Indian Military Aviation

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Sep 2010 09:39

On a different track. i was just wondering whether SARAS is much heavier than Dornier for same payload/range class, could it be due to the fact taht SARAS has pressurized cabin while Dornier 228 does not have pressurized cabin>?

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 09 Sep 2010 11:28

sum wrote:Posting in this thread because of the quoted statement from the article:
Changing face of Russia-Pakistan ties

The Sochi summit also dimmed India's hopes of gaining a strategic foothold in Tajikistan. India and Russia had planned to jointly use the Ayni airfield, which India helped to renovate, but Indian presence there looks doubtful now in the context of the emerging Russia-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Tajikistan axis. India will, of course, remain Russia's close friend and strategic partner, but it will have to learn to live with the new Russian-Pakistani bonhomie, just as Russia has taken in its stride India's entanglement with the U.S.
There ends the wet dream of a IAF jhapad from Tajik side into Pak!!!

The tone of the article seems to suggest the Russkies are mighty pi$$ed with the SDRE!!?

This happened simply because of the Indian strategic planners not giving much importance to the cenrtal asian states and Russia. MMS and his Pro US attitude has already pissed of the russians. Russia is a friend which we cannot afford to loose.

The whore is now flirting with the panda, sam and the bear at the same time lets see how far they will go.

sorry for going OT

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Sep 2010 12:49

Indian Air Force to Procure 59 Additional Russian Mi-17 Helicopters

The Indian Air Force will receive an additional 59 Mi-17 helicopters from Russia strengthening the medium-lift fleet. This will be in addition to the 80 ordered in 2008 and will be used to replace older choppers in the existing fleet, reports the Times of India.

This proposal has been cleared by the Defence Acquisition Council and will be on the table for clearance from Cabinet Committee on Security.

Russia will commence the first deliveries of the 80 ordered in 2008 by the end of this year and delivery of the entire order will be phased out over the next four years. These choppers will improve capabilities of the Indian Air Force in carrying out high-altitude and relief missions.

Russian companies (along with Israeli companies) account for a bulk of Indian defence deals and the traditional close ties have not only continued but have grown in recent years in a mutually productive and constructive manner.

References:
-- Times of India
-- Wikipedia
-- Bharat-Rakshak.com

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4504

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 09 Sep 2010 13:29

HAL, UAC to Jointly Develop Multi-Role Transport Aircraft

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) will co-develop a Multi-Role Transport Aircraft according to agency reports quoting India Strategic magazine. The governments of India and Russia have each sanctioned USD $300.35 million for this project.

A new company, with a base capital of USD $700.70 million, will begin work on developing the Multi-Role Transport Aircraft. The arrangement is said to be similar to the BrahMos venture which has already become hugely successful not only in military and defence capabilities but also in commercial terms.

Initial orders from Russia and India are expected to be 105 and 45 respectively. The formal charter documents are expected to be signed later this month quotes IANS.

The aircraft is said to be suitable for civilians and military purposes and has a great export potential.

India and Russia have traditionally enjoyed good strategic and defence relations. In recent years these relations have not only grown but have evolved to a new paradigm based on commercial partnerships.

Aircraft Specifications
The aircraft could be powered by Russian-made Aviadvigatel PD-14 turbofan engines attached to top mounted wings, and has a T-shaped tail. The cabin size will be the same as the Ilyushin Il-76 but will be half the length. The payload will be 18.5 tons of military or civilian cargo, with a range of 2500 km and a speed of 870 km/h.

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4505

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Sep 2010 00:02

Found this video on youtube that shows a Jaguar taking off from what is truly, a rough field ! Amazing to say the least since its the first time I've seen such a rough field take off for a fast jet.

Clearly illustrates the reason for those big, hulky main landing gear and twin tire arrangement..

Youtube video

and this video shows similar footage, but also shows the old moving map display and shows the Jag landing on a rough field..

Youtube video 2

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 10 Sep 2010 00:29

At 2:20 in video2 above i m pretty sure the pilot would have had his heart in the mouth.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Sep 2010 02:37

suryag wrote:At 2:20 in video2 above i m pretty sure the pilot would have had his heart in the mouth.

Why? I would say it is a nicely executed crosswind landing!

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 10 Sep 2010 03:44

India, Russia Finalize Transport Aircraft Project

India Strategic

India, Russia Finalize Transport Aircraft Project
By Gulshan Luthra
Published: September 2010

New Delhi. India and Russia have Finalized Arrangements to Jointly Develop the Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) with Each Side Pooling in US $300.35 Million.

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), the country’s highest authority on security policies headed by the Prime Minister, sanctioned the Indian contribution last month while sources in Moscow told India Strategic that the Russian government had already done the needful.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will now set up a subsidiary company to develop the aircraft. The Formal Charter Documents between the Two countries were Finalized Sep 9th during discussions with a Visiting Delegation from Moscow.

The new company, with $600.70 million in its kitty, will begin work on developing the MTA immediately.

HAL Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) Ashok Nayak told India Strategic that India would acquire 45 aircraft and Russia 105. There would be Scope though for Exporting this aircraft, both for Civil and Military use, and more MTAs Could be Manufactured.

For MTA, the two countries had signed the Inter-governmental Agreement in November 2007 after Indian Defence Minister A K Antony visited Moscow.

The MTA would be designed to carry between 15 to 20 tonnes of cargo or between 80 to 100 trrops/ passengers.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 10 Sep 2010 09:13

Now that is good new indeed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2010 09:20

we need 300 yesterday.

the meaty legs, good thrust in a2a load and high intakes of Rafale might also impart some degree of AGL capability no?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Sep 2010 10:17

The PD-14 engine looks like a nice turbofan engine and probably the key USP for MTA.

Hopefully besides the MTA we can look at powering our own 100 seater regional transport aircraft considering an advanced variant of PD-14M is used for MS-21 civil aircraft.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Sep 2010 14:06

Would be interested to know the exact work share arrangement like who will do what ?

Russia and India sign JV to co-design Medium Transport Aircraft

AGREEMENT FOR SETTING UP OF JVC FOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIROLE TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT SIGNED

The effort to design and develop a Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) by India and Russia received a significant boost with the signing of shareholders agreement for setting up of a joint venture company, here last night.

A Joint Venture will now be formed between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Russian Partners namely United Aircraft Corporation & Rosoboronexport to Co-develop and Co-produce Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA).

MTA is a 15-20 tonne payload capacity Aircraft which would meet the requirement of the Indian Air Force and the Russian Air Force. The project has been approved by both the Government of India and the Government of Russian Federation.

The main features of MTA are: Maximum take-off weight 65 tonnes, Payload Capacity 15-20 tonnes, Cruise Speed 800 kmph, Range 2500-2700 km, Service ceiling 12 km. The Aircraft will have two engines, state of the art features such as fly-by-wire, full authority digital engine control, modern avionics and glass cockpit.

The total development cost is around US $ 600.70 million (approx Rs.2900 crores) to be equally shared by both the sides. It is planned to manufacture 205 aircraft with 50:50 work share between HAL and the Russian partners.

A Joint Venture Company (JVC) is being established with its headquarters at Bangalore, India for executing the MTA project in which HAL and Russian participants will have equal shareholding.

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Sep 2010 14:28

To go with the India Defence, India Strategic and Ajai Shukla’s blog versions posted above, the Ministry of Defence press release announcing that a shareholders agreement for establishing a Joint Venture to design and develop the Multi Role Transport Aircraft (MTA) has been concluded.

Let me hope that the setting up and full funding of the JV company is no where near as protracted:

Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
10-September-2010 11:30 IST

Agreement for Setting up of JVC for Design and Development of Multirole Transport Aircraft Signed

The effort to design and develop a Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA) by India and Russia received a significant boost with the signing of shareholders agreement for setting up of a joint venture company, here last night.

A Joint Venture will now be formed between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Russian Partners namely United Aircraft Corporation & Rosoboronexport to Co-develop and Co-produce Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA).

MTA is a 15-20 tonne payload capacity Aircraft which would meet the requirement of the Indian Air Force and the Russian Air Force. The project has been approved by both the Government of India and the Government of Russian Federation.

The main features of MTA are: Maximum take-off weight 65 tonnes, Payload Capacity 15-20 tonnes, Cruise Speed 800 kmph, Range 2500-2700 km, Service ceiling 12 km. The Aircraft will have two engines, state of the art features such as fly-by-wire, full authority digital engine control, modern avionics and glass cockpit.

The total development cost is around US $ 600.70 million (approx Rs.2900 crores) to be equally shared by both the sides. It is planned to manufacture 205 aircraft with 50:50 work share between HAL and the Russian partners.

A Joint Venture Company (JVC) is being established with its headquarters at Bangalore, India for executing the MTA project in which HAL and Russian participants will have equal shareholding.

PIB

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 10 Sep 2010 15:12

Mannnnnnnnn the amount of time they took to finalise the JV!!!!!!!!!! This aircraft should have been flying by now.

Wonder how many years they will take to finalise the JV for the FGFA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Sep 2010 15:31

the initial proposal came up in 2000, a decade ago!!

a website has the following claim:

IAPO chairman Aleksei Fiodorov says suitable engine candidates are a derated version of the PermPS-90A,
a higher thrust version of the ZMKB Progress D-436 and the Rolls-Royce BR715.

---
cost and specs willing, the PS90A would impart commonality with our new IL76, MLUed older IL76 (if they can still be
kept a while longer). to some extent would permit composite 'transport wing' type units with a hi-lo mix of IL76 and MTA
to be co-located wherever its most suitable and use common engine service crews.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Sep 2010 19:30

Singha I believe the PD-14 engine is at least a generation ahead compared to PS90A , but I agree with the logistics and maintenance advantage that PS-90A offer.

Can some knowledgeable soul offer some technical insight on the engine issue for MTA and which is a better choice between the two ?

PS-90A http://www.avid.ru/eng/products/civil/ps-90a/
PD-14 http://www.avid.ru/eng/advanced-develop ... ional_Jet/

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 11 Sep 2010 01:23

India, Russia to Ink gen-5 fighter pact

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ct/407746/

Late on Thursday evening, in a triumph for the Russia-India defence relationship, the two countries signed off on a joint venture to co-develop a 15-20-tonne payload, 2,500-km range multi-role transport aircraft (MTA), which will replace the Indian Air Force’s venerable AN-32 at the end of the next decade.

But this path-breaking $600-million co-development of the MTA is likely to be dwarfed soon, when India and Russia each pledge $6 billion to co-develop the world’s premier fighter, a step ahead of the US Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, which currently rules the skies.

Russian and Indian negotiators have finalised a preliminary design contract (PDC), a key document that will allow designers from both sides to actually begin work on the fighter.

“The respective work shares have been agreed to by both sides and once we sign the preliminary design contract, we will finish the design in about 18 months. Developing and building the fighter could take 8-10 years, and each side will pay $6 billion as its share.”

The Russian and Indian Air Forces each plan to build around 250 fighters, at an estimated cost of $100 million each. That adds up to $25 billion, over and above the development cost.

Russia initially offered India partnership in the fighter programme around eight years ago, but there was little clarity then on crucial issues like work-share, ie, what systems and components each side would develop

India’s work-share for the joint fighter programme, according to HAL officials, will amount to about 30% of the overall design effort. This will centre on composite components and high-end electronics like the mission computer, avionics, cockpit displays and the electronic warfare systems. Additionally, India will have to redesign the single-seat PAK-FA into the two-seater fighter that the IAF prefers. Like the Sukhoi-30MKI, IAF prefers one pilot flying and the other handling sensors, networks and weaponry.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 11 Sep 2010 02:05

They complain about the expenses on domestic development projects that are delayed due to constantly changing specifications. But throw money at others!

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Sep 2010 05:54

Will Russia be flying any 2-seat variants at all?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Sep 2010 06:10

JTull wrote:They complain about the expenses on domestic development projects that are delayed due to constantly changing specifications. But throw money at others!

$6 billion at HAL and other Indian companies.

What I am not sure of, and in fact a little concerned about, is how does "ToT" work in this case. Seems to me that there are two teams that have different responsibilities and overlap in some areas. So, I have to assume that Russians will design and built-out the engine (and rightly so). However, will India get some or all of the IP for that?

Whatever, India seems to be rather content with whatever has been agreed to. Support is needed to move forward - as fast as possible. 8-10 years seems to have moved that goal post by a few years - a topic that did arise in the past few weeks.

It seems to me that there will be a PAK-FA and a FGFA - with common elements but different enough to keep the users happy.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 Sep 2010 06:25

Half the budget and 30% of the work. Are they sure that it has the internal volume to be able to deploy with substantial A2G weapons load.

India’s work-share for the joint fighter programme, according to HAL officials, will amount to about 30% of the overall design effort. This will centre on composite components and high-end electronics like the mission computer, avionics, cockpit displays and the electronic warfare systems. Additionally, India will have to redesign the single-seat PAK-FA into the two-seater fighter that the IAF prefers. Like the Sukhoi-30MKI, IAF prefers one pilot flying and the other handling sensors, networks and weaponry.

If this is the case then what happens to the domestic FGFA project. Is it going to be another HF 73.

Cause surly the IAF dose not have budget resources to develop both

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 11 Sep 2010 09:02

Cross-posting from another thread .. PAKFA: India, Russia Likely to Sign Co-Development Agreement in December 2010

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2010 09:48

the indian comp seems hardly better than our contribution to MKI project.

no part in engine and radar means Rus will always hold the whip in the marriage. if we were tasked to develop and manufacture some parts of the engine
and radar for all the planes then our leverage would be much better . .. for instance although EJ200 is a RR designed product initially, MTU makes
the fadec and cold sections while RR does the hot section and a italian co makes the afterburner nozzle iirc.

we have no choice in the engine, but if given no ownership of the radar, we should totally discard the radar and on indian version go with a scaled
up EL2052 version modified to our requirements. we can keep the wing mounted L-band panels etc.

this kind of choice needs to be sorted out and signed off BEFORE even a single rupee changes hands. there must be guarantees the Rus will
extend co-operation freely to integrate all our avionics incl EL2052 into our plane without delays and gorshkov style games.

a stealthy IRST developed in india with israeli involvement should replace the OLS crapware they tend to peddle around.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Sep 2010 10:02

Ameet wrote:India, Russia to Ink gen-5 fighter pact

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ct/407746/

“The respective work shares have been agreed to by both sides and once we sign the preliminary design contract, we will finish the design in about 18 months. Developing and building the fighter could take 8-10 years, and each side will pay $6 billion as its share.”

The Russian and Indian Air Forces each plan to build around 250 fighters, at an estimated cost of $100 million each. That adds up to $25 billion, over and above the development cost.

India’s work-share for the joint fighter programme, according to HAL officials, will amount to about 30% of the overall design effort. This will centre on composite components and high-end electronics like the mission computer, avionics, cockpit displays and the electronic warfare systems. Additionally, India will have to redesign the single-seat PAK-FA into the two-seater fighter that the IAF prefers. Like the Sukhoi-30MKI, IAF prefers one pilot flying and the other handling sensors, networks and weaponry.

AMCA will go the LCA & Arjun way. While we have allocated only US$ 1 billion for AMCA but we are ready to spend US$ 6 Billion for Russian planes. The technology for PAKFA will ultimately end up in China. So we are funding our arch nemesis.

Note that there is no colloboration on engines, gearbox, fuel injection system, FBW, radar, IRST, ejection seats, actuators, landing gear, hydraulics etc which represent 90% of any fighter aircraft. This is same way we have been taken to the cleaners in Brahmos, T-90 deals.

Now the last point is whether US$ 6 billion will be spent in India or we will pay the Russians to agument their own R&D a our expense. I can bet my last dollar that all work will be done in Russia. Things will go overbudget and our contribution will increase to US$ 10-15 Billion. AMCA will be killed like Arjun/LCA vs T-90/Su-30MKI. All the money will go to Russian labs and nothing will be setup in India.

manum · Post by **manum** » 11 Sep 2010 10:08

ya, eurojet example perfectly suits pakfa...

India's will contribute to roughly 30% of the design effort. This will center on composite components and high-end electronics like the mission computer, avionics, cockpit displays and the electronic warfare systems.In addition, India will have to redesign the single-seat PAK-FA into the two-seater fighter that the IAF prefers.

is this is what is written...

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Sep 2010 10:12

Singha wrote:the indian comp seems hardly better than our contribution to MKI project.

no part in engine and radar means Rus will always hold the whip in the marriage. if we were tasked to develop and manufacture some parts of the engine

and radar for all the planes then our leverage would be much better . .. for instance although EJ200 is a RR designed product initially, MTU makes
the fadec and cold sections while RR does the hot section and a italian co makes the afterburner nozzle iirc.

we have no choice in the engine, but if given no ownership of the radar, we should totally discard the radar and on indian version go with a scaled
up EL2052 version modified to our requirements. we can keep the wing mounted L-band panels etc.

this kind of choice needs to be sorted out and signed off BEFORE even a single rupee changes hands. there must be guarantees the Rus will
extend co-operation freely to integrate all our avionics incl EL2052 into our plane without delays and gorshkov style games.

a stealthy IRST developed in india with israeli involvement should replace the OLS crapware they tend to peddle around.

Agree with everything you say. We dont even get to make simulaters!

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 11 Sep 2010 10:54

a stealthy IRST developed in india with israeli involvement should replace the OLS crapware they tend to peddle around

So they tend to "peddle" around crap OLS now do they? As opposed to what Super Dooper OLS that India or for that matter Israel has potentially developed? Their fighters had the first modern OLS mounts in the world and newer OLS on aircrafts like MiG-35 are a generation ahead.

On second thoughts why go to these crapselling "peddlers" for anything at all? Lets just keep riding our high horses.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2010 11:18

russia is a country thats lagging behind by around 10-15 years behind the best of breed in the area of laser designator and EO pods. that should tell even the selectively deaf something important. to what extent has the sapsan pod seen battle experience unlike the atflirs and litenings of the world?

I believe they were even importing french catherine thermal imagers for their tanks?

they do not have a single world class uav like breaper or ghawk not due to lack of engine or aerospace expertise but due to
lack of eo/radar sensor packages in right capability and form factor. bars radar sar mode lags well behind western radars.

no need to make a H&D issue out of it - lets accept that not every country is the best in everything nowadays.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2010 14:35

The Indian Regional Transport Aircraft, Turbofan Variant Gets A Makeover

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2010 14:50

shukla wrote:Will Russia be flying any 2-seat variants at all?

Yes the Russians will be flying single and twin seater else why would they invest $6 billion in the project ? similarly as previously reported IAF will initially operate the single seater PAK-FA which will roll out by 2015- 16 initially till such time the twin seater FGFA takes shape and starts rolling out from production line that should be 2018-2020.

Most likely the twin seater program will use the new 5 gen engine plus a 2.5D Flat TVC nozzle giving it an all aspect stealth , compared to the current single seater PAK-FA will uses gen 5 minus engine and circular 3D nozzle lacking all aspect.

At $12 billion if what Ajai says is true this will be an expensive R&D project with many prototypes and gives a fair idea how much it takes to design and build a 5th gen fighter.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 11 Sep 2010 16:09

Austin wrote:
shukla wrote:Will Russia be flying any 2-seat variants at all?
Yes the Russians will be flying single and twin seater

Thanks Austin.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Sep 2010 16:31

Austin wrote:..........

Most likely the twin seater program will use the new 5 gen engine plus a 2.5D Flat TVC nozzle giving it an all aspect stealth , compared to the current single seater PAK-FA will uses gen 5 minus engine and circular 3D nozzle lacking all aspect..............

I find that people are much taken with flat nozzles. However, I would not be surprised if the flat nozzles are not included in even the later versions of PAK-FA. Russians have experimented with flat nozzles and found that they come with their own share of problems.
Victor Mikhailovich Chepkin (Designer General of Saturn) interview

In the late 1980s, we were engaged in the development of the flat nozzle too and conducted a thorough research. The Ufa-based Motor Scientific Production Enterprise under the guidance of Chief Designer Alexei A. Ryzhov manufactured an experimental flat nozzle that underwent a series of tests. The conclusions were as follows. Presently, the flat nozzle has two inherent snags which, in principle, have not been dealt with yet. Firstly, the turbine is round but the nozzle is flat with a distance between them being small. The distance cannot be increased because this would lead to an increase in the overall length of the aircraft, a loss of thrust, etc. While transforming the circular gas stream into the flat one, the nozzle, developed by Mr. Ryzhov, was losing 14-17% of thrust. Unfor-tunately, the gas stream cannot be "bent" as we would like it to. It has its own laws too. So far, no one has managed to transform the circular gas stream into the flat one without losing thrust. The very same snag was hit by the Americans in developing their F-117 featuring a non-afterburning engine. Such engines lose approximately 15% of thrust too. However, the F-117 is a specialised Stealth aircraft with the main requirement of ensuring "invisibility". It does not need a real good thrust/weight ratio. That is why the Americans put up deliberately with an unavoidable loss of thrust but benefited from reduced signatures.

Secondly, the other primary problem is weight. The circular TVC nozzle produces only tensile stress while the flat one exerts bending stress as well. Those stresses require special measures to be taken to ensure the nozzle strength in order to avoid deformation of the nozzle. Those measures mean additional weight. The flat nozzle made of metal is heavier than the circular one by approximately half a tonne. Mind you, the whole AL-31FP fitted with its circular swivel nozzle weighs a little bit more than 1500 kg only. So, the use of a flat nozzle implies an extra tonne at the rear of a plane (two-engine are meant here, which make up the most of modern fighters). The problem can be circumvented through the use of the "carbon-carbon" materials which have low specific weight and can stand high temperature. But they burn in the end anyway, since they are based on the very same coal. Nobody has solved the problem of preventing carbon-carbon units from burning during their operation as part of an aircraft engine. Currently, such materials covered by a thick layer of fire-resistant ceramics are used only in manufacturing the control surfaces of rocket engines. The latter are actually disposable since their operation never exceeds 40-50 seconds while an aircraft engine service life amounts to 1,000 hours or more.

So, the problem of ensuring an effective long-term protection of the non-metal nozzle is still to be solved. Thus, development of the flat nozzle encounters two problems - the loss of thrust (and it is not resolved even in theory) and the extra weight. With those two problems in mind, we stick to the circular nozzle.

So, everyone may not find flat nozzles such a good idea. If the IR signature can be sufficiently reduced by mixing exhaust with cold air, the dual penalty of thrust loss and weight increase in flat nozzles may prove a greater drawback than its worth.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2010 17:50

so the gee whiz thrust specs of f22 should likely be considered 15% effectively less. explains why they went for such a powerful twin engine in a fighter and relatively unimpressive airshow moves?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2010 17:57

Gaur , thats an old 98 interview . I will respond on the 2D Nozzle in PAK-FA Thread

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 11 Sep 2010 18:08

Ok, enough of bashing for not having work share in radar and Engine...

But the best thing will be to give a solution... Unkil???

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Sep 2010 18:12

Singha wrote:so the gee whiz thrust specs of f22 should likely be considered 15% effectively less. explains why they went for such a powerful twin engine in a fighter and relatively unimpressive airshow moves?

I always found F-22 airshow moves impressive the raw thrust and the slow speed handling was quite good.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2010 18:43

it was probably flying empty though....the ef in farnborough was carrying a considerable a2g payload.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Sep 2010 19:21

Singha wrote:russia is a country thats lagging behind by around 10-15 years behind the best of breed in the area of laser designator and EO pods. that should tell even the selectively deaf something important. to what extent has the sapsan pod seen battle experience unlike the atflirs and litenings of the world?

The question can be flipped around as well. To what extent have the IRSTs of the west seen deployment either in exercise or conflict? The PIRATE dual band IRST is yet to be fully ops ready per AFM and still needs software work. The French ditched the FLIR component of their OSF because of obsolescence and are still working on newer IRST...whereas the Russians have kept their OLS development going on.

The latest products are from NII PP and UOMZ both Russian institutes, with the former used for the MiG-35 and Indian MiG-29K, and the latter a comprehensive rework of original designs.
http://www.aviapedia.com/video/new-mig-35-ols-video
http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ ... amily.html

A few years back, when Indian aircraft faced off against USAF F-15's, the Sukhois used their IRSTs to conduct passive attacks repeatedly against the Americans, frustrating them. So who has the years of product maturity advantage on their side?

I believe they were even importing french catherine thermal imagers for their tanks?

Not necessarily a one to one comparison here. South Africa makes very decent Thermal Imagers, but how many IRSTs do they have to their credit? When Gripen went shopping for one, they went to Selex Systems not Kentron, despite the Avitronics & SAAB history and familiarity with the South African industry, or even Israel. Point is to go for a firm which had relevant experience, as Selex did with Pirate.

The Latest Russian IRSTs used on the MiG-35 and Su-35 both use a combination of TV Imagery (for high resolution ID) and IRST, only the Rafale, amongst newer aircraft has something similar.

Another thing often ignored about the Flanker is the size and volume available to systems that are placed on it. The larger sized aperture available for sensor systems often translates to performance equal or superior to systems with more so called sophisticated technology but much more critical size constraints. If we look at the Russian Su-27SM upgrade, with moderate investment in the older generation N001 radar, they were getting performance similar to much later APG-68s on F-16s. In contrast, when the USN wanted IRST on their F/A-18 E/F, they have had to accomodate that in a fuel tank, now what happens to airframe maneuvering limits and how many tanks do you need to procure?

they do not have a single world class uav like breaper or ghawk not due to lack of engine or aerospace expertise but due to
lack of eo/radar sensor packages in right capability and form factor. bars radar sar mode lags well behind western radars.

The reason the Russians are lagging in UAVs is because UAVs come with a system of systems approach, with multiple developments required in airframe (light structures), light, compact powerplants, autonomous control with long range datalinks for data transmission, etc. Its not just sensors. If that is all that mattered, the Russians have managed to pass that threshold a while back. They do have lightweight radars and EO payloads. The system of systems mindset is very hard to develop, and takes time and expertise innot just developing the technology but in how it is to be employed and then plugging those requirements back to development. The Israelis are world leaders in this area, as they had to develop reconnaissance assets with scarce resources. The US followed thereafter, as it is its wont, by putting in huge resources. The Russians at their peak, operated one of the world's largest and most formidable Airforces with reconnaissance variants of the MiG-25, 23, Su-7/17/24 and so forth, with entire regiments. UAVs were not an essential requirement for them. Now they are playing catchup. Give them time & they will have good products.

Your information about Bars is also wrong. The Bars SAR mode (3*3 mtr sq) is pretty ok and compares to Israeli radars (2032 etc), the best the current European/American radars achieve is 1 Sq Mtr (some, especially the European radars are still work in progress whereas the Russians finished the Bars, have moved to the Irbis, with AESA already in advanced development). The Irbis, actually uses the same technology for SAR mode mapping, as is on the APG-80 which is on the Block 60 F-16 E/F UAEAF aircraft and offers the same resolution. The APG-80 was still being matured as of a couple of years back and the APG-79 was also having issues but a couple of years ago in software maturity and fixing, so the time lag between the Russian product and the American best in class systems is hardly that great.

It just reflects prioritization. The Russians were focused on air to air and BVR, where long range performance is the determiner, and came late to the multi-function game but have caught up fairly fast. They came from a mindset of having dedicated aircraft for each task, the swiss army knife concept is something they have adopted in the 80's and 90's.

As matter of fact, the Israeli systems are much touted, but if they were indeed that good, why did the IAF not choose for an Israeli radar in the MiG-29 or Mirage 2000 upgrade. They have the mechanically scanning Israeli radar on their Jaguars after all, and should know what the AESA one in development is capable of. This leads to certain conclusions, that versus the Mechanical scanning radar on the Jaguars (even if smaller the IAF has the details available), the Russian, French systems were comparable & that the AESA system is not yet ready and requires funds and time to mature.

Claims that Russian OLS is "crapware" and that the Israelis can develop a stealthy IRST (when they dont even have a single one to date) are not credible. Current Su-35 IRST (OLS-35) claims to detect an afterburning aircraft (Flanker, F-15) at at least 90 Km, or 50 km from the front. Actual ranges are likely to be substantially higher as exact, established maximal performance is never revealed in publicity material. 50 km ranges up are very credible & offer active BVR capability, if coupled with a quick radar transmission for range finding, and can still offer tactical surprise. For WVR, it has an integrated LRF as well.

no need to make a H&D issue out of it - lets accept that not every country is the best in everything nowadays.

Yes, true but underestimating Russian capability is not the right approach either. In the recent exercise with France, the French pilots were very impressed with the MKI radar performance. Once the IAF Super-30 upgrade takes place, its fair to state it will match or even exceed many of the latest AESA/gadget equipped western aircraft in terms of performance.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 12 Sep 2010 00:49

Dear Karan M you have captured almost everything I wanted to say on this matter. While the Americans did pioneer the IRST first on the F-102 Delta Daggers the first modern systems only appear on MiG 29 and Su27 in 1980s and that was a generation old system. But you know how it is nowdays if its Russian its gotta be crap isnt it. They dont get gloated over in all those glossy magazines anyway so they must be crap. I remember reading in some PDF document that the IRST in MiG 35 is infact, a very advanced piece of equipment with direct inputs from Russian space prgramme and I am pretty sure that PAKFA will have a similar system.

However the bigger issue is that we just brand the Ruskies as peddlers of crap and what not and still want their PAKFA. Hardly the way to go about it one might say.

AND Mr Singha Sir I am most certainly NOT deaf, selective or otherwise.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Sep 2010 01:42

Thanks - yes, the MiG-35 IRST was developed by NII-PP institute which previously worked on the Russian space program. Details are given in the Aviapedia link and other link above.

I am fairly sure that with a projected $12 Bn R&D spend on the PAK-FA, at this late stage, when many critical systems/technologies are already available, albeit in prototype form, the final product will be very potent, and something the Europeans let alone the Israelis, will not be able to match in terms of many technologies.