LCA News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 18:25

tsarkar wrote:Chacko, you are getting personal, and I'll ignore that aspect of your post. You're completely missing my overall message, and I have communicated enough information. I'll leave it to readers to form their opinions from my statements.



Ok, I am regretting my personal comments.

Can you please now answer to the factual comments I made?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 08 Mar 2011 18:57

Chacko, with full respect to your zeal and enthusiasm, I have nothing more to add.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 19:08

tsarkar,

fair enough. I will also end the argument in disagreement. With all due respect, as you put it, I did not see the merit in your original argument that LCA designers should have budgeted for weight and IAF did not change its requirement.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 08 Mar 2011 19:15

Not sure where you get these specs from, but the ones I know is atleast 100 km for 5 m sq target, that is pretty normal even in 1985.


Followed by

As also the Phazotron N019E Sapfir 29 in the MiG29 delivered late 80s / early90s to guide the SARH R-27 to 70 odd km.


tsarkar, so the timelines are shifting wrt the range from mid 80s to late80s/early 90s? It represents a spectrum from min of 3-4 years to a 5-7 at max right?

Form various sources on the net weight of this radar comes around 350 Kgs. I haven’t got a very reliable source but this figure is the average of what I saw at various places on the net. isn’t it double the weight of LCAs radar? I am sure it will be bigger as well.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 19:40

AOA

Weight of Zhuk

The Zhuk has a weight of 220 kg and uses a 680mm electronically scanned slotted planar array antenna which offers a detection range of 90 km against a target with a 5 m2 radar cross-section (RCS). The radar can track 10-12 targets while engaging 2-4 of them with a scanning area of +/- 90 degrees in azimuth and +55/-40 degrees in elevation;[3] its power output was rated at 5 kW peak.[4]

Zhuk-MS (Export Designation Zhuk-MSE): The radar has a weight of 255 kg and a scanning area of +/- 85 degrees in azimuth and +56/-40 degrees in elevation.[5]

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 08 Mar 2011 20:01

Can someone please make me understand as to how people reached the conclusion that IAF asked for 130kg weight radar?Thanx.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 20:06

It is not 130 KG. Its not possible. That's why I gave that zukh link.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 20:15

Hmmm... 2032

Weights: Max Weight 100 kg (220 lb)

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 08 Mar 2011 20:17

P Chitkara - My response was to Karan's claims that IAF was not used to 100 km radars in 1995 and radars of such ranges were available only in late 2000s (2010 to be precise) with Zhuk for MiG-29K/UPG and Kopyo for MiG-21 upgrade.

Fact was MiG-23MF (late 70s/early 80s), MiG-29 & Mirage radars (late 80s/early90s) were already in service, and IAF knew Bars and Kopyo performance 1993-1996. IAF was used to 100 km range radars more than 20 years before Zhuk entered service (late 80s - 2010). And Kopyo was never gold standard like Bars.

Weight is a separate question. Typical Sapfir weight were 220-250 kg, however ASR do not specify weight, only performance. Nor does IAF specify force fitting and vacuum sealing radar LRUs :-)

However, even 130 kg is not unheard of, the Elta 2032 designed in the 90s weighs between 70-100 kg, though Israeli's have Uncle Sams blessings. Italian Grifo for Fiza'ya weighs 120 kg http://www.selex-sas.com/EN/Common/file ... FAMILY.pdf Russian Kopyo weighs 105 kg. Almost every one of them is lighter than MMR 130 kg design weight, though only Elta exceeds 100 km range.

Capability/Weight ratio of Russian radars is always the poorest, because of lack of their advancement in electronics in the 80's and 90's, and Karan has used this fact to compare MMR design weight (130 kg) to Zhuk (250kg) rather than compare it to Elta 2032 (70-100 kg) :wink:

Please note design weight is arrived by ADA/developers based on capability requirements provided by IAF/user. Users specify only capability, not specifications. Range is a capability, weight is a specification derived from analysing the capability.

Added later - Sorry to upset the apple cart yet again, but 130 kg radar with force fitted LRUs is yet another example of overambitious design not supported by available technology. And since the nose structure could carry only 130-150 kg radar, Elta 2032 with LRDE antenna was the best bet.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... li%20Radar
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Mar 2011 20:32, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 20:27

This the same argument I remember for Arjun Tank. Army did not ask for 60 ton tank. But, the specifications led to 60 tons.

===========================

The radar weight calculation is something we need to work on. Zhuk is 200 odd and elta is just 100 kg. Someone has an idea?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 08 Mar 2011 20:46

^^ Very simple

If following US philosophy use advancement in software and microelectronics so that 84 kN F404 is good enough for overall low weight including 100-130 kg radar. (Tejas, Gripen)

If following Soviet/Russian philosophy, use bigger engine 122 kN Al-31F to compensate for the weight of bulkier systems including 240 kg radar. (J10) For all the 122 kN, I bet the J-10 cannot carry any more payload than Tejas. The Al-31F engine will suck fuel and decrease range/endurance like crazy.

Problem arises when we have Indian weight levels, ie wrong weights at wrong places, with American engine. Then you need 98 kN F414.
Last edited by tsarkar on 08 Mar 2011 20:58, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 20:55

^^^ Thanks.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 08 Mar 2011 21:01

chackojoseph wrote:This the same argument I remember for Arjun Tank. Army did not ask for 60 ton tank. But, the specifications led to 60 tons.

We are scoring a self goal here , that 60 ton tank has higher power to weight ratio and lower ground pressure psq" than the T-90 with latest 1100HP powerpack. Lets not bring Arjun into this.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 08 Mar 2011 21:15

negi wrote:We are scoring a self goal here , that 60 ton tank has higher power to weight ratio and lower ground pressure psq" than the T-90 with latest 1100HP powerpack. Lets not bring Arjun into this.


I was replying to
Please note design weight is arrived by ADA/developers based on capability requirements provided by IAF/user. Users specify only capability, not specifications.


This explanation has been the bane of all indigenous project. The same argument was put forward by both IAF and IA personnel when I spoke to them. Tsarkar brings in the same argument.

The DRDO personnel say that their specs led to weight and other issues.

I mentioned this in order to amplify the user - maker rift.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Mar 2011 21:24

tsarkar wrote:^^ Very simple

If following US philosophy use advancement in software and microelectronics so that 84 kN F404 is good enough for overall low weight including 100-130 kg radar. (Tejas, Gripen)

If following Soviet/Russian philosophy, use bigger engine 122 kN Al-31F to compensate for the weight of bulkier systems including 240 kg radar. (J10) For all the 122 kN, I bet the J-10 cannot carry any more payload than Tejas. The Al-31F engine will suck fuel and decrease range/endurance like crazy.

Problem arises when we have Indian weight levels, ie wrong weights at wrong places, with American engine. Then you need 98 kN F414.
Still better would have been to realize all this before starting the project, minimize the risks and go for a twin engined Kaveri @ 65 kN. The indigenous industry and the IAF and thus the nation would have been better off.

TSarkar: I get your critiques, what I do not get is why did the IAF walk off, so to say, until forced back in?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 08 Mar 2011 21:39

tsarkar wrote:Vina, nowhere in that document are structural changes mentioned.

It is in the very first line. There is no way in hell any plane can have a 2ton MTOW increase without strengthening. What they did was increase the percentage of composites from A/B to C/D. Per the info I have, it increased from around 25 odd % to close to 35% or so for the C/D model. In fact Saab Aero would be very very cross with you if you said that he Gripen is a "metal" plane. So lets put that piece of fiction to rest. It uses a lot of composites by any measure. Sure the Tejas uses more, but it does weigh less !

don’t need to google, those who operate and maintain the birds, as well as my own eyes have seen that Gripen ABCD isn’t 45% of weight in composites like Tejas is. And frankly, the Swedes do respect Indians for all-composite-wings-and-empennage decision, it was a bold and respectable decision from a development perspective, though risky and time consuming from a user perspective.


Well, the Gripen C/D is close to 35% or so. The Swedes went to BAe and got an all composite wing made for them. The composites were NOT risky . In fact that was the LEAST risky part of the LCA design. What was more risky was the FBW. But without that, you cannot have a modern plane. In fact, the Swedes used the same FBW vendor (Calspan) that India was using to develop the FBW (the swedes got it off the shelf) and despite being off the shelf , they had huge problems with the FBW which CALSPAN debugged and fixed for them.



I would have been impressed, Vina, if you used the words, better maneuverability, STR, payload, etc. The Gripen A/C still carries more useful load than Tejas Mk.1, despite Tejas Mk1 having “more powerful engine”

Oh no, it doesn't. The A/C have a 2 ton MTOW difference. In fact in the Gripen A, the forward fuel tank of close to 300kg was UNUSABLE, basically dead weight . So there you are! It got fully enabled only in C/D I think. In fact the A model of Gripen has LESS usable load than the MK1 , even on paper!. With the C version with full internal fuel, the useful payload is nearly the same as the Mk1!

If you want to be "impressed", well off the bat, without any further thing, just looking at T:W ratio and wing loading, the LCA Mk1 will easily out climb and out accelerate the Gripen A/B/C/D in a similar weight and fuel state! And given the dead fuel tank in front, the A/B versions (and also C/D) carry something like 400/500kg less internal fuel than MK1 leading to less endurance!

I will reserve my opinion until I can compare the actual performances of the Mk.2 vs NG
.
Well, who is talking about Mk2. Lets look at MK1 and it's current analog. All I am saying is that the MK1 is very very competitive and at FOC . So all that thing about "they used too much glue" kind of urban myths are misplaced. With that level of equipment and specs, the weights are pretty well managed. Could they do much better, sure, but that can come only after engineering feed back from operating it, just like the Swedes used nearly decade of field experience from A/B into the C/D!

Look around the other way, a designer designs a plane with similar capabilities knowing fully well no catapult is available. That too is an achievement!

Yeah. You cut up an old sari and stitch a shirt and say that is a great achievement, sure. At a system level, the Gorshkov/Mig29 combo will be had for breakfast by a similar sized Cat equipped carrier like the CDG or Foch launching Rafales. The point is that the Russians simply had never built a CAT and could put a limited capability system on the water. That it suffices for us is fine. But to make a virtue of it is stretching it.

The analogue system was not even considered by ADA. It is incidents like this,

How do you know that an off the shelf analog system would have worked perfectly without going through an entire development cycle ?. It didn't work for the Gripen without major problems!

We would have done double development. One for an obsolete Analog one and then again for a digital one and for what ?


You need to compare with Thomson RDM radar in service with Mirage 2000 in late 80s early 90s.

That was just a little step up from the continuous wave Cryanos of the earlier Mirage IIIs . The performance was no great shakes, it's A2A mode was actually inferior to the radars in the Mig 29As and there was lot of ground clutter thrown up in the A2G. It really wasn't the best out there by a long shot. All that was probably upgraded fixed subsequently.


Thomson RDM already had these modes and A2A performance in 80s & 90’s.

If you are talking about stuff like GMTI, SAR, ISAR and all the whiz bang A2G stuff, well it didn't.

Su-30 MKI package was signed in November 1996. Hence IAF knew the capabilities of the Kopyo and Bars very well in 1996.

The SU-30 MKI attained full capability only much later (in series III or something right) ? I doubt that the Bars had all those modes working or even if it was installed in a SU-27 back in 1996! We signed up for a development program which promised to bring those capabilities in at a future date!

So “No IAF fighter has had these features before Kopyo radar in late 2000's”

That part sounds pretty accurate to me.

The lifetime of an airframe is typically 20 years, extended to 30 by upgrades. Speculating if there was a metal+analogue FBW LCA 1990-2010 followed by a composite+digital FBW LCA 2010 onwards, the 1990-2010 birds could have aptly served the role that 18 Su-30K birds did from 1997-2007.


Nope . It is closer to 40 years. Why MRCA contest is seeing 2 airframes which debuted close to 40 years ago being quite competitve after 40 years and upgrades. No one produces anything for a production run of 18 aircraft. A metal+ analog plane would have been a complete waste of time and a severe duplication of effort when that effort could (and was) directed towards a plane that would be contemporary for a much longer time. Thank goodness we didn't do that thing in the 90s. The time to do that was in the late 70s/early 80s when they should have played around with an Ajeet or something and built an FBW version of that and proven the tech as the proposals that were put up at around that time showed (like the Brits did with a Jaguar and French with the Mirage III). That the IAF and MoD were hell bent of importing stuff and found any tech development wasteful and superflous meant that the tech development had to be done in a TD program for the LCA!

Today, in my personal opinion, the first 20 tranche and the next 20 tranche should be completely trainers, used extensively, and retired when Mk2 enters service.


Why did the ACM not say Mig 21++. You can replace a couple of operational squadrons of Mig 21 right away :lol: :lol: . Why do you want to use them as trainers?

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Drishyaman » 08 Mar 2011 21:43

ShauryaT wrote: Still better would have been to realize all this before starting the project, minimize the risks and go for a twin engined Kaveri @ 65 kN.


Shaurya Ji,
Last heard Kaveri was generating a thrust of 72 - 75 kN.
And ADA is already having a project with twin Kaveri and they are calling it AMCA :wink:

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Baldev » 08 Mar 2011 21:47

chackojoseph wrote:This the same argument I remember for Arjun Tank. Army did not ask for 60 ton tank. But, the specifications led to 60 tons.

===========================

The radar weight calculation is something we need to work on. Zhuk is 200 odd and elta is just 100 kg. Someone has an idea?
as you all know nothing is available off the shelf which meets requirements according to our country so either we develop it on our own or pay to get such specs.

kopyo m has better range of 80km with 85kg of weight with 500mm antenna but what if the same set gets 625-650mm antenna which will result in better range of about 100km and this results in much lighter product compared to zhuk me to be fitted on mig29. now compared this with MMR. and this set would be lighter by 30 kg compared to MMR

or

getting kopyo m with 500-575mm diameter of aesa antenna for lca.

or

same thing for bars osa having bigger diameter of antenna result in better performance at some increase in weight but with simultaneous scan of air and ground.

but Russians will not do it on their own because they don't need it and if we ask them to do then the 'q' of $$$ arises.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53995
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 08 Mar 2011 21:51

Tsarkar:

Speculating if there was a metal+analogue FBW LCA 1990-2010 followed by a composite+digital FBW LCA 2010 onwards


In hindsight that should have been a risk reduction approach right at the begining. However recall the severe funding constraints in the early 90s would have killed it. And the bean counters would have whined about two different planes and the costs.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 08 Mar 2011 21:58

In hindsight that should have been a risk reduction approach right at the begining. However recall the severe funding constraints in the early 90s would have killed it. And the bean counters would have whined about two different planes and the costs.


That idea is a non starter. Today with a large % composite and a full digital FBW plane which compares very well with the closed competitor, we have the IAF chief whining and calling it a Mig 21++ . No way in hell any IAF chief would have accepted a plane from a domestic source which they would consider as "technologically obsolete" and reduced capability (note they will gleefully accept a less than full version/initial capability plane with promise to upgrade in future from a FOREIGN source gleefully.. case in point Mirage 2000 and SU-30 , both of which the intial versions India got had far less capability than the fully developed versions).

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby aditya.agd » 08 Mar 2011 22:01

From LCA experience, I think the Project Management discipline needs to be enforced in all DRDO projects. They should accept only those qualitative requirements which can be easily estimated in view of their existing capabilities.

IAF needs to be made aware the existing capabilities so that both users and developers can be harmonised and synergized. I am always a strong supporter of fighting & winning a war with our unique weapons. A great country like India cannot be made dependent on foreign technologies. British gave us the disease of foreign made goods.... etc etc..

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 08 Mar 2011 22:10

^^^ er... no, the whole point was to create brand new capabilities
otherwise we'd be making new maruts

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 08 Mar 2011 22:44

ramana garu has opened a serious line of thought there.. so that one may dig further to get more about our forces strategies. basically, if we don't jumpstart and leapfrog, we can never ever satisfy our forces. all products has to have a ++ suffix.

MMRCA++ -> AMCA
Su30MKI++ -> FGFA

So, they are actually giving DRDO a plenty of opportunity going for a -- aircraft, and providing DRDO a ++ opportunity. :D
Last edited by SaiK on 08 Mar 2011 22:45, edited 1 time in total.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Drishyaman » 08 Mar 2011 22:45

aditya.agd wrote:From LCA experience, I think the Project Management discipline needs to be enforced in all DRDO projects.

OT : :D In IT, it is applied, where 80% of SAP project are either considered failure or non starters. And professionals called PMPs are employed to produce garbage in form of xls and mpp.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3436
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 08 Mar 2011 22:57

^^^ are you hinting at program management or product management. Both are extremely different responsibilities, in the context of software companies IMO, the former is a study of what we are doing and how we are doing it to cut flab and streamline resource management while the latter, is an entirely different ball game dealing with reconciliation of customer aspirations and current capabilities

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby A Sharma » 09 Mar 2011 00:50


pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 09 Mar 2011 09:19

@tsarkar sir,

Added later - P Chitkara - As also the Phazotron N019E Sapfir 29 in the MiG29 delivered late 80s / early90s to guide the SARH R-27 to 70 odd km.


Weight is a separate question. Typical Sapfir weight were 220-250 kg,


please check out this link and i quote relevant parts -

N019 / Rubin / RPLK-29 / S-29 / Sapfir-29

The N019 radar weighs around 385kg in total.


A typical 3 sq m RCS fighter target can be detected at 50-70 km and tracked at 40-60 km. If the target is flying below 3,000m reduces the detection range to 40-70 km and tracking range to 30-60km.


http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su ... ionics.htm

now these run contarary to your claims. can you clarify for me -

1. weight - 385kg as against your claim of 220-250kg.

2. how it could guide an R 27 to 70km when the detection range is 50-70km and tracking range is 40-60km??

regards.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 09 Mar 2011 09:49

IIRC Gripen was developed by an integrated seamless single contract of R&D + 30 aircrafts rather than giving money in bits and pieces. I think that it is important to order enough LCA Mark-1 to keep production line running till 2018. Lets hope IAF does not do a Arjun on it like closed production line between 2011-15 till Mark-2 comes out. LCA mark-1 is good enough and we must order 60 Single seater, 20 twin seater trainers and 20 SEAD/EWs versions to be produced till 2018.

Thereafter from 2020 onwards Original Kaveri K-9+ equipped 120 LCA should be ordered as AJT/LIFT to augument and replace Hawks.

Did IAF ever explain why they did not show interest in HTT-35 before jumping up and down for quick imports of even the trainers??????

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 09 Mar 2011 10:01

Pragnya I am not sure if all the IAF Fulcrums are upgraded upto Fulcrum-C but iirc we don't have baseline N019E on our Fulcrums we have the export version of the Topaz M i.e Topaz ME or N019ME with some MKI giri done to fire the R-77s. The Topaz ME weighs around 350Kgs and has a tracking range of 70km against a fighter sized target i.e. frontal RCS of 3sq mtrs.

TSarkar perhaps got Zhuk-ME weight mixed up with the Topaz-ME.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 09 Mar 2011 10:16

negi wrote:Pragnya I am not sure if all the IAF Fulcrums are upgraded upto Fulcrum-C but iirc we don't have baseline N019E on our Fulcrums we have the export version of the Topaz M i.e Topaz ME or N019ME with some MKI giri done to fire the R-77s. The Topaz ME weighs around 350Kgs and has a tracking range of 70km against a fighter sized target i.e. frontal RCS of 3sq mtrs.


you may be right. but if you go thro' the article i linked in my post, it clearly says -

N019ME Topaz Export version of Topaz, slightly downgraded. All Indian MiG-29s have been upgraded to this standard.


IOW they are less capable versions which makes it even more difficult to accept tsarkar's claim of it guiding an R 27 to 70km!!

TSarkar perhaps got Zhuk-ME weight mixed up with the Topaz-ME.


agree with you.
Last edited by pragnya on 09 Mar 2011 10:20, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Mar 2011 10:17

India has ordered 40 F404s and 99 F-414s IIRC. Even with 20 spare engines that indicates an intention to have 120 aircraft using these engines - whichever that aircraft might be.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11564
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Mar 2011 10:17

negi wrote:Pragnya I am not sure if all the IAF Fulcrums are upgraded upto Fulcrum-C but iirc we don't have baseline N019E on our Fulcrums we have the export version of the Topaz M i.e Topaz ME or N019ME with some MKI giri done to fire the R-77s. The Topaz ME weighs around 350Kgs and has a tracking range of 70km against a fighter sized target i.e. frontal RCS of 3sq mtrs.

TSarkar perhaps got Zhuk-ME weight mixed up with the Topaz-ME.


All the Fulcrums initially delivered were Mig-29 A/B, we made a subsequent order for 10 which were Mig-29 C Standard.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 09 Mar 2011 10:36

Aditya I am aware of that but if my memory serves right somewhere in the late 90s we did upgrade the Fulcrum Radar and the FCS to fire the R-77s I am not sure if all the AC received it, as per Overscan from ACIG.org all IAF Mig-29s have been upgraded with the Topaz ME radar.

Pragnya all Russian weapons have a corresponding export version in this case the designation is 'E' . However I am not sure the degradation in the question is in terms of detention/tracking range with Radars the usual practice is to remove a mode or two or dumb down the SW to reduce the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 09 Mar 2011 11:11

negi wrote:Pragnya all Russian weapons have a corresponding export version in this case the designation is 'E' . However I am not sure the degradation in the question is in terms of detention/tracking range with Radars the usual practice is to remove a mode or two or dumb down the SW to reduce the number of targets that can be engaged simultaneously.


no disagreement and that is possible. but even if i take the standard russian version the ranges mentioned are 50-70km for detection and 40-60km for tracking!!! which means you can only fire at ranges below 60km in the best case scenario.

fwiw.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby negi » 09 Mar 2011 11:27

We are going OT here (mea culpa) but this is my last post on this, quoting BHarry from keypublishing

After the high profile Phazotron guy Alexander Tolkachev compromised the details of the avionics and radar fit on the Mig-23M,Mig-29,Mig-31 and A-50 to the west,the russians wanted big changes in radar and avionics suite on the respective aircraft if completely new fits were'nt out of the question.

Enter the N-019M Topaz.Instead of a twist cassegrain on the original N-019 Slot back,it uses a mechanically scanned slotted flat plate antenna.:eek: and the RLPK-29M radar aiming kompleks with Ts101 digital computer,SYeI-31-1E integrated display and SUO-29M4 armament control system.Phazotron's figures include a 75 km track in lookup and 65 km track in lookdown modes.(Compared to the ~80 km detect of a 3 sq.m target by a the Slot back).This system could also be offered with a ground mapping mode.

The Mig-29N/SD/SE differs in having the slightly downgraded RLPK-29ME radar aiming system and the N-019ME which was'nt really much differant from the original topaz.The OEPrNK-29-1E was untouched.Malaysian Mig-29Ns have ARN-139 TACAN and american ILS and IFF.

3rd phase: I dunno. Can anyone tell me? Is it modifications to enable use of Kh-27T?

It's to double the maximum warload capacity from 2000 to 4000 kg.

BTW Here's a funny looking Alamo-C:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 09 Mar 2011 12:10

My mistake, it is indeed 380 odd kg, the engineer I spoke to happens to work on MiG29K and assumed Sapfir29 on 9.12 weighed the same as Zhuk.

Edited much later - IAF MiG29s were never wired for R77, only the Malaysian ones were offered R-77 as an upgrade. Remember that we were the first country outside warsaw pact to get MiG29s, and these were initial production versions. The last orders were placed late 80s before they tumbled into chaos. Once the situation stabilized 1993-94, our focus shifted to Su-30.

Another myth was Mirage wired to carry R77 and MiG29 wired to carry Super 530D.

Another common mistake is that when a Russian/American holds a sales demo of R77 or Patriot, and sounds optimistic while speaking to journalists that India will buy, it is incorrect to take the interview with face value. Follow DAC/CCS recommendations on procurement, that is the firmest intent to procure/upgrade.

Anyway, discussing weight is a moot point, the relevant point was that we were following the very aggressive American design philosophy. Compare that to Dr Kalam setting modest goals for Prithvi to build designer confidence. All three services jumped for Prithvi.
Last edited by tsarkar on 09 Mar 2011 12:22, edited 1 time in total.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby merlin » 09 Mar 2011 12:17

[quote="tsarkar"
Anyway, discussing weight is a moot point, the relevant point was that we were following the very aggressive American design philosophy. Compare that to Dr Kalam setting modest goals for Prithvi to build designer confidence. All three services jumped for Prithvi.[/quote]

They jumped because nothing in that area was available from external sources, not because it was modest in capabilities.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 09 Mar 2011 12:28

merlin wrote:They jumped because nothing in that area was available from external sources, not because it was modest in capabilities.
Merlin, like others, you are confusing capabilities with means. The Prithvi's USP is that it used modest means for standard capabilities

Ofcourse external sources were available for 150-250 km missiles. The Najibullah regime in Afghanistan was supplied loads of Scuds and Frogs, so were the Iraqis & Iranis, no reason why we couldnt be supplied with Scuds or something better. We only had to ask in those bhai-bhai days.

Marten - I am only highlighting the very aggressive American design philosophy followed, not supported by then-available industrial base, that was one of the reasons for lukewarm IAF support.
Last edited by tsarkar on 09 Mar 2011 12:32, edited 1 time in total.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby merlin » 09 Mar 2011 12:31

tsarkar wrote:
merlin wrote:They jumped because nothing in that area was available from external sources, not because it was modest in capabilities.
Merlin, you are confusing capabilities with means. The Prithvi's USP is that it used modest means for standard capabilities

Ofcourse external sources were available for 150-250 km missiles. The Najibullah regime in Afghanistan was supplied loads of Scuds and Frogs, so were the Iraqis & Iranis, no reason why we couldnt be supplied with Scuds or something better. We only had to ask in those bhai-bhai days.


But a Prithvi should be more sophisticated than a Scud no?

My point is that when capabilities are available for free import from abroad, the services will not consider Indian capabilities no matter how advanced (OK, a slight exaggeration here). But when nothing is available from abroad due to whatever reasons and those capabilities are needed, then the services will consider Indian capabilities. That's the whole argument.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1002
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Mar 2011 12:41

chackojoseph wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Good post tsarkar......
This thread has been quite educative with all the various opinions.....
And between the various opinions is the truth and it is a shade of grey.....

Hindsight as is said is 20:20

cheers


The problem with tsarkar's view is that, he holds weight as a deviation and rest of the parameters as constant. He has been fanatic about it. If one points out similar incidents and examples around, he refuses to acknowledge it.

For example, even with all the composites used in LCA, the fact is that it has put on weight. It means that things have changed. The plane weight has been cut down by designers as much as possible, without resorting to use of toilet paper or balsa wood. He says that plane should have not gained weight. We are asking how it is possible? He also says that newer components should not add weight. One cannot understand his logic.

he says LCA designers should have kept in mind that weight issues can crop up in worlds smallest lightest combat aircraft.


Chako you are a journalist. I was a journalist. At the outset let me congratulate you on the work you are doing..You are a few of the posters i read..

That said Karan has his beliefs as does tsarkar as does as do some...and I say some.....others.....

I believe that the story of the LCA is a lot more complex than we will know and all these intellectual calesthenics will show only part of the story

Me I read the posts...applaud when I find them interesting...shut up the rest of the time as I have nothing substantial to contrbute......But I read and read between the lines and form my opinions......which I shall keep to myself.....(this was a cardinal rule I was taught as a journalist when I joined the profession)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests