Indian Air Force - News & Discussion # 12

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243


Well, you may call it "risk", or "lack of experience" or whatever. The IAF has to finally take the plunge, is what I'm saying. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish between itself and a banana-republic like Saudi Arabia, which has no choice but to import. IAF atleast has a choice.

You always think in extreems only and don't see that there is a way in between too!
India can't develop and produce all arms on its own and especially not in the same quality yet, but it also don't need to simply buy foreign arms like Saudi Arabia anymore. There exactly is the difference and advantages that we get through co-developments and jv, because we can integrate those indigenous parts that we are able to produce now (avionics for example) and also customize it for our needs!
Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn't simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI, but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!
In MMRCA I see a similar chance for us beeing a partner with Rafale too, because with Topsight HMD and the Kaveri-Snecma engine there are already common developments/jv running.

However, as I told you before, see Pak Fa/FGFA partnership like the EF partnership, where Italy and Spain are also only a minor partners, because they simply can't offer more for the development. Indias situation is the same, but just like for Italy, Spain and their industries it will be a boost in business, experience and improving their capabilities.
The only difference is, that the EF partnership started jointly, whereas India joined Pak Fa/ FGFA partnership later. Of course from the start would have been better, but the outcome will remain the same, that India will only be a minor partner in development.

I also want Indian forces to be less reliant on foreign countries of course, but I see indigenous developments as one option, not the only option like you!
It would be silly imo if we turn down the chances and the access to co-developments, or procurements of superior western techs, because that is one of the major advantages we have compared to China!

Why limit ourself, if we can have both? Indigenous developments and western too!

Just answer one simple question : Why does the IAF want to import stage 1 trainers, despite the NAL Hansa being available ? Here you cannot give the usual argument of "risk", "lack of experence" and "no serial production", because Hansa is certified by Indian DGCA, and by Australia, and is already mass produced and used by many flying clubs in India.

You are turning in circles, because I answerd this question 2 times before:
the fast replacement is related with the search for a development partner for HTT40. I gave you a source for that and the order for foreign trainers is some kind of appetiser for such companies, to join the development. I guess IAF wants simply a proven and fast inductable gap filler now, that might offer some commonalty later too.

NAL Hansa can be a gap filler, but won't offer any advantages to get a foreign development partner for HTT 40. Why HAL and IAF want to develop a new trainer, instead of using NAL Hansa is a different question and might depend on the requirements they have, but I guess we are not in the position to answer that. The fact remains, it is not a simple procurement, but a search for a development partner too.

Of course it has. BAe has given high technology of JSF's landing gear and many EW systems. Yakovlev of Russia has provided it's expertise in STOL technology for JSF. In contrast, India's contribution to the so-called FGFA is zilch

Don't go by stories of Indian composites and mission computers on FGFA. Patching composites onto an already developed airframe is hardly any contribution. Even Russia can easily do it on it's own; they're simply tossing this work over to HAL so that, "kehne ko miley", that HAL did some tinkering on FGFA.

And you think the US is not able to build the landing gear or EW systems for F35? :)
UK could offer way more, but just as Russia in Pak Fa, the F35 is mainly an US fighter and that's why even UK remains a minor partner.
India will offer composites and mission computers, because that is the only part where we can offer something useful for that development. Not because Russia can't do it on their own (which I never claimed btw), but because we have enough experience an knowledge in that field to offer at least comparable as their companies.

Sancho, here I could use your own "experience" and "risk" argumnt. If I were a Russian, I would ask, "why is the composite work on PAK-FA being sourced to inexperienced HAL, which hasn't even got Tejas operational yet ? There are so many companies in Russia that have done this work so many times...why take risk with HAL ? "

I answerd this partly above, but it is no risk, HAL will not do it for the first time, like NAL would do it with the RTA development. Also using composites is only a minor field of HALs work, development of RTA would be the biggest project NAL ever had and just as you said, even if HAL had problems, there are Russian companies that could help. Who would help NAL if they have problems? HAL that also don't developed such transport aircrafts before? Not really, so in case of any problems, the risk of delays are way higher at NAL developing RTA, than HAL in case of composites for Pak Fa and that's why Russia can give this work to India, whereas it's too risky for us to let NAL develop RTA.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243

VVIP helicopter deal finally cleared

After several objections from the Finance Ministry on the price issue, the government on Wednesday cleared the purchase of 12 VVIP helicopters that would be used by the Prime Minister, President and other senior government functionaries.

The Rs 3,726 crore deal for the Agusta Westland AW 101 helicopters — at Rs 310 crore apiece — was cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) after it was given a final push by the Defence Ministry last month.

The helicopters will form part of the IAF’s communications squadron that is tasked with VIP operations and will replace the ageing Russian-origin Mi 17 and Mi 8 helicopters.

The deal had been hanging fire for over two years after the selection of the Italian helicopter as the Finance Ministry objected to the total expense. It also questioned the Defence Ministry over the IAF’s selection of only one helicopter for price negotiations, creating a single-vendor situation.

The Defence Ministry argued that the larger Augusta Westland had been chosen due to its greater passenger-carrying capacity and superior flying range. The Italian helicopter has also been chosen as the US President’s new ‘Marine One’ — for ferrying VVIPs.

http://idrw.org/?p=451

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 719

Saras PT-2 crashed because of wrong engine relight drills it was not pilot error

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

You always think in extreems only and don't see that there is a way in between too!
India can't develop and produce all arms on its own and especially not in the same quality yet, but it also don't need to simply buy foreign arms like Saudi Arabia anymore. There exactly is the difference and advantages that we get through co-developments and jv, because we can integrate those indigenous parts that we are able to produce now (avionics for example) and also customize it for our needs!
Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn't simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.

I think you are quite confused between a JV and outright purchase. Actually, this is the problem in defence purchases nowadays too :- purchases are masked as JVs. Prime examples are PAK-FA, Barak LR-SAM/MR-SAM.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI,

The above admission is welcome indeed, and must be done by the IAF and HAL. These 2 entities are reluctant to admit the "ground reality".
but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!

Note that HAL already produces spare parts, doors and gun-bays for Boeing airliners, F/A-18 and many USAF transporters. HAL was also to export used Su-30s to Algeria, but the deal didn't go through. So, if this is repeated on PAK-FA it won't be anything new, but there should be no obligation on IAF to buy the FGFA.

I also want Indian forces to be less reliant on foreign countries of course, but I see indigenous developments as one option, not the only option like you!
It would be silly imo if we turn down the chances and the access to co-developments, or procurements of superior western techs, because that is one of the major advantages we have compared to China!

China refused the Russian PAK-FA offer, as they are developing their own J-XX. It is after that Russia turned to India, which obliged.

You may read some very recent articles on PAK-FA by Russian reporters. They clearly and frankly refer to India as an "Export Customer", and as a "funder" of the PAK-FA. It is only in India that the JV "hysteria" rules.

Note that since the MiG-21 to Su-30, HAL has always sought to licence produce jets. It seeks to do the same with PAK-FA, but with a difference -- it wants to disguise the licence production as a kind of JV.

You are turning in circles, because I answerd this question 2 times before:

NAL Hansa can be a gap filler, but won't offer any advantages to get a foreign development partner for HTT 40. Why HAL and IAF want to develop a new trainer, instead of using NAL Hansa is a different question and might depend on the requirements they have, but I guess we are not in the position to answer that. The fact remains, it is not a simple procurement, but a search for a development partner too.


See, the HAL's HTT-40 exists on paper only. (news report).

I reiterate : Deepak is a side-by-side seater. Deepak crashes.Now IAF wants a replacement. So, why replace it with a tandem-seater (regardless of HTT-40 or a foreign one) ? What's so wrong with NAL Hansa, which is also a side-by-side seater certified by DGCA and mass produced ?

Besides, the HTT-40 is meant to be a replacement for the Surya-Kiran. Then what happens to IJT Sitara ? Though to it's credit, a small token of 12 IJT's are under development for IAF.

And you think the US is not able to build the landing gear or EW systems for F35? :)
UK could offer way more, but just as Russia in Pak Fa, the F35 is mainly an US fighter and that's why even UK remains a minor partner.

The above is inaccurate (do update your details). Yakovlev was successful in designing the STOL for a Yak-141 fighter, while the US did not have success since 1960s. So, instead of re-discovering that technology, it sought Yak's help. Unlike Yakovlev, HAL's contribution on PAK-FA or FGFA is nothing to speak of. It is nada, nil, zilch.

About BaE, they could've developed the EW and aircraft parts more cost-effectively than the US contractors, Lockheed and Northrop (which are also as capable). This doesn't translate to the same to PAK-FA vis-a-vis HAL. This is because, the Russian PAK-FA will NOT use HAL's composites or HAL's mission computers at all. Just like the airframe of Su-30 MKI, HAL will merely manufacture some components locally for local use only.

One may sincerely hope that IAF cancels participation in the Russian PAK-FA, and does not purchase it as it may stymie the indigenous MCA, and the learning curve associated with it. There is still time in the negotiations with Russia.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 719

Abhimanyu you are comparing to many projects with too many of your own conclusions , what will go in FGFA or PAK-FA even Russian Air force have not discussed it with Sukhoi ,after two year of airframe testing Russians will decide what will go in their version of PAK-FA and IAF and India will also decide what will go in their FGFA ,so its better not discuss something which is in so early stage of development , Regarding IJT-36 no one is ditching it Firm orders will come when issues with new engine is fixed . Just because i can buy a Hummer H3 from Showroom and paint it Brown or Green does not make it Military Vehicle so is NAL Hansa it was never designed for such maneuvers which a Military Turbo Trainer with Military Avionics suite could do, we are not training civilian pilots

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

coldFire2005, HAL's so-called "25% workshare" in the customized PAK-FA was clearly reported by Business Standard correspondent, Col. Ajai Shukla in this report. Please also note that Russian reporters plainly call India as an "export customer" only.

NAL Hansa is used for ab-initio training, which has the same profile as HPT-32 Deepak that IAF wants to replace. Ab-initio trainers are used to get a rookie pilot take his "baby steps" in flying. HPT-32 was exactly like NAL Hansa :- a side-seater with same dimensions, top-speed, etc.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243


The above admission is welcome indeed, and must be done by the IAF and HAL. These 2 entities are reluctant to admit the "ground reality".

First of all don't quote my post out of context please! Secondly I said it before that it is mainly a Russian development, remember 25% Indian involvement? But that doesn't change the fact that it is a partnership and not a simple procurement as I showed you at the examples of EF, or in comparison to Saudi Arabia!
Note that HAL already produces spare parts, doors and gun-bays for Boeing airliners, F/A-18 and many USAF transporters. HAL was also to export used Su-30s to Algeria, but the deal didn't go through. So, if this is repeated on PAK-FA it won't be anything new, but there should be no obligation on IAF to buy the FGFA.

Yes, HAL produces the spares of other aircrafts, but not developed by HAL right? You are the one that wants more indigenous developments and now you are happy with HAL simply producing parts for others with no use for Indian forces?
In Pak Fa partnership HAL, or other Indian companies will not only produce parts for other Pak Fas, but also develop parts that will be integrated.
Note that since the MiG-21 to Su-30, HAL has always sought to licence produce jets. It seeks to do the same with PAK-FA, but with a difference -- it wants to disguise the licence production as a kind of JV.

Again, if you develop Indian parts and puts them into Pak Fa, or FGFA it is not a licence production and if you fund for R&D and produce parts it's also not a licence production.
See, the HAL's HTT-40 exists on paper only. (news report)...
...Besides, the HTT-40 is meant to be a replacement for the Surya-Kiran. Then what happens to IJT Sitara ? Though to it's credit, a small token of 12 IJT's are under development for IAF.

Mate, you are so confuesed now, that you don't even read your own source correctly!
Now Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has stepped into the breach, renewing an offer to develop a modern replacement for the Deepak. Ashok Nayak, chairman of HAL, told Business Standard: “Two years ago, we offered the IAF a replacement for the Deepak. This single-engine aircraft, which we call the Hindustan Turbo Trainer — 40 (HTT-40), can be delivered within six years.”

HTT 40:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/35297-1/IMG_1055.JPG

Again from your source:

After Stage-1 training on the HTT-40, Stage-2 will be conducted on the Sitara IJT; Stage-3 training will be done on the Hawk advanced jet trainer, now being produced in HAL Bangalore, under Transfer of Technology from BAE Systems, UK.

This is because, the Russian PAK-FA will NOT use HAL's composites or HAL's mission computers at all.

That is what you are claiming, but all reports and statements of Russian and Indian officials states something else right?

But the newcomer wants its due. Bangalore-based HAL has negotiated firmly to get a 25 per cent share of design and development work in the FGFA programme. HAL’s work share will include critical software, including the mission computer (the Su-30MKI mission computer is entirely Indian); navigation systems; most of the cockpit displays; the counter measure dispensing (CMD) systems; and modifying Sukhoi’s single-seat prototype into the twin-seat fighter that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-develop-25fifth-generation-fighter/381786/

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Again, if you develop Indian parts and puts them into Pak Fa, or FGFA it is not a licence production and if you fund for R&D and produce parts it's also not a licence production.

It is not licence production of those parts. Bit it is still licence production of the aircraft.

Consider the F-4 built in the UK for the RN. It is universally agreed to have been licence-produced, despite having British engines, some other British parts, & having design modifications done at British expense, largely in the UK.

The UK built the F-4 under a licence from the USA. That is what makes it licence-produced: the permit, the licence, to build it. Whether it has zero or 25% local content does not affect that.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

First of all don't quote my post out of context please! Secondly I said it before that it is mainly a Russian development, remember 25% Indian involvement? But that doesn't change the fact that it is a partnership and not a simple procurement as I showed you at the examples of EF, or in comparison to Saudi Arabia!

You're backing off from your earlier statement. You admitted that HAL's involvement will be the same as it's involvement in the Su-30 MKI -- which is NOT regarded as a JV. Now you back the 25% development claim....
Yes, HAL produces the spares of other aircrafts, but not developed by HAL right? You are the one that wants more indigenous developments and now you are happy with HAL simply producing parts for others with no use for Indian forces?

Please comprehend posts properly. If HAL produces spares for F/A-18, it doesn't mean IAF must buy the F/A-18. So similarly, let HAL develop parts for PAK-FA and earn profits. But don't farcically call it a "JV" and so don't force the PAK-FA down IAF's throat.

Again, if you develop Indian parts and puts them into Pak Fa, or FGFA it is not a licence production and if you fund for R&D and produce parts it's also not a licence production.

The wrong assumption in the above statement is that HAL will design the FGFA's components. This is the single biggest myth propagated by HAL. I've argued variously on this forum that as per clear statements and hints from Sukhoi chairman Mikhail Pogosyan and HAL vice-chief, Sukhoi -- not HAL -- will actually design the twin-seater variant for India. It's not that HAL will take the PAK-FA's blue-prints and develop the twin-seater and add their composites. Sukhoi will do all of that. And then Sukhoi will give the finished FGFA to India. And HAL will copy it to mass produce.

Mate, you are so confuesed now, that you don't even read your own source correctly!

HTT 40:

Again from your source:


No sir. IJT Sitara is a replacement for Surya-Kiran (refer wikipedia with it's references). HTT-40 has Surya-Kiran specs (check it out) and can ideally replace it only, and not Deepak. It is a tandem-seater and it's other specs too match the Surya-Kiran. The only difference is that it's a turboprop.

NAL Hansa has HPT-32 Deepak's specs, and so can replace the Deepak. Now, the question is why replace the Deepak with a tandem-seat trainer like HPT-40 or any import -- instead of the side-seater Hansa. Only a token of 12 IJT Sitara have been ordered, which undoubtedly will be replaced by the imported option, as they have the same specs. So IAF is killing the NAL Hansa as well as IJT Sitara with these tandem-seat imports.

That is what you are claiming, but all reports and statements of Russian and Indian officials states something else right?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-develop-25fifth-generation-fighter/381786/

Please learn posts comprehension. I said, Russian PAK-FA won't use Indian composites and Indian computers. Please update yourself on what FGFA is. Like before, a clear lack of basic info (like many other examples of yours earlier). Whatever news reports that are there out there (including Business Standard) say that HAL's contribs will apply to the FGFA. HAL's got nothing to do with Russia's PAK-FA, and so you can't equate HAL to PAK-FA, vis-a-vis BaE, Yakolev and Alenia to F-35 JSF.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

Edited previous post, so as not to sound rude. Discussions must be civillian, though heated. No offence meant to Sancho78. Not taking moral ground here. Just forgot how I used to post earlier myself.

It is not licence production of those parts. Bit it is still licence production of the aircraft.

Consider the F-4 built in the UK for the RN. It is universally agreed to have been licence-produced, despite having British engines, some other British parts, & having design modifications done at British expense, largely in the UK.

The UK built the F-4 under a licence from the USA. That is what makes it licence-produced: the permit, the licence, to build it. Whether it has zero or 25% local content does not affect that.

Swerve, the above is a brilliant post. Only because some tinkering is done on the locally produced variant, doesn't mean that it becomes a JV ! This is what IAF doesn't understand, and HAL uses this trick to cleverly mask licence production as a JV.

HAL locally manufactures some Su-30 components and if I'm not mistaken, even the entire fuselage. That doesn't mean it becomes an "indigenous" Su-30. It remains Russian, for which we pay a licence purchase fee.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243

It is not licence production of those parts. Bit it is still licence production of the aircraft.

Consider the F-4 built in the UK for the RN. It is universally agreed to have been licence-produced, despite having British engines, some other British parts, & having design modifications done at British expense, largely in the UK.

The UK built the F-4 under a licence from the USA. That is what makes it licence-produced: the permit, the licence, to build it. Whether it has zero or 25% local content does not affect that.


Yes because the US developed the fighter, what about the parts of F35 where UK invested in the development and develop parts for it on their own. Now if they produce parts in the UK for an F35 they co-develop, it's in my understanding not an simple licence production anymore.
Similar to MKI, which is a licence production unless the few Indian parts of avionics in it, but the fighter is developmed by Russia. Pak Fa/ FGFA instead is a joined development and if India produces parts it can't be a licence production.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 243

You're backing off from your earlier statement. You admitted that HAL's involvement will be the same as it's involvement in the Su-30 MKI -- which is NOT regarded as a JV. Now you back the 25% development claim....

See, that is exaclty why I told you not to quote out of context! The full quote was:

Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn't simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI, but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!

So although all main techs like engine, radar and also the main airframe development will be done by Russia, we will customize it for our requirements including the max use of foreign techs, will produce parts for Pak Fa and exports too. This all comes in a partnership, where we paid at least 25% of R&D, which means it is not a licence production!

The wrong assumption in the above statement is that HAL will design the FGFA's components. This is the single biggest myth propagated by HAL. I've argued variously on this forum that as per clear statements and hints from Sukhoi chairman Mikhail Pogosyan and HAL vice-chief, Sukhoi -- not HAL -- will actually design the twin-seater variant for India. It's not that HAL will take the PAK-FA's blue-prints and develop the twin-seater and add their composites. Sukhoi will do all of that. And then Sukhoi will give the finished FGFA to India. And HAL will copy it to mass produce.

I never said HAL will design FGFA alone, but it's clear that they will be involved and that they integrate different systems and techs:

The Indian Factor

Back in early 2007, Russia and India reached an agreement to cooperate on a Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) based on the PAK FA for the Indian Air Force. The programme is officially described as involving a 50-50% split as regards both financing and R&D activities, but it is nearly universally understood to rather cover a scheme, under which India will fund a substantial portion of the PAK FA’s development bill in exchange for access to the relevant technologies.

The Indian Air Force’s requirements do differ rather substantially from the Russian Air Force’s, and are reported to demand a twin-seat configuration as well as possibly a different wing and control surfaces. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd is expected to become responsible for some 25% of the total development workload for the FGFA programme, involving modifying the PAK FA single-seater airframe to a twin-seater configuration as well as the mission computer, navigation system, cockpit displays and ECM dispensers. HAL will of course also take care of eventual series production of a tentatively planned total of some 200-250 aircraft.

Indian sources have ventured into suggesting that the FGFA could be in service by 2015, but this is quite obviously not feasible given that development has not yet started. A logical date would be well into the 2020s.

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/506/

No sir. IJT Sitara is a replacement for Surya-Kiran (refer wikipedia with it's references). HTT-40 has Surya-Kiran specs (check it out) and can ideally replace it only, and not Deepak. It is a tandem-seater and it's other specs too match the Surya-Kiran. The only difference is that it's a turboprop.

You simply can't agree that you are wrong right? :rolleyes: Again, your own source said HTT 40 will replace Deepak turboprop trainer in the first stage , it's not important that it's specs on wiki looks close to Kiran, because the one is a turboprob, to replace the turboprob Deepak and the other one is a jet trainer that will replace the jet trainer Kiran.
Please learn posts comprehension. I said, Russian PAK-FA won't use Indian composites and Indian computers... HAL's got nothing to do with Russia's PAK-FA, and so you can't equate HAL to PAK-FA, vis-a-vis BaE, Yakolev and Alenia to F-35 JSF.

Agree to the first part, because I misread it, the development part of HAL remains to FGFA of course, but the second part is wrong, because when it comes to production, HAL will also produce common parts that the Pak Fa uses too.

Member for

16 years

Posts: 3,442

See, the HAL's HTT-40 exists on paper only.
[/B]

lol oh baby. you say the HTT-40 is a paper project yet you think the Tejas Mk.2 isn't.

PC-21, Texans, Super Toucan Sams, or Orliks for you guys. they're in production and exist.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,538

It is not licence production of those parts. Bit it is still licence production of the aircraft.

Consider the F-4 built in the UK for the RN. It is universally agreed to have been licence-produced, despite having British engines, some other British parts, & having design modifications done at British expense, largely in the UK.

The UK built the F-4 under a licence from the USA. That is what makes it licence-produced: the permit, the licence, to build it. Whether it has zero or 25% local content does not affect that.

The PAK FA is a joint project. It is akin to the F 35 to the tier one partner (UK). It is very different to license production and unlike the F 35/UK context India will get access to critical technologies including radar source code and considerable ToT.

:rolleyes:

I was taking a break but when things like this pop up :confused:

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

See, that is exaclty why I told you not to quote out of context! The full quote was:

Take MKI for example, it was way more than a simple procurement for India than the EF procurement for Saudi. We customized it from the start for those requirements and didn't simply used techs that Russia offered us, we get the max of our advantage of access to foreign techs too.
Pak Fa / FGFA will also be mainly a Russian development of course and we will do pretty much the same things that we did with MKI, but this time we will also produce parts for Russian and possible export fighters. Our industry will make parts not only for 230 MKIs, but for 500+ Pak Fa and FGFA, so with every new fighter, they will earn money too! Will Saudi Arabia have this advantage? No, because they are only a simple buyer, whereas India will be (maybe a minor, but) a partner!


Bhaisaheb, you should've gone into politics (they keep saying, "no no I meant that, in that context!").

I quoted parts of your bolded post also, and reiterate once again that Su-30 MKI is NOT a joint development by any stretch. It is not officially regarded as one too, either by HAL or by IAF. So, if you think it is a JV, then you're opposing even HAL and IAF too.

If you compare what HAL did with Su-30 with PAK-FA, then PAK-FA is not a joint development at all. Customization is NOT joint development (read Swerve's post again).
I've also stated earlier that in the PAK-FA, if HAL plucks out perfectly fine Russian mission computers, displays, 5th gen. EW, and display processors only to replace it with it's own, it would be wasting time, money and effort in doing so. It was necessary in Su-30, because the "vanilla" Su-30 didn't have any quality equipment, bar the bars (pun intended) in the first place. So, Indian,Israeli,French customization was compulsory.

So although all main techs like engine, radar and also the main airframe development will be done by Russia, we will customize it for our requirements including the max use of foreign techs, will produce parts for Pak Fa and exports too. This all comes in a partnership, where we paid at least 25% of R&D, which means it is not a licence production!

Goodness ! Mere customization and making parts for export is NOT a JV ! Please read this post of mine in the PAK-FA MKI thread. FGFA and it's technicalities are discussed in detail there.

You simply can't agree that you are wrong right? :rolleyes: Again, your own source said HTT 40 will replace Deepak turboprop trainer in the first stage , it's not important that it's specs on wiki looks close to Kiran, because the one is a turboprob, to replace the turboprob Deepak and the other one is a jet trainer that will replace the jet trainer Kiran.

Arey, I said HTT-40 (or the imported turboprop) is meant to replace Surya-Kiran, because it has Kiran's specs. That's because you can't replace a 230 km/hr Deepak with a 600 km/hr HTT-40, or equivalent imported turboprop that IAF seeks. Both are entirely different class of trainers. Hansa is more in Deepak's category.

We all have been discussing that HTT-40 or the imported turboprops, are "meant" to replace HPT-32 Deepak. We all know that. That's what I've been asking why ? Why not Hansa for Deepak, and IJT for Surya-Kiran ? Only 12 IJT Sitara's are under order (though unconfirmed reports say 73, which is unlikely, given IAF's disappointment.) The HTT-40 or the imported turboprops will invariably replace the Surya-Kiran stage of training also. So, IJT Sitara is also on it's way out !

Agree to the first part, because I misread it, the development part of HAL remains to FGFA of course, but the second part is wrong, because when it comes to production, HAL will also produce common parts that the Pak Fa uses too.

No. ex-HAL chairman, Ashok Baweja and current chairman Ashok Nayak are on record saying that HAL's workshare will be limited to FGFA only. HAL has nothing to do with PAK-FA at all. You are quite lacking in basic info.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Yes because the US developed the fighter, what about the parts of F35 where UK invested in the development and develop parts for it on their own. Now if they produce parts in the UK for an F35 they co-develop, it's in my understanding not an simple licence production anymore.

This is a completely different situation.

Firstly, the F-35 will not be built in the UK. There isn't any local production to debate the status of. The issue of licence/not licence production doesn't arise at all.

Secondly, the British designed & built parts for F-35 are for all F-35s, not just those for the UK. They'll be in the F-35s bought & operated by the USA, & all those exported to other countries.

This is not the case for the Su-30MKI. It's a customised (as Abhimanyu reminds us) variant for India, not the standard model. The 'I' parts are fitted to aircraft bought & operated by India, but not those bought by Russia, China, or all other customers.

Customisation is different from co-development is different from license production. Customised variants can be license-built, but do not have to be. See the F-16E, a customised variant for the UAE entirely built in the USA. Licence-built aircraft can be standard models, or customised. Customised models can be customised by the original manufacturer, or the licence-builder. India has built Jaguars under licence, & customised them itself. The customisation does not make them co-developed (India had no input into the original development of Jaguar), nor cause them to no longer be licence-built. The customisation is Indian-developed.

Sub-contracting is yet another thing. A firm which makes parts for a product, to a specification provided by the original designer, is a supplier, not a co-developer, even if it does the detailed design of the parts itself. To be a co-developer, it has to be involved in the overall design process. To take an extreme example, consider standard parts such as rivets. Are rivet manufacturers co-developers of every product their rivets go into? Obviously not.

The lines become fuzzy sometimes, when suppliers produce major sub-assemblies. It's not always possible to say whether major sub-contractors are co-developers or suppliers. But in most cases, it's clear enough.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 176

I think there is a bit misunderstanding regarding the PAK-FA and the FGFA.

The way I see it, they are different programs. The PAK-FA its an entirely russian project with no indian participation whatsoever, and thus the plane we saw flying a few weeks ago.

The FGFA is a joint program between HAL and Sukhoi, which will use the PAK-FA plane as a starting point but in the end, will be something not completely related to the T-50.

At least, thats the way I see it and why I think its a mistake to thing the PAK-FA and FGFA are the same thing. Specially when you consider that ALL the PAK-FA systems are built by russian manufacturers and tested on russian platforms, and the rumour(if true) that the indian personel didn't know what the PAK-FA looked like until it was officially unveiled, the same day as the rest of us.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 314


This is not the case for the Su-30MKI. It's a customised (as Abhimanyu reminds us) variant for India, not the standard model. The 'I' parts are fitted to aircraft bought & operated by India, but not those bought by Russia, China, or all other customers.
no sir, you are wrong in this case. Indian components (mission computers etc IIRC) do end up on other specimens of the mki family in other countries i.e the MKM and MKA. sure of the first one, for second one it is likely but unconfirmed AFAIK.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,538

Customisation is different from co-development is different from license production. Customised variants can be license-built, but do not have to be. See the F-16E, a customised variant for the UAE entirely built in the USA. Licence-built aircraft can be standard models, or customised. Customised models can be customised by the original manufacturer, or the licence-builder. India has built Jaguars under licence, & customised them itself. The customisation does not make them co-developed (India had no input into the original development of Jaguar), nor cause them to no longer be licence-built. The customisation is Indian-developed.

According to well informed article by Ajay Shukla which i posted here, the basic difference will only be in name. Russia will buy 50 twin seaters (call FGFA if u want name dont matter) and India 50 single seaters.

India is going to contribute 25% of all FGFA or PAK FA vairants (Russian and Indian). There will be slight difference in avionics because of operational differences of Indian and Russian air forces and the climates.

FGFA - PAK FA same thing different name.

India do not want to call their front line fighter 'PAK' FA.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/india-russia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html