The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 20, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: India takes a hit over Russian fighters
Softwar    5/23/2007 11:25:27 AM
link

South Asia
May 24, 2007

India takes a hit over Russian fighters
By Sudha Ramachandran

BANGALORE - India's relations with Russia have hit an air pocket, with the Russians seeking to renegotiate the terms of a US$8.5 billion deal to supply India with Sukhoi fighter aircraft. The new pricing terms that the Russians are proposing would require India to fork out another half-billion dollars.

Under the deal to supply the multi-role combat aircraft to India, Russia's Irkutsk Corp has already supplied 60 Su-30s. Russia is willing to deliver another 40 fighters at the cost escalation of

2.55% per annum as agreed under the original deal. However, for the remaining 138 Su-30s to be assembled by the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Russia wants the cost-escalation rate to be hiked to a minimum of 5%.

India and Russia both need the deal, so a compromise is likely, such as settling for a cost-escalation rate of about 4%, above the current 2.55% but below the 5% now being demanded. Or India could pay in euros. But a bitter taste will remain.

Russia is also considering increasing the cost of the 44,570-tonne aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (renamed by India as INS Vikramaditya) that it was to make available to India by August 2008. The proposed price rises were conveyed to a delegation of top Indian officials that was in Moscow last week.

This has injected a perceptible chill into India-Russia ties. Except for a few years following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, when relations cooled, India's relationship with Moscow has been close. For decades, India has viewed Moscow as a reliable friend that backed its development priorities and provided its defense forces with most of its hardware. While trade and economic cooperation were important parts of the bilateral relationship, it was the military component that constituted the backbone of the friendship.

The friendship has survived despite India's warming relations with the United States in recent years. It is Russia that remains India's top military partner, notching up annual sales worth $1.5 billion, and it is with the Russians that Delhi's cooperation has more depth.

The multibillion-dollar Sukhoi program is said to be the largest in Indo-Russian military cooperation, which has contributed immensely to India's indigenization efforts. In another example, the BrahMos missile, which has been co-produced by India's Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia's NPO Mashinostroyenia, will be jointly exported by the end of this year.

The Indian Air Force loves its Sukhois for their domination of the skies. The Sukhois have replaced the Russian MiG-21s as the mainstay of India's fighter fleet. Four contracts have been signed since 1995 for the supply of Sukhois; the first provided for the purchase of eight Su-30K and 40 Su-30 MKI, the second of 10 Su-30 K, the third for licensed production of 140 Su-30 MKI, and the most recent in March for 40 Su-30 MKI.

What has irked India now is not only the hike in the cost of the fighters but also the suddenness with which the Russians raised the issue. As recently as March, the Russians had not indicated any problem with the cost-escalation rate of 2.55%, complain officials.

The Russians attribute the higher costs to the depreciation of the US dollar and the strengthening of the ruble, as well as double-digit inflation in Russia.

As for the Gorshkov, it seems that the aircraft carrier will arrive only around 2010 instead of next year. Refurbished at a cost of $1.5 billion, which includes 16 MiG 29K aircraft, the Gorshkov project is now going into a cost overrun of more than $113 million - and there were no provisions for this in the contract.

Last week, the Russians told the Indian delegation that the delivery of Gorshkov is being held up by a funds crunch at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia, where the carrier is being refurbished. They said the shipyard had grossly underestimated the length of cabling the carrier needed. The Russians told India that if it wants the carrier delivered on time, Delhi will have to cough up more. India is concerned with the delay as its other aircraft carrier, INS Viraat, is due for retirement soon.

Indian officials point out that much has changed in Russia's dealings with India. In the past, Moscow might have indulged India with "friendly prices" and allowed a foreign-exchange-strapped India to pay for purchases in rupees. But today things are different: Moscow wants to hike rates after contracts are finalized.
Yet Russia says little has changed in its approach to India. With regard to the cost escalation for the Sukhois, it says that as a special gesture to India, it will consider reducing the proposed rate of 5% to 4.5%. It has also said it will continue with the current 2.55% annual escalation rate if India is willing to pay with the more stable euro.

The Sukhoi and Gorshkov troubles come close on the heels of a spat over allowing each other's civilian aircraft into their airspace. When Russia decided to ban Air India and Jet Airways from its airspace this month, India hit back by barring Aeroflot and Transco. An open collision was avoided with the two sides agreeing to maintain the status quo of an earlier bilateral civil-aviation agreement.

Officials say that while India remains appreciative of the Russians for providing it with military equipment when the West had been reluctant to do so during the Cold War years, India nonetheless has had problems with Russian military supplies.

Indian military officials have been irritated for some time with the severe shortage of spare parts and the huge delays that dog delivery of Russian equipment. Delivery of the Sukhois, T-90S main battle tanks and Talwar-class stealth frigates have been delayed by years. It is not just with regard to supply of new acquisitions that the Russians are running late, but repair and overhaul of past acquisitions are also behind schedule, complain officials.

India has also been concerned with the unreliability of some Russian weapons systems. The Defense Ministry has reportedly expressed its unhappiness to the Russians over the reliability of the Appassionata navigation systems for the 10 Kilo- or Sindhugosh-class 877EKM submarines as well as the large number of Uran subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles in the Indian inventory. India wants more solid assurances from the Russians on maintenance of delivery schedules of contracted weapon systems, uninterrupted supply of parts, and life-term product support.

Indian defense officials say the country's problem with purchasing weapons systems from its new allies (read the Americans) is that the latter have no qualms about selling the same systems to India's adversaries. In this regard, the record of India's "old friend" - Russia - is much better, though not completely clean.

India is looking to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft, and several aviation companies are in the race for the $6.5-billion-to-$10-billion deal - one of the single largest fighter plane contracts in the history of aviation. The ongoing spat over the Sukhois will be keenly watched by companies such as Saab, Dassault, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which are among the fierce contenders for the deal.

In February, during Aero India 2007 in Bangalore - India's answer to Britain's Farnborough air show - the Russian campaign to seal fighter deals with India focused on the long-standing defense relationship between the two countries. "The pride of being with India for 44 years," screamed billboards put up across Bangalore.

India insists it remembers this decades-long partnership, especially Moscow's support for India during troubled times in the past. But India has become more demanding of this partner. It wants Russia to remain the reliable partner it once was and to stand by its promises, whether with regard to prices or punctuality. Or India might just go elsewhere.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
blitZ    My mistake   5/25/2007 3:23:29 AM
 Myth, I apologize for my last post, i just realized you said 'wing loading' and not 'hard points'. Also you didn't really omit the ferry range, only you didn't highlight it and highlighted the combat radius to compare with ferry range, a feeble attempt at deception, but nothing big.

Cheers  ;-D



 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/25/2007 9:36:00 AM

Bottom line:

 

If we were all cut off from Russian/European/Israeli imported parts/subsystems:

 

We can build complete T-99 and T-96s right now.

 

You Americans can build complete M1A2 Abrams right now.

 

India can build 1/5th of the Arjun right now.

 

It's cannot be made any clearer.


You need Russian built transmissions, track shoes, engines, and FCS computers as well as the ammunition, itself. Your monkey copy garbage you tried to replace it with, doesn't work, so you have to import those items. Is that clear enough, cretin?
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       5/25/2007 10:13:11 AM




Bottom line:



 



If we were all cut off from Russian/European/Israeli imported parts/subsystems:



 



We can build complete T-99 and T-96s right now.



 



You Americans can build complete M1A2 Abrams right now.



 



India can build 1/5th of the Arjun right now.



 



It's cannot be made any clearer.




You need Russian built transmissions, track shoes, engines, and FCS computers as well as the ammunition, itself. Your monkey copy garbage you tried to replace it with, doesn't work, so you have to import those items. Is that clear enough, cretin?

Herald

 
 
   h!tp://english.ningbo.gov.cn/art/2006/04/12/art_342_11831.html
   h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco
   h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99firecontrol.asp
 

In one word....no.  The transmissions and engines are built entirely by Zhejiang Geely Holding Co Ltd, with the engine design being a licensed german technology which we paid for.  Tracks are built by NORINCO.  And the FCS and observational ports built by Jiangsu North Hugon Co., Ltd.  Don't even try to argue this point man.  Our tanks are entirely domestic built.
 
 
    

 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       5/25/2007 11:56:02 AM

LCA


General characteristics




Performance



Myth,
in your exuberance you forgot the ferry range. LCA is also the only
aircraft in the world which has a 95% of its surface area made from
composites. Composites = lower RCS, lower weight. Lower weight = lower
size = lower RCS.

It is also the smallest 4th gen fighter in the world = lower RCS. Did
it ever occur to you that the LCA was specifically designed for this ?
A B-52 will dwarf any JF-17 or J-10 in the specs that you have used,
range, payload, ceiling. etc etc.

What matters is what the aircraft was designed for and its avionics and aerodynamic performance. The entire avionics package of the LCA is available in the public for
comparison, but unfortunately, not much detail about the J-10 is
available except what they will buy next from the Russians or the
Israelis, which ofcourse gives our internet PLA warriors the ability to
make any claims they want about their latest Death Star. An LCA will not
only see the opposing J-10&JF-17 first, but also shoot first.



"The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (CFC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear
doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and
stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the
LCA's percentage employment of CFCs is one of the highest among
contemporary aircraft of its class.[30] Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks."




India is miles ahead of China in composite fabrication tech.


LCA


  • Eight external stations: three hardpoints under each wing, one
    fuselage centreline hardpoint, and one station beneath the port-side
    intake trunk for a pod (FLIR, IRST, laser designator, or reconnaissance)."

Now can you please tell me how many hard points does a JF-17 have ? I really dont know.

We must remember that the J-10 and LCA were designed for differing roles. LCA's main role is an air defense fighter, while J-10s primary role is supposed to be a strike aircraft. But its quite evident that the LCA is over all a more technologically advanced piece of kit than a J-10 [i have deliberately not included the JF-17 in here, because its a 3rd gen aircraft]




Firstly, your comment on reduced-RCS being related to the % of carbon composites and the size of the aircraft is true to a point, but nevertheless inaccurate.   Imho, the usage of carbon composites serve more as a weight reduction technique than as a signature reduction technique in the case of the LCA.  
 
To my understanding(and it's a limited one with fighter aircrafts), the % of carbon composites on a plane  and the weight of the plane is not directly indicative of the RCS of the plane.  It is the specific type of composites used, it's presented surface layer, the shaping of the aircraft, and it's presented frontal/side/back profile which determines overall RCS characteristics.
 
So an example would be a comparison of a fully modernized Russian SU-30 which has a lower % of composites and is heavier than an early F-16B.  But it nevertheless has managed to have a slightly smaller frontal RCS than an early F-16B.
 
With the LCA, I'm seeing a similar conclusion(I'm not an expert, so feel free to correct me) based on the following:
 
1.  The exposure of the frontal air-intake foil(which generates significant radar signature) in all the LCA prototypes is noticeably larger and unprotected than the JF-17, and  more so than the J-10 which uses an F-16 Falcon style foil-signature mitigation technique.
 
2.  The 2 piece canopy on the LCA does not have sloping sides, it's interface with each other is conventional metallic in nature, and the canopy has 2 separate frames with a conventional sliding interface(this all results in a significant reflective signature increase).  The bubble canopy on the J-10 as sloping sides, with 1 frame, and a sawtooth interface with the rest of the plane and each other.  
 
 3.  The LCA's usage of composite materials is largely in the form of commercial CFRP.  Conversely, the JF-17 and J- 10's airframes are extensively overlaid with restive carbon-loaded hexagon cells with the J-10 having a significantly larger %.  Restive carbon loaded cells is a type of Large Volume RAM that is used in even more advanced 4th gen fighters like the Rafale and the Eurofighter. 
 
4.  The LCA prototypes currently do not have any RAM coatings.  It is known that the DRDO is working on a resonant RAM coating to to be applied to the surface of the aircraft.  However, both the J-10 and the baseline JF-17 are treated with Non-resonant, magnetic RAM coatings, which provides more RCS reduction at a cost of more IR signature. 
 
5.  The LCA's wing edges and tail do not have the same sweep angles(this increases frontal radar reflectivity).  OTOH both the JF-17 and J-10 conforms to planform alignment principles.
 
 So, these are some of the LCA's features that brings into question it's low RCS which has nothing to do with size or % of composite materials.

Not to overstate the obvious here.  The LCA is an unfinished aircraft.  Right now it's a plane that has no weapons and no radar, can't break Mach 1.2, and can't pull past a 5G turn.  The best one can claim is that the plane has the POTENTIAL of exceeding the RCS of the JF-17 and J-10, though the current design wouldn't but perhaps with some more redesigns.

 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian       6/13/2007 1:34:55 AM

 

If France could ever get their Rafale 100% into multi role mode this could be a place where they could get some business. Grippen would be a great choice.

 

As I understand it western firghters are more expensive to aquire but their quality and warranty is much better making them less expensive over time.

 

I would love to see Sukhoi crash and burn over this.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



lol, oh yeah, I keep on forgetting that the Rafale is a vastly superior platform to MiG-29 and even Su-30...   (*rolls eyes*)!!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/13/2007 5:36:25 AM


incoming!

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       6/13/2007 7:35:05 AM




LCA




General characteristics






Performance






Myth,
in your exuberance you forgot the ferry range. LCA is also the only
aircraft in the world which has a 95% of its surface area made from
composites. Composites = lower RCS, lower weight. Lower weight = lower
size = lower RCS.

It is also the smallest 4th gen fighter in the world = lower RCS. Did
it ever occur to you that the LCA was specifically designed for this ?
A B-52 will dwarf any JF-17 or J-10 in the specs that you have used,
range, payload, ceiling. etc etc.

What matters is what the aircraft was designed for and its avionics and aerodynamic performance. The entire avionics package of the LCA is available in the public for
comparison, but unfortunately, not much detail about the J-10 is
available except what they will buy next from the Russians or the
Israelis, which ofcourse gives our internet PLA warriors the ability to
make any claims they want about their latest Death Star. An LCA will not
only see the opposing J-10&JF-17 first, but also shoot first.



"The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (CFC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear
doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and
stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the
LCA's percentage employment of CFCs is one of the highest among
contemporary aircraft of its class.[30] Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks."




India is miles ahead of China in composite fabrication tech.


LCA




  • Eight external stations: three hardpoints under each wing, one
    fuselage centreline hardpoint, and one station beneath the port-side
    intake trunk for a pod (FLIR, IRST, laser designator, or reconnaissance)."



Now can you please tell me how many hard points does a JF-17 have ? I really dont know.

We must remember that the J-10 and LCA were designed for differing roles. LCA's main role is an air defense fighter, while J-10s primary role is supposed to be a strike aircraft. But its quite evident that the LCA is over all a more technologically advanced piece of kit than a J-10 [i have deliberately not included the JF-17 in here, because its a 3rd gen aircraft]





Firstly, your comment on reduced-RCS being related to the % of carbon composites and the size of the aircraft is true to a point, but nevertheless inaccurate.   Imho, the usage of carbon composites serve more as a weight reduction technique than as a signature reduction technique in the case of the LCA.  

 

To my understanding(and it's a limited one with fighter aircrafts), the % of carbon composites on a plane  and the weight of the plane is not directly indicative of the RCS of the plane.  It is the specific type of composites used, it's presented surface layer, the shaping of the aircraft, and it's presented frontal/side/back profile which determines overall RCS characteristics.

 

So an example would be a comparison of a fully modernized Russian SU-30 which has a lower % of composites and is heavier than an early F-16B.  But it nevertheless has managed to have a slightly smaller frontal RCS than an early F-16B.

 

With the LCA, I'm seeing a similar conclusion(I'm not an expert, so feel free to correct me) based on the following:

 

1.  The exposure of the frontal air-intake foil(which generates significant radar signature) in all the LCA prototypes is noticeably larger and unprotected than the JF-17, and  more so than the J-10 which uses an F-16 Falcon style foil-signature mitigation technique.

 

2.  The 2 piece canopy on the LCA does not have sloping sides, it's interface with each other is conventional metallic in nature, and the canopy has 2 separate frames with a conventional sliding interface(this all results in a significant reflective signature increase).  The bubble canopy on the J-10 as sloping sides, with 1 frame, and a sawtooth interface with the rest of the plane and each other.  

 

 3.  The LCA's usage of composite materials is largely in the form of commercial CFRP.  Conversely, the JF-17 and J- 10's airframes are extensively overlaid with restive carbon-loaded hexagon cells with the J-10 having a significantly larger %.  Restive carbon loaded cells is a type of Large Volume RAM that is used in even more advanced 4th gen fighters like the Rafale and the Eurofighter. 

 

4.  The LCA prototypes currently do not have any RAM coatings.  It is known that the DRDO is working on a resonant RAM coating to to be applied to the surface of the aircraft.  However, both the J-10 and the baseline JF-17 are treated with Non-resonant, magnetic RAM coatings, which provides more RCS reduction at a cost of more IR signature. 

 

5.  The LCA's wing edges and tail do not have the same sweep angles(this increases frontal radar reflectivity).  OTOH both the JF-17 and J-10 conforms to planform alignment principles.

 

 So, these are some of the LCA's features that brings into question it's low RCS which has nothing to do with size or % of composite materials.

Not to overstate the obvious here.  The LCA is an unfinished aircraft.  Right now it's a plane that has no weapons and no radar, can't break Mach 1.2, and can't pull past a 5G turn.  The best one can claim is that the plane has the POTENTIAL of exceeding the RCS of the JF-17 and J-10, though the current design wouldn't but perhaps with some more redesigns.



Well one thing is true in that statement you PRC, liar, You are correct when you admit you don't know what you write about when it comes to aviation.
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    France & India   6/13/2007 3:29:03 PM




 



If France could ever get their Rafale 100% into multi role mode this could be a place where they could get some business. Grippen would be a great choice.



 



As I understand it western firghters are more expensive to aquire but their quality and warranty is much better making them less expensive over time.



 



I would love to see Sukhoi crash and burn over this.



 



Check Six



 



Rocky





lol, oh yeah, I keep on forgetting that the Rafale is a vastly superior platform to MiG-29 and even Su-30...   (*rolls eyes*)!!

 
Boris,
I did not infer that the Rafale is vastly superior to the Mig's & Sukhoi's in current service with India. There are in fact many good reasons for India to keep using Russian equipment. They have a long track record with them and an institutional knowledge of them that make continued use of them logical.
 
What I am saying is that this: France needs to do something to jump start sales of the Rafale. Somewhere France needs to plant some seeds with a major airforce/navy (Morrocco is nice but too small a player to make a big splash). India might be an opportunity? India will have an new aircraft carrier soon too.
 
Although Russian equipment is less expensive to initially aquire, I understand over the life time of the aircraft western aircraft like the Rafale would probably be less expensive to operate and personally I would rather see France make a major sale in India (or maybe Sweden with her Grippen) than Russia.
 
Given India's long and distinguished history with Russian aircraft I did not say it was likely to happen either.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1       6/17/2007 1:05:51 AM

is that they don't have a robust industrial/technology base to build their own modern 4th generation fighters.  In fact there are major technical/project management issues encountered by HAL even in the assembly of Russian provided kits with 2 assembled SU-30s delivered after 6 years.    The LCA, if it is eventually deployed(~2012), represents an early 4th generation aircraft whose basic performance is outclassed by the JF-17, which itself is a lower-end, made-for-export fighter.  Thus, the IAF ends up being dependent on supplier nations, but the country isn't always loyal to the supplier nation.  When India cozys up to the U.S, Russia sees that and acts appropriately.  If the IAF wants a robust supply of adequate fighter aircraft it needs to do one of 2 things:

 

1.  Become an obediant vassal state to one of the supplier nations(doesn't matter which one, just stop playing around)

 

2.  Build up a robust and independent military industrial base for itself and become a power in it's own right.

 

 

 

 

 

That broadly sum's it up. India's leaders, as usual, are trying to throw around diplomatic weight that they just don't have... must be that obsession with status that permeates Indian culture. At the moment they have to be prepared to accept that they can't have everything they want. Buy cheap Russian gear and you get shoddy workmanship, inferior quailty and big delays. Buy superior American gear and you have to live with them  possibly using parts sales to meddle in your politics in the future.
 
Thats why they the obvious solution for them is to buy more French gear. They already operate Mirage 2000's which are more advanced than their Sukhois in many ways, so why not take the obvious next step to Rafales? To a non-aligned nation, the French offer the best combination of non-interferance in your politics and quality equipment, though you have to live with the fact that they will sell gear to virtually anybody (except Israel). 
 
On that issue, I reckon India should just get over the issue with the Americans (and anybody else) selling to Pakistan. A few F-16's aren't a major threat... not nearly as much as much larger Russian sales of Sukhois to the PRC potentially are. And, at the end of the day Pakistan has a right to defend itself.


 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy