Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 14 Aug 2020 05:05

Rakesh wrote:
veejey wrote:I am looking for a scaled down model of Tejas to keep it on my desk. Is there any availability of such model? If yes, where can I get it?
https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/lc ... 17897.html

isnt it quite high? is it due to low volumes or high specification? ..at one of the def expos i asked this to a HAL guy ..and even if he would sell..he said there are many vendors in kanpur HAL/IIT area that would make it for 500 or 1000..but that might be on lower side..

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Aug 2020 13:08

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/columns ... ssion=true

Uttam Ready

The home-grown Uttam Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar developed by Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) seems to be making the right moves to get the attention of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

With the addition of AESA radar being one of the key features of Tejas MK1A, LRDE hopes that Uttam can even meet the schedules of the upgraded programme.

It has already completed more than 100 hours of flying on a hired aircraft and nearly 25 hours on Tejas test platforms. It is now confirmed that Uttam’s air-to-air mode and its sub-mode functionalities have been already tested.

Uttam is in competition with the Israeli Elta radar and the official word is not yet out on the question of how many Tejas MK1As (total 83) will be fitted with the desi technology.

LRDE scientists are pinning their hopes on the Aatmanirbhar Bharat mandate.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 16 Aug 2020 13:40

Aditya_V wrote:https://www.onmanorama.com/news/columns ... ssion=true

Uttam Ready

The home-grown Uttam Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar developed by Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) seems to be making the right moves to get the attention of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

With the addition of AESA radar being one of the key features of Tejas MK1A, LRDE hopes that Uttam can even meet the schedules of the upgraded programme.

It has already completed more than 100 hours of flying on a hired aircraft and nearly 25 hours on Tejas test platforms. It is now confirmed that Uttam’s air-to-air mode and its sub-mode functionalities have been already tested.

Uttam is in competition with the Israeli Elta radar and the official word is not yet out on the question of how many Tejas MK1As (total 83) will be fitted with the desi technology.

LRDE scientists are pinning their hopes on the Aatmanirbhar Bharat mandate.

Question for aviation experts:

Can Uttam be inducted with A2G mode not completely ready in combat AC?

nam · Post by **nam** » 16 Aug 2020 13:57

IAF will not accept it. Period. They have far too many options available from foreign vendors.

I believe it is having issue during some of the fighter specific flight profile. It was tested on a business jet, which obviously cannot replicate such profiles.

The prototype was ready for flight testing in 2017, waiting for a LCA platform to fly. After 2 years they got one in 2019! For a 3T GDP, our R&D spend on testing platforms is a joke. It may have been ready by now, if LCA was available in 2017.

No one bothered to have one Su30 as a flying test bed, despite producing them in hundreds.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 16 Aug 2020 13:59

nam wrote:IAF will not accept it. Period. They have far too many options available from foreign vendors.

I believe it is having issue during some of the fighter specific flight profile. It was tested on a business jet, which obviously cannot replicate such profiles.

The prototype was ready for flight testing in 2017, waiting for a LCA platform to fly. After 2 years they got one in 2019! For a 3T GDP, our R&D spend on testing platforms is a joke. It may have been ready by now, if LCA was available in 2017.

No one bothered to have one Su30 as a flying test bed, despite producing them in hundreds.

Say the IAF accepted it. Would it be advisable?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Aug 2020 14:06

I guess there are 3-4 parts to this question:

1. How long will the A2G modes take to be completely deployment ready, tested, and certified? 2 yrs? 3 yrs? 4?

2. How many Tejas aircraft will be manufactured by then? 15? 20? Also, how much longer after manufacture will they take to be placed into combat squadrons?

3. Once in sqn service, how reasonable is it to expect that the Tejas will be tasked for ground attack or strike support? Are there other combat squadrons with other aircraft types (Su-30, Mirage, Rafael, etc) that will have priority for those roles in enough numbers?

4. If a retrofit is needed to enable A2G modes on deployed A2A only Uttam radars, what would that entail? Just a software patch? Minimal hardware upgrades? Or an entire new radar with aircraft requiring to be shipped back to HAL for retrofit?

Basically, how many aircraft will be impacted, and by how much?

If the impact can be minimised, and the maximum conceivable deployment time for A2G modes is, say 2 yrs and 15 aircraft produced by then, we absolutely should put the Uttams on them now. I am of course assuming that all the A2A functionality is done (Look-down modes, clutter suppression, STAP, etc), and the hardware and system architecture for all modes is finalized and fabricated, requiring only minor patches to incorporate A2G and SAR modes.

No reason NOT To have a radar that can do the job needed of the aircraft, with a high-confidence promise that upgrades will be forthcoming in a timely fashion, with very little pain.

nam · Post by **nam** » 16 Aug 2020 14:08

ks_sachin wrote: Say the IAF accepted it. Would it be advisable?

If the capabilities are at acceptable level for IAF, then I don't see any issues. IAF would probably want to make sure, the pending capabilities are software changes, rather than major hardware. The full version of Bars on Su30 was accepted only in 2012! 15 years after induction. I don't expect such dariya dil from IAF with local platforms.

Anyways by the time MK1A is available in the next 3 years, I am sure Uttam would be available as well. I saw somewhere, LRDE is planning to offer replacing the 2sqd MK1 radar with Uttam as MLU.

Raghunathgb · Post by **Raghunathgb** » 16 Aug 2020 15:15

Forget mk1A. There are 40 IOC and FOC Tejas fighters on which uttam can be fitted even if entire 83 mk1a go to elta.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Aug 2020 21:43

nam wrote:IAF will not accept it. Period. They have far too many options available from foreign vendors.

I believe it is having issue during some of the fighter specific flight profile. It was tested on a business jet, which obviously cannot replicate such profiles.

The prototype was ready for flight testing in 2017, waiting for a LCA platform to fly. After 2 years they got one in 2019! For a 3T GDP, our R&D spend on testing platforms is a joke. It may have been ready by now, if LCA was available in 2017.

No one bothered to have one Su30 as a flying test bed, despite producing them in hundreds.

Why do you make such speculative posts? Most fighter radars begin with tests on business aircraft. That does not mean it has issues - it means it is being worked up and modes being added. There are flight test engineers, radar engineers onboard the aircraft checking each piece of software functionality. Only once that is completely done is it installed on fighters to simultaneously test the mode for higher speeds as on fighters. In short Uttam does not have "issues", its being worked up sequentially exactly as programs worldwide do.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Aug 2020 03:36

Raghunathgb wrote:Forget mk1A. There are 40 IOC and FOC Tejas fighters on which uttam can be fitted even if entire 83 mk1a go to elta.

I loved this post.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 17 Aug 2020 03:59

Karan M wrote:
nam wrote:IAF will not accept it. Period. They have far too many options available from foreign vendors.

I believe it is having issue during some of the fighter specific flight profile. It was tested on a business jet, which obviously cannot replicate such profiles.

The prototype was ready for flight testing in 2017, waiting for a LCA platform to fly. After 2 years they got one in 2019! For a 3T GDP, our R&D spend on testing platforms is a joke. It may have been ready by now, if LCA was available in 2017.

No one bothered to have one Su30 as a flying test bed, despite producing them in hundreds.
Why do you make such speculative posts? Most fighter radars begin with tests on business aircraft. That does not mean it has issues - it means it is being worked up and modes being added. There are flight test engineers, radar engineers onboard the aircraft checking each piece of software functionality. Only once that is completely done is it installed on fighters to simultaneously test the mode for higher speeds as on fighters. In short Uttam does not have "issues", its being worked up sequentially exactly as programs worldwide do.

Karan

How complex is A2G?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Aug 2020 04:13

Pretty sure this has been posted on the forums, but thought it'd be useful to rehash

Video from Feb '20... D. Seshagiri.

1. 18 modes total - ALL modes shown on Executive Jet. 10 modes shown on LCA (A2A).

2. A2A and A2Sea also validated and in service on AEW&C.. this suggests a good level of interoperability between Uttam-equipped Tejas and the AEW&C.

3. A2G tested on Dornier A/C in different band radar. Based on the algorithm performance, don't foresee Only need A2G and A2Sea to be shown on the 'more agile' LCA, with the stabilizing algorithm due to higher maneuvrability and speed.

4. A2A mode - needed another 30 hrs of sorties on LCA for testing completion (Most likely done by now).

5. By EOY '20, All radar modes will be tested ('completed') on LCA. This timeline was anticipated last year as well.

Post testing, will require user testing and a second round of improvements (should be almost all software and maybe some subsystem improvements, so expect it to not be too much time) - the expectation is production clearance in 2022. Expediting A2A-ready Uttam on deployed will require concurrent user testing and validation of the A2A modes, but that'll require a few Uttams to be produced ASAP, and installed on 2-3 validation aircrafts. If we do this, it could give us a 1-2 year headstart on Uttam integration into Tejas, with the expectation that upgrades will follow.

Also see https://idrw.org/uttam-aesa-fcr-to-be-c ... n-in-2021/ has some production timeline details too

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Aug 2020 04:24

How complex is A2G?

@Sachin-ji... sorry to jump in on this question, but I thought I could offer some info (my PhD area of work, after all

).

A2G is hard! Ground clutter, especially at long ranges is a huge problem.

With look-down A2A modes, it is somewhat possible to mitigate that because a reasonable expectation is that the aerial targets being tracked have doppler signatures distinct enough from the clutter ridge that they'll show up on the Range-Doppler map. Space-time Adaptive processing can further help reduce clutter effects and bring out weak targets that might lie close to the clutter ridge. Then you have N-number of tricks over and above that with Machine Learning, pattern recognition, and optimization to find R-D pixels that are non-random (i.e, potential target).

With A2G modes though, the objects to be detected are moving quite slowly (relative to aircraft speed), and end up almost always lying on or very near to the clutter ridge. This requires long observational dwell (number of pulses), so that you have enough Doppler resolution. Even then, In such cases, tuning the CFAR algorithm is quite a tough task... you can't keep the threshold too low, else the algorithm will throw up a lot of false-positives, and overload the tracking processor, but too high a threshold and you'll end up missing true targets on the ground. And this is even before we take into account Jamming and interference.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 17 Aug 2020 05:15

k prasad wrote:
How complex is A2G?
@Sachin-ji... sorry to jump in on this question, but I thought I could offer some info (my PhD area of work, after all ).

A2G is hard! Ground clutter, especially at long ranges is a huge problem.

With look-down A2A modes, it is somewhat possible to mitigate that because a reasonable expectation is that the aerial targets being tracked have doppler signatures distinct enough from the clutter ridge that they'll show up on the Range-Doppler map. Space-time Adaptive processing can further help reduce clutter effects and bring out weak targets that might lie close to the clutter ridge. Then you have N-number of tricks over and above that with Machine Learning, pattern recognition, and optimization to find R-D pixels that are non-random (i.e, potential target).

With A2G modes though, the objects to be detected are moving quite slowly (relative to aircraft speed), and end up almost always lying on or very near to the clutter ridge. This requires long observational dwell (number of pulses), so that you have enough Doppler resolution. Even then, In such cases, tuning the CFAR algorithm is quite a tough task... you can't keep the threshold too low, else the algorithm will throw up a lot of false-positives, and overload the tracking processor, but too high a threshold and you'll end up missing true targets on the ground. And this is even before we take into account Jamming and interference.

Thanks K Prasad. No Ji for me please.

So IAF will have to hedge its bets.....

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Aug 2020 06:53

Basically... But if A2A modes, including look-down search, track and targeting modes have been validated at high speeds and high G maneuvers (especially, maintaining target lock and beam stabilization during high-G manoeuvres), that should good enough for CAP deployment, as long as there's really good datalink and battlefield network connectivity with other assets, and the SPJ, RWR and other self protection systems are integrated and ready to go.

The question is whether the Tejas integration testing done so far is limited to just ensuring that it's working on the platform, or if it has been rigourously tested under various operational scenarios and flight envelopes. At high angles, the gain is reduced, so noise and clutter become a problem, but in an operational setting, that is precisely the point when you want the radar to be capable (during the turn-after-missile-firing or during BVR evasive maneuvers).

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Aug 2020 09:39

Raghunathgb wrote:Forget mk1A. There are 40 IOC and FOC Tejas fighters on which uttam can be fitted even if entire 83 mk1a go to elta.

Or the Su-30MKI mid life upgrade across the fleet

The Mk1A program will be delayed if a just developed radar is put into it without ironing out production glitches.

It can also lead to a possibly bad user experience that will negatively impact receptiveness towards MWF and TEDBF.

The IOC and FOC Mk1 have Elta 2032 that are brand new and taking them out of squadron service for refit will create a negative perception around availability.

A good risk mitigation would be to start with small batches of earliest 2002 delivered Su-30MKI. Those radars are close to 20 years old and will need replacement.

Another good risk mitigation exercise would be to put it on a platform with proven flight characteristics like Su-30MKI compared to the still entering service LCA.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Aug 2020 09:57

We jump to expensive, foreign solutions when dealing with the slightest uncertainty with domestic products. Our record in dealing with imported products is a little different. The MKI was an unproven integration but there were no qualms about paying for them 100% in advance. That decision and gamble turned out better than the gamble on the 29ks that will be needing replacements earlier than planned. Also, i think that the Kopyo on the bisons was also in a similar state - unproven but was bought because it was Roosi. The Talwars were purchased with Shtil AD systems that were not functional (missing their targets). The T-90s were purchased with the Shtora system perhaps not proven. I think that the most aircraft start in this way - the Rafale's radar had its modes cleared one by one too.

If India wants to avoid development risks and learning then it can never be a builder, or a power that it dreams to want to be. Radar tech is not the mystery it was in the 40s and 50s. So the Uttam must be given the chance to prove itself.

But in my humble opinion, India has already missed on great power status - this is visible in the RM running around begging vendor nations for timely delivery to help in fight against the Cheenies!. The time was ripe in the past decade with several weapon systems ready. If Arjun had gone into productions with 1000+ on order, what a large amount of domestic jobs would have been created and several important lessons in manufacturing would have been learnt. If the LCA had been cleared with the HAL radome and no IFR, maybe a 100 LCAs would have been around now and perhaps Abhinandan would have gone into battle in a Tejas. But it seems that our grandchildren will be arguing on the benefits of domestic production in 2050.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 17 Aug 2020 10:06

tsarkar wrote:
Raghunathgb wrote:Forget mk1A. There are 40 IOC and FOC Tejas fighters on which uttam can be fitted even if entire 83 mk1a go to elta.
Or the Su-30MKI mid life upgrade across the fleet

How likely is this ? Since it's going to take a few years to iron out and get the radar certified , even if you made a few old MKI available and ran testing in parallel with Tejas . In other words, what are the considerations for getting it on the MKI upgrade across the fleet ? (I've given up understanding any logic of intent,timeline, status ...there)

Also, BTW Saurav Jha, in talking about Uttam being scalable, suggested it for the Mig29K upgrade in future. This seems eminently reasonable to me

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Aug 2020 10:10

Sharing some thoughts on pilot career progression

Typically a young pilot's promotion prospects improves as he logs in more hours in operational flying.

Flying in squadrons with newly inducted aircraft that have downtime due to unforseen glitches leads to reduction in operational hours and that doesnt look good on the pilot's CV.

Hence pilots typically dont like squadrons with newly inducted aircraft.

With a Rafale or Su-30MKI, the aircraft would have flown many 1000's of hours in their home air forces. So atleast the OEM or home country might know solutions to problems that arise vis-a-vis something that is developed for the first time and the developer and producer need to do R&D to fix the problem.

There may be outlier cases like the Jaguar solenoid story but in most cases the OEM and home country air force will encounter the problem earlier due to more flight hours put in by them.

Giving an example from IT, if a developer spends time learning .net, Java, Cobol, Python and is not deployed on billable projects, his organization isnt going to love him no matter how gyani he becomes. The more a person delivers on a billable project and generates revenue makes him more valuable to the organization and improves his promotion prospects.

Serving on new ships and new aircraft is seen as detrimental to career due to time spent ironing out teething issues.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Aug 2020 10:13

Vivek K wrote:If the LCA had been cleared with the HAL radome and no IFR, maybe a 100 LCAs would have been around now and perhaps Abhinandan would have gone into battle in a Tejas.

Vivek ji, sending Abhinandan to battle with the lossy radome would be to send him to battle with myopic eyes rather than 6/6 vision.

Assuming a warrior has perfect muscles and strength, if his eyesight is poor, then muscles become irrelevant since the opponent will exploit the weak eyesight.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Aug 2020 10:25

Barath wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
Or the Su-30MKI mid life upgrade across the fleet

How likely is this ? Since it's going to take a few years to iron out and get the radar certified , even if you made a few old MKI available and ran testing in parallel with Tejas . In other words, what are the considerations for getting it on the MKI upgrade across the fleet ? (I've given up understanding any logic of intent,timeline, status ...there)

Also, BTW Saurav Jha, in talking about Uttam being scalable, suggested it for the Mig29K upgrade in future. This seems eminently reasonable to me

The Su-30MKI has the most number of operational hours in IAF and its flight characteristics & other systems are very well known. Aircraft like MiG-29K are still ironing out issues or have just left their issues behind and taking up more operational commitments.

Hence Su-30MKI is best suited to take Uttam to service the fastest. Like it took Astra to service the fastest.

Putting Uttam on MiG-29K or Tejas is a bad idea since any issues/delays in either the platform or systems will compound on Uttam leading to further delay in entry to service.

The Astra is the classic example of mating an experimental system on proven aircraft to expedite development.

If you mate an experimental system on an experimental aircraft, their glitches and associated time to resolution will compound the delays.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Aug 2020 10:26

Really? You think so - the Kopyo was better than the LCAs current radar? The radome problem was resolved and fleetwide replacements would have been made. Holding up orders and production - you think it was wise? It was certain that the Chobham radome would come (just like the MKIs and the 29Ks that were unknown items at the time of orders being placed). It was certain that there weren't enough refuellers (even now that is unchanged) for the IAF to use for the entire fleet. So was it a wise decision in hindsight to hold production off for these two items?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Aug 2020 10:33

Vivek K wrote:So was it a wise decision in hindsight to hold production off for these two items?

Would it have been a wise decision to build aircraft with lossy radomes or no radomes? And send them to combat like that?

IFR was a FOC criteria and IOC production was not held up. Also every IAF & IN aircraft with the exception of MiG-21 is IFR capable. Unless one wanted to keep the LCA retarded and stunted, IFR capability was required for it to grow into maturity. And IFR work was done on Sea Harrier, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 by IN and IAF engineers, so the work wasn't unique to ADA or HAL.

It all depends on whether one wants a retarded kid or healthy kid. Most normal people want healthy kids.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Aug 2020 10:58

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So was it a wise decision in hindsight to hold production off for these two items?
Would it have been a wise decision to build aircraft with lossy radomes or no radomes? And send them to combat like that?

IFR was a FOC criteria and IOC production was not held up. Also every IAF & IN aircraft with the exception of MiG-21 is IFR capable. Unless one wanted to keep the LCA retarded and stunted, IFR capability was required for it to grow into maturity. And IFR work was done on Sea Harrier, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 by IN and IAF engineers, so the work wasn't unique to ADA or HAL.

It all depends on whether one wants a retarded kid or healthy kid. Most normal people want healthy kids.

Tells the story of India. Hold up your products that can make it till they're perfect - or die trying to meet your moving goalposts. And the Cheenies that India is most concerned about have gone about it somewhat differently - in military production and otherwise. But that is for another time. India will perhaps never be a builder.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 17 Aug 2020 11:34

tsarkar wrote:Sharing some thoughts on pilot career progression
Giving an example from IT, if a developer spends time learning .net, Java, Cobol, Python and is not deployed on billable projects, his organization isnt going to love him no matter how gyani he becomes. The more a person delivers on a billable project and generates revenue makes him more valuable to the organization and improves his promotion prospects.

Not always true.
We have center of excellence team, where being billable is not measured as his/her KPI nor is it part of KRA. That resource utilizes his/her domain expertise as an SME, from Sales/ Pre Sales to detailed design and delivery.
This is found mostly with mature organizations, as most companies now days abhor the concept of even having a bench.
Penny wise Pound foolish.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 17 Aug 2020 12:06

tsarkar wrote: Giving an example from IT, if a developer spends time learning .net, Java, Cobol, Python and is not deployed on billable projects, his organization isnt going to love him no matter how gyani he becomes. The more a person delivers on a billable project and generates revenue makes him more valuable to the organization and improves his promotion prospects.

Serving on new ships and new aircraft is seen as detrimental to career due to time spent ironing out teething issues.

This is completely counter-intuitive, and the metaphor used is not correct.

The correct IT metaphor would be that typically the brightest minds are set to work on new product development. Working on sustaining projects is not the best thing for one's career.
The forces should similarly put their best people on new platforms and this should be seen as a career-enhancing move. Anyone can fly/operate proven platforms with well-defined operating and maintenance manuals.

ShivS · Post by **ShivS** » 17 Aug 2020 13:26

tsarkar wrote:
Putting Uttam on MiG-29K or Tejas is a bad idea since any issues/delays in either the platform or systems will compound on Uttam leading to further delay in entry to service.

The Astra is the classic example of mating an experimental system on proven aircraft to expedite development.

If you mate an experimental system on an experimental aircraft, their glitches and associated time to resolution will compound the delays.

This is so true. We discovered it during the early years of the LCA between 2000 and. 2009 - only when the decision to delink the radar and the engine form the Tejas were taken was substantive progress made.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 17 Aug 2020 14:36

tsarkar wrote:
...Putting Uttam on MiG-29K or Tejas is a bad idea since any issues/delays in either the platform or systems will compound on Uttam leading to further delay in entry to service.
...

If you mate an experimental system on an experimental aircraft, their glitches and associated time to resolution will compound the delays.

I think you misunderstood the point. The Tejas (mk1) and Mig29K upgrades are most suitable because there is no immediate critical need to have it deployed there the fastest.

ie The target for Uttam is likely Tejas Mk2 /AMCA/whatever, but it can be ported over to Mk1 and 29K at a suitable time. They don't have to be the launch platforms for Uttam ["in future"]. You can say with clarity that Mk1 and 29K will be upgraded only to Uttam without compromising on radar/upgrade maturity.

And obviously we are discussing other platforms like MKI

tsarkar wrote: Hence Su-30MKI is best suited to take Uttam to service the fastest. Like it took Astra to service the fastest.

Yeah, but who said taking Uttam to service the fastest is the only goal ?

India has multiple platforms, and there can be multiple objectives to be balanced out. Timeline, force, effectiveness,cost etc In order to have "best" results from the overall fleet

The MKI may get Uttam integrated (certified?) faster, but what's the right decision for upgrading the entire MKI fleet ?

Do you want to wait out and postpone/cancel every MKI upgrade with Russian radar and integration as a result ? Are there more attractive options from Russia ? Risk reduced options ? How do you balance out things like the MKI being the backbone of the Air Force, maintain Force levels, being arguably overdue for an upgrade, trying to avoid split upgrade resulting in multiple configurations, having to have the rest of the upgrade package ready , possible needs for more power. etc.

Also, you mention that the MKI may be best understood. Is the Tejas airframe not more available ? Is the avionics architecture not newer and control over that better (leading to faster iteration and less waiting for the rest of the upgrade package ? ) ? Once you get a radar matured on one platform, would not scaling it to other platforms be easier. ?

I guess those are what I wanted to ask about originally. Not just maturing Uttam but upgrading the fleet platforms and deploying Uttam along with that.

Not from a stance of knowing all the answers but from trying to get insight.

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 17 Aug 2020 15:21

nam wrote:IAF will not accept it. Period. They have far too many options available from foreign vendors.

I believe it is having issue during some of the fighter specific flight profile. It was tested on a business jet, which obviously cannot replicate such profiles.

The prototype was ready for flight testing in 2017, waiting for a LCA platform to fly. After 2 years they got one in 2019! For a 3T GDP, our R&D spend on testing platforms is a joke. It may have been ready by now, if LCA was available in 2017.

No one bothered to have one Su30 as a flying test bed, despite producing them in hundreds.

It will get accepted soon. We have more experience with Radars then any other area specially then it comes to becoming atmanirbhar. May I request you from using strong words like "Period", may we all eat a humble pie because you were proved wrong.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Aug 2020 16:18

Wrt the Su-30 test bed for Uttam, it might not have made sense for a number of reasons. For one, gow easy/difficult would it be to integrate Uttam into Su-30? Would it have been easier than just putting it on another LCA? Plugging in a new radar isn't as easy as plugging in a new weapons system. No point wasting time to integrate Uttam into a new test bed. The Su-30 isn't as easy to work with compared to a business jet test bed specifically tailored for easy customisation, or the LCA platform that we have full control over, and for which the Uttam is specifically designed (esp on the radome). By the time we get a sqn service Su-30 out for testing duties, put the Uttam into it, calibrate it, and have it ready for testing, we will have new LCA testbeds ready. Not worth the extra effort.

In terms of actually deploying Uttams into Su-30, given the size of the Radome, a much larger array should be able to fit in. Why put a 2 liter engine into a car that can handle a V8? I'm not saying this to denigrate the Uttam. Quite the contrary. Just saying if we want to get full paisa vasool on Su-30, it'll require a larger array front end, which isn't a simple software change, or even just slapping on extra TRMs. The entire array architecture, feed lines, cooling, EMI/EMC need to be updated, which involves system-wide work. It's definitely easier than developing in a whole new radar, but the work involved is not inconsequential. Parallel development of a larger array can begin while the current Uttam is nearing end of testing (to reduce risk), and then work on getting the new Uttam tested and put into Rambhas as they go in for MLU.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 17 Aug 2020 17:04

Thanks for the details about A2G modes, k prasad!

I'd like to understand the risk, if any, of inducting MK1a with Uttam (without the A2G mode). There are no AESA aircraft in our inventory, barring the Rafales. So, what's the problem in inducting Uttam in 1 mode, ironing out issues and add the A2G mode later.

If its a purely software change, adding the mode later would be relatively easy. Otherwise, it can come as part of the MLU

Insisting that Tejas Mk1a *must come* with AESA (A2A + A2G) is a bit rich, considering that it was dubbed a 3-legged-cheetah not too long ago

I'd in fact argue that a certain # of Mk1a orders must be reserved for the Uttam variant, another % for Elta 2052 and the last % for the winner of the two. By the time the last batch of Mk1a rolls out, we will know which radar performs better, while giving Uttam enough time to iron out issues & demonstrate its A2G capabilities

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Aug 2020 23:34

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.i ... 730/%3famp

Mentions a timeline of 2024 for the first Mk1a Sqn to be built, with 16 a/c produced per year thereafter. If Uttam stays on track for a 2022 deployment readiness, there should be no reason why at least the last 3 sqns, to be built starting 2024, cannot have the Uttam.

Satheesh Reddy last year suggested that Uttam would be ready for the Mk1a. Hopefully, DRDO pushes for that, and walks the walk if given the chance.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Aug 2020 00:49

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So was it a wise decision in hindsight to hold production off for these two items?
Would it have been a wise decision to build aircraft with lossy radomes or no radomes? And send them to combat like that?

Yes, if this is better than what is present at hand, then the answer to your question is a big YES. Under all conditions even with the lossy Radomes, Tejas with its IOC radar is better than the Bison/Kopyo radar. You can check open source on how much loss the older radomes were causing.

tsarkar wrote: IFR was a FOC criteria and IOC production was not held up. Also every IAF & IN aircraft with the exception of MiG-21 is IFR capable. Unless one wanted to keep the LCA retarded and stunted, IFR capability was required for it to grow into maturity. And IFR work was done on Sea Harrier, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 by IN and IAF engineers, so the work wasn't unique to ADA or HAL.

It all depends on whether one wants a retarded kid or healthy kid. Most normal people want healthy kids.

As you said yourself, IFR work was done into all these "retarded kid" planes. Same could have been done with Tejas. Here is a plane with a solid safety record, better equipment and better flying performance than the Mig 21, and yet the IAF seems to favor flying the older, riskier "widow maker", "flying coffin" equipment putting all those pilots at risk.. does seem counter intutive.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Aug 2020 00:53

k prasad wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.i ... 730/%3famp

Mentions a timeline of 2024 for the first Mk1a Sqn to be built, with 16 a/c produced per year thereafter. If Uttam stays on track for a 2022 deployment readiness, there should be no reason why at least the last 3 sqns, to be built starting 2024, cannot have the Uttam.

Satheesh Reddy last year suggested that Uttam would be ready for the Mk1a. Hopefully, DRDO pushes for that, and walks the walk if given the chance.

Prasad Sir, what are the typical targets that are engaged by an A2G radar?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Aug 2020 01:02

Sid - there is a double standard that runs so deep that some of the folks don't even realize their bias.

The services buy a lot of equipment that is not let's say "operational" at the time of delivery due to shortcomings in technology. I have listed them (shtil Air Defence system with the Talwar Frigates, I think the Shtora missile firing system for the T90 had to be tweaked after purchase, the MKIs were paid for 100% in advance while the design was on paper, the 29Ks were purchased from brochures and did not last as hoped).

The services need training on why buying local is advantageous. I volunteer Cmmdr Mao (IN test pilot for NLCA) to perform the training for service brass and procurement staff. Importing equipment requires large spares inventories, faces difficulty in operating with obsolescence like the Mig-21s did. The demise of the soviet union made spares purchase difficult leading to loss of men and machines. Investing in local equipment overcomes these issues. India should invest in a test bed for the Kaveri and Uttam.

One great result of the BRF is greater consciousness amongst Indians about the benefits of swadeshi - a goal that still remains elusive. People now understand that imports = shipping Indian jobs overseas.

SidSoma · Post by **SidSoma** » 18 Aug 2020 01:24

Vivek K wrote:Sid - there is a double standard that runs so deep that some of the folks don't even realize their bias.

The services buy a lot of equipment that is not let's say "operational" at the time of delivery due to shortcomings in technology. I have listed them (shtil Air Defence system with the Talwar Frigates, I think the Shtora missile firing system for the T90 had to be tweaked after purchase, the MKIs were paid for 100% in advance while the design was on paper, the 29Ks were purchased from brochures and did not last as hoped).

The services need training on why buying local is advantageous. I volunteer Cmmdr Mao (IN test pilot for NLCA) to perform the training for service brass and procurement staff. Importing equipment requires large spares inventories, faces difficulty in operating with obsolescence like the Mig-21s did. The demise of the soviet union made spares purchase difficult leading to loss of men and machines. Investing in local equipment overcomes these issues. India should invest in a test bed for the Kaveri and Uttam.

One great result of the BRF is greater consciousness amongst Indians about the benefits of swadeshi - a goal that still remains elusive. People now understand that imports = shipping Indian jobs overseas.

Very Nice post Sir. Just One line in it stands out

"The services need training on why buying local is advantageous."

Why? Are our military leaders blind to this fact that real strength comes from within? IN to a large extent has worked with Indian industry to make home grown tech, how is a different standard applied to the other services. May be weightage needs to be given to indigenization when selecting Service Chiefs and higher command. After 74 years they too must be made to answer as to what is their contribution to indigenization. I see the slow change and wish it was faster.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 18 Aug 2020 01:34

SidSoma wrote:Very Nice post Sir. Just One line in it stands out

"The services need training on why buying local is advantageous."

Why? Are our military leaders blind to this fact that real strength comes from within? IN to a large extent has worked with Indian industry to make home grown tech, how is a different standard applied to the other services. May be weightage needs to be given to indigenization when selecting Service Chiefs and higher command. After 74 years they too must be made to answer as to what is their contribution to indigenization. I see the slow change and wish it was faster.

If they weren't blind, and they continued on the path of buying foreign, then you should perhaps read the CAG's report on the Pilatus acquisition to figure out the "why"

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 18 Aug 2020 01:55

Folks you are all going OT here, will lead to posts being poofed and warnings issued. Please take the discussion to the relevant thread.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 Aug 2020 02:40

SidSoma wrote:Prasad Sir, what are the typical targets that are engaged by an A2G radar?

There's quite a lot of OSINT info about this, SidSomaSaar. https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab04.en.html has some decent info... think of pretty much any target that might need to be attacked on the ground - buildings, bunkers, airfields, vehicles, tanks, ships, SAM sites, Ground Radars, etc etc. Some of those can be targetted with LGBs or other munitions with other sensors (such as targetting pods) without the need for a radar, but others like vehicles, ships, or active Radars would be better detected and targetted with a radar. Assuming the LCA is limited to CAP duty till the A2G modes are integrated, the risk from these threats during CAP sorties is not as high as in, say, strike missions.

However, the important functionality within the A2G mode that might be required even in A2A modes is the terrain following radar.

That said, I don't have expertise or knowledge of what the operational needs are, so what I'm saying is all guided conjecture.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Aug 2020 02:48

k prasad wrote: There's quite a lot of OSINT info about this, SidSomaSaar. https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab04.en.html has some decent info... think of pretty much any target that might need to be attacked on the ground - buildings, bunkers, airfields, vehicles, tanks, ships, SAM sites, Ground Radars, etc etc. Some of those can be targetted with LGBs or other munitions with other sensors (such as targetting pods) without the need for a radar, but others like vehicles, ships, or active Radars would be better detected and targetted with a radar. Assuming the LCA is limited to CAP duty till the A2G modes are integrated, the risk from these threats during CAP sorties is not as high as in, say, strike missions.

However, the important functionality within the A2G mode that might be required even in A2A modes is the terrain following radar.

That said, I don't have expertise or knowledge of what the operational needs are, so what I'm saying is all guided conjecture.

Even without all A2G modes available on the radar, the Litening pod will still enable some A2G missions. As for Radar's on the ground, they would be detected by the RWR if they are emitting and best targeted by an ARM, which will not require the use of the aircraft's radar IMO.