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 eur
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
mithradates    to Blitz   5/24/2007 5:24:52 PM
"The LCA should be about as good as the Mirage F1.....Herald"
 
It's interesting that Herald is comparing India's 4th generation LCA to a 3rd generation French fighter.  And then the comparison made that a 3rd generation fighter is better than our export and proprietary 4th generation fighters is very entertaining indeed.  Still, in his mixture of insults, personal attacks, and general propaganda, there exists a small glimmer of truth.  The LCA's airframe design(especially delta wing configuration) really is reminiscent of mid to late 3rd generation aircraft designs such as the F-1C, J-8M, and Su-25s.  Nevertheless, I contend that the LCA is definitely an early 4th gen aircraft, and when it is eventually fielded in 2012, India should justifiably be proud of it.
 
Now, with that said however, the LCA when it finally is introduced would still be generally inferior in performance to the made-for-export JF-17.
 
h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas
h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder

Specifications (HAL Tejas)

Performance

 

 Specifications (JF-17 Thunder)

Performance

 

What is immediately apparent is that, the JF-17 is superior to the LCA in speed, range, wing-loading, and service ceiling.
What is less apparently is that the baseline JF-17 currently costs 15 million USD each, the LCA is projected to cost between 21-24 million USD each if all goes well.
 
Now, this disparity is still assuming that the LCA team overcomes the range of technical issues for IOC by 2012.  While the export varient of the JF-17 is already in IOC now.  I don't doubt indian engineers, but I do doubt the industrial base and funding agencies that supports those engineers.  2012 IOC is acheivable but the following set of the more serious issues must be solved first:
 
h!tp://www.indianexpress.com/story/16658.html
h!tp://indianaerodef.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/gtre-issues-rfps-for-kaveri-engines-for-lca-tejas-fighter-jets/
h!tp://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/lca/
 
 
1.  The integration issues of an imported radar to the aircraft needs to be resolved
2.  Domestic radar will not be ready by 2012
3.  Integration of a weapons suite needs to be resolved(dummy missile trials hardly counts)
4.  FBW issues needs to be resolved so that the aircraft prototypes can surpass the 5G turn limit in current trials 
5.  Ensuring a steady supply of engines(Kavari will not be ready, U.S suppliers are far from reliable in this area).
6.  85% components of LCA is imported from supplier nations, this needs to be reduced drastically.
7.  Indigenous airframe needs rework to increase the Fighter's operational lifespan.
 
 
As you can see, the LCA design team has some more ground to cover.  The JF-17 is better performing, and it's already on the marke
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    to Blitz   5/24/2007 5:28:30 PM




Why is the T-96/99 better for the PLA than Arjun is for the IA?  It's simply a much better fit for our army's specific needs:



 



h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99specifications.asp



h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp



 



Cost:  T-99 is 2 million USD each, T-96 is 1.4 million USD each ( Arjun is 4 million USD)



 



Logistics:  70% components of T-99 share with T-96.  T-99/96 weight compatible with bridges/road/rail across all of China.  100% domestic manufactured.  Can be built quickly (280 T-99s, ~2400 T-96s in 7 years).



 



Operating Environment:   Operates effectively in all environments ranging from Tundra to Sub-tropical.  Weight range is effective (43 to 54 tons) is most Eurasian combat environments.



 



Performance:  Comparable general performance to early 3rd generation(T-96)  and to mature 3rd generation(T-99) world class tanks.



 



The T-96/T-99 is an economical, domestic, and flexible family of tank with acceptable combat performance. Designed with the PLA's needs in mind.  The Arjun is an expensive, significantly non-domestic tank with a very heavy logistical footprint.  It will however have better than acceptable combat performance if all the bugs have been worked out.



 



Now, I'm not an armour expert by any means, but it strikes me that the following capabilities are good to have:



 



1. Large numbers of tanks



2. Average/adquate firepower and armour protection



3. Having the means of quickly transporting large numbers of the tank



4. Having enough spare parts/munitions for those tanks 



5. The tank must be able to fight in all terrain suitable for armoured warfare.



 



These are all very important design considerations for a tank.  It would make very little sense to compromise 1,3,4,5 to just enhance 2.  This is why the T-96/T-98 is better for the PLA. 



 



 



 



 



 




In that pack of lies is onwe exceedingly obvious glaring one. The Type 99 is as depenmdent on RUSSIAN support or more so, than the Arjun is on German technical help.

The PRCs could no more claim domestic tank production than they can claim to be able to design a TV set without considerable foreign technical help and outright theft.

 

Herald


Design does not equate to production.  I said very clearly 100% indigenous production of the tank(all subsystems and subcomponents).  Something that we have acheived with the T-99 and the T-96.  You argue that we had Russian help in the design of the tank, I say that is not the point of the disucssion.  The point is, we don't need to buy our entire engines or munitions from the Russians now do we?
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    to Herald   5/24/2007 5:32:13 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

blitZ       5/25/2007 2:48:32 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]



 
Quote    Reply

blitZ       5/25/2007 3:10:23 AM
Myth, i just found out, JF-17 has 7 hardpoints. So you have been basically lying when you stated that the JF-17 has more hard points than the LCA. You also very skillfully omitted the Ferry range of the LCA and compared its 'combat radius' with the JF-17s 'ferry range'. So you are resorting to deception as a means to argue. Wow. Enlightening indeed.
 
Quote    Reply

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
 
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
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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