Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 28 Jul 2014 09:03

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1616 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 41  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2013 12:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 682
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
link to the last post

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6312&start=4240


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2013 12:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Posts: 682
Location: Invention is evolution, explosion is destruction.
IAF’s requirement of PGMs in the NEXT DECADE

By Air Marshal (Retd) AK Trikha

Even when contract is not signed ... full marks to MMRCA, 126(200) planes will be inducted in IAF by 2020 :mrgreen:

Quote:
n the next decade or so IAF would gradually shed its legacy fighters (MiG- 21 being the archetypical example). Replacements will consist of vastly superior fourth plus generation aircraft. With anticipated induction of up to 270 Su-30 MKI, 126 MMRCA and about 40 Tejas, by about 2020, it will be a new look Air Force with a vastly enhanced potential. All new aircraft would be capable of multiple roles and therefore fighter assets which qualified exclusively for air defence or which had to be put aside only for EW support would be a matter of yore.

However no matter how sophisticated or advanced, in the final analysis platforms remain merely carrier of weapons. It is the quality and quantity of weapons that really make the difference. Therefore to deliver the appropriate bang for the buck, it is imperative that sufficient quantity of suitable weapons be inducted in tandem with acquisition of new platforms.

Modern technology has enhanced the strike potential of modern fighter aircraft by an order of magnitude. By the same token, air defence systems have also become far more lethal. Increasingly dense and lethal air defence environment makes it necessary to reduce exposure of expensive platforms to the very least while maximising mission effectiveness. Therefore precision and appropriate stand-off capability has to be key features of all air-to-surface ordnance. Precision also makes it possible to miniaturise weapons which in turn offers an opportunity to put aloft many more shots in every mission and place just the right amount of ordnance at the right place to achieve a measured result.

Surface targets list being long, characteristics and environment of each being different from the other, weapons repertoire of a modern air force must include the necessary variety to execute the entire spectrum of missions. Engagement of targets lying behind light terminal defences could be undertaken with smart bombs – their guidance, explosive power and fusing being determined by target characteristics. Targets in depth, or defended by strong multi-layered defences would call for attacks with missiles of appropriate range and war heads. Dictated by some air defence environments, supersonic, stealth cruise missiles of the Brahmos variety may have to be weapons of choice. However, be that as it may, it is reasonably certain that, under most environments iron bombs alone would be insufficient for the task and therefore a significant part of the inventory would have to consist of specialist stand-off precision weapons.

Taking into account the uncertainties that characterise our procurement process, it is hazardous to predict the precise shape of the IAF at some future date. For instance, while Indo-Russian 5th Generation fighter was slated for squadron induction in 2022, serious delays have already pushed forward delivery dates by an indeterminate period. Similarly, retirement of all MiG variants barring the upgraded MiG-29 UPG by 2017 as hoped for by the CAS while addressing the press on the eve of IAF’s 80th anniversary, may not happen - if for no other reason than to sustain the IAF Squadron strength at some reasonable numbers.

From the existing resources and likely accretions in the next decade, IAF fighter inventory could look somewhat as given in a table below.

Image :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

In the envisaged 42 squadrons by 2022, of the approximately 800 aircraft (as per current squadron configuration of 16 fighters and two trainers) in front line service, about 70 per cent i.e. around 550 aircraft are likely to be available for duty. Assuming the above approximate allocation of roles, 300 to 320 aircraft could be engaged in strike duties of varying descriptions, producing on an average of about 600 to 640 sorties per day. Excluding aborts on account of a variety of operational and environmental reasons, over a thirty-day period of conflict, one could expect an effort of the order of about 15,000 to 16,000 strike aircraft sorties expending up to 50,000 pieces of ordnance. Ideally most if not all of them should be of the smart variety However, considering the expense and even storage constraints, if just a third were to be guided munitions, the resulting figure i.e. some 16,000-17,000 would still pose an immense challenges in terms of acquisition, storage, servicing and other housekeeping activities.

Consider storage itself. Iron bombs of yore required minimal housekeeping to keep them safe and reliable. Smart munitions on the other hand incorporate complex and sensitive sensors which demand carefully controlled storage environment. Unless matters have improved vastly over the last few years, ensuring stable climate control of large storage sites in remote areas experiencing extreme environments would be quite challenging.

Next consider the financial outlay required to bring about this transformation.

Mix of PGMs to engage the entire spectrum of targets would be dictated by target characteristics and the depth at which they lie. Assuming that primary aim in any future conflict would be to deliver a crushing blow to the enemy forces, then maximum density of targets is likely to lie at relatively shallow depths from the borders. In that scenario, 75 per cent of IAF’s smart ordnance inventory (i.e. some 12,000 pieces) could comprise smart bombs with varying types of guidance (viz. laser, LLTV, thermal, INS/GPS), explosive power and penetration capability, etc.

To engage very high value and strategic targets viz. enemy reserves, heavily defended airfields, radar and missile sites, shipping etc. IAF should equip itself with a variety of air-to- surface missiles with different stand-off ranges and war heads to defeat all foreseeable target systems and environmental contingencies. This capability should reside in the 4,000 odd missiles to make up the balance 25 per cent PGMs.

Estimating financial outlay required to build such a capability is hazardous. Besides, infrastructural and housekeeping costs which are difficult to forecast, even ball-parking cost of acquisition is problematic because even similar weapons could vary substantially in cost depending on the version, source, quantities in question and a variety of other factors. However, some back of the envelope sums with figures available in the public domain could be indicative of the sort of budget outlays that would be necessary.

A Pave-way II series LGB which effectively converts a dumb iron bomb into a smart one is said to cost around $19,000. A JDAM kit for the same purpose, but relying on an INS and GPS coupled guidance which can engage static targets from a stand-off distance up to 15 miles with a CEP of 10 meters cost $31,000 (in 2011) per strap-on guidance kit. To engage mobile targets a data link is incorporated to up-date the target position at additional cost. A notable feature related to cost of smart weapons is the very wide variation between base line model and later versions emerging with more sophisticated seekers, anti-jam resistance (in case of GPS guided weapons) and other refinements Thus the average cost of a strap on conversion kit may range between $20,000 to $30,000.

There are more expensive options which offer more flexibility, wider launch envelope, better stand-off ranges, ‘man in the loop’ capability to achieve near 100 per cent mission success. Used against high value targets viz surface-to-air missile sites, radars, command and control centers in the opening stages of a conflict, the highly beneficial cost benefit ratio in favour of such weapons becomes obvious when measured against risks run in repeat missions. Israeli SPICE, French AASM and American JSOW-C1 fall in this category. Cost of a basic AASM (carried by the French Rafale in Libyan campaign) is said to be around $300,000. In 2011, Greece awarded Israeli company ‘Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ a contract worth about €100 million for 300 SPICE 1000 weapons – amounting to almost $480,000 unit cost. The long range Brahmos cruise missile being adapted to the Su-30 MKI costs in excess of $2.5 million.

A Variety of PGMs ranging from a basic Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) to highly sophisticated cruise missiles are today in the market-place. Each is designed to accomplish a defined mission. IAF will choose specific types depending upon perception of its requirements. Figures above serve only to highlight that substantial resources will have to be committed to build a significant stockpile – and that against several other competing demands. Also not included in the costs above is the necessity of very high quality ISR assets without which smart weapons are useless.

The good news is that DRDO has had some success in its indigenisation efforts in this field. In 2010, IAF appears to have successfully tested a DRDO produced LGB (Sudarshan) with a stand-off range of 9 km. That the tests were followed by an order for 50 units suggests a good beginning. A next generation smart bomb with a stand-off range of 50 km now appears to be under development. There would undoubtedly be teething problems. But if DRDO persists and rekindles user confidence, it could help IAF usher in a new era of capability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 01:59 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37946
The next gen Smart Bomb is shown in the Aug-Dec Tech Focus 2012 linked by SagarG

Quote:
I think this wasn't posted here since wasn't released before

Armament Technologies August-December 2012

Has info of SAMHO, PG Kit for HSLD and lots of other good stuff with pics :mrgreen:
.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 03:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
The India sttrategic report and the Aeromag interview with Chander point out the historic move that is happening.. DRDO is now firmly moving into creating munitions and making India self sufficient in these bread and butter items. The number of weapons programs, smart munitions programs underway will finally address the long standing services (and forum) requirement of having local sources for PGMs, bombs, missiles etc.

Its their new aim and an across the board effort. Now the only thing left is to have the manufacturer chosen per DRDO specifications, one who can deliver on time with quality.

The good part is that since this is a pan organization effort, common modules and technology will be developed for leverage. Not one off ad hoc programs. Also, with Akash, Prithvi, Brahmos etc - DRDO has learnt the entire design-production-sustainment cycle. Which is a plus as it transitions to this new effort.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 03:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37946
One thing is the OFB mfg capability. Do they still make casings of cast steel or deep drawn forgings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 04:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31
Posts: 2052
Compare the above estimate of a 30-day conflict requring "50,000 pieces of ordnance" with about 16,000-17,000 being smart bombs to this report:
The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War

Quote:
The total number of bombs dropped by allied forces in the war comes to about 250,000. Of these only 22,000 were the so-called "smart bombs" or guided bombs. About 10,000 of these guided bombs were laser-guided and about 10,000 were guided anti-tank bombs. The remaining 2,000 were radiation guided bombs directed at communication and radar installations.

If correct, the huge number of dumb bombs dropped on Iraq are probably a result of several factors, including the huge stockpiles that needed to be dropped before their use-by date and the relatively damn-care attitude of goras about carpet bombing mud people.

In our case, we will probably follow a more "humane" type of bombing but that along with our more frugal financial capability should dictate that we use a higher percentage of smart bombs, not less. Hopefully, Sudarshan is in full production 24/7.

The article also states that the allies used napalm and cluster bombs. IMO, we should not hesitate to use these either because the pakis will certainly use them courtesy the saudis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 04:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25360
Location: NowHere
how do they get or draft numbers like 49 drones to guard paki-china border? i am sure, the capabilities of each drone, range, and cnc integration would have been part of the requirements.. i hope these numbers don't expose certain mil strategies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 04:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37946
Victor, Not really. I think the IAF air marshal has given a realistic estimate of the targets and their type that need to be takenout. For instance hard point targets might require more than one PGM as the indian 1000 lber is not as effective as the 1000 kg US bomb. Hence my question about cast vs forged steel.
Second area targets destruction is based on accuracy of the delivery system(CEP) and the tonnage delivered. Here again, he expects the majority to be ~ 32,000 to 33,000 numbers to be dumb bombs for area destruction leading to 15,000-16000 strike sorties.

Also
Quote:
In the envisaged 42 squadrons by 2022, of the approximately 800 aircraft (as per current squadron configuration of 16 fighters and two trainers) in front line service, about 70 per cent i.e. around 550 aircraft are likely to be available for duty. Assuming the above approximate allocation of roles, 300 to 320 aircraft could be engaged in strike duties of varying descriptions, producing on an average of about 600 to 640 sorties per day. Excluding aborts on account of a variety of operational and environmental reasons, over a thirty-day period of conflict, one could expect an effort of the order of about 15,000 to 16,000 strike aircraft sorties expending up to 50,000 pieces of ordnance. Ideally most if not all of them should be of the smart variety However, considering the expense and even storage constraints, if just a third were to be guided munitions, the resulting figure i.e. some 16,000-17,000 would still pose an immense challenges in terms of acquisition, storage, servicing and other housekeeping activities.



In late 1999 I developed a XLS sheet on IAF strike capabilities and matched them to availaible Pak targets: Area and Point. The numbers were almost on the dot! I too had assumed 1/3 point targets in the initial phase. But not so many sorties. I guess there is vast improvement now. My analysis showed most of the important point targets are gone by first five days!
Was asked not to spread the datat sheet aorund.

My one suggestions was to use the a/c as a truck and have extra pilots and ground air crew to improve the turn around time.


The above article assumes 30 day war! :eek:
No air conflict with TSP can be more than five-ten days.
PRC over Tibet is 72 hours.

I note that as PGMs are expensive so to speak the accurate delivery of dumb bombs is the least cost option and IAF has been working to improve that thru the avionics upgrades of the strike fighters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 09:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1095
Gulf war 1 was more than 2 decades in the past. IIRC in Gulf war 2 the proportion of smart munitions used increased to ~90%. And this was 10 years ago. We have since seen small revolutions like the SDB which will allow aircraft to carry 2-4 times the number of bombs. Inducting large number of smart munitions will be a huge increase in the IAF's capability. What we need now is comprehensive IGMDP like program to quickly develop and induct the required quantities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2013 21:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14
Posts: 1192
I feel war-fighting weapons like PGMs, MLRS, artillery cannons, artillery smart munitions, etc. will cause more immediate international pressure than Agni-VI test. So GOI is taking an easier route of least resistance. Let us hope these bread and butter ordinance like PGMs is available in abundance with indigenous technology and production.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Oct 2013 07:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
CABS releases an EOI for new TRMs for AWACS India project.

Link1

Link2

The usual process DRDO starts off with when programs are launched..

Look closely - and these are GaN TRMs as versus the GaAs TRMs we designed/made/use for all the other programs. Those ones are being mass produced as it is for multiple programs.

In recent days, DRDO noted that it had designed and realized a GaN based transmit chain for APARs, so it fits.

Another interesting thing is that TRMs in all three bands are being looked at. I had thought AWACS India would remain at L Band.

Be interesting to see if bistatic radars are also part of this program..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Oct 2013 16:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
ramana wrote:
Victor, Not really. I think the IAF air marshal has given a realistic estimate of the targets and their type that need to be takenout. For instance hard point targets might require more than one PGM as the indian 1000 lber is not as effective as the 1000 kg US bomb. Hence my question about cast vs forged steel.
Second area targets destruction is based on accuracy of the delivery system(CEP) and the tonnage delivered. Here again, he expects the majority to be ~ 32,000 to 33,000 numbers to be dumb bombs for area destruction leading to 15,000-16000 strike sorties.

Also
Quote:
In the envisaged 42 squadrons by 2022, of the approximately 800 aircraft (as per current squadron configuration of 16 fighters and two trainers) in front line service, about 70 per cent i.e. around 550 aircraft are likely to be available for duty. Assuming the above approximate allocation of roles, 300 to 320 aircraft could be engaged in strike duties of varying descriptions, producing on an average of about 600 to 640 sorties per day. Excluding aborts on account of a variety of operational and environmental reasons, over a thirty-day period of conflict, one could expect an effort of the order of about 15,000 to 16,000 strike aircraft sorties expending up to 50,000 pieces of ordnance. Ideally most if not all of them should be of the smart variety However, considering the expense and even storage constraints, if just a third were to be guided munitions, the resulting figure i.e. some 16,000-17,000 would still pose an immense challenges in terms of acquisition, storage, servicing and other housekeeping activities.



In late 1999 I developed a XLS sheet on IAF strike capabilities and matched them to availaible Pak targets: Area and Point. The numbers were almost on the dot! I too had assumed 1/3 point targets in the initial phase. But not so many sorties. I guess there is vast improvement now. My analysis showed most of the important point targets are gone by first five days!
Was asked not to spread the datat sheet aorund.

My one suggestions was to use the a/c as a truck and have extra pilots and ground air crew to improve the turn around time.


The above article assumes 30 day war! :eek:
No air conflict with TSP can be more than five-ten days.
PRC over Tibet is 72 hours.

I note that as PGMs are expensive so to speak the accurate delivery of dumb bombs is the least cost option and IAF has been working to improve that thru the avionics upgrades of the strike fighters.



The most recent estimate of IAF target list was this in 2008.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081225/j ... 299108.jsp

Air Marshal PK Barbora, chief of India’s western air command, said that the air force had identified 5,000 targets inside Pakistani territory.

In comparison the US before it went into the previous Iraq War had 3000 targets identified.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NS ... ab%20I.pdf

The heaviest air attack the planning study included estimated 3,000 individual aiming points from 2,100 aircraft sorties, the difference being made up by mix of multiple-target missions and Tomahawk missiles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Oct 2013 18:28 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23
Posts: 96
Swiss company looks for 40 Dornier multi-utility aircraft from India

Quote:
In a sign of the growing confidence in India's aircraft manufacturing capabilities, Swiss-German RUAG Aviation is looking to purchase around 40 of the modernized version of the Dornier 228 multi-utility planes from state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

According to Thomas K Schilliger, vice president (Commercial Programmes) at RUAG Aviation, the acquisition will be dependent upon new technology insertions into the aircraft's manufacturing, for which his company would offer all possible assistance to its Indian partner.

HAL is already making the Dornier 228 under licence from RUAG, but the aircraft being made by HAL is of old, 1980s technologies.


The European requirement is for the new Dornier 228 NG (Next Generation), which has more powerful engines, five-blade composite propellers, contemporary glass cockpit and other gadgets for safety and both fuel and operational efficiency.

The new aircraft would mean less pilot fatigue and higher availability of the aircraft to the user.

The NG version has the newer Honeywell TPE331-10 engines, which are 25 percent more powerful than the Honeywell Garrett TPE-331-5-252D engines in the current Indian model. The new propellers are lighter and smaller in diameter, thereby reducing noise and adding to the safety factor.

The glass cockpit has only four MFDs (multi-function displays) instead of the vintage bank of panels.

Schilliger, who was recently in India, was quoted by India Strategic defence magazine (http://www.indiastrategic.in) as saying that RUAG would have no objection to HAL selling the new generation Dorniers to the Indian Air Force, Indian Navy and Coast Guard, which together ply some 120 aircraft but of the 1980s legacy.

RUAG's interest is to buy this aircraft in Next Generation upgraded version for European requirements. As RUAG has phased out its own Dornier facility, it has to source the aircraft from HAL.

The Indian company would be free to use the NG technologies for its own requirements, Schilliger said, adding that RUAG would provide all the technical assistance at no cost, and buy five to six aircraft per year in flyaway green condition - meaning any internal fitments or special systems would be installed in Germany. The company foresees a requirement of about 40 aircraft over the next few years, primarily for surveillance missions.

"If we were to begin today, the production process of this twin-engine turboprop in India along with HAL could begin next year itself with delivery from 2015 onwards," India Strategic quoted him as saying.

Financials have not been disclosed pending finalisation of the deal.

Meanwhile, the Indian defence ministry is reportedly considering a proposal for 54 more Dorniers for the Indian armed forces. It would be up to HAL to offer the old or the new versions, depending upon user requirements and costs involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 11:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 1022
Location: Land of the free
Swiss company looks for Dornier aircraft from India
Looks like a good deal. I am not sure how this can affect the NAL Saras though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 12:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41
Posts: 597
^^^

intriguing that HAL has been 'mum' on the RUAG offer (here and here) of Dornier 228NG version considering RUAG says they do not want to charge for it and commit themselves to a buy of atleast 6 aircrafts/yr. it is a win win for both. RUAG gains by selling them at 'reduced' price while HAL - being the sole licence producer moves up the chain.

the gains otherwise are worthy - 25% more powerful engines, weight savings, upgraded glass cockpit.

it may also be possible HAL is waiting for the test programme of Do 228NG - which is underway, reaches maturity so they can strike a deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 19:09 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 37946
KaranM, He also doesn't distinguish between area and point targets in the press statement about 5000 targets. What I find intriguing is that the average daily sortie rate is 2/aircraft (300-320 a/c leading to 600-640 sorties). Need to improve that if they want high capacity intense effort for short duration conflicts.

The comment about storage issues shows the emphasis on laser rangefinder coupled with advanced avionics to drop dumb bombs. But that gets you the area targets but not the point hard targets which need the PGM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 20:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
My takeaway from this was that this was clearly a strategic and full blown campaign intended to break the back of the Pak mil apparatus and cripple them. I think the average sortie rate is based on a conservative estimate and with more crews, air and ground, it can actually increase. As you correctly discerned. 24 hours, two sorties per airframe can clearly be improved upon. At longewala, 3 hunters made approximately 6 sorties per aircraft, in daylight. Granted, against no air opposition, nearby targets and much simpler aircraft. But still, two sorties per aircraft seems a very conservative estimate.

Of course, with PGMs and modern equipment such as Flankers, a single sortie may equal the effects of multiple strikes in years past.

Another interesting thing is that the IAF is adding radars to its Jaguar fleet, making them all weather, day and night capable. Overall, IAF capability is increasing substantially, with many aircraft being multirole and capable of all weather, high accuracy ops.

Of course, getting newer aircraft in, and increasing PGMS stockpiles will help immensely. The good thing for us is that versus PAF, their SAM network is limited and hence PGMs launched at altitude may get us optimal results with reduced risk.

With PLAAf, we really need Nirbhays and ARMs en masse to even create holes for regular strike fleet to exploit. IRNSS is also crucial for us to JDAMize our dumb bomb inventory and look beyond dependence on GLONASS. Otherwise attrition will rise if an all out air war is required under restrictive time frames, without the leeway to shape the environment with more time available to the AF.


Last edited by Karan M on 03 Oct 2013 20:51, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 20:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
pragnya wrote:
^^^

intriguing that HAL has been 'mum' on the RUAG offer (here and here) of Dornier 228NG version considering RUAG says they do not want to charge for it and commit themselves to a buy of atleast 6 aircrafts/yr. it is a win win for both. RUAG gains by selling them at 'reduced' price while HAL - being the sole licence producer moves up the chain.

the gains otherwise are worthy - 25% more powerful engines, weight savings, upgraded glass cockpit.

it may also be possible HAL is waiting for the test programme of Do 228NG - which is underway, reaches maturity so they can strike a deal.


What will HAL learn from license manufacturing it ??? None of the "NG" technologies are from India and neither is there any offer for ToT with know why.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1160
Talking about PGMs, can somebody say which are the PGMs / ASMs used by IAF (or IN) today ?

My two paise
Kh 31 on SU 30 MKI
Kh 59 on SU 30 MKI
AS 7 NATO Codename 'Kerry' on MiG 27
Crystal Maze. (I think it is Spice ???) on M 2000
Sea Eagle on Jaguar IM
Paveway II on Jaguar & Mirage
Like the S 300, there have been a number of articles claiming IAF having all sorts of ASMs

Let us share our vews

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 20:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Sagar G wrote:
pragnya wrote:
^^^

intriguing that HAL has been 'mum' on the RUAG offer (here and here) of Dornier 228NG version considering RUAG says they do not want to charge for it and commit themselves to a buy of atleast 6 aircrafts/yr. it is a win win for both. RUAG gains by selling them at 'reduced' price while HAL - being the sole licence producer moves up the chain.

the gains otherwise are worthy - 25% more powerful engines, weight savings, upgraded glass cockpit.

it may also be possible HAL is waiting for the test programme of Do 228NG - which is underway, reaches maturity so they can strike a deal.


What will HAL learn from license manufacturing it ??? None of the "NG" technologies are from India and neither is there any offer for ToT with know why.


Improvement in production processes at HAL helps and can be leveraged. That's about all that should be said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 20:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Kersi D wrote:
Talking about PGMs, can somebody say which are the PGMs / ASMs used by IAF (or IN) today ?



My two paise
Kh 31 on SU 30 MKI
Kh 59 on SU 30 MKI
AS 7 NATO Codename 'Kerry' on MiG 27
Crystal Maze. (I think it is Spice ???) on M 2000
Sea Eagle on Jaguar IM
Paveway II on Jaguar & Mirage
Like the S 300, there have been a number of articles claiming IAF having all sorts of ASMs

Let us share our vews

K


Sticking to publicly known data and avoiding speculation/inferences etc.

MiG-21 Bison KAB 500
Jaguar Griffin, Paveway, Sudarshan, SFW, Harpoon (Armat probably retired as was Sea Eagle)
MiG-27 Upg Griffin (AS7 most probably retired
MiG-29 post upgrade, Kh-35, KAB series, Kh-31
Su-30MKI KAB 500/1500, Kh-59M, Kh-31A/P, Griffin, also when they come Brahmos-A, Nirbhay ( leaving apart what may come as part of Upg)
Mirage 2000 before upgrade Paveway, BGL1000, Griffin, Popeye /Crystal Maze


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Karan M wrote:
Improvement in production processes at HAL helps and can be leveraged. That's about all that should be said.


Frankly saar I fail to understand this "Improvement in production processes" line sold with each and every license manufacturing deal. We have set up a manufacturing line for 4th gen aircraft on our own but still each and every time I hear that we lack in production process. I agree that it's not our strong point but is it so weak that without outside help we won't be able to improve it ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
We can improve it on our own. It is something that has been done in bits and pieces in the past, but as reported future DRDO programs, for example will have a focus on investing in manufacturing to improve their partners capability, as capex is always an issue.

But what HAL gets from outside is also a plus. Note that a lot of specialized jigs and equipment which wouldn't otherwise be available come as part of these deals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1160
Karan M wrote:
Kersi D wrote:
Talking about PGMs, can somebody say which are the PGMs / ASMs used by IAF (or IN) today ?



My two paise
Kh 31 on SU 30 MKI
Kh 59 on SU 30 MKI
AS 7 NATO Codename 'Kerry' on MiG 27
Crystal Maze. (I think it is Spice ???) on M 2000
Sea Eagle on Jaguar IM
Paveway II on Jaguar & Mirage
Like the S 300, there have been a number of articles claiming IAF having all sorts of ASMs

Let us share our vews

K


Sticking to publicly known data and avoiding speculation/inferences etc.

MiG-21 Bison KAB 500
Jaguar Griffin, Paveway, Sudarshan, SFW, Harpoon (Armat probably retired as was Sea Eagle)
MiG-27 Upg Griffin (AS7 most probably retired
MiG-29 post upgrade, Kh-35, KAB series, Kh-31
Su-30MKI KAB 500/1500, Kh-59M, Kh-31A/P, Griffin, also when they come Brahmos-A, Nirbhay ( leaving apart what may come as part of Upg)
Mirage 2000 before upgrade Paveway, BGL1000, Griffin, Popeye /Crystal Maze


:D :D :D

Yes I had forgotten the KAB.
Would SFW be classified as a PGM ??
Would / can MiG 29 of IAF carry Kh 31 or Kh 35 ? Dunno
AS 7 and Sea Eagle must / should now be in the museums.
BGL 1000 ??? Never heard of IAF having BGL. We ahve read a lot about Paveway II and Griffin being used in kargil.

Thanks

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Karan M wrote:
But what HAL gets from outside is also a plus. Note that a lot of specialized jigs and equipment which wouldn't otherwise be available come as part of these deals.


Aren't specialized jigs and equipment specific to the aircraft being manufactured ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Karan M wrote:
Kersi D wrote:
Talking about PGMs, can somebody say which are the PGMs / ASMs used by IAF (or IN) today ?



My two paise
Kh 31 on SU 30 MKI
Kh 59 on SU 30 MKI
AS 7 NATO Codename 'Kerry' on MiG 27
Crystal Maze. (I think it is Spice ???) on M 2000
Sea Eagle on Jaguar IM
Paveway II on Jaguar & Mirage
Like the S 300, there have been a number of articles claiming IAF having all sorts of ASMs

Let us share our vews

K


Sticking to publicly known data and avoiding speculation/inferences etc.

MiG-21 Bison KAB 500
Jaguar Griffin, Paveway, Sudarshan, SFW, Harpoon (Armat probably retired as was Sea Eagle)
MiG-27 Upg Griffin (AS7 most probably retired
MiG-29 post upgrade, Kh-35, KAB series, Kh-31
Su-30MKI KAB 500/1500, Kh-59M, Kh-31A/P, Griffin, also when they come Brahmos-A, Nirbhay ( leaving apart what may come as part of Upg)
Mirage 2000 before upgrade Paveway, BGL1000, Griffin, Popeye /Crystal Maze


One thing clear from the above is the absence of a cheap, sat guided bomb like the basic JDAM or SDB. Clearly, the focus by DRDO on PGMs is essential. Coupled with IRNSS, if the IAF gets access to a large, affordable, indigenous supply of reliable PGMs, it's strike capability will be enhanced manifold.

We know of the following DRDO programs by now
1. HELINA and derivative for fixed wing strike aircraft with mmw sensor
2. CLGM: air version noted, could presumably be used by choppers. Basic version in trials this year
3. Brahmos-a, followed by Brahmos mini
4.Sudarshan MK2 with INS/satnav, 50 km range
5. E-Bomb: satellite guided EMP bomb, launched 2013
6. ARM: single stage, with memory for non emitting targets, liquid fuelled with 100 km range, launched 2012
7. Missile with multiple precision guided warheads, range of 200 km. UAV variants possible, to "launch PGMs" and then be recovered for cost effectiveness. Tech demo in 2013, with tests of a configured missile in 2015-16.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Sagar G wrote:
Karan M wrote:
But what HAL gets from outside is also a plus. Note that a lot of specialized jigs and equipment which wouldn't otherwise be available come as part of these deals.


Aren't specialized jigs and equipment specific to the aircraft being manufactured ???


Jugaad kiya ja sakta hain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Karan M wrote:
Jugaad kiya ja sakta hain.


Reverse engineering :eek: Now we are talking :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Kersi D wrote:

:D :D :D

Yes I had forgotten the KAB.
Would SFW be classified as a PGM ??
Would / can MiG 29 of IAF carry Kh 31 or Kh 35 ? Dunno
AS 7 and Sea Eagle must / should now be in the museums.
BGL 1000 ??? Never heard of IAF having BGL. We ahve read a lot about Paveway II and Griffin being used in kargil.

Thanks

K


SFW is definitely a PGM. A very sophisticated one in fact with IIR seekers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

MiG-29 Upg of IAF includes both types and has already been seen with Kh-35 on trials as memory serves. Please see for more upgrade details
http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/MiG-29

For specific weapons (Andrei Fomin is very credible)
http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to19.pdf
Mentions Kh-29T, Kh-31A/P, KAB-500Kr
http://lh6.ggpht.com/-zw5Dy5yCCAA/TvbHb ... imgmax=800
Shows Kh-35 on upgraded IAF MiG-29

We reportedly ordered BGL1000 to use with the ATLIS LDP. Consider this, what would the ATLIS be used with otherwise? :) This is an expensive bunker buster and was hence not used at Kargil.

Paveway was used in Kargil, not Griffin. It was purchased subsequently. 2008 reports note Griffin 3 was also procured (flight global).


Last edited by Karan M on 03 Oct 2013 21:56, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 21:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Sagar G wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Jugaad kiya ja sakta hain.


Reverse engineering :eek: Now we are talking :twisted:


Not reverse engineering , but just using tools and processes innovatively.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 22:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Well whatever it is the deal must bring some useful amount of knowledge and technology which would go into strengthening our aviation industry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 22:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Oh that it will, provided we don't slack off.
OTOH, The reports of HAL willing to give up 50% of its workshare in FGFA in contrast, and limit it to 30 odd % are disheartening. Each and every opportunity must be used.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 22:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Yeah, but do we know what was the 50% work to be done by HAL and which one they are willing to let go ???

Edit : All I know is HAL was tasked to work on composites and LRU's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 22:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
If not them, they should have worked overtime to get that workshare to private industry or DRDO/CSIR/national labs. It seems just typical of HAL management, that they let this go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 22:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Karan M wrote:
If not them, they should have worked overtime to get that workshare to private industry or DRDO/CSIR/national labs. It seems just typical of HAL management, that they let this go.


I am also asking the same thing what did they let go ??? The list of things to be done by HAL was already so small what further cuts have been there ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 23:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
The thing is that the list of things to be done by HAL was probably small because they didn't leverage their entire workshare. Ultimately, HAL's management shares a good portion of the blame if they didn't work to keep that business in India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013 23:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1837
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
What I have read about FGFA/PAKFA is that already a lot of design work had been done and because of GoI's dithering we got in so late that there wasn't much left to be done. So we were given work based on our strengths and now IAF has complained that even what diddly squat we got is further being cut down by HAL to suit our dirty poor bhikari image.

What you say is new to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2013 02:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
A lot remains in terms of getting a series aircraft. There are work packages to do further work, provide engineering assemblies for actual production aircraft to required specifications (as versus items used in prototypes). It is here, that HAL appears to have dropped the ball. They were just not into R&D and treated the LCA as somebody else's aircraft, with their eyes firmly fixed on license production and TOT absorption. So they didn't scale up in certain areas either. Result is they don't have the engineering depth now to simultaneously work on ab-initio work for the FGFA plus do their regular license build programs. A perfect example of where HAL dropped the ball is the MMR program. Granted LRDE and HAL did not see eye to eye on the signal processor front. But HAL had 2+ decades to build an airborne FCR. They failed. Almost all the ancillaries are from outside HAL anyways. Point is HAL has not supported its own departments which are into R&D with adequate resources. Now, they are looking there, but its pretty late already. And giving up the FGFA workshare is inexcusable. They should have begged, pleaded, cajoled other Indian orgs to take that part up, instead of surrendering it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2013 07:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10502
Location: India
Not to mention the doubts expressed by Dassault about HAL being able to deliver on the Rafale production too.

An xcpt. from a June '13 DRDO statement.

Quote:
By the end of next year, Indian fighter planes could be equipped with indigenously-developed ‘glide bombs’, which will be guided to their targets for precision attacks.

The first-of-its-kind bomb in the country, being developed by the DRDO, will boost India’s strike capabilities as targets can be hit even beyond the range of a fighter aircraft.

The DRDO is working on developing glide capabilities on the existing bombs of various payloads including 100 kgs, 250 kgs and 500 kgs.

“We are developing glide bombs which can be directed towards their intended targets using guidance mechanisms after being dropped from aircraft of the IAF,” outgoing DRDO chief V K Saraswat said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2013 10:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 5066
Those doubts expressed by Dassault were more of the usual ploy to avoid giving TOT to HAL. If HAL can make Flanker-Hs from raw materials, it can definitely make Rafales at the lower TOT levels mandated per the DPP applicable to the MMRCA deal. Plus reiterates the point that these firms, talk apart, do not want to transfer tech that could be leveraged by India to improve its own capabilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1616 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 41  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, Jorj X. McKie and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group