IAF said they don't want a 2 seated version because that compromises stealth!!
IAF never said that, in fact that's just a point of forum fanboys. IAF always wanted twin seaters, they only "reduced" the number in earlier negotiations, because the Russians pointed to the cost benefits of ordering more of a single type at first, while the twin seater would be added later, when the cost has gone down a bit. That's logical and was even the reason why F35 was procured only in single seat varients, although several customers wanted a twin seater too.
IF the news is correct and FGFA will be twin seaters again and depending how the ratio of single and twin seat orders will be, it means that we have increased our initial workshare (designing the twin seater) but most likely get the fighters at higher costs.
The increase of RCS between single and twin seater config is by far not a a big issue, especially if you take the advantages of the twin seaters in strike roles, mini AWACS and future joint missions with UCAVs into considerations. Not to mention that one point mainy people don't see, is the huge advantage in actual detection capability the T50 offers, with a far higher field of view of it's active and passive sensors. The same advantage the MKI currently offers to many of it's counterparts, that have sensor limitations and mainly have advantages in head on engangements.
Reducing the RCS and the overall signatures are one part of 5th generation capabilities, but increased active and passive detection is the other part and there is no 5th gen fighter that offers similar capabilities as the T50 today. Also interesting is the increased importance the Russian give the EWS nowadays, which shows that they have understood what importance passive sensors have in modern warfare. Speherical detection capability, DIRCMs, active EM decoys..., all latest capabilities which not even the US fighters offer to such an extend so far.
Don't let yourself blind by optics of the T50 prototype and general judgment about stealth, or the flight performance (which itself is a great capability but not surprising) buddy, it has far more to offer than many people think and we still don't know what changes the 2nd stage version will bring and what changes IAF exactly wants. So there is still huge potential that we simply are unaware today.
It is humiliating enough to negotiate the work share with the so-called "ally" in terms of % like this even when India funds 50% of the costs!
That has nothing to do with humiliating each other, but is simple business! They know we are technically dependent on them, since we are not even close to develop a 5th gen fighter, let alone proper NG techs on our own today.
We know that they need our funds and orders, to keep the costs of the project in control and to get the production for their industry, which otherwise would be highly in trouble. Even today it's India that keeps Mikoyan and Phazotron alive with Mig 29K / UPG and Zhuk Me orders, since not even Russian forces order similar numbers.
So each side knows that it can only work with the other, but tries to get the most for his side, which is logical and that's even what we see now in the negotiations with Dassault about the Rafale.
We can't blame the foreign vendors / countries to retain as much advantages as possible, because we are so far behind, nor can they blame us for demanding much in return for the money we spend. We will reach a compromise point sooner or later, which both sides will be happy about and seal the deals.
What is the use of jointly producing/funding such strategic platforms only to find them compromised during a crisis.
Russia, Israel and France are proven partners especially in crisis times, which is why it makes the most sense for us, to go for JV or joint developments with them, because it gets us to a whole new level of partnership with them. Do we need to negotiate with them in the next war for additional missiles when we are producing Brahmos, Barak or Maitri in India? No we don't! And the same advantage goes for FGFA and MTA in future.[/QUOTE]
