PAK-FA / T-50: Russian 5th Generation Fighter

[Spetsznaz]

Omg there is a movie called firefox, with clint eastwood gooota see it, any way back to the topic...

windscorpion, why are you skeptical about the name, I think NATO often choices names that will in some way (and this may be weird) reflect the aircraft's performance and "Personality"

 

[Feanor]

Spetznaz please don't triple post. There is an Edit button on your post. Use it to add to your previous post. As for the Russia-NATO question, if you want we can talk about it in the Off-Topic forum.

 

[nevidimka]

At the rate things are going it seems more like russia trying to recreate a partial Soviet Union, than joining NATO. But getting back to the topic, Is the reporting name for the SU47 real? I thought this was a joke?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am sceptical on that name!

That reference on Wiki is rubbish.

1) The Wiki article is using the incorrect terminology for the standards controlling body - its name changed in 2005.

2) I've just checked on the official site and no name has been assigned yet.

 

[Gremlin29]

I think NATO often choices names that will in some way (and this may be weird) reflect the aircraft's performance and "Personality"

Some of the names they've come up with are probably not in accordance with this thought process ie Mig 15 Faggot and the the Mig 21 Fishbed. What the heck is a "Fishbed" anyway?

 

[Feanor]

That reference on Wiki is rubbish.

1) The Wiki article is using the incorrect terminology for the standards controlling body - its name changed in 2005.

2) I've just checked on the official site and no name has been assigned yet.

Could you please provide a link to the official page? It would be helpful.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Could you please provide a link to the official page? It would be helpful.

Sorry, can't do so as its not open access. I will say however that what the wiki author has done is added some of the old public domain material from approx 5 years ago and then added their own "name" for the Pak-FA. Pak-FA is not on the current list.

In addition, they use the wrong name for the organisation.

Its another reason why Wiki needs to be cited with caveats.

 

[dragonfire]

Hey heres a question, since India is part funding the project will it stand to make any money on foriegn sales of the Russian 5th Gen Fighters if so is there any particular revenue share model. UAE had funded 3 Billion USD for the development of the F-16 Block 60/Desert Falcon, IIRC any sales made of this model will see some revenue going to UAE

 

[Spetsznaz]

Hey heres a question, since India is part funding the project will it stand to make any money on foriegn sales of the Russian 5th Gen Fighters if so is there any particular revenue share model. UAE had funded 3 Billion USD for the development of the F-16 Block 60/Desert Falcon, IIRC any sales made of this model will see some revenue going to UAE

I personally think, that India will naturally want to support the project, especially now, while they have a good relationship with Russia. I ASSUME that if India helps out with the project the most, than it will be one of the first Country's in line, as soon as the PAK FA is up for export.

I can ASSURE you that India's help and Involvement is not free

 

[windscorpion]

Some of the names they've come up with are probably not in accordance with this thought process ie Mig 15 Faggot and the the Mig 21 Fishbed. What the heck is a "Fishbed" anyway?

The names are designed to be easy to memorise and not easy to mistake. They are intended for use in a war situation so people could give a clear message (perhaps over a rather marginal radio link) about what Soviet aircraft they were talking about, not for marketing purposes

 

[Feanor]

I bet it's going to mean about 25% of the parts for the FGFA (if exported) will be subcontracted to Indian firms.

 

[Salty Dog]

. . . . UAE had funded 3 Billion USD for the development of the F-16 Block 60/Desert Falcon, IIRC any sales made of this model will see some revenue going to UAE

Please cite your source on this, especially where $3 B was funded by the UAE for development.

Some FMS sales carry an additional charge tied to a share of development costs of a particular weapons system. If the UAE had requested any special development, these costs would be offset from the entire program development costs. In either case, the UAE would not get any revenue from further sales of the system.

 

[haveblue128]

Response to Russia Joining NATO

Origionally posted by Feanor;
....As for the Russia-NATO question....

I would suggest this discussion occur in the forum on "Things that Will Never Be" as long as Putin has a hand in the game.

 

[guicho80]

UAE Funding of F-16 Block 60

Please cite your source on this, especially where $3 B was funded by the UAE for development.

Some FMS sales carry an additional charge tied to a share of development costs of a particular weapons system. If the UAE had requested any special development, these costs would be offset from the entire program development costs. In either case, the UAE would not get any revenue from further sales of the system.

"All Block 60 development costs were paid for by the UAE, which invested almost $3 billion in the programme. In return, the UAE will receive royalty payments if any of the Block 60’s technology is exported and has full control over source code for the F-16 Block 60 and its weapons, allowing it to add to the aircraft’s threat libraries without US permission or assistance."

Full article here:
Dubai 2007: UAE shows off its most advanced Falcons

 

[OPSSG]

Please cite your source on this, especially where $3 B was funded by the UAE for development.

Some FMS sales carry an additional charge tied to a share of development costs of a particular weapons system. If the UAE had requested any special development, these costs would be offset from the entire program development costs. In either case, the UAE would not get any revenue from further sales of the system.

"All Block 60 development costs were paid for by the UAE, which invested almost $3 billion in the programme. In return, the UAE will receive royalty payments if any of the Block 60’s technology is exported and has full control over source code for the F-16 Block 60 and its weapons, allowing it to add to the aircraft’s threat libraries without US permission or assistance."

Full article here:
Dubai 2007: UAE shows off its most advanced Falcons

Rubbish - don't confuse object code release with source code. UAE only has access to block 60 object codes, which is the necessary level of access to allow UAE to add to the aircraft’s threat libraries. See this link that states otherwise:

"...As a rule, the software source codes that program the electronic-warfare, radar, and data buses on US fighters are too sensitive for export. Instead, the USA sent the UAE “object codes” (similar to APIs), which allow them to add to the F-16’s threat library on their own.

The other issue concerned the Black Shahine derivative of MBDA’s Storm Shadow stealth cruise missile. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) defines 300 km as the current limit for cruise missiles, and the terms of the sale allow the United States to regulate which weapons the F-16s can carry. Since the Black Shahine was deemed to have a range of over 300km, the US State Department refused to let Lockheed Martin change the data bus to permit the F-16E/Fs to carry the missile. It is believed that the Mirage 2000v9 upgrades the UAE has purchased from France will address this issue, giving the UAE a platform capable of handling their new acquisition..."​

BTW, Salty Dog works for a major US defence contractor and is very familiar with the FMS process... so if he raises a query because he has doubts, you should really do some serious research before responding... I don't have the info he is looking for so I'm not responding to his post. Try to understand the query.

Sorry about seeming to be harsh (I'm really sick and tired about misinformation on source code release) and you should also post an intro of yourself. A retired Malaysian politician has been lying on the source code issue and his points have been rebutted by other professionals in DT and a rebuttal has been published in Malaysian press (see post #85 in another thread and also post #72).

 

[guicho80]

No need for apologies.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The text in quotes is not my own, but is lifted directly from the flightglobal.com article. I was not refuting Salty Dog or questioning his expertise. I merely wished to show where that claim about the UAE bankrolling block 60 development probably originated, as I had come across it before in my reading.
As to myself, there is not much worth saying. Just an enthusiast who enjoys listening in on the discussions of the better informed.

 

[Marc 1]

What the heck is a "Fishbed" anyway?

Silly, it's where fish sleep of course! Right next to the fishbedside table with its fishalarm clock, fishtallboy and fishdressing table.... Sheesh, some people read far too much into some things...


If you think these a weird names, go check out NATO codenames for radars or the other major bits of kit...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Some of the names they've come up with are probably not in accordance with this thought process ie Mig 15 Faggot and the the Mig 21 Fishbed. What the heck is a "Fishbed" anyway?

Your guess is as good as mine.

What kind of a name is Fishbed? And what was NATO smoking?

 

[Feanor]

I think it's been explained quite successfully in the previous post. I bet the PAK-FA nickname will be something like Crabcar.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And what was NATO smoking?

NATO don't do the definitions. It's US, UK, Canada, Aust and NZ - and has been since 1947-48