Full steam ahead - subject to funding (748 words)

Published: 5/22/2001

On 18th May, the Russian Air Force handed Sukhoi its updated requirements for a fifth generation lightweight frontline fighter (LFI) - originally put together in March - with a timetable that, according to some reports, could see the aircraft in service by 2011-2012, with the goal of coinciding with the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter. As expected, Sukhoi will lead the development of the aircraft, although some commentators do not rule out the possibility of involvement from MiG and Yakovlev. The export potential of the aircraft is a key requirement for Sukhoi, with great emphasis being placed on the aircraft's potential competitiveness with the JSF, in terms of both performance (STOVL, lightweight and highly manoeuvrable) and in price ($30m). This reflects the concerns of the Russian government and the industry that, after a number of very successful years, in which considerable export earnings have been generated by fourth generation fighter sales to India and China, the industry was in danger of not having a competitive fifth generation product as a replacement. The numbers of fourth generation fighters are estimated to be over 5000 aircraft. The development of a fifth generation fighter has been undoubtedly hindered by a lack of coordinated effort and, in the view of some observers, the squandering of valuable resources on two demonstrator programmes (S-37/Article1.44), on which Sukhoi and MiG shared no data. According to Anatoly Kornukov, Head of the Air Force, they also failed to answer the air force's needs, dismissing the S-37 Berkut as “merely an experimental aircraft”. The MoD is also reported to have told both bureaux that the aircraft being developed were too expensive. The air force's brief was accompanied by an agreement relating to the construction of the fighter, signed by AVPK Sukhoi, OKB Sukhoi, OAO Lyulka-Saturn, NPTS Technocomplex, Aerospace Equipment Corporation, Aviapribor-Holding, GMKB Vympel, GNPTs Zvezda-Strela, GosNIIAS, TsAGI, VIAM, TsIAM and NIAAT. The document was signed at a ceremony at AVPK Sukhoi, attended by Yury Koptev, Head of the Russian Aerospace Agency ( RAKA). It was revealing that, despite comments released on 15th May, neither MiG nor Yakovlev were signatories to the agreement, although Mikhail Pogosyan, General Director of AVPK Sukhoi, did announce that the consortium was open to any Russian aerospace company, including rivals, MiG. By implication, MiG's days as a fighter designer and producer could, indeed, be numbered: a goal that Pogosyan is reported to have held for some time. According to Koptev, the speed of development is essential and complete preliminary designs of the aircraft should be ready by the end of the year. Pogosyan claims that these will not resemble either the S-37 or the Article 1.44, and, if financing is available, a maiden flight could take place as early as 2006, with the aircraft in production by 2010, in service and offered for sale by 2011-2012. However, the timetable for the aircraft has slipped from the 2005-2008 announced by Anatoly Kornukov, Head of the Air Force at a press conference with Pogosyan in March this year. As ever, the participants identify financing as being the programme's major problem. Currently, funding is being sought from three sources: from the state, from Sukhoi through sales of existing aircraft and through investments from unspecified strategic partners. According to some reports, the partners might be Ukraine and Belarus, although the ability of those two countries to find funding is extremely limited. More likely - and hinted at by Koptev - are China or India, which have already been involved in extensive discussions on the S-37, at least. Both countries have limited domestic capabilities that have yet to produce a competitive fighter and India, particularly, has recently recruited Sukhoi, to assist its stalling Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme. India invested heavily in the development of the Su-30MKI, but this will be the first time that foreigners may invest directly in a programme from its inception. Other external inputs may come from a partner capable of contributing avionics experience. The most obvious candidate would be Israel, which has collaborated closely with China on the development of the F-10, although the F-10 project has already made the USA nervous, with accusations of the illegal transfer of F-16 technology to China. The involvement of IAI may, however, cause ructions with the USA, given that the dominance of a lucrative global market for the next 20 years is at stake.

Article ID: 2552