Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 21:44

ShauryaT wrote:FGFA On — simplifies Parrikar’s aircraft choices

The word is the Modi government has informed Moscow it will soon sign the detailed long pending co-development agreement for the Su-50 FGFA (Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft). This simplifies the choices somewhat for defence minister Manohar Parrikar as regards the three large aircraft programmes on the IAF menu — other than FGFA, Rafale, and Tejas Mk-2.

So, looks like the IAF has been reluctantly brought around to the table.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 21:49

shiv wrote:
nirav wrote:Shiv saar,

your admiration of PDs ideas is visible. Nothing wrong with that. Just that since he is a professor and he writes articles in vayu mag doesnt make his ideas automatically the holy grail.
The idea that any one single person's views can be a holy grail is silly. But Das makes technical points that no one seems to have actually read properly or managed to rebut. Time and again people cherry pick his views without reading the whole. If his students are that shoddy, no need to feel sorry for them - they deserve it. Frankly I have seen more anger at Das than any real substance in rebutting his claims. It is OK to disagree and hold a different opinion, but it is amusing to see anger accompanying an inability to match or rebut the technical arguments he makes.

Everyone here has rebutted some of his more bizarre claims outright. The problem is you are unwilling to admit it and make completely incorrect statements yourself (F-16s can't do real BVR or such like..). He has made no technical arguments besides throwing out some silly jargon.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 21:54

Now for the more interesting stuff.

Saab has released details of its PS/05 MK4 radar.
http://saab.com/globalassets/publicatio ... ochure.pdf

RADAR PROCESSING UNIT (RPU)
• Very high processing capacity (1 TFLOPS)
• COTS processor boards, with provisions for
future upgrades
• Large internal solid-state discs for recording
• Standard build (VPX)
• Low maintenance cost with an MTBF
>1000 flight hours
The new back-end in the PS-05/A Mk4 consists of Saab-developed units built on the latest technology and
with experience from more than six decades of fighter radar development.
EXCITER RECEIVER UNIT (EXR)
• Programmable
• Digital waveform generation
• Very low noise figure
• Excellent spectral purity
• Narrowband and wideband receivers
•
Low maintenance cost with an MTBF
>1000 flight hours
Saab’s radar technology and new back-end are 100% Saab property and have no ITAR-restricted components.
TECHNICAL DATA
Frequency range....................................................
X-band
Antenna polarisation..............................................
Vertical
Antenna angle limit................................................
+/- 60°
Peak Power of power amplifier output...................
10 kW nominal
Maximum duty factor
.............................................
10 %
Radar MTBF
..........................................................
> 350 flight hours
Weight..................................................................
150 kg
Line Replaceable Units.........................................
Radar Processing Unit
Exciter Receiver Unit
Transmitter Auxiliary Unit
Power Amplifier Unit
Antenna Unit

Claim a 150% increase in range performance. Software & the processing apart, note the power details. A 650mm class radar, with a 1Kw average. (10Kw peak).
And the new radar is claimed to be Meteor capable.

In short, if ADA play their cards right, the EL/M-2052 can be brought up to a similar standard for Mk1A (or more).

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 May 2016 22:29

Shiv, the table you posted a screenshot of states that "On average, U.S. pilots detected enemy aircraft on their own radars at 42 nm and launched missiles at 10 nm."

10 nm is equal to 18.5 km. That's pretty far out. And it's the average distance from which all missiles were launched, including the short-range Sidewinders. It stands to reason that pilots managed to fire Sparrows and AMRAAMs at targets from much longer ranges.

There is no way gun-armed fighters can come close to matching this sort of capability.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 May 2016 22:30

Karan M wrote:The Gnat will just shoot down any missiles that come towards it, with its flak cannons.

brb, out to patent my idea to equip the Gnat 125 with Phalanx CIWS

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2016 22:32

Good news on the FGFA.

But, after some threats?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 12 May 2016 22:40

ITAR restrictions aside wideband (8-11 Ghz) 25W Gan MMIC HPAs2 with ... are in production (Cree and Qorvo both have hot lines) and available to Saab and Elta among others so small fighters won't be sensor range limited when it comes to even the most longest range bvr weapons being contemplated or fielded . Disadvantaged (vs larger apertures) yes, limited no.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2016 22:49

NRao Why the second sentence?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 12 May 2016 23:14

shiv wrote: ......
My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness , may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the earth! Sponsor for studies anyone?
.........

Finally, the GSQR of Arjun ......

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2016 23:26

forget it.. no point in adding to the noise.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 12 May 2016 23:58

Picklu wrote: ......
My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness , may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the earth! Sponsor for studies anyone?
.........

Finally, the GSQR of Arjun ......

I missed reading the bold part. IF by any chance a sponsor for the 'study' were to be found, 5 years after the 'study' the answer would be - "it cant be done".

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 00:12

Come on Nirav. Here is how it would look
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/war ... 0414094543

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 00:16

ramana wrote:NRao Why the second sentence?

This, from that report:

But why did the Modi govt do a turnaround on the FGFA that IAF wanted to junk? This because, as stated in earlier posts, Modi government was warned about the outcomes of “buying West”. It weighed the danger of Russia simply terminating all engagement with this country in the military sphere coupled with a proportional link-up with Pakistan, and deeper weapons co-development with China that would place India in a deep hole. It would have instantly seeded dangers on numerous fronts. Firstly, the hardware void cannot be easily filled by Western sources because the bulk military armaments are ex-Russian. Secondly, the termination of technical assistance in advanced and sensitive projects would quite literally put all prestige Indian projects into a freeze, which cannot be thawed out by Western countries as few of them will willingly sell other than “cutting edge minus-minus”-quality weapons and weapons platforms, and none of them is prepared to cooperate in actual technology transfer of the substantive kind, leave alone co-design and co-develop sophisticated armaments for love or money.

BK has been harping on this for a while and I had not thought it to be probable. But. ??????

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 May 2016 02:06

Lol @ Karan M ..

I'm surprised at Shri BKs line of reasoning.
Russians aren't really in a position to arm twist us.

They haven't mamaged to sell the Su35 to China despite their best efforts. IF India weren't to fall in line with the alleged Roosi threat what options do the Russians have ?
Sell pakfa to China, Bakistan ?

India has been putting hard cash on the table all this while. There is no way Russians can afford to stop military co operation with India. How will they deepen military deals with bakis who's chaddis are so torn they cant even afford to but 8 F16s @ 100 mil ..

Need to call russian bluff, if the allegations are true..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 02:33

They haven't mamaged to sell the Su35 to China despite their best efforts.

I believe they signed late last year and will be the first export customer for both the Su-35 and the S400 air-defense system.

IF India weren't to fall in line with the alleged Roosi threat what options do the Russians have ?
Sell pakfa to China, Bakistan ?

Crafting an export variant for foreign sales wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibilities in that program going forward. China, given one of Russia's larges defense markets will likely be one potential customer if they choose to further diversify their fleet or have growing developmental challenges in fielding competent J-20's.

This is strategic geopolitics and there is no denying that India has in the recent past acquired technology from Russia that no one would have even thought about selling. That carries some weight.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 04:27

nirav wrote:Lol @ Karan M ..

I'm surprised at Shri BKs line of reasoning.
Russians aren't really in a position to arm twist us.

They haven't mamaged to sell the Su35 to China despite their best efforts. IF India weren't to fall in line with the alleged Roosi threat what options do the Russians have ?
Sell pakfa to China, Bakistan ?

India has been putting hard cash on the table all this while. There is no way Russians can afford to stop military co operation with India. How will they deepen military deals with bakis who's chaddis are so torn they cant even afford to but 8 F16s @ 100 mil ..

Need to call russian bluff, if the allegations are true..

Do not know if that is possible, although until a few months ago used to propose the same. India needs fuel, funds, etc to grow and Russia - as any other nation - can slow that growth by denying India certain commodities. at crucial juncture. Would be interesting to see what happens with France and the Rafale.

However, I have always thought India itself is the problem. With some much potential the ROI is so little. Here is an example that I think India can model around:

Inside Israel's Secret Startup Machine

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2016 04:38

Mihir wrote:Shiv, the table you posted a screenshot of states that "On average, U.S. pilots detected enemy aircraft on their own radars at 42 nm and launched missiles at 10 nm."

10 nm is equal to 18.5 km. That's pretty far out. And it's the average distance from which all missiles were launched, including the short-range Sidewinders. It stands to reason that pilots managed to fire Sparrows and AMRAAMs at targets from much longer ranges.

There is no way gun-armed fighters can come close to matching this sort of capability.

NRao I am not sure why you are talking about guns vs BVR. I would be happy if you could actually say where I said guns would replace BVR. Don't bother searching - I never said anything of the sort. You are conflating 2 separate things being discussed in parallel:
1. I have said and I repeat that guns will not go away anytime soon
2. Prodyut Das said that BVR shootdown is not what it is made out to be and lo, a Google search reveals several articles that show exactly that.

5 nautical miles is taken as the "standard" WVR range but larger aircraft and smoky engines can be seen from 10 NM. If the data says that is true it can't be wished away. It is laughable to claim "BVR kills" for missiles launched at 10 NM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2016 04:47

Karan M wrote:Gulf War occurred in 1990.

Its 2016 today.
.

Nrao wrote:Well, for one that paper was written in 2005, when things were very much diff.

There have been only a handful of air to air shootdowns after Desert Storm compared to massive data prior to that.

I would be happy to be shown data bout the F-16 great effectiveness as a BVR platform with it 90 NM detection range. Where is the data?

Since two people have said similar things, let me post the data, which is in the links

From the CSBS paper linked above

While the frequency of aerial combat has declined greatly compared to the 1960s—1980s, the

number of aerial victory claims registered since 1990 is sufficiently large to permit simple

quantitative analysis of the kind presented throughout this chapter. The left-hand panel of

Figure 13 reveals a continued shift in the mix of weapons employed in aerial combat during

the post–Cold War era. The first thing to note is the virtual absence of victories credited to

guns. The database includes two gun victories; the last was a Venezuelan AT-27 Tucano armed

trainer shot down by a Venezuelan F-16 during a coup attempt in November 1992. Taking a

longer perspective, the data shows the continued utility of guns in aerial combat through the

1970s and their rapid eclipse by missiles beginning in the 1980s.38 In fact, the use of guns in

aerial combat virtually ended after the Yom Kippur War in late 1973. Out of 498 victory claims

since that time, 440 (88 percent) have been credited to AAMs and only thirty to guns.39 The

last gun kill of one jet combat aircraft by another occurred in May of 1988 when an Iranian

F-4E downed an Iraqi Su-22M with 20 mm cannon fire.

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Although aerial victory data is available for selected post-Desert Storm conflicts such as Operation Deny Flight, Operation Al
lied Force, and Operation Southern Watch, this data does not include the number of shots taken or the engagement range. During
Operation Deny Flight, for example, there were four aerial victories scored by two USAF F-16Cs on February 28th, 1994: three kills were with AIM-9s and one kill with an AIM-120 AMRAAM (a much improved replacement for the AIM-7).xxiii It is unlikely the
AMRAAM shot was BVR, since the four enemy aircraft were simultaneously attacked with visual-range Sidewinders. Additionally, F-16Cs are not equipped with NCTR to augment the legacy IFF system, making BVR approval from AWACS very unlikely.

There were also two kills as part of Operation Southern Watch in 1992 and 1993 by F-16s using AMRAAMs. Again, what is not given is the number of shots taken or the range. A more recent Operation Southern Watch engagement occurred on January 5 th, 1999 when two Iraqi MiG-25s violating the southern “no-fly” zone illuminated two F-15Cs with their BVR radar.xxiv The F-15s responded by firing three AIM-7 Sparrows and one AIM-120 AMRAAM. All missiles missed. Subsequently, two Navy F-14s fired two AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at the two MiG-25s (which missed)
.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2016 05:06

Here is some data about F-16 and their efficacy in BVR combat
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Based on the data, the F-15C was the best tool available for skilled pilots to achieve air superiority in Desert Storm, whether with AIM-7 Sparrows or AIM-9 Sidewinders. According to GWAPS, at least 20 of the 36 Sidewinder launches from F-16s were accidental. This was due to poor ergonomics on the joystick which was quickly modified. Additionally, the F-16s which fought
in Desert Storm are a far cry from the “lightweight” fighter originally envisioned by the lightweight fighter mafia. The other “lightweight” fighter program grew into the porky Navy/Marine F-18, which also performed poorly in air-to-air situations in Desert Storm.
Combined, the Navy/Marines fired 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders from F-18s and F-14s scoring one kill with a Sparrow (PK
= 4.8%) and two with Sidewinders (PK = 5.3%). Perhaps a better testimony for the lightweight fighter plus Sidewinder combination are the British Harriers in the 1982 Falklands War: 27 AIM-9s were fired for 24 hits and 19 kills (PK = 70.4%).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 05:10

shiv wrote:
Mihir wrote:Shiv, the table you posted a screenshot of states that "On average, U.S. pilots detected enemy aircraft on their own radars at 42 nm and launched missiles at 10 nm."

10 nm is equal to 18.5 km. That's pretty far out. And it's the average distance from which all missiles were launched, including the short-range Sidewinders. It stands to reason that pilots managed to fire Sparrows and AMRAAMs at targets from much longer ranges.

There is no way gun-armed fighters can come close to matching this sort of capability.
NRao I am not sure why you are talking about guns. I would be happy if you could actually say where I said guns would replace BVR. Don't bother searching - I never said anything of the sort. You are conflating 2 separate things being discussed in parallel:
1. I have said and I repeat that guns will not go away anytime soon
2. Prodyut Das said that BVR shootdown is not what it is made out to be and lo, a Google search reveals several articles that show exactly that.

5 nautical miles is taken as the "standard" WVR range but larger aircraft and smoky engines can be seen from 10 NM. If the data says that is true it can't be wished away. It is laughable to claim "BVR kills" for missiles launched at 10 NM.

I am not sure Prodyut Das says anything. More gibberish after a nice late dinner ..........................

That has been my complain. He implies a lot of things when he says something, by leaving out a lot. THAT is NOT a way to publish any scientific material, even in a blog, if one wants to be taken seriously.

So, from his cat and pigeons notes:

BVRs/CCMs/Cannon
BVRs are not new. In Vietnam they showed a strict impartiality in what they knocked down so much so that soon the SOP was one flight went ahead to “visually identify so that the other flight could launch. This compromised the “surprise” element which is a BVR feature. The impartiality of BVRs about the “enemy” continues till this day.
BVR advantages are accepted but it is also important to know also the following.
1. What were the numbers of BVRs that were launched and missed and under what parameters?
2. Numbers that did a “blue on blue”?
3. BVRs are heavy and “draggy”. How many had to be jettisoned at the beginning of a combat to “clean up” the aircraft?
Though CCMs are combat proven and definitely useful nobody is making the ‘sixties mistake of deleting the gun.

Clearly he has three weapons and one of them is a Cannon, what I called a gun. Not that complicated.

I have also posted his, due to his lack of knowledge and biases, dislike for "BVR".

Then, the one and only, famous:

Why the Gnat?
My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness, may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the earth! Sponsor for studies anyone? Of course the HF 24 can be the basis of an entire Air Force (AJT, LIFT, Strike and interceptor) all in that one basic air frame!

You know this is not that complicated. He just goofed it badly - I have found a few data points on "sorties" and it should not take long to prove him wrong IF he actually has been fibbing - which is what I suspect. Of course the man has no proper stats out there and then he has a very nebulous "ideal" machine. Eh?

And, your links do not support his thinking. Not even close.

To me you are overlaying your beliefs on a lot of these well written papers. Which state that the BVR missile (at that point in time) had not met the expectations and was not as mature - put another way it needs development.

BUT, Das clearly, with his opposition fro BVR, his backhanded acknowledgement for CCM, a light fighter for ground support is angling for a gun based solution. He may not come out and say it, but that is the problem I have with him - in all his posts, going back to when he started posting.

IF he is serious then he needs to write a proper paper that is published in a good journal (having said that I will wait for his Vayu posting).

AND, better yet, he needs to start a company:

The customer and the market
The market for this type of aircraft is said to be around 12,000 airframes.

Stupid if he does not.

12,000. A cool $20 mil per. He can feed his Cat for umpteen next lives of his (not the cat's).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 05:16

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote:Gulf War occurred in 1990.

Its 2016 today.
.

Nrao wrote:Well, for one that paper was written in 2005, when things were very much diff.

There have been only a handful of air to air shootdowns after Desert Storm compared to massive data prior to that.

I would be happy to be shown data bout the F-16 great effectiveness as a BVR platform with it 90 NM detection range. Where is the data?

Since two people have said similar things, let me post the data, which is in the links

From the CSBS paper linked above
While the frequency of aerial combat has declined greatly compared to the 1960s—1980s, the

number of aerial victory claims registered since 1990 is sufficiently large to permit simple

quantitative analysis of the kind presented throughout this chapter. The left-hand panel of

Figure 13 reveals a continued shift in the mix of weapons employed in aerial combat during

the post–Cold War era. The first thing to note is the virtual absence of victories credited to

guns. The database includes two gun victories; the last was a Venezuelan AT-27 Tucano armed

trainer shot down by a Venezuelan F-16 during a coup attempt in November 1992. Taking a

longer perspective, the data shows the continued utility of guns in aerial combat through the

1970s and their rapid eclipse by missiles beginning in the 1980s.38 In fact, the use of guns in

aerial combat virtually ended after the Yom Kippur War in late 1973. Out of 498 victory claims

since that time, 440 (88 percent) have been credited to AAMs and only thirty to guns.39 The

last gun kill of one jet combat aircraft by another occurred in May of 1988 when an Iranian

F-4E downed an Iraqi Su-22M with 20 mm cannon fire.
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf
Although aerial victory data is available for selected post-Desert Storm conflicts such as Operation Deny Flight, Operation Al
lied Force, and Operation Southern Watch, this data does not include the number of shots taken or the engagement range. During
Operation Deny Flight, for example, there were four aerial victories scored by two USAF F-16Cs on February 28th, 1994: three kills were with AIM-9s and one kill with an AIM-120 AMRAAM (a much improved replacement for the AIM-7).xxiii It is unlikely the
AMRAAM shot was BVR, since the four enemy aircraft were simultaneously attacked with visual-range Sidewinders. Additionally, F-16Cs are not equipped with NCTR to augment the legacy IFF system, making BVR approval from AWACS very unlikely.

There were also two kills as part of Operation Southern Watch in 1992 and 1993 by F-16s using AMRAAMs. Again, what is not given is the number of shots taken or the range. A more recent Operation Southern Watch engagement occurred on January 5 th, 1999 when two Iraqi MiG-25s violating the southern “no-fly” zone illuminated two F-15Cs with their BVR radar.xxiv The F-15s responded by firing three AIM-7 Sparrows and one AIM-120 AMRAAM. All missiles missed. Subsequently, two Navy F-14s fired two AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at the two MiG-25s (which missed)
.

No idea what you are trying to say.

All that is from 2005, when I would think, as compared to today, had issues. You do not need to conduct any research to make that statement.

Heck even in the F-35 Turkey thread people had all sorts of issues with the JSF/F-35. Where are they today?

Have you any idea what the Chinese have done to US R&D? Stealing perhaps was the biggest motive to go into overdrive.

You really think a Prodyut Das and his bail gaddi will influence anything without proper research?

I would suggest that if you post something also add a comment of your own. I just do not see *anything* you have posted as a proof to support your thinking on BVR. OR for that matter Das'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 05:20

shiv wrote:Here is some data about F-16s
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf
Based on the data, the F-15C was the best tool available for skilled pilots to achieve air superiority in Desert Storm, whether with AIM-7 Sparrows or AIM-9 Sidewinders. According to GWAPS, at least 20 of the 36 Sidewinder launches from F-16s were accidental. This was due to poor ergonomics on the joystick which was quickly modified. Additionally, the F-16s which fought
in Desert Storm are a far cry from the “lightweight” fighter originally envisioned by the lightweight fighter mafia. The other “lightweight” fighter program grew into the porky Navy/Marine F-18, which also performed poorly in air-to-air situations in Desert Storm.
Combined, the Navy/Marines fired 21 Sparrows and 38 Sidewinders from F-18s and F-14s scoring one kill with a Sparrow (PK
= 4.8%) and two with Sidewinders (PK = 5.3%). Perhaps a better testimony for the lightweight fighter plus Sidewinder combination are the British Harriers in the 1982 Falklands War: 27 AIM-9s were fired for 24 hits and 19 kills (PK = 70.4%).

Again, what are you trying to say?

Sand that to Mr. Sprey. Or perhaps his interviewers.

Proof that India should never complain about Pakis getting F-16s. They are duds. But India shoudl make them and export them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2016 05:34

NRao wrote:
Have you any idea what the Chinese have done to US R&D? Stealing perhaps was the biggest motive to go into overdrive.

You really think a Prodyut Das and his bail gaddi will influence anything without proper research?

I would suggest that if you post something also add a comment of your own. I just do not see *anything* you have posted as a proof to support your thinking on BVR. OR for that matter Das'

NRao - Prodyut Das said "copy copy copy". I cross posted that. Didn't you actually read that part of his article? Isn't that what you say the Chinese did?

It does not matter if you don't see evidence in what I post. It is posted for anyone to see and some will actually see that the claims being made about BVR combat are exaggerated.

You do not have to think like me and in fact I always think it is pointless to hear someone telling me "Read this or read that" imagining that if I read what the other person reads I will think like him. Everyone has views based on his reading and I have mine. If you have not read "my component" of my posts, please don't allow yourself to be worried about that. Or else go back and read every post in detail.

NRao wrote:You really think a Prodyut Das and his bail gaddi will influence anything without proper research?

I cannot think why you asked this question. Does my opinion on this matter to you so much that you actually want me to reply to this?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 May 2016 05:57

Full Of Gifts from Moscow To Hyderabad?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 13 May 2016 06:01

NRao wrote: However, I have always thought India itself is the problem. With some much potential the ROI is so little. Here is an example that I think India can model around:

Inside Israel's Secret Startup Machine

I wish people would stop coming up with expectations that are in the realm of fantasy. India is NEVER EVER going to be like Israel. Israel is not a country, it's a city. One that's under siege. That keeps them nimble in a way very few other countries can emulate, let alone one that's more populous than entire continents.

Much has been made of Israel’s status as “Startup Nation.” Not even the size of New Jersey, with a population smaller than New York City’s, Israel is home to more Nasdaq-listed companies than any country except the U.S. and China. On a per capita basis Israel boasts more venture capital, more startups and more scientists and tech professionals than any other country in the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 May 2016 06:13

NRao, Prodyut Das is saying there is a big need for a less technology intensive strike aircraft. His Gnat 2.0 is the features from all those planes. it doesn't mean a jugaad that looks like morphing of those planes.

Having said that most of his arguments are based on lessons learned in past air combat operations.

Many fighter studies have shown the plane that spots its opponent has the best chance of downing it.
Next it needs to shoot it down as early as possible which means BVR.
Further it needs to get in position to shoot it down. Means agile platform.
Most important it should kill it dead with first shot.
Pk~0.90

Consequently the opposite for own plane:
stealth, low observables radar and IR;
agile and powerful radar etc.
Sturdy structure to withstand hits etc....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 May 2016 06:21

the AN225 was delivering a 130 ton generator in one piece from czech to australia. maybe it stopped for refueling in Hyd.
not sure why it had to be air delivered and not usual route by ship.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 06:41

Whatever.

I would support Das on "less technology".

BUT, cannot support him on his notion of the Gnat 2 since he has no base to back him up. Just because he says so, is not acceptable. Maybe it is out there, but he has not produced it. And, all the articles posted here - on BVR - do not support that BVR is a dud. Generations are not an accident. We may not agree with everything (which is why I have always felt that each AF has its own definition of a "5th Gen"), but it is based on science to a great extent (and politics, greed, stock prices, etc)

Lets move on.

IF possible. Bury Das (or take him to that other thread please).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 May 2016 12:55

LCA Tejas, BrahMos, MBT Arjun have highest import content; missiles lowest

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/lca-tejas-brah ... est-670042

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 May 2016 16:41

shiv wrote:
Homework:
What is an AR4 wing and what is remarkable about it?
What made the MiG 19's wing more structurally stiff than the MiG 17 ?
How does the rounded LE aid low level manoeuvrability in the Su-7s high swept back wing?
What is a flak vierling gun layout?
What was it in the Hunter's design that made it strong?
If Das is bluffing what is he bluffing about?
When rhetorical arguments are posed we can fill up a thousand forum pages, but no one is actually going to learn anything. Naturally. When we already know everything, what is there to learn?

So you have answers fro PD himself. If you haven't seen already in the comments section of his blog:

Shiv
I saw your post in Indian Military Aviation.If you get to read this.

Here are brief answers.AR is aspect ratio. It helps in range and in having more energy in a turning fight. Syrian pilots were able to down Israeli F4s and M3s because the Mach 2 wings lost energy too quickly in typical combat speeds and turns. Of course the Is.A.F. attributes these losses to "operational reasons" rather than admit losing to simple stuff.

The Mig19s stiff wings prevented aileron reversal when turning or rolling. You have to see the structure to understand how it is done. Copy!?

The Su 7s LE was so rounded it was almost blunt in comparison say to the MiG 21s L.e.The airflow would not breakaway as it would ina M2 aerofoil.So the pilot would push his a/cto the limit in violent manouvres at lowlevel knowing his a/c would no let him down by stalling at low level!.

I see someone has said - in bold!- that Ashley Tellis has been listening to me. Whilst it is flattering I amazed at the extent some people will go ballistic. It is also Libel.

I am yet to carefully read his article, I just skimmed through only. His idea of "LCA"

My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness , may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the earth! Sponsor for studies anyone?

My feeling was PD is still in the hangover of 60'0 and 70's. Even if one agrees that the 2nd and 3rd Gen a/cs' sorties data from bygone era can be used for MR and be used for new design as an input, that does not necessarily means one has to use same solutions used to tackle that problem in that era.

The idea is intriguing. But I am not sure how good this the above "cocktail" aircraft will be at low speeds.

While copying old designs one should keep in mind that Old solutions typically come with lot of old-era baggage. The high sweep back solution was used in that era to increase speed of an aircraft, because they did not have better design tools at their disposal to make do with low sweep. Jet engines in that era were not powerful enough to punch through sound barrier using shear power or even reach near to it. High sweep for high speed necessarily meant some other compromises with low speed handling and some other issues. If I have to design an aircraft today, with the advancement in the design tools at my disposal I think I can prepare a better design from clean sheet rather than trying to prepare the cocktail that PD suggests.

But yes, if you are at it, you can certainly make something good by starting from an old design. If the idea is to keep it technologically less advance to reduce complexities, I would still copy Mig-29 design (minus variable geometry intakes), which is far superior aerodynamically and can be used without FBW as well. But even with something like MiG-17, one could try to remove the unwanted compromises that were to be done due to less advances in technology such as - reducing sweep, using new gen super-critical airfoils, make the wing trapezoidal increasing chord at root so effective thickness of airfoil reduced, (also wing stiffness can be enhanced with this), putting 2 powerful, new-gen engines with low sfc, use new alloys/composites to gain as much as possible with little efforts. Its doable, no question about it.

But I hope we will not be in a situation as a country where someone in 2040's write similar article quoting how 4th Gen teen fighters in 80's and 90's were good enough and we should just try to copy them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 17:13

Nilesh, this copying stuff only works in so much as that the country you copy from lets you get away with it. Here is the reality vis a vis the T-72/T-90.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/02/r ... ators.html

So forget about copying the MiG-29 and sticking Uttam AESA & Ge404s in it.

The only 2 countries that managed to make "copies" are Israel (with the Kfir) and the Chinese (Su-27 variants). Now reports have emerged that the first few Kfirs were basically full of French parts (somebody actually photographed the prototypes) and the program was essentially a French-Israel tacit one. Similarly, even the Flankers reportedly had a license deal with Russia and PRC broke it to the extent of getting more Ukrainian items for those which didn't have Russian TOT. In return, they have given huge amounts of orders to PRC for S-400/S-300s, Kilos, and multiple other programs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 17:41

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160511/j ... zXQm-QpqMn

Shekhar Sinha, who trained with Prakash in England and was the White Tigers' first qualified flying instructor (QFI), used slow-speed once to "intercept" an American Super Hornet F/A-18. Sinha took premature retirement in 2014 as the Flag-Officer-Commanding-In-Chief, Western Naval Command, after he was superseded by Admiral Robin Dhowan, the current chief of naval staff. Dhowan himself was appointed to the post after Admiral D.K. Joshi quit prematurely.

The Viraat was in the North Arabian Sea in 1989 with the White Tigers squadron embarked one afternoon. Sinha had just returned from a sortie. He was still in his flight suit when the flight commander, the late Lieutenant Commander R.K. Singh, barked into the speakers: "Tiger leader, Tiger leader, scramble."

The North Arabian Sea is not far from the Pakistan coast. The crew was on alert. Sinha raced to his plane. On the R/T (radio transmitter) the fly-co told him they had a speck on the radar. Sinha scouted around some 80 miles and then told the ship he might lose contact because he was flying down to 1,000ft.

The fly-co asked "any tally?", meaning had he got visual confirmation of a target. Sinha replied no, but just then looking up through the canopy he saw the speck much higher and went after it full speed - full speed in the Sea Harrier is .96 mach, 1 mach being the speed at which sound travels. He used stealth, came up from lower down and behind his quarry before levelling with him.

"I was at his tail," recalls Sinha. But how could a subsonic Sea Harrier be after the supersonic Super Hornet?

"You fly supersonic in bursts, not always," he explains. Speed consumes greater energy and must be used tactically. Speed when you should flee or when you want to catch up.

"So I came alongside him," Sinha continues with his story. "And the pilot couldn't believe what he was seeing on his wingtip; he dashed a hand against his forehead as I switched on to the MayDay frequency temporarily and read off all the markings on his plane," Sinha grins.

No one was going to open fire, of course, but fighter pilots know when they've been had.

"I reported to ship 'Fox two' (within missile firing range) and I asked the American: 'which ship, where bound?'. By then fellow Tigers were closing-in from the Viraat. I'd been told that senior pilot Lt Commander E.G. Shankar was in the vicinity. The fellow replied 'thanks, mate'. I pulled away because I was running low on fuel and had to return. The boys saw him till be landed on the USS Enterprise," narrates Sinha.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 May 2016 19:06

american saying 'mate'?
enterprise allowed sea harriers to get within visual range?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 May 2016 19:28

@Karan,
Agreed. But I also agree with PD in bits and pieces. Things like "reverse engineering to leapfrog" can be used intelligently in my opinion as well. However I think reverse engineering cannot be your plan A. Your plan A should be doing things from scratch, fill in the gaps using reverse engineering. The two things are very different. Also one needs to keep in mind that copying a design does not make you designer. So heavy investment in core engineering capabilities is also must side by side. Else today we talk of copying MiG17, tomorrow we will think of copying F-16.

Even if I agree that something can be done on the lines of what PD suggests, copying 2/3 Gen stuff, I think the point is moot now since we already have a proven 4th gen bird in hand. Now we have design systems/procedures/methodologies/tools/facilities in place to a large extent. Our next iteration will be much faster. We do not need to look back. If my wishes were horses, I would focus on industrialisation of existing 4th gen technology quickly. If at all some low key fighter is needed for CAP and similar duties, I would think of modified version of LCA itself. If we delete some unnecessary stuff from it, we can either add additional protection needed for CAP planes or some internal space will be free-ed up for more fuel. I am saying this because we have a lot of testing data on LCA by now, our guys understand it very well. A spin-off can be quickly brought about, given enough resources. If we are to make a 2nd gen airplane which is totally new, even that will take us 4-5yrs merely to validate it fully in flight tests, over and above the development time. No one is giving us flight data on MiG-17 even if we decide to copy MiG-17 to the last bolt. And this is only about airframe data. There are other aspects like avionics and weapons system etc. Overall, we will not be saving that much. At best we should look to revive HF-24 Marut in some form.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 19:39

because they did not have better design tools at their disposal

Oooppps. Reality strikes.

However, even in those days, sans "better tools" they (the West) did have a lot of data from trials. IIRC even the F-22 went through some 10 design changes. Think about that. And it is not the sortie type data, these are all specific science related, Cal Tech quality data. Even when you factor in stock prices, jocking to make a sale for the sake of a sale, that data still is sharper than a sortie data.

On AR and other factors, the whole point is to cheat physics and math whenever possible. This approach is expected to cover the most common occurrences and not some specific, off-beat occurrence.

You design a product based on pure physics and math, everyone will be driving about the same plane.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 13 May 2016 19:51

^^ You don't agree with it??

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 20:01

Nilesh,

The issue is even if you reverse engineer, you cannot build a franken-plane. Put together parts from different planes and you won't get a winner, not when airframes have got more and more complex. For instance, can I put together a wing from a Draken on the optimized fuselage of a F-16 and the F-35 motor and call it a success?

IMHO, if you copy, you have to copy and iteratively improve the entire platform, like the Su-27 is being done by the PRC. But then, that comes with a huge set of issues.

Also, what irritates me the most about Mr PDs approaches is the manner in which he constantly slags the LCA without even considering the manner in which the designers have ameliorated any theoretical shortcomings and made it into a world class platform.

All the Gnat/Hunter STR stuff falls by the wayside when the LCA fires a brace of Python-5s at its opponent using the HMS, and then refuses to engage in a turning fight. That's the same way MiG-29s or even Su-30s would fight most of the time, with quick slash attacks & then not stick around. The TVC on the Su-30 MKI makes it maneuverable, but the radar, and missile armament it carry are to ensure that remains less required (if it gets good Indian BVR missiles, but that's entirely another story).

Today, until and unless the missile itself fails (mechanical reliability issues), missiles like the Python-v, AIM-9X are like sure shot killers. They cannot be jammed.

The LCA with a SPJ, and an AESA radar may well turn out to be able to get a good lock on even advanced F-16s, fire at them and in turn, confound their AMRAAMs. If it does become a visual fight, if the EW on the F-16 in turn takes out our BVR shot.

which method serves the LCA pilot best, even if the LCA had a STR== to the F-16, engage in a turning, fight or just blaze away with Python-5s with shots taken Off Boresight before the F-16 pilot knows he has been targeted, and leave?

That is the nature of air combat today and will be more so in the future. The era of knights jousting is gone. IAF trains for gun kills to be extra sure. But the fact they have chosen Mica-IR, ASRAAM and now Pythons/R73Es en masse on platforms with HMS not easier options, shows the nature of the beast.

Further, by constantly harping on the LCA not being a Gnat etc, does he even realize that the IAF does not want this? AM Matheswaran in fact thought the entire concept of pegging the LCA to the Gnat concept was a mistake and hence he was soundly against it. One may well argue about his interpretation, but clearly the IAF wants more and more, longer ranged, heavier fighters.

This is the reason why IAF says put IFR. LCA team agreed to it. PD says not really worth it, why is it even needed etc.
Consider the following scenario - opening salvo of the conflict, IAF realizes PAF or PRC plan to hit our forward bases with a missile strike. On war footing they move critical infra, and fighters to bases deeper into India. The fight needs to go on, how will these fighters formate and still strike deep into enemy territory? This is where reach & IFR become critical.

IAF realized that it could not rely on GOI getting it adequate large tankers. So it moved and got Cobham for Su-30 MKIs. As more pods are inducted, more our flexibility increases.

With 7+1 pylons, the LCA has 2 missiles (one can be BVR, one CCM - Derby interestingly is in the same weight class as Python as both share common motor variant), three fuel tanks for long loiter, and two large LGBs.

For A2A alone, it can have 4 missiles, and again 3 tanks.

Add an AESA and the 7th pylon goes to an EW pod, can anyone tell me why it wouldnt be potent.

Further, the biggest thing about the LCA is its handling. So many IAF planes have had issues because pilots are focused on flying the plane. Look at the terms used above in the Sea Harrier article by its pilots. The LCA will be a stable, safe weapons platform with reliable systems.
If software issues are worked out, AESA radars are known for high MTBF, LCA actuators/engine were reliable enough they were kept in the test program without OEM support during sanctions. Its cockpit and systems keep getting improved.

So you have a beautiful platform which can revolutionize the Indian aerospace industry going forward. Instead its developers are harped on for being incompetent, because the plane has 2 degrees less of some metric, is one inch shorter someplace or whatever. This sort of criticism is then picked up by others who misuse it for scuttling the program and its achievements.

If PD realized this, it would have been great because then his criticism would have been nuanced and focused on how to improve the LCA further. Make variants for instance. F-16XL. Or a low RCS LCA Mk3 obviating the need for high numbers of expensive heavy fighters.

Further, consider what TPs are saying about the platform today. They clearly love it. Its not an issue of subjective bias but one wherein they are working the entire system to perform a range of missions.

A LCA with Siva pod and NGARM can even do SEAD.

If I have one criticism of the LCA, its about its size, by forcing such small dimensions we limited its reach and made its designers and suppliers efforts 10x more complex. Everything has to be super compact, yet achieve the performance of larger systems. Which means constant testing and achieving true mature aerospace supplier standards. But then to hear we need to go back to the Gnat era?

Today, we are at an era wherein the footsoldier has access to MANPADs. A plethora of AD. The circle of fire is growing larger and larger, we have a limited number of pilots and the need of the hour is to support ADA and HAL and get them to produce the LCA asap. Not second guess such effort and then propose more dangerous alternatives.

PD may be well meaning and may dislike ADA, his choice, but at the end of the day, the era of 2nd tier fighters against tier 1 opponents fielding F-16s and J-10s is gone. ADA is the one group with the hard won knowledge of pulling together all the experience and information to actually produce proper fighters. Copying will not get us anywhere fast. Even copying the F-23 for instance for the AMCA, even the PRC decided not to do that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 20:11

As matter of fact, the true matter of interest would be if IAF manages to somehow integrate the Mica-IR on the LCA. It will literally become a silent sniper, which cannot be countered. It gets a feed from another LCA or AWACS. It closes in, activates its radar only for a quick final fix and fires the Mica-IR, which in turn is completely passive. No RWR indications, no lock on phase. It will get even deadlier if the offboard data the LCA receives is precise enough to fire the Mica IR without using its own radar. In the former case, you can at least figure out there is a LCA or fighter nearby which popped up to fire at you, in the latter none whatsoever. Take out PAF/PRC AEW&C and use IIR seeker equipped BVR missiles and suddenly things become much harder for the opponent. So far only the French have done it (Russian AA-10 does not have latest seeker, and mid course datalink for its IR variant) but its only a matter of time before others start doing this. ASRAAM is anyhow credited with BVR ranges (40km)

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 13 May 2016 20:20

@karan M.... Today, until and unless the missile itself fails (mechanical reliability issues), missiles like the Python-v, AIM-9X are like sure shot killers. They cannot be jammed. !!!!!!!!!!! this is news to me.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 20:41

nileshjr wrote:^^ You don't agree with it??

Oh, no.

More than agree. But, there is a much larger picture even to that. But that can go tangential.

So, to bring back the discussion to AR and such, has man ever been happy with what nature has restricted him to? We have very hot headed, ego maniac, from South Africa, who knew nothing about rockets dictating to THE rocket community. Follow him.

Do something guys. In the 80s India led the world in published research papers. But zilch in productizing even one. Turn that around, lead the world in products and publish few papers that are relevant. 2016 and still stuck on AR and LE. Sure way to remain a collie (sp?).