Talk:Sukhoi/HAL FGFA

Article title
I have reverete dthe bold, undiscussed move per WP:BRD. The article title Sukhoi/HAL FGFA is per the naming conventions for aircraft according to WP:AIR/PC guidelines. If someone wished to be hyper-correct and use Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft as the title, I'm fine with that too. However, Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft would be the title of a program, not a specific aircraft, and elememtns of the article such as the IArcraft Infobox, specs, etc. would need to be removed. At this stage though, it is probably more accurate to describe this as a program rather than a specific aircraft design, but I doubt that can be enforced. Please do not move the article again without achieving a consensus to do so first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil?
Is Brazil on or off again?

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11573 Russia announced in April 2009 that Embraer might join the Russian-Indian joint venture of producing the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) version of the famous Sukhoi fighter. Currently, the aircraft is being developed by Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, following a 2007 agreement. “We are discussing with the well-known Brazilian company Embraer the transfer of technology and the construction of facilities for the future licensed production of aircraft, including FGFA,” said deputy director of Moscow’s Federal Service on Military-Technical Cooperation, Alexander Fomin.

Hcobb (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the latest made up images are correct
Then clearly the reported RCS of over 300 times that of the American F-35 is incorrect. This design is optimized to be a large radar target and so should have an RCS several times that of the Eurofighter or Super Hornet. Hcobb (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Image of FGFA removed?
Hi,

Why cant I add the images given below to this page?

thumb | The T-50 Prototype (above) flying side by side with a [[Su-27. The PAK FA is to replace the the Su-27]] thumb | Russian 5th Gen PAK-FA T-50 Prototype First Flight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.114.172 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first image is not copyright-free, and can't be used under far-use rules if a free image exists. Seconly, neither images are of the FGFA, but the PAK-FA. If the planes are defferent enough to require separate articles, then they aren't similar enough to use the same images. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Every reliable source that speaks on the issue is clear.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=381786 Indian name FGFA Russian name PAK FA


 * It is one aircraft in two versions, both of which will be jointly produced. It's like calling the F-35A and F-35B different aircraft.  Hcobb (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not every source. Anyway, there will more than likely be different equipment fits per aircraft, prehaps even differnt engines. They are definitely different variants, and we do cover sometimes cover variants on their own articles, such as the F-15 and F-15E. (Not a comparison of the F-15/F-15E roles, just the fact their are variant pages.) However, we would not post a picture of the earlier modle F-15s on the F-15E page. However, although I do think it's premature to have the FGFA on it's own page at this time, it does help keep the Indian tendency to talk/write a subject to death out of the main article. (See the length of the Tejas article if you're not certain what I mean!) - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thrust to weight odd
In this article, it claims a thrust to weight ratio of 1.4 with dry thrust, which is quite exceptional. Furthermore, the source for the information claims only 0.89 on dry thrust. I was in a different discussion over at the PAK-FA page where I pointed out that with the proposed engines, the T-50 would have a thrust to weight ratio of 1.4, but this was with wet thrust. It seems someone has modified the figure, but has not removed the claim for this being dry.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

News on PAK FA/FGFA split
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20101221/161867153.html Russia is planning to use the jointly-developed 5G fighter as an export version of T-50, while India is expecting the new fighter aircraft to enter service with its air force by 2020.

So perhaps the FGFA is both single and twin seat export fighters while the PAK FA is strictly for Russian use? Hcobb (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?
Alot of the information on this page is unsourced and does not have a neutral POV. Unless someone provides a lot of sources (I dont know why I am even saying this because it is clear to me that nothing will happen) I will be making quite a few alterations to the page. Considering what happened immediately after I edited the Su-30MKI page and returned it to pure sourced and factual information, someone might want to go ahead and request that the page be semi-protected. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with Russian
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21891/?SID=f530e4089d9d224b3ff9bba386897d47 an advanced warning system about the situation


 * This is the automated situational awareness that LockMart trumpets, right? Anybody got the Russian version of this? Hcobb (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New Schedule
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35222/?SID=b6d9817cb3d7c55fa76c60ca5eb5547e Preliminary Design Contract for the joint Indo-Russian fifth generation fighter aircraft project was signed on 21.12.2010. R&D phase of the programme is planned to be signed during the current year. Detailed roadmap has been discussed with the Russian side. The fifth generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019following which the series production will start.


 * Paradrop this in all over this article? Or just mention once? Hcobb (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

After the Indian restructuring, we have $30 billion minus $6 billion to develop, and divided by 144 aircraft for a per aircraft cost of $167 million. Hcobb (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_21_2012_p01-01-487983.xml The aircraft, to be jointly developed by India’s state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Sukhoi Design Bureau of Russia, is currently referred to as the Perspective Multi-Role Fighter (PMF), and will be based on Russia’s PAK FA program.


 * Time to rename the article? Hcobb (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hold off until we have more confirmation. We could be seeing a program name, rather than an aircraft name, and the article has it wrong, or something. An article move shouldn't be done at the drop of a hat... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?form=print&id=3905
 * This press release from Sukhoi confirms the name and provides further information that the cooperation deal was first signed on 18 Oct 2007 while the formal MOU was signed in Dec 2010LionFlyer 11:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not 5th generation

 * FGFA to use T-50 avionics: http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130206/179261409.html
 * T-50 using Su-35 avionics that are inferior to American fighters: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/su-35s-inferior-to-usaf-jets-s.html

Hence not a 5th gen fighter. Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:OR? Why don't you first start this discussion at Sukhoi PAK FA, as this would be a derivative of that plane's production version. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 22:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH, too, since basically you are combining three things to come to that conclusion: an article about FGFA avionics, an article about T-50 avionics, and an article about what constitutes 5th gen. Hcobb, you need a source saying that this isn't 5th gen, not a synthesis of other articles. Besides, our own article on PAK FA indicates it has an AESA version of the Su-35 passive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How about the sources that have complained about the stealth flaws of the T-50 (IR globe, exposed engines), that are now copied over to the PMF? http://defense-update.com/20130207_pmf-vs-acma-indigenuity-at-what-cost.html If these are not to be fixed, wither stealth? Hcobb (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The last line in the very source that you have cited reads: there is considerable debate on the practicability of near-simultaneous development of two fifth-generation fighters for the IAF. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HAL's input in the design
http://defencereport.com/india-held-captive-by-russia-in-fgfa-strike-fighter-race/

This article clearly states that HAL has some design inputs in the FGFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.161.49 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Which that article notes, is not a 5th gen. Hcobb (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's probably the only article calling it a "4.75 generation" which does not really exist officially. Morever it says that based on the very first prototype of the FGFA which is still incomplete when compared with the 3rd And Final Prototype and Production series models.

Another Article saying that HAL would have about 30% Design in the FGFA

http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=334 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.173.243 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Two seater redesign got dropped a while ago. Read this article. Hcobb (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

117S thrust is 14.5 kilotons?
Do you mean 145 kilonewtons instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.188.31.1 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

New info
The Hindu has a new article on the FGFA here. Can someone add/update this article? Thanks! (I am not sure how much is relevant) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

New info

 * Russia can't deliver on Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft: IAF Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Joint production to be norm in new Indo-Russian defence projects Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 05:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The way this is presented in the article is far from neutral. The actual newspaper report gives a MUCH broader view, while this edit only cites the shortest paragraph thereof without giving the opposition opinion, particularly HAL stating they are pleased with the experience they're getting and MoD saying that they are pleased with the aircraft itself. Also, see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

More delays?
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13168/Has_India_Put_the_FGFA_Project_with_Russia_on_Back_burner_

I haven't seen any progress lately, but I doubt this source is good enough. Hcobb (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

New deal on offer?
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/pm-modi-leaves-for-moscow-russia-offers-new-cheaper-deal-on-sukhoi-fighter-jets/

Good enough sourcing? Hcobb (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sukhoi/HAL FGFA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14912167&PageNum=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205161809/http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG/309150023/Indo-Russian-Jet-Program-Finally-Moves-Forward to http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140915/DEFREG/309150023/Indo-Russian-Jet-Program-Finally-Moves-Forward

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Cancellation
You are giving too much weight for a single source, especially considering that he's denying something that is unequivocally bad for his company. On the other hand, there are multiple secondary sources confirming the cancellation of joint development. If any secondary sources confirm that the project was indeed not cancelled, we can change the status of the project back to being alive. Until then, we can add his comments to the lead, but the rest should stay as it was. —Gazoth (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)