Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7314
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Prasad » 11 Dec 2018 10:55

Kartik wrote:billions of $s in sales

That is the only thing driving such things. All hail the almight dollah.

With a currently planned LCA run of 200+, Meteor deployment fleetwide will mean no MMRCA 2.0. That ok with those who suggest a meteor buy? The only radar that we can buy/is offered to us that is integrated with the Meteor is the RBE-2.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ashishvikas » 11 Dec 2018 13:09

India selects IAI/Elta Systems radar and EW suite for Tejas LCA Mk 1A
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - Jane's Defence Weekly
10 December 2018

https://www.janes.com/article/85107/ind ... -lca-mk-1a

mody
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby mody » 11 Dec 2018 15:07

So Indian EW suite solution being currently worked on will not come?
A few pages back on this thread I had asked about it and I think Indranil had confirmed that an indigenous solution was in the works.
Seems like plug and play is the solution now. Seems odd, as we have already developed an EW pod for the Su-30MKI.
Does the EW suite have to work in conjunction with the radar only and hence has to be totally compatible? The Janes article seems to imply that, the radar and EW suite solution has to be bought together only.

Also, AM Nambiar in his speech says that LCA MK1/1A will replace the Mig-21 and 27. However, there are 8 squadrons of Migs to replace, with 6 of LCA.
I hope they increase the numbers by an additional 2 squadrons. It can be MK1A or a mix of FoC MK1 and MK1A.
My guess is that eventually some additional numbers of MK1A will be ordered, when the current production is nearing its end and the MK2 might not be ready.
However, if the numbers are increased now, then HAL has further incentive to increase the production capacity faster and for IAF, it will reduce the cost of the planes. Ordering later will mean at best a repeat order or maybe a small price escalation.
Ordering an additional 32 aircrafts now, may help reduce the per plane cost by about 10-15%.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 11 Dec 2018 15:34

ramana wrote:Still the question of Meteor integration on Tejas shows unexpected naivety? or superior program killing skills.
Reminds me of the OSS sabotage manual of going by rule book and holistic thinking to kill programs.
For example Meteor is not even there in IAF inventory and asking for its integration shows Somalingam level mind.

Who is Somalingam?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1590
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Khalsa » 11 Dec 2018 15:36

pushkar.bhat wrote:Israeli radar means Tejas won’t have Meteor missile

Shookla ji just posted this..


what on god's green earth did I just read ?
Do we have Meteor in our inventory ?
Do we intend to have it on our rafales ?
What about our mighty Su-30 and Mig-29 , Jaguar and Mig-21 fleet ? Are they all lined up for free Meteors sitting in my uncle's garage in Chandigarh ?
Seriously he is just pumping out stuff to stay relevant. I guess as long it causes controversy it must be good to pay the bills right.
Also what about the USAF .... do they have the Meteor missile ... oh no thats it Chinese and pakis are going to overrun them and Russia overnight



Last not least on a deadly serious note, did he seriously play the last cards of the dying lobby of Tejas killers ?
Must say I have the last of whatever respect I had for him for using numbers and atleast challenging us.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36360
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 11 Dec 2018 18:31

Rahul Bedi.. sheesh. Quetly signing? When everything is quite.

___

2052s as baseline for Uttam GaN makes it promissing. Our desi Meteor (Astra) will do the right job for IAF.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7629
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby brar_w » 11 Dec 2018 18:46

From MBDA's letter to the IAF :

“MBDA will not be able to offer Meteor for [Tejas] LCA, if a non-European radar is chosen for that platform – we will not be able to gain 6 Partner Nation clearance.


What he missed out on was that MBDA is integrating the Meteor with at least one non-European radar (AN/APG-81) with the possibility of more radars down the road (Japan) and will gladly sell the weapon, if requested, to Israel for their F-35Is along with other non European F-35 users. I would have to check but I think MBDA was actively pursuing the Meteor missile sales for Korea/Indonesia's KF-X fighter, which would mean integrating it with a Non-European radar which is being developed and tested using Israeli assistance IIRC.

Khalsa wrote:Do we intend to have it on our rafales ?


Yes. The Rafale would be the only platform in the IAF capable of carrying the weapon. That said, the common denominator is Astra so any funds allocated for wholesale purchase of foreign BVRAAMS, beyond immediate needs, should instead focus on getting that integrated with as many platforms as possible. No one can afford to standardize on the Meteor given the diverse mix of fighters the IAF/IN has. Astra offers that possibility.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2632
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JTull » 11 Dec 2018 19:41

Glad that we're saving money for Astra rather than chase Shook-low ji's wet-dreams about a missile that possibly costs more than the radar. (Luftwaffe acquired 150 for $323mln on top of $175 integration costs). That's equivalent to Rs 3500 crores!!

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2448
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby darshhan » 11 Dec 2018 19:56

Don't worry. Lok sabha elections are approaching and promises will have to be made to the farmers for canceling their debts. Hardly any money will remain for such unneeded imports after that. Indigenous weapons have a bright future even if forced by circumstances like rural distress. Import lobbies can shove it up theirs. Skinny indian farmer is ahead on priority list than the lutyens arms dealers when you look at electoral realities.

Plus sops to the unemployed youth will do the rest.
Last edited by darshhan on 11 Dec 2018 20:03, edited 1 time in total.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2448
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby darshhan » 11 Dec 2018 19:58

Even among indigenous weapons systems, the expensive platforms might not make the cut. Tejas team should keep that in mind.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2748
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Dec 2018 19:59

^^brar not even mirage???couldnt find if meteor has been integrated to RDY2

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 11 Dec 2018 20:54

Nope no Meteor for Mirages, not even in French service. Anyway the RDY-3 would not have been able to exploit the full range of the Meteor.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2070
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby John » 11 Dec 2018 22:24

JTull wrote:Glad that we're saving money for Astra rather than chase Shook-low ji's wet-dreams about a missile that possibly costs more than the radar. (Luftwaffe acquired 150 for $323mln on top of $175 integration costs). That's equivalent to Rs 3500 crores!!

You do realize we paid over 1 million each for derby for SHAR ( adj for infation it will be around 1.5 mill). AAM are quite expensive.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 12 Dec 2018 03:44

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 6332502019 ---> Tender for first five Tejas Mk1A chassis assembly is also out. This improved version could fly as early as 2020.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 12 Dec 2018 03:46

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 9952273408 ----> Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has "quietly" signed a deal with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)/Elta Systems for 83 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and electronic warfare (EW) suites to be fitted onto the Tejas Mk 1A.

India selects IAI/Elta Systems radar and EW suite for Tejas LCA Mk 1A
https://www.janes.com/article/85107/ind ... -lca-mk-1a

India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has signed a deal with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)/Elta Systems for 83 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and an equal number of electronic warfare (EW) suites to be fitted onto the Mk 1A variant of the indigenously developed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Industry sources told Jane's that the deal for ELM-2052 fire control radars and pod-mounted ELL-8222WB (wide band) self-protection jamming pods was "quietly" signed in late October after IAI/Elta emerged as the lowest bidder for the two compatible systems. The IAI/Elta products were selected over systems fielded by rivals Thales and Saab, which had also responded to HAL's December 2016 request for quotation for AESA radars and EW suites.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby mody » 12 Dec 2018 17:45

Integration of Astra with the Tejas should be taken up after FoC. Perhaps June 2019 timeframe. I think Derby and R-77 (the promised performance), should be the baseline for the Astra MK-1. I hope the Radar deal doesn't mean we have to buy an X number of Derby and proposed Derby-ER as well.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2632
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JTull » 12 Dec 2018 18:18

mody wrote:Integration of Astra with the Tejas should be taken up after FoC. Perhaps June 2019 timeframe. I think Derby and R-77 (the promised performance), should be the baseline for the Astra MK-1. I hope the Radar deal doesn't mean we have to buy an X number of Derby and proposed Derby-ER as well.


I can't find the link but there was some report that Astra uses the launcher rails of some Russian origin missile that's already in large numbers with IAF/IN. My belief is that integration will only need wind-tunnel work followed by any required CLAW update. Software integration should already be ready.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 12 Dec 2018 21:41

Astra is a BVR missile. It has to be guided by the plane's radar until the terminal phase (where it's radar takes over). That is why it is tricky. Either we have to provide source code (or some code) or ELTA for the integration, most likely we will compromise (what is new). That's why almost all planes use radar and BVR AAM in combo. The company/country/group that makes the radar also makes the BVR missile. All IR guided missiles can be independent of the plane's radar, but off late, initial guidance (cueing, and for large range IR missile, mid course guidance) is also being provided by radar. For short range IR missile helmet cueing should be more useful than radar cueing.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2516
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Katare » 13 Dec 2018 08:47

It appears (as per S Jha and IDRW) that air marshal Raghunath Nambiar has written an article at Salute magazine where he talks about LCA. Few things he had said are LCA scored better than any aircraft including Jaguars in ground delivery. He also said that LCA will replace Mig29s too. Link for the magazine is below but I can't find the article. I saw him mentioning the LCA score in gagan Shakti but an article would be a great confirmation

Salute

S Jha tweet

gagan-shakti-2018-did-lca-tejas-mk1-outshine-jaguar-strike-aircraft-in-its-own-game

Ananth
BRFite
Posts: 346
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Ananth » 13 Dec 2018 11:39

Katare please see this post by Karan. SJha got his info from BR.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby mody » 13 Dec 2018 15:30

fanne wrote:Astra is a BVR missile. It has to be guided by the plane's radar until the terminal phase (where it's radar takes over). That is why it is tricky. Either we have to provide source code (or some code) or ELTA for the integration, most likely we will compromise (what is new). That's why almost all planes use radar and BVR AAM in combo. The company/country/group that makes the radar also makes the BVR missile. All IR guided missiles can be independent of the plane's radar, but off late, initial guidance (cueing, and for large range IR missile, mid course guidance) is also being provided by radar. For short range IR missile helmet cueing should be more useful than radar cueing.


Integration with the radar is the most important part. In this case we will have to integrate the missile with the Elta 2032 MMR.
Elta will have to provide the codes for integration of the missile. The Russians provided the codes so that the Astra could communicate with the Bars radar. In the Rafael deal, we have specifically asked for provision of being able to integrate Indian or other weapons with the Rafael. Initially the French were reluctant and this was a sticking point for a while. However, we insisted that this was non-negotiable and that integration of our weapons with the Rafael was a must.
For the R77, the Russians refused the integration of the missile with the Tejas, with either our own MMR or Elta 2032 hybrid.

The separation trials of the missile with the platform etc. if the other part, but I guess this should not be much of problem, as far as Astra and Tejas are concerned.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7540
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 14 Dec 2018 02:14

Mody ji,

Please don't worry about Astra integration with the 2032/2052. One doesn't need to open up the source code of a radar to integrate a radar to a missile. The missile just has to use the same interface as extended by the radar. All modern radars are designed this way. The Russians did not give us the code. They gave us the interface, which was used to integrate Astra to Bars. India would not buy the 2032/2052 if the Israelis did not provide us the interface.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 14 Dec 2018 10:00

Thread has been cleaned up.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 14 Dec 2018 11:49

fanne wrote:Astra is a BVR missile. It has to be guided by the plane's radar until the terminal phase (where it's radar takes over). That is why it is tricky. Either we have to provide source code (or some code) or ELTA for the integration, .


This raises the question of how such a missile can ever be exported.

Foreign countries purchase planes from foreign producers. They certainly don't have access to the source code or the know to modify the aircraft systems to incorporate the missile with onboard radar. Plus if anything was modified on the aircraft, it would have to get the OK from the aircrafts manufacturer for the warranty to be valid.

Unless there is some open standard that delivers radar data to peripherals on the aircraft on demand, I'm not sure how a non-stand alone missile can be integrated.

Those countries would have to buy Tejas or Indian produced jets in future for the missiles to work. Maybe it could work on the Sukhois if Russians were ok with India exporting missiles to arm the Sukhoi fleets of other countries.
Last edited by Neshant on 14 Dec 2018 11:52, edited 1 time in total.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Dec 2018 11:51

Neshant wrote:
fanne wrote:Astra is a BVR missile. It has to be guided by the plane's radar until the terminal phase (where it's radar takes over). That is why it is tricky. Either we have to provide source code (or some code) or ELTA for the integration, .


This raises the question of how such a missile can ever be exported.

Foreign countries purchase planes from foreign producers. They certainly don't have access to the source code or the know to modify the aircraft systems to incorporate the missile with onboard radar. Plus if anything was modified on the aircraft, it would have to get the OK from the aircrafts manufacturer for the warranty to be valid.

Unless there is some open standard that delivers radar data to peripherals on the aircraft on demand, I'm not sure how a non-stand alone missile can be integrated.

Interface.
I think IR has covered it,
However any change in radar requires a consequent qualification of missile.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Neshant » 14 Dec 2018 11:57

ks_sachin wrote:Interface.
I think IR has covered it,


I doubt there would be an open interface for radar because there is mechanical/solid state beam steering involved for an active guided missile. This means there needs to be a closed loop feedback between the launchdd missile in flight and the radar onboard the plane. It's more complicated than just having data from the radar prior to firing the missile - and I don't think even that would be available to third party peripherals. Onboard data buses for MIL standards are typically slow as well unless they are using something more upscale which I'm sure many existing aircraft do not.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Gyan » 14 Dec 2018 17:30

Our target should be that LCA must be better than Indian upgraded Mig21s & Chinese copy of Mig21s, Rest is bonus.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Dec 2018 17:47

Neshant wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Interface.
I think IR has covered it,


I doubt there would be an open interface for radar because there is mechanical/solid state beam steering involved for an active guided missile. This means there needs to be a closed loop feedback between the launchdd missile in flight and the radar onboard the plane. It's more complicated than just having data from the radar prior to firing the missile - and I don't think even that would be available to third party peripherals. Onboard data buses for MIL standards are typically slow as well unless they are using something more upscale which I'm sure many existing aircraft do not.

Astra is BVR right?
It has mid course correction?
How did Russia allow us to integrate?
I think the interface allows the closed loop feedback u are referring to,
But I could be wrong..

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 14 Dec 2018 19:26

How would the interface allow close loop? The missile physically disassociate from the interface once it is fired (of course the first integration point is the interface that we have for 30mki and gotten for Rafael and trick it for Mirage2000). Now for mid course, the wireless communication between the missile and the plane (and its radar) has to happen for mid course correction. You will need the radar and the missile talking (i.e. integrate). That would be a closely guarded secret. Imagine if that info is public (R-77 anyone), you can then spoof the missile send a different command and misguide it. That is how a very sophisticated EW would work.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Dec 2018 19:53

fanne wrote:How would the interface allow close loop? The missile physically disassociate from the interface once it is fired (of course the first integration point is the interface that we have for 30mki and gotten for Rafael and trick it for Mirage2000). Now for mid course, the wireless communication between the missile and the plane (and its radar) has to happen for mid course correction. You will need the radar and the missile talking (i.e. integrate). That would be a closely guarded secret. Imagine if that info is public (R-77 anyone), you can then spoof the missile send a different command and misguide it. That is how a very sophisticated EW would work.

I assumed that interface is more than physical.
Why do we claim Astra has mid course correction.
Anyhow now my area of interest..just curiosity.

IR any comments?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 14 Dec 2018 20:24

Without having factual knowledge about the systems, just using engineering common sense - Assuming that the Radar - missile pair has capability compatibility with each other - If the radar is designed with open architecture in mind, it should not matter what kind of communication there is between the missile and the Radar, whether its through physical or data link medium. As long as the Radar has a well designed API and its available to the missile integrator, one should be able to integrate any missile with the Radar. All that the Radar OEM has to share is API. If one has no access to Radar source code and modifying Radar is no option, he can always modify the missile SW to be compatible so it communicates with Radar with available API. If the API is not available, still one can do the integration by reverse engineering the interface, only thing is it would be super time consuming. Ultimately its just two SW talking to each other.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7540
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 14 Dec 2018 20:29

Come on guys these are programming and networking 101.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Dec 2018 20:48

IR I am not one of those two gentlemen.

So a crash course on this as you did with Aerodynamics some moons ago would not go amiss.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Lalmohan » 14 Dec 2018 21:16

JayS - avionics and weapons systems are not usually designed to be open architecture. there are a lot of reasons - security being one. but just in terms of performance - speed, weight, power consumption, etc., there is a lot of hardware and firmware optimisation before even thinking about the software. as a result, open ness and integration abilities are sacrificed due to the bespoke nature of the end product. therefore its not as simple as lashing a bunch of desktops together even if conceptually that's all you are doing

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby JayS » 14 Dec 2018 21:31

I guess ADA didn't get the memo...

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby fanne » 14 Dec 2018 21:45

guys aren't we in uncharted territory here. I don't want to know any confidential info unless it is common snese and obvious.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7540
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 14 Dec 2018 22:28

None of this is confidential. In fact it is quite generic to all A2A missiles and a little bit of common sense.

If the radar on the aircraft has to communicate to the radar on the missile, there has to be a communication channel, physical or ethereal (the latter is called a datalink). Of course, once the missile is airborne, it can't be a physical link. A data link can be unidirectional (fighter to missile) or by birectional (fighter to missile and missile to fighter). The later is more uncommon and is part of only very advanced missiles. As long as the missile and the radar agree on an interface, protocol of communication, and encryption, it is CS101.

Lalmullah, you are right. The "open" in open architecture is not as plug-and-play like the other CS world. There are obvious reasons for it: not just security, but also obfuscation. But, if the radar maker and missile maker agree to make things work, it is not that difficult either.

Also, the radar and the missile should be contemporary in capabilities, otherwise things will be left out on the table. That's not the case with Astra and 2032/2052.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 521
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby souravB » 14 Dec 2018 22:44

IR has already explained it beautifully but just for the sake of better understanding let me give my 2 paisa.
Think as two cogs/gears in a machine. Either side of the machine from the two cogs doesn't care what is on the other side.
The teeths of any one or both of the gear can be modified to work with each other and with desired performance depending on various factors.
How to modify the teeths and what changes required by the respective connected shaft to the gear can be proprietary and confidential and thus can done by the manufacturer.
Now if a manufacturer make both the gears, he can make the teeths compatible. For separate manufacturers it has to be made compatible.
Now replace the cogs/gears with methods/functions in APIs, teeths with parameters/argument and shaft with rest of the source code for the APIs.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7636
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Rakesh » 14 Dec 2018 22:47

fanne wrote:guys aren't we in uncharted territory here. I don't want to know any confidential info unless it is common snese and obvious.

If there is anything I can vouch for IR, it is this ----> nothing he says is confidential. Everything is open source. IR is a smart man. All Izz Well :)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4372
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Kartik » 15 Dec 2018 00:01

Gyan wrote:Our target should be that LCA must be better than Indian upgraded Mig21s & Chinese copy of Mig21s, Rest is bonus.


What is the point of such posts? :roll:

The Tejas is way beyond what the Bison or J-7s are capability wise, that there is no point discussing how much of an improvement it is over these types. And if you don't know what those capabilities are, then maybe you should read up first and post later.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests