LCA Tejas: 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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2015 10:42

LCAs are flying again. :mrgreen: Heard one roaring yesterday but couldn't see and confirm. But saw one today morning. It passed right over my head just after TO.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 04 Nov 2015 12:17

nileshjr wrote:LCAs are flying again. :mrgreen: Heard one roaring yesterday but couldn't see and confirm. But saw one today morning. It passed right over my head just after TO.


Yes, I saw one last week too.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2015 14:32

IAF and HAL have conspired to set the Met dept against me. Clouds.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 04 Nov 2015 21:59

shiv wrote:IAF and HAL have conspired to set the Met dept against me. Clouds.


There was one LCA flying today first half when there was a break in clouding and I think it was the NFTC guys. Lovely balcony view for me with a cup of hot coffee :mrgreen:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 04 Nov 2015 22:21

all talks and no foto/video makes us dull!

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_27581 » 04 Nov 2015 23:10

Miss those almost daily flight updates....the new site doesnt have them...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 04 Nov 2015 23:27

They have. Go to http://www.ada.gov.in, "Achievements" tab -> "Flight news current year".

There were 3 flights since flying resumed, 2 last week and one this week, all on LSP-4.

Flight test update.
2983rd flight on 25 Aug
TD1: 233, TD2: 305, PV1: 245, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 110, PV6: 34, LSP1: 74, LSP2: 314, LSP3: 257, LSP4: 167, LSP5: 290, LSP7: 147, LSP8 : 145, NP1: 43, NP2: 10

2985th flight on 30 Oct
TD1: 233, TD2: 305, PV1: 245, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 110, PV6: 34, LSP1: 74, LSP2: 314, LSP3: 257, LSP4: 169, LSP5: 290, LSP7: 147, LSP8 : 145, NP1: 43, NP2: 10

2986th flight on 04 Nov
TD1: 233, TD2: 305, PV1: 245, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 110, PV6: 34, LSP1: 74, LSP2: 314, LSP3: 257, LSP4: 170, LSP5: 290, LSP7: 147, LSP8 : 145, NP1: 43, NP2: 10

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 04 Nov 2015 23:40

just curious, does b'lore have any active transport/support sqn's ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Nov 2015 19:24

Early this year around June, there were news reports of theF414 engine to be delivered by September 2015 for LCA Mark II. Was this accomplished?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 05 Nov 2015 19:35

I think it was reported in July that the first one will arrive by the 'year end'

http://www.janes.com/article/52873/indi ... y-year-end

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 05 Nov 2015 19:39

Rahul M wrote:just curious, does b'lore have any active transport/support sqn's ?


Yes. Yellahanka, is a major transport training base.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Nov 2015 19:40

brar_w, Thanks. Bedi gives detailed update.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 06 Nov 2015 18:23

deejay wrote:
Rahul M wrote:just curious, does b'lore have any active transport/support sqn's ?


Yes. Yellahanka, is a major transport training base.

yes, I thought it would be something like transport equivalent of MOFTU.
are these operational or training only sqn's ? or a mix ?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 06 Nov 2015 18:25

Rahul M wrote:yes, I thought it would be something like transport equivalent of MOFTU.
are these operational or training only sqn's ? or a mix ?


Mix. Plus multiple types.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 06 Nov 2015 21:19

did we miss linking this from tarmak? if not ignore.. but we have good schedule data here to reflect upon.

http://www.oneindia.com/india/5-tejas-i ... 92971.html

5 Tejas in Squadron colours to fly during next IAF Day sky party: DRDO
Written by: Dr Anantha Krishnan M Published: Thursday, October 8, 2015, 10:56 [IST]



Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 06 Nov 2015 21:46

thx deejay, I was asking because I didn't find any sqn's listed at yelhanka on BR's sqn listings here.
http://bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Squ ... drons.html

other than the sarangs.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 06 Nov 2015 23:22

^^^ I don't remember off hand but if I am right Yelahanka Tpt wing is under training command and has a name and not a number. I am forgetting so will check and post some other time. OT here so if anything further we will take it to Indian Military Aviation thread.

P.S. That BR listing has a few errors/ changes. Sarangs are based at Sulur. 112 HU (Throughbreds) are based at Yellahanka (semi ops and training). A lot of other errors too.

SidSom
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 01 May 2011 07:49

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SidSom » 07 Nov 2015 10:35

2983rd flight on 25 Aug
TD1: 233, TD2: 305, PV1: 245, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 110, PV6: 34, LSP1: 74, LSP2: 314, LSP3: 257, LSP4: 167, LSP5: 290, LSP7: 147, LSP8 : 145, NP1: 43, NP2: 10

2985th flight on 30 Oct
TD1: 233, TD2: 305, PV1: 245, PV2: 222, PV3: 387, PV5: 110, PV6: 34, LSP1: 74, LSP2: 314, LSP3: 257, LSP4: 169, LSP5: 290, LSP7: 147, LSP8 : 145, NP1: 43, NP2: 10


Does this mean that for 2 months none of the LCA were flying ??
or does this mean that LCA was flying but no new tests were done (maybe only AF guys on regular training/some guys "taking a round" in the plane)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 07 Nov 2015 10:59

SidSom wrote:
Does this mean that for 2 months none of the LCA were flying ??
or does this mean that LCA was flying but no new tests were done (maybe only AF guys on regular training/some guys "taking a round" in the plane)


Grounded due to Landing gear issues. Look older pages of this thread for more info.

member_28482
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby member_28482 » 09 Nov 2015 09:31

What Exactly the Landing gear issue with LCA, How it is identified after ~ 3000 flight tests.


nileshjr wrote:
SidSom wrote:
Does this mean that for 2 months none of the LCA were flying ??
or does this mean that LCA was flying but no new tests were done (maybe only AF guys on regular training/some guys "taking a round" in the plane)


Grounded due to Landing gear issues. Look older pages of this thread for more info.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 09 Nov 2015 13:48

ashrivastava wrote:What Exactly the Landing gear issue with LCA, How it is identified after ~ 3000 flight tests.


I did not want to make this comment but here goes. Most aircraft have some issue or the other that is discovered long after it enters into service - like the Su-30 MKIs engine issues and that hydraulic issue that Jags had. But for Tejas we are waiting for all issues to show up before it gets into service. If there are no issues we will still wait longer and start looking for signs of end of airframe life.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2661
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 09 Nov 2015 22:47

ashrivastava wrote:What Exactly the Landing gear issue with LCA, How it is identified after ~ 3000 flight tests.


http://www.defenseworld.net/news/14311/India___s_Tejas_Light_Combat_Aircraft_Grounded_After_Landing_Gear_Glitch#.VkDi4vmrSuU

The landing gear problem, as reported by Deccan Chronicle newspaper was that the gear would not fold up after take-off. IAF pilots encountered problems with the landing gear in Bengaluru and the second time in Jaisalmer city after a round of weapon trials at the Pokhran range in Rajasthan state. The fighter was flown from Jaisalmer to Bengaluru with its landing gear deployed after the second incident. The date of the incident is not known.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 09 Nov 2015 22:56

shiv ji, I think we should make a case of doing testing like in service/operational mode before it is sent for operations. I do understand these issue occurrence is common, but why not use that process to identify the issue as early as possible? this is our own A/C so, there should be no blocker to get it into 'operational-test' mode early, letting the user test the way he wishes to use it. [just to avoid questions like, 3000 flights happened and suddenly..]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 09 Nov 2015 23:33

SaiK, In the book 'Airborne to Chairborne' description of one of the last raids in 1965 was aborted when one of the wing tip fuel tank did not eject on the Canberra bomber aircraft.
What this caused is aero drag and loss of range.

Things show up and have to deal with it.
However there is a body of people who want a perfect aircraft and would rather not fly than have a decent aircraft.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2015 04:30

interesting... I see reasons for failures of course, but we can take those failure as inputs for future designs.

----

now, per idrw news

On contrary to aircraft fleet maintained by many modern airforces around the world bulk of them are made up of single engined affordable fighter jets with limited heavier twin-engine aircrafts in their fleet. IAF’s fighter fleet will be quite opposite in near future and will have nearly 60-65 % of its fleet will comprise of twin-engine aircrafts assuming that LCA-Tejas orders double from its current orders (120 nos).

Lack of commonality between Twin engined aircrafts maintained by IAF is only adding to rising overhaul operational cost of the airforce. IAF in its current fleet has more than 200 Sukhois along with 120 + Jaguars and around 40 + Mig-29 fleet which will be operational till 2035-40 period while India will induct aircrafts like FGFA, Rafale and Indian AMCA in coming next decade or two.


I think there is a super strong reason to standardize on what can be made common across platform and functions, ranging from T/R modules to subcomponents. I am sure, if we think right and invest in an engine that is designed for growth like the EJ200s, we go between 80kN 120kN, and 110kN to 155kN in a single design thus reducing big operational costs.. of course there is going to be some fixed cost up-front.

if we are talking about an engine core for Migs, Sukhois and LCA, AMCAs of the future, then it is worth investment into an augmented and reorganized GTRE.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1112
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rishirishi » 10 Nov 2015 04:59

The LCA is almost identical as the Swedish Gripen. Purchase the tech and start building the planes in India. Make a further deal with them to create the next gen Medium fighter.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2015 07:45

Rishirishi wrote:The LCA is almost identical as the Swedish Gripen. Purchase the tech and start building the planes in India. Make a further deal with them to create the next gen Medium fighter.

Probably better than Gripen in some ways also no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoV-Xx3B8NM

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2015 07:52

ramana wrote:SaiK, In the book 'Airborne to Chairborne' description of one of the last raids in 1965 was aborted when one of the wing tip fuel tank did not eject on the Canberra bomber aircraft.
What this caused is aero drag and loss of range.

Things show up and have to deal with it.
However there is a body of people who want a perfect aircraft and would rather not fly than have a decent aircraft.

There have been a number of occasions when the entire fleet of a particular aircraft has ben grounded for checks and rectification when the cause of an accident is unknown, or being rectified. Typically air forces do not make this public. I cannot see what is the big surprise in LCA fleet being grounded for checks and rectification of some problem that was recognized before an accident takes place.

I have been critical in the past about the low "average technical awareness" of the average Indian. Fits in well with Tufail Ahmed's observation about intellectual bankruptcy in India. Most people seem to look at high performance fighters like cars. Once you buy it you can run it at will until the first servicing date. That is why we have so many people saying "Let us buy this aircraft soon - look how Pakistan makes quick purchase decisions" or "Fleet grounded? How stupid our people are"

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2015 09:37

SaiK wrote:shiv ji, I think we should make a case of doing testing like in service/operational mode before it is sent for operations. I do understand these issue occurrence is common, but why not use that process to identify the issue as early as possible?

SaiK what about issues that crop up after 3 years of service? The "classic story" od a jetliner crashing due to metal fatigue was the De Havilland Comet - the first jet airliner to go into service. It flew commercially in 1952 and two crashed due to the same type of metal fatigue occurred in 1954.

So how long can an aircraft be tested and tested and tested when you don't know when problems are going to arise? At some stage the plane needs to be put into service.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 10 Nov 2015 10:20

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:SaiK, In the book 'Airborne to Chairborne' description of one of the last raids in 1965 was aborted when one of the wing tip fuel tank did not eject on the Canberra bomber aircraft.
What this caused is aero drag and loss of range.

Things show up and have to deal with it.
However there is a body of people who want a perfect aircraft and would rather not fly than have a decent aircraft.

There have been a number of occasions when the entire fleet of a particular aircraft has ben grounded for checks and rectification when the cause of an accident is unknown, or being rectified. Typically air forces do not make this public. I cannot see what is the big surprise in LCA fleet being grounded for checks and rectification of some problem that was recognized before an accident takes place.

I have been critical in the past about the low "average technical awareness" of the average Indian. Fits in well with Tufail Ahmed's observation about intellectual bankruptcy in India. Most people seem to look at high performance fighters like cars. Once you buy it you can run it at will until the first servicing date. That is why we have so many people saying "Let us buy this aircraft soon - look how Pakistan makes quick purchase decisions" or "Fleet grounded? How stupid our people are"


This is a flight safety thing. If an incident is reported, unless it is certified that it was one off then as a precaution the entire fleet gets grounded. Sometimes during investigations, flaws are revealed which are corrected fleet wide and flying resumes. Mostly, the problem is limited to a particular aircraft. In this case it appears to me that the entire fleet had the problem and flying began either after some flaws were corrected or some limitations imposed. It is standard flight safety practice world wide.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 10 Nov 2015 14:17

SaiK wrote:shiv ji, I think we should make a case of doing testing like in service/operational mode before it is sent for operations. I do understand these issue occurrence is common, but why not use that process to identify the issue as early as possible? this is our own A/C so, there should be no blocker to get it into 'operational-test' mode early, letting the user test the way he wishes to use it. [just to avoid questions like, 3000 flights happened and suddenly..]


You can only test something so much. Even if they test LCA for a hundred years and induct it after that, they are bound to find some nagging issue here or there in it. Perfect product is a myth. No need of special "operational-test" mode. Simply induct in AF once its certified as flightworthy.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2015 17:06

Sure, the point is to have a well-defined boundedness (includes operationality). I was talking about certain aspects [if not covered.. it is a boundary problem, so debatable]. I would keep an open (small slit for operations and design feedback) end for testing. Shall we say a continuous process improvement.

If the word testing is a botheration we can rename it to "user acceptance".. this process actually will enable a tranche mode design & development model. There are defects and there are improvements. Some problems are only addressed by improvements.

hence..

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 10 Nov 2015 19:51

cross posting..

Karan M wrote:
pragnya wrote:Karan M,

though OT for the thread, are we importing the actuators for LCA from MOOG? there is this WIPRO facility in Bengaluru where they are manufacturing the actuators among other things. or has the facility not taken off?


Currently yes, Moog. However, the LCA actuators are not being made at Wipro but assembled at HAL, Lucknow, approved in 2007. The consortium assisting this - HAL, MTAR Hyderabad, Godrej Mumbai, approved in 2007. The key task, developing the flight critical actuators was by VSSC, ISRO (1998). Purchase order placed by HAL on consortium in 2009, assuming IPR transfer from ISRO. The original activity, IPR + TOT to consortium was to be finally done only by 2014, December as versus plan of 2010-11. The rest of the activities, leading to full availability at production, will take another year and a half thereafter (approximately). So by end of next year, assuming buffer of several months, we should (finally) have indigenous actuators replacing the Moog units.

BTW industry evaluation (western 3rd party) of India in actuators is that we have more or less arrived & can indigenize replace most actuators denied to us, provided we have funding and time. Hence, sanctions, tech denials are counterproductive and only driven by old fashioned politics.


appreciate the detailed reply Karan.

on a side note, will the OBOGS system which was handed over to ADA in dec 14 be integrated to SP versions of LCA 1s? or are they meant for mark 2s? since the mark 2 looks suspect at least academically to the IAF (though they may latch on for sure) will it not be prudent that these are on mark 1s itself? TIA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 10 Nov 2015 20:42

Pragnya, I suspect it will be added to Mk1A itself since the Mk2 program for the IAF is for all purposes, at present, not confirmed. Only the Mk2 for the Navy exists as a confirmed.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 11 Nov 2015 16:23

It makes logical sense for IAF to wait for Mk2 which perhaps will be tailored majorly for IN. They can take those inputs from Mk2, and do a Mk2A for IAF. This also gives a chance to upgrade the Mk1A to Mk2A specifications where possible.

Significantly, I hear two major concerns - range and airframe/inlet changes for 414s. Maybe gurus can tell if on a tranche mode, it would be difficult to convert Mk1A to Mk2A specs (name ref above)?

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 11 Nov 2015 16:39

Karan M wrote:Pragnya, I suspect it will be added to Mk1A itself since the Mk2 program for the IAF is for all purposes, at present, not confirmed. Only the Mk2 for the Navy exists as a confirmed.


thanks Karan.

EW suite was tested on PV 1 in jan 15. from this brochure i can atleast surmise - from the second part of the brochure, SIVA pod is one which is integrated into the DARE architecture which would be for SEAD/DEAD. what are the options for Escort jammer? guess they would be Israeli ones? IIRC DARE and Israelis were involved in the EW suite called Mayavi though this was many years ago. what is the status on that and which Israeli jammer is part of the DARE architecture shown in the brochure?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2015 17:27

Pragnya, what you have above in your brochures is the same thing, shown 2 different ways and the so-called Mayavi. Its basically also called RWJ and is what was tested on PV1. The earlier test was on MiG-27 and the program was cancelled before it could meet IAF requirements. A very short sighted thing IMO, because even if the MIg-27s were being retired early, keeping the tests running would have been very valuable, but typical of the bean counting stupidity orgs like CAG drive and which force IAF/DARE decisions. So the EW tests now will have to basically work out all the modes & debug the software. The program has taken a long time coming, one may argue too long, but on the plus side, this may well be DARE's "IGMP" moment, that this single program can move them to the next league, a proven, advanced system, which bridges the gap of generations & can take them to the future.

SIVA is nothing but a HADF pod IIRC which was designed to cue the Su-30 MKIs Kh-31P ARMs since we did not take the Russian RWR (Pastel-150) which had the function built in. The SIVA though is HA, the Pastel DF would be less precise.

Anyways, the Israeli contribution to the brochure above is cooperation with DARE in developing the jammer hardware aka the Microwave Power Modules and transmitters. DARE has designed an architecture which is scalable depending on the platform. You can take the one above & add other jammers eg the MiG-29 one has ELTA's AESA based jammers for higher power.
Hope this helps.

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby pragnya » 11 Nov 2015 18:27

^^^

thanks Karan. as always very detailed response. :)

last on another thread you said Tusker pod is a noise jammer or something similar. does it mean it is 'not' an Escort Jammer in a proper sense vis a vis the israeli or the russian anologues. how does the Tusker pod compare to those? is it operational in the IAF? is it part of the DARE architecture above?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7931
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 11 Nov 2015 21:06

Pragnya, you can classify a jammer many different ways but there is essentially no way of differentiating a jammer by either an escort jammer or a noise jammer etc for it is best to distinguish a particular jammer by what it performs in terms of how it achieves its desired effect on target. Broadly speaking (and this is very very broadly) you can categorize a jammer profile as either Noise jamming, Deceptive jamming, Spot Jamming, Barrage jamming, Repeater Jamming etc and based on these basic techniques you can categorize what sort of jammer you have and what sort of mission it performs. Increasingly, effective EMS Control involves practicing each one of these types of jamming because the threat always has a vote. The way you deal with highly agile and computationally proficient/heavy emitters is a lot different than how you jam legacy systems and all these are very different in how you jam agile comms etc. A modern Escort jammer should ideally be capable of performing each one of these modes, and even modern stand off jammers should be able to control the type of jamming they perform given advances in electronics if. not you will always be at a disadvantage against certain types of threats that can work around your jamming profile. Self defense jammers are usually a bit different for they are tuned more towards breaking the kill chain of an incoming SAM or weapon by either going after the source emitter, data link etc but besides that most of your RF and comms jamming is an intermixed web of tasks and procedures that varies upon what sort of threat you encounter. There is yet another form of Electronic Attack that has been gaining popularity of late and is alleged to have been practiced by the IDF in Syria - that involves absolutely no emission i.e. create absolutely no impediment to the flow of enemy radiation or communication over a battlefield. At a basic level you want a jammer that can produced a desired output at a required frequency, with a required agility, with a threshold stability and with a threshold power. The frequency is import for even the best stand-off systems (family of jammers) are reduced to at best escort systems when it comes to low-frequency denial or degradation given the nature of the frequency required to be jammed.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2015 22:15

Hi Pragnya - brar has done most of the work above.

To add - the noise jammers basically blank the screens with noise. Think of your radar receiver getting swamped with just emitted noise and the screen in turn goes white. However, the radar in turn can initiate anti-jam measures if there are some frequency bands that are still not jammed. If you are part of a SAM system, you may even launch home on jam missiles. Basically, noise jamming is crude but it still works & is a useful tool provided you have enough power & frequency coverage.

Deception jamming is basically more sneaky. You take the incoming signal, store it and resend it, with minor alterations trying to make the receiving radar think the signal is correct but the velocity or range will be off, making the missile in turn directed at you or the radar in the missile or ground control have the false coordinates. In India, we have these jammers with the 2 gen of jammers fielded on the MiG-23 with frequency memory loops.

The Tusker is mentioned as noise but probably had deception capabilities too since the DARE etc would typically understate capabilities. At the time, they developed DRFM, Digital Radio Frequency Memory which could store and replay the signal far more accurately than the earlier memory loop circuits. It was the breakthrough. This is being used in the new RWJ architecture so it will be a huge step up from earlier Indian jammers. The aim is to field a capability superior to the EL/L-8222, which by itself, is very capable used on Israeli F-15s and our MiG-21/27 (didn't work out on our Su-30s) and per Aviationist is regarded as very capable by USAF/USN aggressors against the MSA radars they go up against.

I wish they had debugged and tried the whole thing in its initial MiG-27 fitment. Instead we'll have to certify it on the LCA/MiG-29 now.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests