistan, which averaged 110 pounds.
The officer continued, explaining that “our infantry find it almost impossible
to close with the enemy because the bad guys are twice as mobile.”

The excerpt is from the second link, both US but from different eras.
What it shows is that to each their solution and to each solution a counter-measure.
The same is true of jet fighters. For example, the Americans do not favour multirole
as a defining feature whereas others do simply because they are still rich enough to
devise and deploy a solution for each : air superiority = F-22, battle ground support
= F-35 and long reach destruction through either B-52s et al. & cruise missiles shot
at safe distances from ship and subs.

For most nations that have lesser means ( let's exclude China ), those types are gone
or yet absent and it's fighters that will do these strikes so that multirole > stealth.
And, and... in any case, you adjust tactics to fit your tool's capabilities set in the end.

This said, please also consider the ПАК ФА timeline to address your impression about
the IAF's ( more precisely dev agencies ) judgment.
When it all began, it was the 1970s and the name was Istrebitel. That became the MFI
in the 1980s & gave us the MiG 1.42/1.44 and the Su-47 prototypes as well as a Yakovlev
aircraft now forgotten [ 43].
By then though, a wall fell in Europe in 1989 and the USSR folded in 1991.

Due to its deleterious monetary situation, the new entity ( Russian Federation ) was
unable to keep all these competing designs and in 1997, the PAK-FA was started after
a rationalisation of their mil avia industry, getting a true start in 2001.
20 years later, it is not inducted, waiting for its engine and its flight testing is now 7
years running. The FGFA was an ambitious idea ( as always with Bharat : Too ambitious )
adding over 40 modifications supposed to begin in India by 2014 and IOC in 2022.

So now, about that Russian equipment [ very high tech let's precise as Russia has
always made excellent stuff in the more rugged categories ] comment you made?
The Rafale, also first envisioned in the 1970s and prototyped in 1986, flew in 1991
the same year the USSR crumbled. It was supposed to get IOC 5 years later but due
to budget cuts after the end of the Cold War ( same event as above, you know) was
delayed until introduction in 2001 ... the same year as PAK-FA got definitively cleared.

Since that first ( of incomplete capacity by far ) acquisition by La Royale ( French Navy ),
it went through ... youth, war and about 10 standards all retrofitted to previous builds
and clearly won the two toughest and non-politically influenced evaluations held since.

It now sports on top of its fine Spectra suite, an AESA radar ( the first one so equipped
apart
from America and Japan ) and will get planned upgrades in 2018, 2022 and 2025.
It flies with 2 nations and is getting other upgrades for the next 2 that bought it such as
the HMD/CS for Qatar.
Meanwhile, the Su-57 is expected to get its M-88 comparable engine and IOC in 2020!

I'll let you draw your own conclusion?

Have a great day, mate, Tay.

What a delightful post! :smitten:

I recall a web live blog session and one participant asked a question (which you have addressed above) regarding Multi role fighters vis a vis dedicated specialist role platforms.the web expert gave an analogy of Single Reflex Lens and a point and shoot camera. he remarked a point and shoot camera would do almost any job that a D-SLR would but then again ask an avid photographer and his choice would be obvious to own a D-SLR with multiple lenses.
The same is case with Air Forces. they would definitely want dedicated fighters/ bomber / reconnaissance platforms if cost permits. most times the budget makers win and you get compromised solution. Very able but compromised machines and you make most out of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom