Radar thread - specs & discussions

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 13 Mar 2006 20:20

The IAF wanted source codes for the avionics for the MRCA- dont remember whether they wanted everything, or just enough for weapons integration.

I must say that the IAF needs to push for as much as possible. That they have a SDI (Software Development Institute) is a plus. IOW, there will be an institutional ability to mark out whats necessary and push for it.
_________________________________________


I dont know where the band migration came from for the AWACs unless we are referring to the yet to be launched AESA FCR. The AWACS iirc will remain L Band. And it might be worthwhile to evaluate other bands for the hypothetical FCR, (even tho' X bands advantages are known) since the majority of 4th gen, non stealth a/c are optimized for RCS reduction against X Band FCRs.

kantak
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 04 Dec 2005 11:46
Location: Goa ,India

Postby kantak » 14 Mar 2006 14:34

can anybody confirm if the mirage-2000h can fire aa-12's .If this is true then the IAF must have the proper soource codes to mate the aa-12 to the mirages avionics esspecially the radar

kantak
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 04 Dec 2005 11:46
Location: Goa ,India

Postby kantak » 14 Mar 2006 14:36

can anybody confirm if the mirage-2000h can fire aa-12's .If this is true then the IAF must have the proper soource codes to mate the aa-12 to the mirages avionics esspecially the radar

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 14 Mar 2006 16:03

M2KH can fire R73 in non-HMS mode. I think that implies it needs to go hot of the rail which reduces its effective range down to around 5km ? normally R73 is launched based on radar lock of target ?

HAL had better design the AJT nose and avionics bays large enough from ground up to fit MMR and other toys. We need a cheap COIN and patrol a/c and AJT is it.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 14 Mar 2006 16:13

M2KH can fire R73 in non-HMS mode. I think that implies it needs to go hot of the rail which reduces its effective range down to around 5km ? normally R73 is launched based on radar lock of target ?

HAL had better design the AJT nose and avionics bays large enough from ground up to fit MMR and other toys. We need a cheap COIN and patrol a/c and AJT is it.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 20 Mar 2006 14:27

Dileep wrote:... Regarding L band to X band migration in hardware, I don't think we have any showstoppers to reach 1st Gen AESA capability in hardware. It simply takes time, and a lot of it at that ...

Errr, another question!! :oops:

Per the unclassified open source info, do the 1st Gen AESA use one single amplifier for LNA (of receiver) and PA (of tranmitter) - i.e. an amplifier with "high enough" 1-dB compression point to allow the LNA to act as a PA also (with decent Power O/P, that is).
Or is it, such stuff are still in the R&D mode and all these radars basically have a separate LNA and PA (thus bulky, costly, less reliable etc. etc.). 8)
Also, to move from L to X (or other bands) does it not require quite a bit of work on these amplifiers ...

Pls note I'm just a Layman - not an EE&C guru ... so a "plain-english" answer would be nice :P

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 20 Mar 2006 20:25

Maitya, LNA can not be used as Power amp. The characteristics needed are totally different. The TX/RX channels are different. Some block diagrams show common phase shifter, and some show individual phase shifters for TX/RX path.

Yes, to migrate from L to X it takes quite a lot of work. But there is no show stopper that prevents us from doing that. We have access to the components and expertise to do the design. Designing an amplifier or phase shifter is no big deal, but bringing it down to the form factor and achieving the performance requirements is tough job. Similarly, designing an algorithm for beam shaping is no big deal, but tuning it for proper matching, beam shape and steering calibration is very complicated.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 21 Mar 2006 10:24

Dileep wrote:Maitya, LNA can not be used as Power amp. The characteristics needed are totally different. The TX/RX channels are different. Some block diagrams show common phase shifter, and some show individual phase shifters for TX/RX path.


Thanks Dileep ... Fair enough - though theoretically, it looked to me as possible - as far as different Tx/Rx channels are concerened, shouldn't be too much of a issue if proper filters are designed (again theoretically).

Yes, to migrate from L to X it takes quite a lot of work. But there is no show stopper that prevents us from doing that. We have access to the components and expertise to do the design. Designing an amplifier or phase shifter is no big deal, but bringing it down to the form factor and achieving the performance requirements is tough job. Similarly, designing an algorithm for beam shaping is no big deal, but tuning it for proper matching, beam shape and steering calibration is very complicated


I think another major issue that needs to be tackeled with AESA/PESA antenna design is the interferenece betw the adjacent (and the near-adjacent) antenna elements - also when compounded with nose-cone internal-reflection issue this becomes a major hurdle. Maybe that's the reason +/- 90deg "advertised" :roll: electronic beam steering couldn't be achieved in the Bars.
Though what I never understood was why this interference issue is never made out to be such a big deal in the slotted and planar arrays :-? . May-be tackeled with mechanical steering with zero electronic steering in the azimuth (and limited eletronic steering in the elevation).
N, care to comment ... :P

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 21 Mar 2006 10:36

I think another major issue that needs to be tackeled with AESA/PESA antenna design is the interferenece betw the adjacent (and the near-adjacent) antenna elements - also when compounded with nose-cone internal-reflection issue this becomes a major hurdle


What interference are you talking about? When the modules are transmitting, ALL of them are transmitting, and NONE are receiving. And ALL of them are phase and frequency locked together. So, what interference are you talking about.

And the TX/RX modules are housed in an integrated shielded module enclosure. The control circuitry are already isolated and shielded from the RF signal present locally. The data path for the modules are also shielded.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 21 Mar 2006 11:45

Dileep wrote:
I think another major issue that needs to be tackeled with AESA/PESA antenna design is the interferenece betw the adjacent (and the near-adjacent) antenna elements - also when compounded with nose-cone internal-reflection issue this becomes a major hurdle


What interference are you talking about?

I'll need to dig that up - it's been long time since I read that

When the modules are transmitting, ALL of them are transmitting, and NONE are receiving. And ALL of them are phase and frequency locked together. So, what interference are you talking about.

How so ... I mean I thought not all modules tansmit at the same time ... a group of them do so - while the other group may well be in the receive mode. Otherwise, how'll the AESA be "far superior" than the PESA interleaving the AA and AG mode (for example) ...
Of course, I may be totally wrong here ... :oops:

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 21 Mar 2006 17:22

maitya wrote:
Dileep wrote:
I think another major issue that needs to be tackeled with AESA/PESA antenna design is the interferenece betw the adjacent (and the near-adjacent) antenna elements - also when compounded with nose-cone internal-reflection issue this becomes a major hurdle


What interference are you talking about?

I'll need to dig that up - it's been long time since I read that


Still searching :( ... but IIRC,
i) to steer a beam to a large scan angle from the "center" (i.e. large off-boresight angle) requires a closer antenna element spacing ... and there're engineering limits upto how closely one can place the elements.

ii) to maintain the constant phase difference between two adjacent radiating elements, the distance between them needs to be exact. Herein lies the issue on practical limits of how "exact" this distance can be engineered - thus leading to below acceptable limit constructive interference at a range at a sufficiently large off-boresight angle.

Also, faintly remember, :oops: it had something to do with the pattern of the radiating elements on the antenna - not sure though, if this is related to some Russian current gen PESA (e.g. Kopyo-F), that uses non-linear distn of radiating elements claiming lower cost (and weight) of the radar.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 21 Mar 2006 20:35

The only way you can have simultaneous TX and RX would be to do that from seperate modules and seperate frequencies. You can not do that neither from the same module nor on the same frequency. And the frequency seperation is as good as the filter that does it.

Distances between the modules being exact is NOT a big engineering problem. That is pure mechanical thing, and any good machine shop can do that. It is not the distances that contribute to imperfect beam forming. It is the phase shifters. The phase shifters do drift and jitter, which is much more than what contributed by mechanical features.

Russians are touting a design feature of unequal distances between array elements. The elements at the edges are closer together than the elements in the middle. There should be some advantages to that, because otherwise they wouldn't have taken the pains to design it. I don't have the faculty to figure out how/why that it better. I would imagine it might give wider beam angle. That is a wild guess.

AFAICS, the major challenges in 1st gen AESA antenna design are:

1. Miniaturization of the amplifiers, keeping the gain, phase and noise figure.
2. Spike antenna design and integration to the module frame.
3. Phase shifter design and calibration.
4. Shielding within the module
5. Backplane distribution
6. Mechanical engineering of features like module coupling, because those are field replacible.

The good news is, ISRO reports success in making an AESA C-Band radar for RISAT.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2006 20:40

well it seems ISRO could well turn out to be DRDOs saviour on other fronts like Scramjet. when the enemy is about to smash the fort, new horsemen appear on the ridge...led by a "white robed" figure on a white horse.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 21 Mar 2006 21:00

Singha wrote:well it seems ISRO could well turn out to be DRDOs saviour on other fronts like Scramjet. when the enemy is about to smash the fort, new horsemen appear on the ridge...led by a "white robed" figure on a white horse.

Betw, isn't there some sort of "artificial self-imposed" barrier created between these entities, so that cross-pollination of ideas can't happen - may be has something got to do with pleasing somebody after the project devil experience. IIRC, even the Cryo deal was scutteled in the 90's with similar reasoning (in public, that is). :roll:

sgopal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 19:10

Postby sgopal » 21 Mar 2006 21:39

Thats not the case. Cross pollination is healthy. Our President has worked both in ISRO and DRDO.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 21 Mar 2006 22:26

I would imagine it might be more of egos and principles than barriers. Would like expert op from gurus like JC

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 24 Mar 2006 18:13

Dileep wrote:I would imagine it might be more of egos and principles than barriers. Would like expert op from gurus like JC

Maybe ... or maybe some MoD/Political "staretegic" thinking of keeping "somebody" happy :( - the hope maybe is that it'll prevent Cryo Engine type fiasco. Who knows ... :x

Anyway talking about X-Band AESA - if C-Band Tx/Rx has been cracked by ISRO - it looks natural progression would be for the 8-12GHz band :wink: - while the LRDE is still stuck at 1-2Ghz!! :wink: :wink:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 24 Mar 2006 20:16

C-Band AESA for RISAT would provide the hardware capability for the X-Band for sure. That itself is a major contribution. The software and DSP, however are different for the earth imaging application of RISAT. RISAT needs only limited steering, and the focus would be in improving resolution. Not detection and tracking.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 24 Mar 2006 21:34

Hi,
There is cross pollination between ISRO and DRDO, but at very high level & in a limited manner. This arragement was formalized so that India's space program didnt suffer from international censure, because it was linked to our military goals. In the process, we have really, really limited our overall development.

What many folks- including in the MOD & planning committees- dont realize is that to sustain two structures, both of which btw per first world/ ex superpower (aka Russia) and rising power (aka China) are drip funded, you need to pour in a lot more..the key problem is manpower..I had the opportunity to speak with someone in DRDO..and the work pressure on key personnel is horrible...and it takes time for new folks to acquire the skill..past decade has been good for DRDO thanks to their efforts in sustaining a pvt sector supply chain who also do contract based work for the DRDO...this is the 2nd time around btw..a heck of a lot of damage was done thanks to our economic collapse when a lot of companies dependent on DRDO, and helped by them went out of business or left the field as the Min of Fin cut back on def expenditure drastically.

About egos & empire building- it exists on both sides. Especially in some higher level bureaucracy & technocrats who refuse to see the benefits of colloboration and quote ethical reasons- all folks need not work on weapons of destruction etc as a reason at times. This is all very well, and I wouldnt mock their personal beliefs, but ethical belief in non violence didnt spare the priests and citizens of Somnath or many many others in India's history. And especially not now when we all should know what stares us in our face.

Also, its high time GOI set up a Dept of Aeronautics whatever- and had it coordinate with the Dept of Space, perforce- and in a quiet manner without tom tomming it. The time of those barriers is done- once the nuclear deal goes through, then its enough- we got international recognition as a responsible state yada yada yada.

We can no longer afford the luxury of sitting in one corner and bifurcating a pool of talent, when the results would be much better when they are combined. The coming decades will see more & more space based sensors & usage. A proper BMD network might even require that we deploy the same or develop some capability to the best of our ability- again, that shouldnt just be the sum total of activities- we should have ISRO scientific manpower also involved in conventional gas turbine propulsion, by means of consultancy & facility based help. It wont provide remarkable results overnight- but in the long run- it will help! Boeing's propulsion divisions cross pollinate openly, ditto for IAI, ditto for LockMart- we may not be able to do the same & each org would prefer that its people remain with it. But at the very least- we can have more intensive linkages.

And while we are at it- set up a Dept of Aeronautics or Aerospace or whatever- and have it coordinate at a grand level with all the disparate design and production agencies in India. Resource sharing and technology dissipation will be that much better, when a uniform view of future goals is charted out.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 24 Mar 2006 21:58

maitya wrote:Anyway talking about X-Band AESA - if C-Band Tx/Rx has been cracked by ISRO - it looks natural progression would be for the 8-12GHz band :wink: - while the LRDE is still stuck at 1-2Ghz!! :wink: :wink:


Do we know which exact industries are involved? It'd be great if we are not using a strategic agreement with (say) Israel to import key hardware, to keep costs and complexity down. If BEL/ CSIR/ pvt sector are involved in design of aforesaid items- goes without saying that it will have a spinoff on LRDE's L & S Band AESA's.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 25 Mar 2006 00:10

The ISRO report says the antenna is 6X2 metres and weighs 900kgs. I wonder how miniaturized the modules are :?: May be not too much. So, the base technology will need a lot more work to bring it into an FCR level.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 25 Mar 2006 08:37

Technically speaking, the Greenpine isnt any lighter either..so it could be the base for a Ground based AESA ...of course, a lot of rework would be required..

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 27 Mar 2006 14:34

JCage wrote:Technically speaking, the Greenpine isnt any lighter either..so it could be the base for a Ground based AESA ...of course, a lot of rework would be required..

According to Indiadefence, Green Pine weighs 60 Tons with 2000 T/R modules :shock:
And, from that they managed to whittle it down to ~250Kg, 2000 X-Band T/R based 2052 - WOW - HAT's off!! :-o
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 31 Mar 2006 10:54

Dileep wrote:The ISRO report says the antenna is 6X2 metres and weighs 900kgs.

I misunderstood the weight bit ... you meant the whole aka the whole radar weight to be 900kg right - I misunderstood it to be the antenna weight!!

Tons of other info here ... SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR PAYLOAD OF RADAR IMAGING SATELLITE (RISAT) OF ISRO
Dileep pls note ... JCage excellent data-point!!

Excerpts: The earth facing side of the active antenna is a broadband dual polarized microstrip radiating aperture. Antenna consistsof three deployable panels, each of 2mx2m size. Each of the panels is subdivided into four tiles of size 1mx1m, eachconsisting of 24x24 radiating elements. In each tile, all the 24x24 radiating elements are grouped into 24 groups, each group consisting of 24 elements spread along azimuth directions which are fed by two stripline distribution networksfeeding for V and H polarisation. Each of thesegroups of 24 radiating elements are catered to by afunctionally two separate TR modules feeding twoseparate distribution networks for V and H operation with the same radiating patches. Thepeak RF power, fed by each TR module, is 10 W at a duty cycle of 7%.

So 576 (24*24) t/r modules for a 1m*1m antenna (tile) ... Interesting!!

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 31 Mar 2006 15:14

I just saw an interesting graph for a GaAs Class-A/B PA (L-Band) ... the o/p was 44.25W at 1.17GHz, rose to 45.5W at 1.2GHz, further rose to 44.75W at 1.25GHz and then started falling to 44.25W at 1.3GHz!! I'd assume the Gain figures also would show the same trend ... 8)

Now, Dileep, will it be correct to interfere that this is one of the roadblocks for moving from L to X band (or to any higher band) ... because the efficiency keeps dropping for the PA and would thus require more accurate input and output matching circuits and added stabilization circuits. :?:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 31 Mar 2006 20:00

maitya wrote:I just saw an interesting graph for a GaAs Class-A/B PA (L-Band) ... the o/p was 44.25W at 1.17GHz, rose to 45.5W at 1.2GHz, further rose to 44.75W at 1.25GHz and then started falling to 44.25W at 1.3GHz!! I'd assume the Gain figures also would show the same trend ... 8)

Now, Dileep, will it be correct to interfere that this is one of the roadblocks for moving from L to X band (or to any higher band) ... because the efficiency keeps dropping for the PA and would thus require more accurate input and output matching circuits and added stabilization circuits. :?:


Not really. It depends upon the actual transistor used in the amp. If the transistor can handle higher frequencies, you can design amps with higher frequencies. But as the frequency goes up, the parasitics becomes more prominent and dimensions become smaller. That is the only problem.

The amp you seen is designed for L band, so it will have filters to limit its bandwidth. Any am should limit its bandwidth just to cover the entire operating range requirement, nothing more.

Looking at the C-Band info of ISRO and the L band info from LRDE, I would venture that we do have the hardware in control. Software, I don't know. To take parallel, for the LCA MMR, I am sure we got the basic hardware long time ago. It is the software that is the problem.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Apr 2006 21:57

http://www.drdo.com/labs/electronics/lr ... ract.shtml
INTERACTION WITH ACADEMIC AND OTHER NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Institute Areas of Interaction

Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore

* DRDO – IISc program on Mathematical Engineering - ISAR Techniques

* RV College of Engineering, Bangalore - Special materials & engineering processes for mechanical structures for radars

* IIT, Delhi - RF MEMS

* Amrita Institute of technology and Science, Bangalore - Design of reflector antenna

* MS Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies, Bangalore - Structural and CFD Analysis

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Apr 2006 06:59

Thanks ..the DRDO LBand AESA module has much higher peak power, higher duty cycle...interesting stuff!

This is the really interesting bit from the LRDE webpge:

http://www.drdo.com/labs/electronics/lrde/charter.shtml

Activities

* Design and Development of Radar Systems

Army
- Multifunction Phased Array Radar and 3D Surveillance Radar for Akash Missile
Weapon System
- Low Level 2D Radar for Fire Control and Air Defence
- Short Range Battle Field Surveillance Radar
- Weapon Locating Radar
Air Force
- Active Phased Array Radar for AEW&C
- Low level 2D radar and 3D Short & Medium Range Surveillance Radar for Air Defence
Navy
- Maritime Patrol Radar for fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft
- Maritime Patrol Radar with SAR & ISAR
- 3D Medium Range Surveillance Radar for ASW Corvettes
* Development of Radar Technologies
- Antennae: Slotted Waveguide, Patch Array & Multibeam Antenna
- T/R Modules and Active Aperture Arrays
- Programmable DSP
- Radar Data Processors
- High Average Power TWT based Transmitters
- High purity sources
- Multi-channel double hetrodyne receivers

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 05 Apr 2006 08:39

JC, The patent app gives good info on the L Band module. The spec looks impressive. Looking at the various papers presented etc, they seem to be not too (un necessarily) secretive. Would it be possible to get more info?

They are working on RF MEMS with IITD. That is definitely XBand. Can we get any info from IITD?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 05 Apr 2006 08:47

> Green Pine weighs 60 Tons

I seriously doubt the radar itself weighs more than a few tons at most. It does look to be around 30 feet long and 6 feet high though. maybe 60t includes the weight of the semi trailer and engine part.

Its about as large as SMART_L on dutch provincien ships. so it surely is not 60t...maybe more like 6 tons.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 05 Apr 2006 12:54

Dileep, the patent details are excellent. This seems to be the same module we discussed earlier.

Greenpine evolves!
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... 2195p3.xml

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 07 Apr 2006 16:09

Singha wrote:> Green Pine weighs 60 Tons

I seriously doubt the radar itself weighs more than a few tons at most. It does look to be around 30 feet long and 6 feet high though. maybe 60t includes the weight of the semi trailer and engine part.

Its about as large as SMART_L on dutch provincien ships. so it surely is not 60t...maybe more like 6 tons.


Per ELTA, the array and the truck together weigh 60 tons.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Apr 2006 11:10

Dileep, got your mail will get back to you...

------------------------
On a sidenote- anymore recent news of China's naval AESA/ Kvant issue?

Anyone?

kantak
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 04 Dec 2005 11:46
Location: Goa ,India

Postby kantak » 08 Apr 2006 18:52

JCage wrote:Thanks ..the DRDO LBand AESA ...........
- Multi-channel double hetrodyne receivers


Heres some more info on the antenna used for the AESA ,BFSR and Rajendra with relevant info.


ImageImageImage

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 08 Apr 2006 22:54

kantak wrote:
JCage wrote:Thanks ..the DRDO LBand AESA ...........
- Multi-channel double hetrodyne receivers


Heres some more info on the antenna used for the AESA ,BFSR and Rajendra with relevant info.

Kantak, thanks!! Good info all ...

Didn't understand this "cold-plate" stuff being mentioned for thermal mgmt ... is that liquid cooling (most probaly) or air-cooling!! Problem with GaAs transistor based T/R modules is the very modest RF effeciency (IIRC ~50%) of the transistor - requires massive cooling when you have, say 1500 or so modules in a radar!!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 08 Apr 2006 23:09

Maitya, cold plate cooling means the modules are assembled on a block of aluminium that transports heat away. In AESA modules, it is invariably liquid cooled because of the very high power densities involved.

In the LRDE modules, it is water cooled. The module base have channels to carry water and tubes are attached to circulate water through them. The 2052 have channels integrated to the front (and rear) plates. In the photo of 2052 unit from AA-06 singapore it is clearly visible.

There will be a compromise between weight and thermal efficiency. The American systems use "polyolefin" coolants according to the data sheet.

It would be interesting to draw a comparison to a room heater to the antenna. Imagine a 2-3 kW heater in place of the antenna and compare it with a room heater of same capacity. It is amazing how much heat need to be removed!!

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 09 Apr 2006 18:39

The CAR specs appear to be pretty good vs its international contemporaries and what the Chinese have also come up with. Range, accuracy, modes et al.

It can be scaled up into a bigger radar, but imho, we are going to see a massive LBand AESA as LRDE's next venture. 400 Km range with 200 tracks.

To recap:

*BFSR- SR- 1,100 units
*Indra 2 Gapfiller 2D radars, for the IA & IAF
*Rajendra- WLR- upto 45, final developmental fixes this year
*CAR- IAF- 7 Radars
*CAR- Navy, selected for the Corvettes- Project 28, so thats 4-6 Units
*Long Range AESA under development for Ground Based AD & for the AWACs program
* SV-2000 selected for the Navy's ALH, and being modified for Light Aircraft (scaled up presumably)
--------------------------------------------
Waiting:

Rajendra -III/ CAR for IA via Akash.
More orders for CAR from the IAF
-------------------------------------------

In development: MMR for the LCA

-------------------------------------------

So overall, we need the Rajendra to be inducted in numbers & the MMR to be brought about.

In retrospect, having HAL lead MMR development was probably unwise- it should have been either LRDE or BEL leading the program.
----------------------------------

We appear to be trundling along, but imho a lot more can be done, perhaps discussed in either the radar or drdo thread.

__________________________________________________________


Ok suggestions:

1. Need more radars and more focused effort:
Case in point: BMD effort will be different from IAF and IA, but I find it absurd and unnecessary that thanks to shortsightedness in the past, India is going to import Low Level Light weight radars from Thales & Navy still relies on Russian radars for the most part and now the Elta- MF STAR. Hope we have some tie-in to the last, but wont count on it.

2.There should be substantial *focused* TOT effort when buying from abroad- not just look at BEL/ HAL existing ability and judge by the same. IMHO, this is being done per other reports, but it would be great to get more corroborating reports. Even if we pay more technology fees- source code and select tech- ie High Power TWT's etc would be welcome.

3. Privatise, privatise, privatise. PSU's find small orders difficult, and cant scale up and scale down accordingly. OTOH, SME's can run on them.

4. Get TATA POWER to build and develop complete systems. L&T likewise. They can depend on PSUs for help (BEL etc), but should be encouraged to develop their own ancillaries for microwave components, TWTs etc. Astra Microwaves is a good example. This will run into some opposition from the leftists and protectionists, but should be pushed through nonetheless.
The key thing to realize is that the development ability should be spread out as much as possible.

5. Break down barriers. Have ISRO, CSIR and others brought in bigtime into radar development and key areas. For instance, CSIO can look at optronics to complement radars, BEL/ Pvt sector can be the manufacturers. IRDE can cooperate with them.

6. Fund research in universities. Be profligate with funds- 5 Million $/ yr- start with 1 if need be, invested among a bunch of universities- even second tier, will increase research abilities and student capability.
This is in ADDITION to present ARDB and similar boards...ramp them up and increase them on a much larger scale. There should me a hundred projects running..ok...it will be !@#$ all to coordinate, but the effort should be ramped up.

7. Have training institutes offer more relevant criteria- from CAD/CAM to DSP to Programming, with IISc and other key institutes and DRDO periodically vetting the syllabi- this will enable ready manpower for the pvt sector to use for GOI projects.

8.Have DPSUs- eg BEL, HAL, invest a substantial part of their profits after tax into internal R&D, not just 5%, but even more. The GOI can ease up a bit on taking the moolah back. This will have major ramifications in the long run.
The DPSU should constitute a fund with folks from IISc etc on board to prioritize research and parcel out contracts.

9.More cross pollination between DPSUs, Other Labs, Pvt Sector, more conferences.

10. Major export push. Have Pvt sector Corporate control- in part if need be - of specific export wings of BEL/HAL etc in order to drive tech exports and get revenue.

11. Tech acquisition- buy out boutique E&C firms across the world.

12. More & more money into building world class semiconductor/ MMIC/ facilities and building up GAETEC etc- if need be, involve L&T or TATA or someone to take partial ownership. Need to be on the cutting edge. COTS is all well and good, but we need to have a backup.

13. Research into long wave, OTH and LPI radars- should be a big priority. We need every bit of advantage.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5854
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 09 Apr 2006 20:08

My (limited) experience in dealing with the research institutions and univs left a lot to be desired. IT will take a lot of work to get them yield something useful. Several size 12 motivators will be needed.

The protectionism can not be brushed aside simply. It is not a leftist phenomenon. It is there everywhere. The corporate sector participation and tech transfers must be firmly established as a policy and implemented top to bottom.

The software part, ie DSP, control, and SAR processing, should be outsourced into pvt sector. Pay them market rate, and demand performance by market rate. Why? It is impossible for Govt/PSU to get the best talents, so use them where available.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 10 Apr 2006 09:05

My (limited) experience in dealing with the research institutions and univs left a lot to be desired. IT will take a lot of work to get them yield something useful. Several size 12 motivators will be needed.


Weapons of Peace & many accounts, plus other open source ones, point out that despite the issues you justifiably point out, univs have managed to churn out several imp things for India- even though several serve as a gateway to the west, in terms of exporting their students, thanks to our problems and other stuff..Kalam for instance is reported to have always been monitoring his univ partners to deliver..now more of such ventures have been joined. IMHO, it is possible and a fair system of checks and balances, despite the research nature of work and impact on timelines can and should be established..yes, its being done, but what i'd ideally want is a large scale up, across the board..not just the handful of usual suspects but every univ with the REC tag and selected pvt colleges and others which meet the criteria established...give them projects and judge them accordingly..it can also serve as a means to attract and concentrate talent in the aforesaid univs...they can run their own corporatised research wings, ie live with all your academic freedom, but dont work in a 9-5 job.


>>The protectionism can not be brushed aside simply. It is not a leftist phenomenon. It is there everywhere. The corporate sector participation and tech transfers must be firmly established as a policy and implemented top to bottom.

Definitely, but it can be made to work. When WEESE was formed, it was done despite opposition within the Navy and outside (DPSUs etc) - but the Navy did it. So with some savvy leadership (and committed), a lot can be done. DRDO broke the OFB tag by roping in L&T/ TP for the Pinaka, as the Arjuns lessons became clear- ditto for the Nag/ Akash etc. The key thing imho is to have a policy and resolutely implement it, despite politicking- for instance, the offsets are now stated to be available to pvt sector as well. IMHO, where there is a will, there is a way, and in todays world, the pvt sector is no longer looked down upon as it was during the halycon days of socialist India, where it would take the PM or someone to intervene on behalf of a single firm, for its mere existence.The key way to go about it would be not gut the state units- they can serve as competitors and partners, and need to be given more freedom to decide their payscale etc, not protected via barriers.

The software part, ie DSP, control, and SAR processing, should be outsourced into pvt sector. Pay them market rate, and demand performance by market rate. Why? It is impossible for Govt/PSU to get the best talents, so use them where available.

This is being done to some extent, but the sweeteners would be to offer a long term commitment to pvt industry. As I have mentioned before, our economic crunch of the early 90's killed many company's or made them swear off the defence sector.

IMHO, Govt can continue to attract talent, in recent years, a lot of top univ graduates have joined Govt wings, but the issue is one of payscale despite their satisfaction with the work they are doing, in the long run as we seek to retain them, in this I submit, more internal incentives, and constant and unashamed emphasis on science by GOI in terms of allowing such measures would help..complaints of favouritism should be ignored, science & defence should be national priorities and there should be no shame in it. One searcher/ radar import can easily sustain a bunch of such incentives for a bunch of years!....and if a Govt owned/ pvt run type system can be implemented in the long run, it will be even better. Finally, if a service is not too interested in seeking a system, as it feels its requirements change or didnt want some particular item...make it for export..we should look beyond the internal market alone. The exchange rates and cost of research in india alone make this a very viable proposition.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 10 Apr 2006 09:09

No. 14, a very important point- and one which i missed. Joint R&D with other institutes and companies across the world. Look for countries beyond the usual. India has had quite some success with Poland, which has excellent scientists and a well developed military industry. Similarly- more such programs should be launched, whether it be with Israel or France or Russia. Care should be taken to avoid Rabinder Singh scenarios, but imho- thats why dealing with pockets of excellence, such as Poland and countries with their own need for India- ie Russia, is much better than rushing to Unkil or the west alone in terms of seeking to codevelop technology.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests