Aero India 2009

[k prasad]

U should tell em that they need a more competent IP/Patent Attorney if they wish to have their patent enforceable. Right now that patent has holes/sieves that a camel will pass though, and gives out way too much tech information of articles they fabricated that will be gleefully absorbed by Lizard and Demon.

Did you get any photo to the new TR module? AI 2007 had 2 prototype articles on display.

What is the FPGA they intend to use? # of cells and speed?

In terms of beam elevation steering, I am not impressed, its got to be more.

So total how many TR modules and thus how much EIRP? And how much processing gain?

Sorry Arun-saar, wasn't able to take any photos, due to lack of camera.... I realized that my cell cam would give pathetic pics, if at all, and since BR jingos would take pics anyway (i assumed), I could do more by not wasting time taking pics, but instead ask qns.

I wasn't able to get info on the FPGA.... to be honest, I didn't even have a clue to ask that question.

There are 160 TRMMs for the primary Radar, each with 8 TR modules (16 per block, in 10 blocks)... each TR modules has a 65W nominal power output. Arnd 83 KW of power, but I think the output will be around 65 kW...

What is EIRP???

No idea about processing gain.... didn't ask.

@George, When I do come across a chatty CABS guy, will be sure to ask. Any specific qns??

@Disha, Some reply to ur qns. Hope they are satisfactory:

OK.... report on AEW&C

Thanks a lot Prasad for getting this report through. One of the best! Here are my questions ....

My pleasure.... I do hope it was useful, especially since I'm not strong tech background, as my ignorance on Arun saar's questions should point out.

There will be 5 operators with 7 crew rest seats - operator comfort has obviously played a large role in the design.

The above is very very important. Do they also have sleeping cabins? The jet is small, but it should have a cabin for crew comfort. This small details count a lot.

Not sure about whether elevation coverage is disabled in other systems, but what the person told me is that it is mainly meant for when the plane banks, to prevent ground clutter from messing up the picture, which is why they didn't need a lot of elevation scan. Additionally, since threats are relatively far away, elevation scan isn't that important, and will only add weight.

However, when I asked about potential BMD applications, he did concede that elevation scan would be useful but pointed out that ground based detections would, at least at present, do a far better, and more effective task. It is another matter that they would be few and far between, and not very mobile, and therefore, vulnerable. I guess that on such a small platform, they are getting all the juice they can squeeze out of it.

Coming to the rest seats, I guess they will be reclining seats - the aircraft is small and must accommodate a huge amount of sensors, wires, processors, crew stations, etc etc... its a great thing that they are even able to give 7 rest seats. A sleep station may be problematic in terms of space. I'm sure the crew wouldn't complain.

Inter-operability and data link wouldn't be a problem. The data link would be Israeli, but the format and technique of transfer would be completely indian (ie, until a completely indian data link was developed), and would ensure complete secrecy without any issues. This would be easily achieved.

My question here is, do they use one time pad for encryption and if they do it will be interesting to know how the keys are maintained.

He didn't specify, and he wasn't sure himself, since I think he was working on the antenna side. However, even if it is an OTP, it will certainly be top secret. And if you do get to know how the keys are maintained, better not to publicize it, even by email...

overall, an extremely potent machine, entirely undeserving of any brickbats that it is getting.

If LCA gets lot of tripe from media and our own ISRO people are called goons, AEW & C is a next level up. Very difficult to understand and appreciate. I just wish them good luck on this.

Thanks again for digging this up. Is it possible for you to write an article with photos?

Absolutely.... they need all the good wishes they can get. However, from the responses of the Armed Forces officers, especially the Navy and AF, I can see that there has been a change in mindset.... at the Seminar, it was great to see IAF people attending in good numbers, for it is they who will use the systems. Their queries were top notch, and definitely stressed on the operational aspects of it. What was gratifying was that the scientists giving the talks were able to answer their questions and satisfy them that it would be to their liking.... it does point to a greater scientist-serviceman synergy in getting the best deployable product out, unlike previous years.

As for the article, can you mail me.... better to take this off the thread, lest it become OT.

[disha]

In continuation to the AEW&C post, ...

I do wonder why ELTA are pushing for the G550 when we already have the Phalcon, and when the indigenous one is blazing through. I suspect that they are aiming it for the Indian Naval reqts in case the P8I doesn't come through, or for the tech, if it does.

Pure and simple, purchase of G550 will kill the inidigenous AEW & C project. DDM is ever ready to pounce and us calling our own engineers and scientists *goons* will wrap it up for them.

[rakall]

U should tell em that they need a more competent IP/Patent Attorney if they wish to have their patent enforceable. Right now that patent has holes/sieves that a camel will pass though, and gives out way too much tech information of articles they fabricated that will be gleefully absorbed by Lizard and Demon.

Did you get any photo to the new TR module? AI 2007 had 2 prototype articles on display.

What is the FPGA they intend to use? # of cells and speed?

In terms of beam elevation steering, I am not impressed, its got to be more.

So total how many TR modules and thus how much EIRP? And how much processing gain?

There are total 8*160 = 1280 modules..

Peak power 65watts per module

Duty cycle is 7%, therefore avg power = 7% peak power

There will be space for 2 sets of 5+2 people - 5operators & 2 pilots.. rest area for the set of people not working, with a toilet..

[k prasad]

Hmm... rakall sir, I thought the duty cycle was 50%... but maybe that was for the IFF..

Another thing about the AEW&C.... each TRMM has two o/p ports to channel the signal for the port or starboard side of the array.... thus, at any one time, only the right or the left side of the array can be used.

[rakall]

U should tell em that they need a more competent IP/Patent Attorney if they wish to have their patent enforceable. Right now that patent has holes/sieves that a camel will pass though, and gives out way too much tech information of articles they fabricated that will be gleefully absorbed by Lizard and Demon.

Did you get any photo to the new TR module? AI 2007 had 2 prototype articles on display.

What is the FPGA they intend to use? # of cells and speed?

In terms of beam elevation steering, I am not impressed, its got to be more.

So total how many TR modules and thus how much EIRP? And how much processing gain?

Sorry Arun-saar, wasn't able to take any photos, due to lack of camera.... I realized that my cell cam would give pathetic pics, if at all, and since BR jingos would take pics anyway (i assumed), I could do more by not wasting time taking pics, but instead ask qns.

I wasn't able to get info on the FPGA.... to be honest, I didn't even have a clue to ask that question.

There are 160 TRMMs for the primary Radar, each with 8 TR modules (16 per block, in 10 blocks)... each TR modules has a 65W nominal power output. Arnd 83 KW of power, but I think the output will be around 65 kW...

What is EIRP???

No idea about processing gain.... didn't ask.

.

K.Prasad -- absolutely great work on the CABS AEWC. I spent a lot of time at CABS stall in AI07 and this time around, I thought there would be nothing new.. but you just brought in so much of new info.. Wonderful..

[Cybaru]

There will be space for 2 sets of 5+2 people - 5operators & 2 pilots.. rest area for the set of people not working, with a toilet..

Hopefully two toilets! Don't under-estimate the power of a broken single toilet system.

[rakall]

Hmm... rakall sir, I thought the duty cycle was 50%... but maybe that was for the IFF..

Another thing about the AEW&C.... each TRMM has two o/p ports to channel the signal for the port or starboard side of the array.... thus, at any one time, only the right or the left side of the array can be used.

KP

Did you a chance to ask if both faces are activated simultaneously or each time only one face amouting to 120deg is activated?

From the model I saw last time - I noticed two differences in the model displayed

1. They have 2 bumps on each side of the fuselage (nearer to the door) -- for ESM, CSM antenna. Plus there is a pod under each wing for ESM..

2. The tail design changed a little bit from last time - I think Embraer got some inputs from testing of Brazilian AEWC.. where they noticed some lateral stability issues due to the aft placing of the antenna.. so that inputs went into the airframe tail design in our AEWC also..

Also there is a team of IAF (10 guys) always at CABS.. so there seems to be a lot more customer integration at each stage.. which is very good for the project..

[Arun_S]

Yoeman service you gentlemen privided. Thanks for all that.

What is EIRP???
No idea about processing gain.... didn't ask.

EIRP = Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. IOW EIRP = peak power X antenna gain. Add that to the processing gain and this will give insight to radar's range for a given RCS.
But as Rock-ALL said 7% duty cycle, that will give insight to processing gain if I know what is the PRF (pulse Repetition Freq) or the transmit pulse period.

[Rahul M]

KP, I second disha ji. could you write up something on the CABS beast for SRR/BRM ?
I'm sure the editor will be more than happy to carry it.

in fact, we used to have special issues devoted to events like AI and defexpo.
why not this time too ?

****ATTENTION****
visitors to AI 09, it would be a great service if you can write small articles about the various aspects of AI09 you witnessed, based upon the sitreps like those from rakall and KP.

BHarat-Rakshak Monitor and/or Strategic Research Review would be more than happy to carry it.

This would make this information much more easier to find not to mention highlight the achievements of desi scientists, all in a good cause.

further information can be found here : http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=1&t=4188


****ATTENTION****

[k prasad]

Hmm... rakall sir, I thought the duty cycle was 50%... but maybe that was for the IFF..

Another thing about the AEW&C.... each TRMM has two o/p ports to channel the signal for the port or starboard side of the array.... thus, at any one time, only the right or the left side of the array can be used.

KP

Did you a chance to ask if both faces are activated simultaneously or each time only one face amouting to 120deg is activated?

From the model I saw last time - I noticed two differences in the model displayed

1. They have 2 bumps on each side of the fuselage (nearer to the door) -- for ESM, CSM antenna. Plus there is a pod under each wing for ESM..

2. The tail design changed a little bit from last time - I think Embraer got some inputs from testing of Brazilian AEWC.. where they noticed some lateral stability issues due to the aft placing of the antenna.. so that inputs went into the airframe tail design in our AEWC also..

Also there is a team of IAF (10 guys) always at CABS.. so there seems to be a lot more customer integration at each stage.. which is very good for the project..

The two faces are not activated simultaneously.... only one at a time, no matter how small that time is.

As I have pointed out in the post before, the emb-145 will have another APU for the needed power.

[k prasad]

x-posting from the UAV thread:

Some Info on the Indian UAV roadmap from the Aero Seminar ADE Director's presentation:

ADE has 1340 ppl with 340 scientists.

Their first UAV was an air launched, expendable target drone called ULKA, first produced in 1975. 75 were produced.

Later, the "Sparrow" mini-RPV was produced in 1986, of which 15 were made. the Sparrow incorporated Taxi takeoff and RATo, and a para-recovery, and had a ground control station.

Lakshya

- first started in 1986, and features a RATO and para-recovery. It has a 3 axis autopilot.
- It has a 2 hr flotation capability
- 45 kg payload.
- 42 are in use now.

The lakshya has had a sucessful GCS controlled flight. The FCS is analog implementation

Lakshya Mk.2:

Will have upgrades including:
- Full digital FCS (implemented)
- Fully autonomous
- self-propelled towbodies
- Increased RCS (I wonder why)
- Increased endurance adn increased flight envelope.

The upgraded version will have its first test flight in March 2009.

Nishant

- First flew in 1995
- Remotely supervised Vehicle
- Rail assisted hydropneumatic launcher
- Para recovery
- 3 axis autopilot
- Waypoint navigation capability
- Digital system
- Has just had a fully autonomous 4.5 hr long flight.
- Can have EOTS and ESM payloads.
- Comparable to searcher 2

Future Nishant
- Wheeled version with taxi takeoff and landing
- increased service ceiling and endurance.
- Mk.4 Gimbal payload assembly.

Comparison between wheeled and Launched UAVs

Wheeled:
- More logistics
- Skilled pilots reqd for landing and takeoff
- Radiating ground terminals for homing
- riskier due to immobility of support infrastructure
- Formations to be supported will be far away - lower time on station
- Can only operate at higher organization levels (Brigade or Division level) - not ideal for a small UAV.
- Conditional support to Units.
- not flexible, and usage will not be decided by the units served

Launched:
- Intimate and unconditional support.
- Highly mobile launch platforms
- Less likely to be destroyed or intercepted on ground
- Redeploys with the forces - ideal when penetrating deep into enemy territory.
- Better operational use.

MTBO of Nishant system = 600 hrs
MTBO of Nishant engine = 250 hrs

Future UAVs:

Rustom 1:
-12 hr endurance
- High speed taxi trials have been conducted
- 20-25,000 ft service ceiling
- 75 kg payload

Rustom-H:
- 24+ hr endurance
- 35,000 ft ceiling
- ATOL, RM,
- T-tail config
- For use by Army
- 350 kg payload

Micro-UAVs:
- Being developed by NAL
- Flight tests are underway
- 30 minutes endurance
- 2 km range
- Hand launched
- <15 m/s velocity
- Possess swarm logic

UCAVs:
- Design studies underway
- Level 4 autonomy
- Mix of a Conventional aircarft and UAV
- 3 Axis TVC control (technology has been mastered)
- unusual aerodynamic shape - tailless (old MCA config. Also showed a weird B2 like shape)
- Novel control surfaces
- capable of self-defending, high-speed operations (indicates A2A capable??)
- Will be ready by 2020.

Unfortunately, I could not ask about the UAV contest going on.

Qns???

&

x posting from my reply on the Aero india thread:

Based on info I got from the Seminar and at AI, some info on future UAV development:


Coming to the rustom, Thanks a ton for putting up the info rakall... some more info:

1. The engines are specifically 2 Rotax 914 engines frm UK.

2. A 1:2 model of the Rustom has completed control surface tests and low speed taxi trials.

3. The older Rustom-1 (this one is Rustom-H) will be out, and was only meant as a TD.

4. When asked about Weaponized variants, the person at the Stall (and indeed, the ADE director at the Seminar) both skirted the question, which suggests that we are indeed working on the matter... it wasn't a all-out denial, but they tried to wriggle out of answering that directly. I wouldn't be surprised if we are pretty far ahead (given out reqts to take out pigs quietly) - rakall does make that point in his post, but I guess that wasn't meant for publication.

Coming to the Nishant:

The picture of the wheeled nishant was of the actual flyer... this will undergo taxi trials next month. In what points to sheer stupidity, the Army initially asked for a wheeled version (when the project was first mooted), then asked for a launched version (Resulting in redesigns) and now has asked for a wheeled version again... this has definitely exasperated ADE. The director gave a whole list of reasons why the launched version of the small nishant makes better sense for the Army.

Anyway, they aren't even sure about the landing and takeoff run for the wheeled version, but given the prop launch (~70 m/s takeoff speed IIRC), it will not be short, and will need a long semi-prepared runway. The braking also can't be done with a chute due to the pusher config, so they have incorporated an arrestor hook, and will use arrested recovery... they havent decided on any wheel brakes as of now.

[m mittal]

IMO the micro UAV we are talking here is ADE Kapothaka. Did you guys hear anything about DRDO's UAVs Pawan and Gagan?

They featured in a news article in 2005. Here is the link: http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive0 ... 22805.html

[rakall]

Some photos:

1. Hawk with hardpoints. Atleast I am seeing for the first time.. Last AeroIndia BAe guy told me that it will be qualified for some "specific NATO weapons that IAF has asked for". It did not strike me after I saw this on static display to go and ask BAe/HAL guys what radar it had.. if any..

2. LCA flight test patch

3. SHar upgrade patch.. 2032 + Derby upgrade.. the IN pilot deputed to NFTC for LCA tests has qualified Derby on SHar+2032..

4. #1 sqn Tigers patch - after conversion to M2K's. From an LCA TP who flew it to Leh. He is from #1 sqn Tigers.

[k prasad]

Speaking about the Derby, The LCA Navy will be equipped with the Derby, per Naval requirements. The model shown at AI09 had the derby on the middle wing pylons.

[rakall]

X-posting from Missile tech thread


More missile updates:

1. NAG - the missile costs 70lakhs out of which (imported) IIR seeker costs 35-40lakhs.. Konkur-M with the same range costs 10Lakhs..

2. Indigenous IIR seeker not matured enough.. lot of work remaining..

3. Army does not want a mmw seeker NAG.. the NAG built with mmw seeker is generally larger/heavier than the IIR seeker proto.. that is what happened with the proto built with an imported mmw seeker.

4. IA so far placed LoI 500 Nags. Dont know if they will order more. As in point #1 - cost is issue.

5. Army has on order from BDL for 15000 Knokur-M's and 4100 Milans.. there are also 2 export enquiries for Milan's.. File pending with MoD for clearence to service export enquiries

ALWT
6. ALWT development complete.. 8mins operation @ 35-49knots.. 0.5km underwster..

7. HWT just not ready.. NAvy more inclined towards a german or italian designs on offer

8. 25 LSP order for ALWT.. 1-2 export enquiries which is very good.

Akash

9. The 2squadron order of Akash translates to 108missiles to be manufactured by BDL

Actually IAf has reuirement for 12sqds.. so a follow-on order for 4sqds is expected.. rest of the order is "hoped for".
Hope that IA will also place orders for Akash..

( Snippet -- IAF does not want to take PAC-2/3 bcoz they are not technically ready for that level of tech.. though this could be an individual view.. I heard, I am posting for whatever salt it is worth)

10. BDL is still manufacturing and delivering Prithvi's of 350km range.

11. The person I spoke to says Shourya & Sagarika are "close cousins".. Sagarika has 700km range..

(BTW - are any pics of Sagarika available? He says they are.. and if you compare you will see).

[k prasad]

Incidentally, the mmW seeker has been worked on, and a range of 2 km has been obtained (per Saraswat).

We are also developing a seeker for star-based navigation.... not for Brahmos, but another missile (guess which one... I don't know).

[Philip]

Rakall.An HWT (pic showed a fish of about 6m in length) was discovered in a workshop on a major road in the south a couple of days ago while being transported to a western port panicking the locals who thought that it was being smuggled to Sri Lanka for the LTTE! There was a picture of it in a national daily.The pic showed a torpedo certainly larger than the A-244s on display at the air show.It transpired that the lorry driver had offloaded it for some reason to collect it later.Imagine that,transporting torpedoes in an open lorry!
One understands that these HWT casings are being made/machined in a certain centre before being transported to another destination where they are fitted out.This has been going on for some time.At a previous air show,there was a DRDO desi model of a lightweight homing torpedo (missing this time),meant for smaller combatants and ASW helos.If the HWTs are being manufactured in number as it appears,then it appears that they have been accepted,of an initial batch at least.

[Shivani]

TOI has a pic of the burst tire F16 today.

Was Shiv Aroor on board? Must have exceeded MLW.

[sum]

MKI jock (with his "radiation sticker on nose cone" MKI):

[rakall]

X-posting from Kaveri thread

K.Prasad has captured all the info & technical details regarding Kaveri + GTRE.

On my visit to GTRE stall - i got a revision of all the problems (how they solved one blade-off condition, the third orders from combusstion chamber & how they solved it etc etc)... Right now they are waiting for High alt tests at CIAM & FTB.
After that they will look to fit it in an LCA for flight envelop trials..

- Basically we got zero tech from the much touted deep-TOT of AL31FP. Zero knowledge.
- The Snecma ECO JV will bring us powder metallurgy & blisk technology that we basically lack to take Kaveri to next level.
(it has been made clear to Snecma that ToT is mandatory)
- KMGT has been proved to 12MW.. Navy asked for 15MW.. The core was an older core (Kaveri-1 as they call it) and GTRE is very much comfortable and confident they can deliver 15MW with the latest core (Kaveri-4 as they call it).
- Railways asked for a 8MW version for "traction".. I triple-checked if it was for power generation or traction.. It IS for traction. Run on CNG.

- GTRE has a preliminary design for a small gas-turbine which is similar to the one that India recently ordered (persuambly) for Lakshya.. But the engine that has been asked from Lakshya is for Nirbhay. GTRE is targetting for an sfc of 1kg/kgf/hr. But they will be happy to get 1.02-1.05.

Now the design is right now "just a paper desing".. if they put a proposal and get funding -- they will develop it. No promises there.. But it is encouraging that they are thinking in right direction.

Actually after reading K.Prasad's piece I went to GTRE stall with positive vibes... GTRE people have huge inferiority complex -- expected, due to all the negative press they have been getting.. So the person was very happy with the "positive interest" I had shown.. which they have come not to expect..

I told him "there a a lot of people who still support you and understand the value of your efforts"..
He was extremely thrilled and replied "actually the hair on my hands is standing listening to your words.. I am happy".. "Even my daughter asks me everyday - daddy you have been there for somany years and your engine is still not flying"..

PS: As we were discussing the small engine - i gathered some details on Nirbhay.. He says the engine is not podded outside at all - the engine will be within the fuselage.. Also he says there may be a small air scoop & "dimpled scoops" on the body.. I dont know how true it could be..

[rakall]

Rakall.An HWT (pic showed a fish of about 6m in length) was discovered in a workshop on a major road in the south a couple of days ago while being transported to a western port panicking the locals who thought that it was being smuggled to Sri Lanka for the LTTE! There was a picture of it in a national daily.The pic showed a torpedo certainly larger than the A-244s on display at the air show.It transpired that the lorry driver had offloaded it for some reason to collect it later.Imagine that,transporting torpedoes in an open lorry!
One understands that these HWT casings are being made/machined in a certain centre before being transported to another destination where they are fitted out.This has been going on for some time.At a previous air show,there was a DRDO desi model of a lightweight homing torpedo (missing this time),meant for smaller combatants and ASW helos.If the HWTs are being manufactured in number as it appears,then it appears that they have been accepted,of an initial batch at least.

So far BDL has not got orders.. so it cannot be even in LSP.

Could this be one of the pieces being readied for developmental tests?

TOI has a pic of the burst tire F16 today.

Was Shiv Aroor on board? Must have exceeded MLW.

[k prasad]

Thanks a ton for the GTRE post Rakall.... it has confirmed a lot of what i posted from the Director's talk, including the Blisk and Single Crystal tech ToT.

I was also there around the same time you were interrogating Balaji, but was interrogating a GTRE guy for more info (without revealing that I'd put up that post on their director's presentation - i feared for my life after what Kersiji told me )... thankfully, the cutaway model and actual K7 engine were there so it was a real insightful 15 minutes.

Apparently, the problem of the 3rd order engine vibrations causing blade deformation was occuring with the first combustor blade... the scientist did not mention how they have solved the issue, but has said that they have sent the latest engine to CIAM, and will get results within a month or so.... in fact, he said that the rest of the engine is working better than designed for.

The FADEC is right now independent of the FCS, but they are definitely looking at integrating it with the FCS - not only will that make the engine perform more efficiently, but will provide best performance in combat. However, they are still trying to figure out how it will work - we still lack the technological knowhow.

The person i spoke to was quite demoralized that their achievements were not known... he was almost apologetic about the engine, so I did pep him up by saying that it was no mean feat that they'd achieved, and that they had absolutely nothign to be ashamed about... guess he felt a little better after that.

The Afterburner may also be redesigned a bit to get better reheat performance- they are trying to see how they can change the bypass flow inputs to get best performance; but these will be small efforts.

[rakall]

X-posting from MRCA thread.

Rafale + Mirage Upgrade


Why rafale is not here:

The first person at Rafale stall I asked this question gave me this answer: Too costly to get it here etc.. French air force has deputed it to other duties etcc.

I asked - "is there a feeling in Dassault that Rafale has less chances of winning this tender? Is that why you are not marketing it aggressively?"

He replied -- "No.. Not at all.. Our CEO is here... we are talking to all relevant people and making a good pitch"..
And he excused himself for a meeting and left..

On my next visit to Dassault stall - I noticed a very high-ranking official of Dassault.. I talked to him at AI07 also.. So I aksed the lipstick receptionist sticking there that I want to talk to him.. She tried to shoo me away "you want to talk to him.. he is a very senior official"..
I persisted "I know madam... just a few questions.. I have talked to him before during last AeroIndia.. you were not there then"..

So i got to talk to this high ranking Dassault official.. who said .. "Many IAF pilots have already flown the plane and know its capabilities.. We don’t want to mix marketing and technical evaluation.. what you see in air display is not generally the capability of the plane.. we will be sending a full fledged plane for the technical evaluation"

(to me it looks like Dassault feel it will definitely not be very good match to other MRCA contenders at air display… but relying on its overall technical & multirole capabilities, AESA radar, SPECTRA suite without unkil like conditions to make a difference in the flight evaluation)

On the AESA radar -- he said it was a very good radar. And combat proven.. I think they have tested it extensively in Afghanistan.


Mirage Upgrade:


- upgraded to Dash-5 standards..
- Full glass cockpit -- Cockpit will be upgraded to Dash-5 standards
- RDY-2 will be integrated
- Main weapon upgrade is MICA.. #of hardpoints remains unchanged at 9

I asked him if they are offering “storm shadow/scalp”..
He went into a longwinded story – “there are two things – requirements and offerings.. and then there is negotitation.. first we have to negotiate within the parameters of requirements set down by the customer.. then sometimes we can also make offer. If customer likes it or wants it – we can negotiate again”

To me that translates to – IAF has so far not asked for it. But if they ask we will give it. We may offer it. But for that price may be high. But Mirage2000 airframe is capable of carrying StormShadow/Scalp.

[k prasad]

OK, Report from AeroSeminar -

-provides loads of info on our future A/c and LCA Mk.2
- A note of caution - the notes here are hopelessly incomplete, so plz mind, and question presence of something, not the absence, since that may only be my writing speed at fault.

P.S. Subramanyam's talk about Future Combat Aircraft

Requirements:
- Swing Role
- A2A - BVR and CAS
- Strike Role:
Stealth mode - Precision Strike & deep penetration strike, SEAD and DEAD.
Non stealth mode - Ground Attack

Design Drivers: Does not mean that it will be incorporated, just mentioins a thrust area
- LO Technology
- Supercruise
- TVC
- Composites
- Advanced Avionics (Integrated Modular Architecture)
- Pilot Associate
- Advanced Pilot Interface
- NCW
- Multiple Engagement

A flying machine consists of the airframe and the systems, such as FCS, electromechanical systems. Add the Avionics and weapons, and you get a fighting machine.


LO Technology:

- Fuselage shaping
- Internal/Conformal weapons
- Snaking (S) Intake
- RAMs and RA paints
- IR absorbent paints
- AESA Technology (LPI)
- Canopy Coatings
- Inboard Signature reduction - weith composite structures, the RF energy may penetrate the skin, in which case, we need to reduce the signature of internal components as well.

Future FCS Technology:

System Architecture:

Present:
1. Quadruplex architecture,
2. Electrical links for signal and data communication
3. Centralized processing

Future (Advantages):
1. Triplex, Fly-by-light, electro-optical architecture (Increased reliability, speed)
2. Fiber-optic links (reduced EMI/EMC, less maintenance)
3. Distributed processing (smart subsystems) - (survivability)

Sensors:

Present:
1. Mechanical
2. Pressure Probes
3. LVDT/RVDT

Future:
1. Fiberoptics, MEMS (reliability and accuracy)
2. Smart probes (stealth)
3. Linear/rotary optical encoders

CLAW:

Present: Carefree Maneuvering and RSS. Seperate FADEC

Future:
1. Integrated CLAWs for all aspects (Combat effectiveness)
2. Active maneuver load control
3. Artificial Neural Networks for fault detection.

Power Supply:
Move from conventional power generators to 270 V DC power supplies and batteries - Presently being analyzed.
Note taht this section is completely incomplete.

Actuators:
Present: Hydraulic Actuators operating at 4000-6000 psi
Future: Electro-hydraulic systems.


Dr. Subramanyam openly admitted that while we should deservedly fete our jump from 2nd to 4.5 gen technology, we still lag behind the modern level in terms of a lot of aviation technology, and are at least 5 years behind in the gap, which is being bridged extremely quickly.

He mentioned for instance manufacturing technologies like Digital Mockup and virtual prototyping, which is almost non-existent in ADA. He had been to Brazil 2 weeks before to take a look at this technology, which he mentioned was an absolutely amazing jump, and was a huge gap to bridge. However, we are confident of bridging it, and he said that by the time the LCA was in production, this technology would be used for the production.


Avionics and Weapon Systems Architcture for Modern Aircraft (Tejas Mk.2)
- RS Rao, ADA

Factors and technologies for future a/c:

Lethality
- BVR
- A2G, A2A
- Multirole capable

Survivability:
- Sensor Suite
- EW Suite
- Failure Management
- redundancy
- Reconfigurable
- Independent Standby instrumentation

Supportability:
- Extensive Built in Test (BIT)
- Reliable and maintainable
- Scalable
- Open Systems Architecture
- Commercial potential for developed technologies
- Affordable

Low Observable:
- Automatic Terrain Following
- Passive Sensors
- Data link
- Internal sensors
- Controlled emission
- Passive missile launch

4th Gen Architecture was characterized by Data fusion using high end processors, lack of dedicated display guages and combines video, audio and sensor displays (Glass cockpit)

The Challenge for a modern aircraft would be to counter system obsolescence during development. This is exacerbated by the extremely short component market life of around 3 years... what this means is that by the time your upgrade is ready, the components have already gone out of market, and aren't supported. What complicated matters is that the defence industry is only 1% of the semiconductor market, and is not large enough to service as a main customer.


Present LCA Avionics Architecture

The TD LCAs had custom architecture. This was changed to an Open Systems Architecture in teh PVs. The change took only 3 years, and was per IAF requirements. The OSA is based on 2 open architecture computers, with COTS technologies and OO Software, and is based on VME and a PCI Mezannine Card (PMC), to ensure software portability.

The LCA Trainer has a common architecture, which saves costs. All 3 variants shre teh same software. The weapon writing is completely dispensed with and is replaced by Pylon interface boxes.

The present architecture allows for complete automated module level testing.

Private industry has been extensively involved in this, includint - L&T Infotech, ACL, Deepthi, Redstone (UK), etc.

Future LCA Avionics Architecture

It will be an Integrated Modular Architecture (IMA), which will be based around a Core Integrated Processor (CIP). The CIP provides the o/p feed and does the high end Signal processing, image, data and audio processing toether and feeds it to the required systems.

- The CIP works on an intelligent OODA loop.
- the Data from sensors is collected through a high end processor and sent to the CIP through a fibre channel.
- The data is then fused in teh CIP.
- The Pilot associate works on the fused data and provides a plan of action for the pilot.
- The o/p is sent to the relevant displays such as MFDs, HUDs, etc through a fiber channel.
- Signals are also sent to the FCS and other systems, such as the vehicle mgmt sys, stores mgmt system, cockput display system, INS, etc.

This also allows multiply aircraft functions to share computing resources. The advantages of CIP are the advanced functions such as:

- More data fusion
- Pilot Associate
- Auto target recognition/tracking
- Digital map & terrain generator
- BIT
- Automated emission control.

The weapons interface for the Stores mgmt system will be the MIL STD 1760, which is already existing on the LCA.

The LCA Mk.2 will be able to carry more varied types of stores.

Sensors:
- EO Systems
- AESA Radar
- Datalink
- Communication and Identification system
- Acoustics - Audio warning, active noise cancellation headphones,
- Direct Voice Input (DVI)

Timeframe for LCA Mk.2: 3 yrs

[rakall]

X-posting from Su30 thread

No ground breaking details on Su30.. just posting for the record.

Short conversation with a Su30 pilot I bumped into at AI09

Q: Sir, How good is your plane? (what a stupidly dumb question!)
A: very very good

Q: Did you go to red-flag?
A: No

Q: What did you hear from your friends about it. How did our guys do there?
A: Extremely well..

Q: What was the longest sortie you flew?
A: 9hours

Q: What kind of missions do you fly during such sorties?
A: A bit of everything - Air to air combat, armamament training, refuelling

Q: Since Su30 is such a big plane and it is easier to detect.. is it a disadvantage in operations?
A: The detection depends on the strength of the radar..

Q: So when you train against small Mig21's or Mirages - who detects whom first?
A: we always get the others

Q: despite the fact that Su30 is big and they are small?
A: yeah.. thats why we always dare them to come and get us.. becoz we know what this radar is about..

Q: At what ranges do you detect them?
A: I cant tell you that..

Q: Within your shooting range?
A: Much Much before that.

[k prasad]

Also had a 3 min chat with an LCA pilot (who was on Mirages and Migs before this), and has flown on a Sukhoi.... by his own admission, the LCA is an "absolute joy to fly".... responds extremely nimbly to commands (despite the underpowered engine), and the cockpit is far better than anything he has seen.

He was extremely confident that the LCA would definitely come into large scale service, and once the pilots were introduced to it, he said, "we'll have a huge problem rejecting transfer applications to LCA units".

[kit]

X-posting from Su30 thread

No ground breaking details on Su30.. just posting for the record.

Short conversation with a Su30 pilot I bumped into at AI09

Q: Within your shooting range?
A: Much Much before that.

[kit]

Wont LCA make for a really mean UCAV ? Even with the current engine ? With the pilot and accessories out along with 'not needed stuff' there should be space enough for a lot of electronic gear and weapons ?

[kit]

X-posting from MRCA thread.

Rafale + Mirage Upgrade


Why rafale is not here:

The first person at Rafale stall I asked this question gave me this answer: Too costly to get it here etc.. French air force has deputed it to other duties etcc.

I asked - "is there a feeling in Dassault that Rafale has less chances of winning this tender? Is that why you are not marketing it aggressively?"

He replied -- "No.. Not at all.. Our CEO is here... we are talking to all relevant people and making a good pitch"..
And he excused himself for a meeting and left..

On my next visit to Dassault stall - I noticed a very high-ranking official of Dassault.. I talked to him at AI07 also.. So I aksed the lipstick receptionist sticking there that I want to talk to him.. She tried to shoo me away "you want to talk to him.. he is a very senior official"..
I persisted "I know madam... just a few questions.. I have talked to him before during last AeroIndia.. you were not there then"..

So i got to talk to this high ranking Dassault official.. who said .. "Many IAF pilots have already flown the plane and know its capabilities.. We don’t want to mix marketing and technical evaluation.. what you see in air display is not generally the capability of the plane.. we will be sending a full fledged plane for the technical evaluation"

(to me it looks like Dassault feel it will definitely not be very good match to other MRCA contenders at air display… but relying on its overall technical & multirole capabilities, AESA radar, SPECTRA suite without unkil like conditions to make a difference in the flight evaluation)

On the AESA radar -- he said it was a very good radar. And combat proven.. I think they have tested it extensively in Afghanistan.


Mirage Upgrade:


- upgraded to Dash-5 standards..
- Full glass cockpit -- Cockpit will be upgraded to Dash-5 standards
- RDY-2 will be integrated
- Main weapon upgrade is MICA.. #of hardpoints remains unchanged at 9

I asked him if they are offering “storm shadow/scalp”..
He went into a longwinded story – “there are two things – requirements and offerings.. and then there is negotitation.. first we have to negotiate within the parameters of requirements set down by the customer.. then sometimes we can also make offer. If customer likes it or wants it – we can negotiate again”

To me that translates to – IAF has so far not asked for it. But if they ask we will give it. We may offer it. But for that price may be high. But Mirage2000 airframe is capable of carrying StormShadow/Scalp.

dude .. you rock !

ps : your handle sounds like rock all was that deliberate

[Kersi D]

Another note - the BR Stall is in

Hall B-22/13
Neighbours:
Royal Air Force,Brahmos and Rolls Royce

Drop in and say hi to Kapil (Who will promptly press gang you into manning the stall)

Yes. Kapil was on the look out for some BR suckers to man the stalls

[rakall]

Also had a 3 min chat with an LCA pilot (who was on Mirages and Migs before this), and has flown on a Sukhoi.... by his own admission, the LCA is an "absolute joy to fly".... responds extremely nimbly to commands (despite the underpowered engine), and the cockpit is far better than anything he has seen.

This is too much.. Both of us seem to have spoken to the same set of people at AeroIndia09, very inadvertently.. Could you confirm if he was the same guy who flew LCA to Leh?

The Tigers sqn patch i posted was cropped from a photo I took with him.. I didnt post the photo bcoz I didnt want to blow my cover.

yeah.. he is a test pilot.. he surely would have got a taste of Su30 - either at Testpilot school or while Mirage sqds exercised with Su30 sqds sizing each other out..

He was extremely confident that the LCA would definitely come into large scale service, and once the pilots were introduced to it, he said, "we'll have a huge problem rejecting transfer applications to LCA units".

Isnt that the best complement a test pilot can give to the LCA.

BTW - Paki sites are already wetting their pants from our posts.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-def ... 320-a.html

[Nitesh]

BTW - Paki sites are already wetting their pants from our posts.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-def ... 320-a.html

One stage further also if you scan it properly

[rakall]

X-posting from mil aviation thread

Some notes on HAL:

1. Nothing to say about the ALH -- it has already become a wonderful machine.. WSI did some very good stuff in its display.. Lot of orders recived (~ 270). The glass cockpit Dhruv is wonderful.. Once it does well in Ecuador, and HAL gets good rep by maintaining good after-sales service -- more export orders will come..

2. LCH weight is not seen as a problem by HAL designers -- it is a normal process in design.. weight optimisation will be done and reduction will be achieved.

3. HAL already got clearence for LUH.. about 187numbers..

4. HAL is developing a design for 10tonne class helo called Indian Multi Role Helicoper (IMRH). They have not yet made proposal to GoI. but when they make proposal - they expect clearence bcoz services need it..

Snippets from conversation with a HeloPilot:

The guy was a graduate of test pilots school.. a Army Helicopter pilot.. currently flying Dhruvs.. Has flown Mi35's..

- Dhruv is absolutely wonderfull.. glass cockpit is just very cool.. No other helicopter can do what Dhruv is doing at high-altitude.. Not many forces in the world operate at such altitudes - otherwise, it would have been in huge demand..

- Upgraded Mi35 is just lethal.. Night vision etc works very well.. Though the night vision helmets can be used for day ops also - they are available in smaller number, so they are just stored away and used only during night flying sorties.. the goggles and the associated stuff makes the helmet 750grams heavier..

[Philip]

Rakall.The fish is from another stream.

[Rahul M]

this thread has become pure bliss !!

@ KP, even if rakall doesn't find time to do it, please seriously consider contributing to SRR/BRM.
with your extensive wiki experience it's only one step away.

we need articles like that.

[merlin]

Well I had thought of putting up my thoughts on my visit to AI09 but rakall and k prasad have covered most of the points so there is not much to add. Well except maybe the below

1. AEW&C - Elevation coverage is +-20 degrees. Airframe modifications done taking into account antenna pod dimensions, etc. hence you see the additional strakes, etc. on the latest model (compared to the earlier model). IAF apparently did not ask for full 360 coverage and are OK with 240 degrees.

2. GTRE - two engines to be sent simultaneously to Russia, one to CIAM for simulated high altitude tests and the other to the Il-76 flying testbed that has a pod which will contain the Kaveri (replacing one of the four engines). I told the GTRE guys that they were doing a good job and had nothing to feel demoralised about. He was happy to have someone supporting them and I agree with the others that they all seemed apologetic and defensive. Kaveri Mk2 will be with Snecma M88 Eco core replacing the Kabini core and other components of the Kaveri but all redesigned - a new engine basically but having technology that GTRE has already developed. The GTRE guy said that Snecma poured over all their design and design data for the Kaveri and only then agreed to help on the Kaveri Mk 2 as basically their name is on the line too. IMO, GTRE has done a decent job with the Kaveri given the constraints - I asked why the GoI didn't create high altitude test facilities for turbofans/turbojets and he said that we could not afford to spend the thousands of crores that would be required especially when there was only one engine development program (Kaveri).

3. Tejas - maximum distance covered in one ferry flight is Bangalore to Pathankot but this was from ADA and not verified with Tejas pilots. Tejas pilots are confident enough with the FCS to fly the Tejas without the FCS guys being present at the telemetry centre of NFTC if the previous few flights have been without errors and the FCS guys are running late. DFCC runs without a commercial RTOS, there is a home-brew kernel running in assembly language and everything runs on it. Software is delivered in releases and versions. Various versions were present, the first one was with fixed gains, the second with scheduled gains, then ones with stores, etc. The ETS (Engineering Test Station) that you see in brochures was actually seized by the US authorities and we didn't get it back and had to build one again back in India. Tejas LSP3 will fly soon, PV5 as well (twin seat IAF trainer). Naval twin seat trainer will fly before the Naval single seat variant.

In interesting tidbit not directly related to Tejas - while Tejas has a four channel redundant FBW with all four channels running identical software on identical hardware, the Gripen has three channel redundant FBW, with two channel running the FCS code with different software (i.e., written in different language) but on identical hardware while the third channel has different hardware as well!

4. BEL - follow on to SV 2000 in testing.

5. MCA - interestingly they didn't allow a guy to take pictures of the model from below so I was intrigued. I tried that too only to be prevented! The model displayed in one that has undergone wind tunnel testing so the design is close (because the models cost money to build).

6. Nishant - has a dual channel redundant FCS since no human lives are involved. Was easier to develop compared to Tejas FCS - no surprises there.

I got a good feeling about Tejas FCS based on the approx two hour talk I had with a guy on the team - its pretty mature relative to the initial days and they do a lot of testing before it gets into the aircraft. I got a good feeling about the program as a whole, we have done some amazing things considering we started after a huge gap after the Marut.

Others have noted that Army SF were equipped with Tavor and Garuds with Insas but with optical sights. CISF was there, DSC also. Security was discrete but present.

[Singha]

while Tejas has a four channel redundant FBW with all four channels running identical software on identical hardware, the Gripen has three channel redundant FBW, with two channel running the FCS code with different software (i.e., written in different language) but on identical hardware while the third channel has different hardware as well!

Airbus runs its quad channels on civilian a/c using different processors (diff arch like say ppc & x86 probably) and diff languages. from requirements stage, each channel is handed to a different team and the two are not allowed to share anything. no sw tools
like compilers are also same afair.

for optimum safety TejasMk2 can move to gripenish system like:

lang1 lang2 lang1 lang2
HW1 HW1 HW2 HW2

the 2,3,4 above will be extra work but good for long term.

[rakall]

while Tejas has a four channel redundant FBW with all four channels running identical software on identical hardware, the Gripen has three channel redundant FBW, with two channel running the FCS code with different software (i.e., written in different language) but on identical hardware while the third channel has different hardware as well!

Airbus runs its quad channels on civilian a/c using different processors (diff arch like say ppc & x86 probably) and diff languages. from requirements stage, each channel is handed to a different team and the two are not allowed to share anything. no sw tools
like compilers are also same afair.

for optimum safety TejasMk2 can move to gripenish system like:

lang1 lang2 lang1 lang2
HW1 HW1 HW2 HW2

the 2,3,4 above will be extra work but good for long term.

You suddenly wokeup from your sleep?

Did you attend aeroindia show? Not seen your posts for a while!!!

[sum]

Mirage Upgrade:
- upgraded to Dash-5 standards..
- Full glass cockpit -- Cockpit will be upgraded to Dash-5 standards
- RDY-2 will be integrated
- Main weapon upgrade is MICA.. #of hardpoints remains unchanged at 9

Have we finally signed the deal?

[Jagan]

Kprasad, rakall, merlin and all great job guys!

Perfect way to round off the great pics we have been seeing.

thanks for the effort

meanwhile a couple of other good pics that have been uploaded

Mig-27 UPG