LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 15 Dec 2016 19:23

The tender in the form of Expression of Interest (EoI) was floated on Wednesday to five of the global aviation technology firms," a top HAL source said

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 002616.cms

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 649
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Suresh S » 15 Dec 2016 21:08

prashanth wrote:
chola wrote:The S Koreans cut their teeth building the F-sola decades after we begin screwing together the MiG flying coffins. They are already selling their indigenous T-50 Golden Eagle around the world (Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, etc.) The japs with their F-2 (again from the F-16) which has been in frontline service for decades. If we must go firang, it is far better to go Unkil.


No advantage there either. Both T-50 and J-2 use US powerplants and radars, exactly where LCA is struggling. They are not sanction proof and this outweighs all other considerations.

How I wish we had a working MMR radar and flightworthy Kaveri engine. No matter how far behind we are in terms of generations, we would have a (almost) completely indigenous LCA to fall back on when a warlike situation arises. This is one reason why GOI/DRDO/IAF must never ever abandon work on Kaveri and MMR/Uttam radar and see it to completion.


+100

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2387
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Yogi_G » 15 Dec 2016 21:29

chola wrote: Screwdrivergiriing russian crap for the past 50 years has left us with a stunted industrial base which is why we are still discussing the LCA after all these years.


Apologies for the OT, I can understand the angst against screw driver giri and skeptical tone towards Desi AESA but cant understand the contempt for Russian technology which in some cases has had a vast lead over western tech. The Russian "crap" mig-21 helped us in 71 war and also came out best in the first battle of mach 2 fighters. The Russian "crap" of S-400 is what will protect our cities and strategic targets and is widely believed to be better than any other contemporary western system.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6998
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 15 Dec 2016 22:08

Philip saar has been warned and banned for a week. But, what is this?

Rishi Verma wrote:One can only feel sorry for such salemen who can't sell anything even with zero commission and only can keep crapping in forums in memory of Castro, Kim Junk Ill, and Stalin.


Vivek K wrote:I suspect some of the posters on BRF are actually arms dealers based on their defiance of logic, lack of even a semblance of patriotism. Their loyalty therefore lies with their suppliers.


Vivek K wrote:Funny to see some posters so worked about India-US ties when theiy wear their own ties to mother Russia on their chest all the time. Just saying... pot calling the kettle black, wot!


Give me a reason why I should not warn you guys for personal attacks?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50775
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 15 Dec 2016 22:40

Yogi_G, It was IAF pilots flying those crap machines that shot down Paki fighter planes in 1971. It was the pilots skill also.
IAF pilots recommended the gun pod as they recognized the AAM were marginal and would end up needing a gun. This was realized in 1965 war. Read Wollen's memoirs in BR Archives. The Russians had a crappy AAM and yet did not arm their Mig-21s with a gun!
Same with the P-15 SSM's. IN improved the guidance avionics to make them more effective.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1231
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sudeepj » 15 Dec 2016 23:26

Mihir wrote:
sudeepj wrote:It may just be a tender to avoid a single vendor situation and also to get a better price from the Israelis. The GoI can later say, we invited tenders, Israelis turned out to be the cheapest ones (or even the only ones) and hence we chose it. MoD/GoI is not entirely stupid. If you think that corruption allegations will not be made to derail yet another indigenous effort, you have another think coming.

Such tenders often take on a life of their own. Any competitor to Elta that chooses to throw its hat in the ring would make a very competitive offer and that very well edge out the 2052. What then? Spend more time and money qualifying new weapons and interfaces on the aircraft? How many years of delay would that lead to? And if the 2052 is chosen in spite of a better offer from elsewhere, what stops the other OEM from appealing the decision, lodging a protest, or even filing a lawsuit over the rejection? I don't think this is a risk that we can bear at this point.


Its a valid concern.. I suspect the MOD boffins will 'architect' the requirements in such a way so as to get a better deal from both Elta and the Americans. Lets wait and watch. :-)

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 16 Dec 2016 00:13

Indranil wrote:Philip saar has been warned and banned for a week. But, what is this?

Rishi Verma wrote:One can only feel sorry for such salemen who can't sell anything even with zero commission and only can keep crapping in forums in memory of Castro, Kim Junk Ill, and Stalin.


Give me a reason why I should not warn you guys for personal attacks?


I give 2 reasons...
1) I apologize
2) I can delete my post...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6998
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 16 Dec 2016 00:45

Its fine. Be careful next time.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3987
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 16 Dec 2016 03:12

Viv S wrote:That being said, this is still relatively early days for the Mk1A. If they are serious about considering other options and can make that decision without excessive delay, a SABR/APG-83 derivative will probably the most capable of the lot.

Personally, I've always been lukewarm on the 2052; the T/R count (generally a good thumb rule of capability) was definitely underwhelming (500 modules for a F-16 sized antenna IIRC) and the lack of a captive customer was a barrier to sustained evolution (eg. Vixen 500E -> Vixen 1000E -> ES-05). Hopefully that's old news and the 2052 has advanced by a generation (like its peers) but I can't say I'd be willing to bet on it.


The Mk1A is supposed to be flying in prototype form by 2018, else there is no way that it can roll into production after completion of its flight tests soon after the 40 Mk1s are delivered. Going by that kind of schedule, it is already late if they're still not certain about which AESA radar to integrate. And given the evolutionary nature of the Elta 2052 over the 2032, which has already been integrated with the Tejas' weapons, it would be simpler than going in for an all-new radar. Going in for a in-development radar like the one Saab is offering is guaranteed to bring in big delays.

Regarding the number of T/R modules on the 2052, I've seen info that states that the array size can be tailored to the aircraft, based on multiple factors, like radome diameter, cooling and power available and so on. I've not seen any reports on a low T/R count being a drawback for the 2052. Maybe you have some other link that shows this being an issue?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6998
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 16 Dec 2016 03:58

It is not my field, but I am fairly certain, almost all AESA designs are. I have also never heard bad things about the 2052.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 16 Dec 2016 11:14

Kartik wrote:Regarding the number of T/R modules on the 2052, I've seen info that states that the array size can be tailored to the aircraft, based on multiple factors, like radome diameter, cooling and power available and so on. I've not seen any reports on a low T/R count being a drawback for the 2052. Maybe you have some other link that shows this being an issue?


Radar range (certainly) and imaging resolution (most likely) will be affected adversely if you reduce the number of T/R modules in the 2D array of an active ESA radar.

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby adityadange » 16 Dec 2016 11:54

prashanth wrote:Radar range (certainly) and imaging resolution (most likely) will be affected if you reduce the number of T/R modules in the 2D array of an active ESA radar.


I am no expert but currently i am working in radio astronomy field. based on my understanding, the above is actually the other way round. if you reduce number of T/R modules your resolution is certainly going to decrease. more the number of t/r modules more you are able to narrow down your radar beams and/or more number of beams you are able to generate. however range of individual t/r module would remain the same.
<speculation>
if you reduce your T/R modules *may* increase range. you have limited and constant power source. if you have more T/R modules the amount of power available per module is going to be less but if you reduce T/R modules then more power per module can be utilized hence more range. But your module physically can handle only upto certain amount of power else it will blow so increase in range will be limited else the module will blow up.
</speculation>

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 16 Dec 2016 12:04

adityadange wrote:I am no expert but currently i am working in radio astronomy field. based on my understanding, the above is actually the other way round. if you reduce number of T/R modules your resolution is certainly going to decrease. more the number of t/r modules more you are able to narrow down your radar beams and/or more number of beams you are able to generate. however range of individual t/r module would remain the same.


:lol: Saar, I forgot to add the word adversly. I thought 'affected' means impact negatively. Am I correct? As you have noted, more T/R modules enable emission of sharper 'pencil like' beams with better sidelobe suppression, and hence improve the image quality.

if you reduce your T/R modules *may* increase range. you have limited and constant power source. if you have more T/R modules the amount of power available per module is going to be less but if you reduce T/R modules then more power per module can be utilized hence more range. But your module physically can handle only upto certain amount of power else it will blow so increase in range will be limited else the module will blow up.


What you said holds good for PESA radars in which a single power source feeds all Tx/Rx modules, with appropriate phase shifts. In case of AESA radars, each module is an independent power source and receiver, so more modules mean more radiated power, and sharper beam as well. This is a double advantage, since you are simultaneously narrowing down the beam and putting more power into it. Hence the increase in range. Penalty is the increased burden on cooling system to remove power dissipated as heat.

adityadange
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 11:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby adityadange » 16 Dec 2016 14:27

prashanth wrote: :lol: Saar, I forgot to add the word adversly. I thought 'affected' means impact negatively. Am I correct? As you have noted, more T/R modules enable emission of sharper 'pencil like' beams with better sidelobe suppression, and hence improve the image quality.

oops my bad.

What you said holds good for PESA radars in which a single power source feeds all Tx/Rx modules, with appropriate phase shifts. In case of AESA radars, each module is an independent power source and receiver, so more modules mean more radiated power, and sharper beam as well. This is a double advantage, since you are simultaneously narrowing down the beam and putting more power into it. Hence the increase in range. Penalty is the increased burden on cooling system to remove power dissipated as heat.

Thanks for this info.
Sorry for OT but i have a question. if AESA T/R modules have their own power source but when mounted on a plane wont all the power ultimately come through engines/APU? what i want to say here is ultimately the available power is constant right? or do aesa modules have separate power generator?

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 16 Dec 2016 14:40

adityadange wrote:Sorry for OT but i have a question. if AESA T/R modules have their own power source but when mounted on a plane wont all the power ultimately come through engines/APU? what i want to say here is ultimately the available power is constant right? or do aesa modules have separate power generator?


You are correct. Ultimately, the electrical power supply must come through the engine/APU. If that itself is limited, then maybe you are forced to work with reduced T/R module count.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12925
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Lalmohan » 16 Dec 2016 14:49

I see no harm in deploying to service without the final radar being available. it takes a long time to work out the basics of squadron service and operational procedures - the IAF can be busy doing that whilst the radar is finished/finalised.

the original tornado F2 in raf service with the blue vixen(?) radar went in to service with a dummy radar initially - was jokingly referred to as the 'blue circle' radar after a brand of cement (that was allegedly used for ballast in the nose)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Dec 2016 23:21

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Yes but what about space for cooling requirements? I'm guessing that more trms = greater cooling and hence you simply can't have too many modules densely packed in a small nose cone. Of course I'm just a layperson, no phyjjicks and engineering background to speak of.

Like I said, its a scaled down variant. Assuming its the same size as a Kfir's it should have about 300 TRMs. Cooling requirements will be proportionately lower. Its quite doable.

But that is the point isn't it? Do scaled down versions provide significant advantages over late model mesas? if I understand correctly, performance is largely a function of trm count and power available. What happens if space restraints and cooling needs result in disproportionate reduction of trms? Only US designs, by your own admission, seem to have densely packed trms on smallish antennae considering their lead in this tech.

What if hal is finding out that 2052 performance is not all that grand for a smaller nose? Maybe the jag integration, if actually achieved, I'm still looking for something from horses mouth, has taught hal this. And the Swedish claims to GaN has encouraged this development.

Nevertheless, I have been concerned about this aesa integration for a while. And my fears are being borne out it seems...This could be a backdoor for the solah and a door slam on the lca.

MP should push hard, HAL should get the foc version out without any further delays, and the IAF should simply order more FOC standard. An order of 200 will do nicely. They are good enough at the lower end - as good as any upgraded m2k or fulcrum. And they will be available for production 2017. HAL should work on streamlining and weight reduction where possible and providing first class user support. Mk1A or mk2 can come whenever they do....And the foc std birds can be upgraded to aesa std later. . Get another sqd of rafale and mki to keep numbers up.And get that kaveri going with snecma core, a reengine along with aesa would make a sensational MLU.

Hoping that this happens, I'll be the happiest man around

If strategically there needs to be some pappi chappi with US, tie the IN needs for carrier borne fighters to shornet or get more poseidons or whatever.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 17 Dec 2016 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6809
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2016 00:27

Scaling an AESA radar antenna is not a non-developmental event and requires time and money. Most scalable systems in the market still require investment to make them happen and this involves looking at the system as a whole, i.e. the larger antenna as well as the support required to enable it. SWaP is a prime consideration in determining it. Northrop's SABR for example has 2 antenna configurations, one in support of the F-16 sized requirement and another to support larger bombers like the B-1. If you move away from these two offerings you would need to invest to design, test and implement. Similarly, Raytheon's RACR, another scalable system has scalability in mind, with one being designed around the SWaP requirements of the F-16 block 30+, and another (Now called AN/APG-79(V)X) classic Hornet's that cannot support the super hornet radar's antenna.

Elta's 2052 also comes in two forms, one being a 300 module variant and another being a 500 T/R variant. Private, industry funded ventures design sensors around their market research and likely demand.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Dec 2016 00:35

JayS wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:^ is the 2052 confirmed on the jag?


The deal was always with LCA +1/2 more jets for AESA order, as what was Israeli demand IIRC. Jag was being mentioned as the other candidate even 2yrs ago. So nothing surprizing there. All these things been discussed on this very thread.


There has been discussion in this regard for some time, I agree. but I have not yet seen any real statements by hal that they have integrated the 2052. The latest article is the closest and the only one iirc, to bring any concrete claims in this direction as they actually provide a number...58 fighters or something. But I'll wait for something more.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 316
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 17 Dec 2016 13:43

India Seeks Global Ties for Its Light Combat Aircraft Mark-1A Program
By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, December 16, 2016
NEW DELHI — India has floated global bids to procure state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radars and electronic warfare self-protection jammer pods for the forthcoming modified version of the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft Mark-1A aircraft.

Under the ministry of defence's directions, India's sole combat aircraft manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., on Thursday released global requests for quotations for the equipment. Two systems will be selected by April next year, according to a top MoD defense production official.

"We cannot wait for Indian companies to develop and build these proven systems, and they will be bought off-the-shelf from overseas," the MoD official added.

Under a fast-track program, around 100 AESA radars will be bought at a cost of $1.85 billion million,
and bids have been issued to Elta of Israel, US companies Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, SAAB of Sweden, Thales of France and Rosoboronoexport of Russia.

In addition, 100 electronic-warfare jammer pods will be procured from overseas at a cost of $200 million, and bids have been sent to Elta, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, SAAB, Thales, Rosoboronoexport, Indra of Spain and Leonardo-subsidiary Finmeccanica of Italy.

All global bids will be asked to submit price quotations before Feb. 15, and the final selection will be made before April.

HAL will launch serial production of the fighter jet 2018.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... 1a-program

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Dec 2016 14:11

Cain Marko wrote:But that is the point isn't it? Do scaled down versions provide significant advantages over late model mesas? if I understand correctly, performance is largely a function of trm count and power available. What happens if space restraints and cooling needs result in disproportionate reduction of trms? Only US designs, by your own admission, seem to have densely packed trms on smallish antennae considering their lead in this tech.

What if hal is finding out that 2052 performance is not all that grand for a smaller nose? Maybe the jag integration, if actually achieved, I'm still looking for something from horses mouth, has taught hal this. And the Swedish claims to GaN has encouraged this development.

The 2052 scaled for the Jaguar will not have particularly impressive performance. In terms of absolute power output anyway. It'll however still be superior to a similarly sized MSA. Far better reliable, less maintenance, faster scan rates, better multi-mode operation and, just as important, better jam resistance.

Could some other OEMs offer a technical superior solution? Possibly. (Definitely true for NG/Raytheon.) But they'd have to develop a scaled-down variant of their AESA and that'd mean higher upfront costs. Elta already had a ready-made solution developed for a Kfir upgrade.

The Tejas is a different matter. Its got an ~65 cm antenna and there's a variety of off-the-shelf solutions available in that category. And as a BVR fighter, radar performance is critical, so I'd expect other offerings to be given a very serious look.

Nevertheless, I have been concerned about this aesa integration for a while. And my fears are being borne out it seems...This could be a backdoor for the solah and a door slam on the lca.

Depends on how fast they move on the selection. Any long drawn process will have horrible consequences. If not, there's still enough time to get a different radar integrated. Keep in mind, they just need the hardware operational by 2019-2020. The actual time consuming activity is the software integration and that can be administered through upgrade/update patches without any particular hassle.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1106
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 17 Dec 2016 14:41

I think that Israeli are in, a tender is issued to keep the process transparent. I have talked to some arms experts (5 years) back and they told me that nobody can beat Israelis on price, due to lot of reasons (which cannot be discussed on an open forum).

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 743
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby kvraghav » 17 Dec 2016 17:55

So there was a question as to why the lca mk 1a was so expensive. Looks like radar itself is 20 million.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 17 Dec 2016 18:29

kvraghav wrote:So there was a question as to why the lca mk 1a was so expensive. Looks like radar itself is 20 million.

Its a clear misprint. Should be $1.85 mil per unit or $185 mil for the lot.

This is of course the objective cost. They'll find the actual cost is closer to $4 mil with integration.

Case-in-point:

The U.S. Air Force is balancing between losing capability and meeting an urgent request to equip Air National Guard Lockheed Martin F-16s assigned to homeland defense with active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars to detect small radar cross-section targets, such as cruise missiles.
.
.
.
On March 6, the Air Force issued a request for information on AESAs suitable for retrofit to Block 30-52 F-16s with minimal modification. Although the Block 30 is first, “We need to develop an AESA upgrade plan for the entire fleet,” Chief of Staff Gen Mark Welsh told a congressional hearing March 17.

Welsh told the House Armed Service Committee that the Air Force has budgeted $25 million in fiscal 2016 for integration of an air-to-air-only radar, but would prefer to spend $75 million, “if we can find the money,” for a fully integrated AESA.

The projected production cost of the two retrofit options is “real close,” Welsh said: $2.8 million for air-to-air only versus $3.2 million for fully integrated, “which is the way we want to go.” Ray says a decision on how to proceed is expected “in the next two months.” - Link

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36084
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby SaiK » 17 Dec 2016 23:28

what do they mean by "off the shelf" solution? can fire all the stores we have gone planned and tested and integrates well? other than fire & forget types..

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4669
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 18 Dec 2016 06:18

Given that some of the Air-to-Air missiles the LCA has been tested with are of Israeli origin (Derby, Python-V), it seems obvious who is going to win the contract.

The above missiles have already been integrated with the Israeli AESA on their home turf.

If Israel wins the contract, will Russians allow the integration of their R-73 and R-77 air-to-air missiles (which the LCA also supports) with the Israeli AESA radar? They have not been too willing previously.

Integration of US based AESA radar would open up a world of possibilities for present & future ordinance that the LCA can carry. Much of NATO present and future radar guided weaponry could be integrated onto the LCA over time if this route were taken.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Dec 2016 06:43

tejas warrior wrote:India Seeks Global Ties for Its Light Combat Aircraft Mark-1A Program
By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, December 16, 2016
NEW DELHI — India has floated global bids to procure state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radars and electronic warfare self-protection jammer pods for the forthcoming modified version of the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft Mark-1A aircraft.

Under the ministry of defence's directions, India's sole combat aircraft manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., on Thursday released global requests for quotations for the equipment. Two systems will be selected by April next year, according to a top MoD defense production official.

"We cannot wait for Indian companies to develop and build these proven systems, and they will be bought off-the-shelf from overseas," the MoD official added.

Under a fast-track program, around 100 AESA radars will be bought at a cost of $1.85 billion million,
and bids have been issued to Elta of Israel, US companies Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, SAAB of Sweden, Thales of France and Rosoboronoexport of Russia.

In addition, 100 electronic-warfare jammer pods will be procured from overseas at a cost of $200 million, and bids have been sent to Elta, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, SAAB, Thales, Rosoboronoexport, Indra of Spain and Leonardo-subsidiary Finmeccanica of Italy.

All global bids will be asked to submit price quotations before Feb. 15, and the final selection will be made before April.

HAL will launch serial production of the fighter jet 2018.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... 1a-program


So, cost wise what is the local component of this LCA?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6998
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 18 Dec 2016 09:29

I think that they are doing the right job by going for the imported jammer pods. I think it will be the Elta pod seen on our sukhois, migs and jags. Dare is working on packaging their hardware into a pod as well. They are currently undertaking component testing on the PV1. I expect them to be ready for Mk2.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6998
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 19 Dec 2016 23:58

Landmark tenders for Mk1A from HAL's ARDC:

Supply of AESA Radar for Light Combt Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme

Main aspects:
3 aircraft for Trial Modification and certification phase and subsequently against anticipated orders for 80 aircraft sets for series production. HAL is also required to undertake the following during the series production phase:
a) Repair/overhaul/servicing of AESA Radar and connected items by HAL at its facilities under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement. – TOT ROH to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.
b) Phased manufacture of Radar systems under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement.- TOT Manufacturing to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.The series production is expected to commence from year 2019. The production of Radar systems is planned to be executed in a phased manner as follows.
- Phase-0: Direct purchase of 24 Radar system sets in fully formed condition.
- Phase-1: Manufacture of 08 Radar system sets by HAL based on Semi Knocked Down (SKD) kits to be supplied by the vendor.
- Phase-2: Manufacture of 48 Radar system sets by HAL based on transfer of technology to HAL by the vendor.
During this phase, vendor shall ensure that HAL work content shall be more than or equal to 40% by value of the unit price of each Radar system.
Vendor shall provide a comprehensive proposal for TOT-MFG for setting up of facility at HAL for manufacturing of the Radar system.


Supply of EW suite for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme

List of vendors: ELBIT SYSTEMS, ELTA SYSTEMS, SAAB, THALES, ELETTRONICA S.P.A, RAYTHEON, INDRA SYSTEMS.
Same idea: 3 aircrafts for modification and certification, 24 outright purchase, 8 in SKD and 48 under TOT-MFG. TOT-ROH to be signed separately.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 00:17

Indranil wrote:Landmark tenders for Mk1A from HAL's ARDC:

Supply of AESA Radar for Light Combt Aircraft (LCA Mk 1A) Programme

Why??!!! Why would you send an RFP to Raytheon and not to Northrop Grumman? I can understand not sending one to Selex ES seeing as its a subsidiary of Finmeccanica but excluding NG makes no sense.

Same with the EW system tender; included Raytheon but excluded BAE.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3987
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 20 Dec 2016 00:34

kvraghav wrote:So there was a question as to why the lca mk 1a was so expensive. Looks like radar itself is 20 million.


no radar costs that much. It's a typical Vivek Raghuvanshi article. Poorly researched and with non existent editing. He regularly makes gaffes and this is another example of that type of article. he even got the number of Mk1s that the IAF has contracted for, wrong in the article. He stated that the IAF will get 20 Mk1s instead of 40.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3987
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 20 Dec 2016 03:13

With requirements such as these, it seems unlikely that a US supplied AESA set would qualify

Series Production Phase:
Currently, there is an anticipated requirement for 80 AESA Radar system sets. The series production is expected to commence from year 2019. The production of Radar systems is planned to be executed in a phased manner as follows.
 Phase-0: Direct purchase of 24 Radar system sets in fully formed condition.
 Phase-1: Manufacture of 08 Radar system sets by HAL based on Semi Knocked Down (SKD) kits to be supplied by the vendor.
 Phase-2: Manufacture of 48 Radar system sets by HAL based on transfer of technology to HAL by the vendor
.


interesting snippets

a) Repair/overhaul/servicing of AESA Radar and connected items by HAL at its facilities under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement. – TOT ROH to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.
b) Phased manufacture of Radar systems under a Transfer of Technology (TOT) agreement.- TOT Manufacturing to be signed with the selected vendor at the appropriate stage.
c) Supplies and Services needed for product support to HAL’s customers.


Vendor shall be responsible for Design and Development of a compatible Radome conforming to the established outer mold line (OML) specifications for the LCA Mk1A and tailored to optimize operational performance of the AESA radar.
Vendor shall be responsible for integration of the AESA Radar with EW suite consisting of Digital RWR and podded Jammer on LCA Mk1A platform as per LCA Mk1A requirements, in coordination with the Vendor of EW Suite to ensure interoperability of Radar, EW suite and other avionics system.
Vendor shall be responsible for integration of AESA radar with Indian IFF interrogator/ Transponder (CIT) as per LCA Mk1A requirements.
Vendor shall be responsible for integration of AESA radar with third party BVR missile as per LCA Mk1A requirements.


Vendor shall be responsible for and HAL shall support for the AESA Radar Systems flight testing, data analysis, rectifications and modifications (Hardware and Page 5 of 12 software) performance evaluation, final certification and service use clearance from Indian certification Agencies.
Vendor shall be responsible for proving the installed performance of the system on the aircraft.


There are also some details on ToT, plus they're trying to ensure that the ToT can apply to more radar sets that may be procured in the future. and also trying to put in place a contract that allows HAL to do away with ToT and manufacturing, going for outright purchase if required. Plus, a clause related to IPR, essential for export of the LCA Mk1A or the radar itself. Also clauses to try to push out AESA radars that are still early in their development cycle.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4669
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 20 Dec 2016 11:04

Vendor shall be responsible for integration of AESA radar with third party BVR missile as per LCA Mk1A requirements.


This requires the co-operation of the third party country which created the BVR missile (e.g. Russia) - which may not be forthcoming. Russia may not wish to help with the integration of its air-to-air missile with a foreign vendor's AESA radar or even provide any information on how to do so.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 397
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohiths » 20 Dec 2016 11:18

The competition is designed to ensure Israeli radar wins. Looks like a formality to cover ass against allegations of corruption.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 20 Dec 2016 19:49

Best parts of RFP

Paragraph 8
Bids from vendors not meeting any of the criteria listed under para 14 will be summarily rejected. Unsolicited offers will be summarily rejected



Section 12 is beautiful!

12. TRANSFER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:
HAL shall have exclusive worldwide sale and product support rights for the LCA MK1A aircraft or its variants fitted with the Radar system being developed specifically for LCA Mk1A programme through the present RFQ. HAL shall also have the right to use the Radar system or its adapted versions on any other airborne platform designed or produced by HAL for use by Indian defence customers.

IPR held by the vendor or his suppliers shall not in any way restrict or hamper by way of quantity or otherwise manufacturing of the Radar system by HAL under TOT-MFG or Repair & Overhaul by HAL under ToT-ROH.

The vendor shall not sell the Radar system being developed through this RFQ to any other customers or transfer the IPR of the system to any third party without prior written consent by HAL.

This clause shall continue to be in force for an indefinite period even after fulfillment of all activities and obligations covered under this RFQ.


14.2 Prior experience (Mandatory condition to be fulfilled by bidder)

14.2.2 If the AESA Radar to be offered by the vendor is still under development at the time of submitting the bid, the vendor should have at least a demonstrator model of the airborne AESA Radar ready for evaluation.

14.2.3 HAL may seek field / lab demonstration of AESA Radar to verify the capability of the vendor. In case vendor is unable to demonstrate or the demonstration is not satisfactory, HAL reserves the right to disqualify the vendor’s offer.


The Annexures are not there in the RFQ but would surely make interesting reading.

rohiths wrote:The competition is designed to ensure Israeli radar wins. Looks like a formality to cover ass against allegations of corruption.
Or Raytheon with AMRAAM & APG-63/79/82 radar or Thales with RBE series & MICA. The RFP is very fair.

The edge Israeli's have is that they have offered ToT as per TSR's interview to Ajai Shukla.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 20:12

Kartik wrote:With requirements such as these, it seems unlikely that a US supplied AESA set would qualify

Not necessarily. Their looking for ToT for Mfg which is basically 'assembly' + some LRU production (worth 40% of the contract); deep mfg isn't economical for just 48 units. The clause does seem to favour the Israelis though who have less hangups about ToT and are far more dependent on export orders.

Image

Image

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1535
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Sid » 20 Dec 2016 20:16

American's will not agree to the part regarding IPR's nor with the reuse or sales clause. So I guess they won't even bother. Brits are also very snotty about their radar, given what they were willing to share earlier with us. Prototype clause seems to be there to accommodate Russians.

Only serious bids will come from Israel and French. Given Indian comfort with Israel and previous projects they will be the front runner.

But keep in mind the power play which may ensue, given that we have invited all opposing forces of WW3, that will delay the final selection.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 20:17

Neshant wrote:This requires the co-operation of the third party country which created the BVR missile (e.g. Russia) - which may not be forthcoming. Russia may not wish to help with the integration of its air-to-air missile with a foreign vendor's AESA radar or even provide any information on how to do so.

They have little interest in integrating the R-77, which has faced extensive reliability issues in IAF service resulting in substantial R-27 orders from Ukraine.

As far as the Tejas is concerned, only the Astra & I-Derby-ER are relevant (and perhaps the Meteor). Neither MBDA nor Rafael has any problems with integration to a third party radar. Well.. maybe if its Russian, but the Russians aren't a serious contender for the contract so its a moot point.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 20 Dec 2016 20:35

Sid wrote:American's will not agree to the part regarding IPR's nor with the reuse or sales clause. So I guess they won't even bother.

A re-export rights clause would have been an issue. Shouldn't have any problem with sale to "Indian defence customers" (IAF & IN). IPR too shouldn't be an issue; they'd simply offer 'India' variant for exclusive use while continuing to manufacture the base variant for the home market and export.

In fact, its surprising that export/re-export rights weren't included.

Image

Brits are also very snotty about their radar, given what they were willing to share earlier with us. Prototype clause seems to be there to accommodate Russians.

Only serious bids will come from Israel and French. Given Indian comfort with Israel and previous projects they will be the front runner.

The Brits (BAE/Selex) haven't been invited to participate. An RBE-2AA is a definite possibility. The omission of Northrop Grumman (& Mitsubishi perhaps) suggests a somewhat lackadaisical attitude, which might mean the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

That said, I'd be wary to assuming the Israelis have it in the bag. There's no reason why HAL couldn't have directly awarded them the contract as was done for the MMR/2032, HMDS, Python 5. Could have officially justified it on basis of commonality with the existing 2032.

Its more likely that Elta was either asking too much for the radars and needed to be cut down to size, or their product wasn't nearly as good as what was available on the open market (in technical terms).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50775
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ramana » 20 Dec 2016 22:51

Folks stop building dungeons in the castles in the air.

HAL is trying to see if there is better offer than the current one.

If it comes so be it. If not they have tried.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests