LCA: News & Discussions: 15 August 2017

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 14 Oct 2017 21:52

VIPs going through some previous pages and posts above would help you and this forum a lot as compared to just pasting toi style comments that Western Nations have been building planes for last 100 years and so on. It had been discussed multiple times that happened is already working to increase annual capacity to 24
And under the current orders what else can it do.
It's a chicken and egg problem. Not that it is right but that's what things are. Of course you're welcome to criticize

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Oct 2017 01:05

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/919565039102599170 --> From November, I am going to restart 'Indigenization Appreciation Hour' or #IAH, an hour dedicated to indigenous defence systems.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/918433190125060098 --> At the moment, a long production run of Tejas units with HAL adopting the moving shop floor concept is the best bet for Indian aerospace.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2017 08:08

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/918433190125060098 --> At the moment, a long production run of Tejas units with HAL adopting the moving shop floor concept is the best bet for Indian aerospace.

How does one make composite wings in a moving shop floor concept? One needs a tier 1 supplier who separately mixes adhesive and fibre. moulds the wings and then cooks them in an autoclave till cured, finishes them and then sends them to HAL to be inserted into the "moving shop floor". That is the problem. Finding Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers so that HAL can be an integrator and not have to make every single nut, bolt and washer in house which is what it has been forced to do.

This is how each composite structure is made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFMkdmfwjcg

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Oct 2017 11:46

Moving shop floor is not for forming structures from raw materials ; it is meant for integrating finished components together. Wings need to reach the assembly area pre-formed .

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Oct 2017 12:10

shiv wrote:
Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/918433190125060098 --> At the moment, a long production run of Tejas units with HAL adopting the moving shop floor concept is the best bet for Indian aerospace.
How does one make composite wings in a moving shop floor concept? One needs a tier 1 supplier who separately mixes adhesive and fibre. moulds the wings and then cooks them in an autoclave till cured, finishes them and then sends them to HAL to be inserted into the "moving shop floor". That is the problem. Finding Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers so that HAL can be an integrator and not have to make every single nut, bolt and washer in house which is what it has been forced to do.

This is how each composite structure is made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFMkdmfwjcg

Moving shop floor concept wouldn't work for Tejas. Its good for large scale production run with relatively simpler assembly process. Even F35 doesn't use this I think (impression I got from MFG facility videos). Its used to some extent in Civil airliner MFG, but only when they have to make 30-40 plans a month. That too its like aircrafts move from station to station. Its not true moving shop floor like you might see in Car or TV assembly.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Oct 2017 13:59

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/919838501062844421

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Oct 2017 14:53

So Uttam is going to be an RBE2 based AESA? Or is this get more information on whether Uttam is actually working or cut the Israelis out since they are no longer selling Heron TP and have now become an unreliable supplier due to US pressure.

Link to Thales Press release. Would Thales incur this cost without some nod from HAL?

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/india/pr ... s-mk1a-lca

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2017 16:42

Austin wrote:

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/919838501062844421

This probably means Indian AESA is progressing well..

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Oct 2017 17:09

Most probably, which is what we fail to understand. Other countries will use every tactic to undermine our indegenious efforts, media, vulnerable Babus, officers, Politicians, finance, Corp orates and unfortunately having imported arms for soo long there is probably a huge import mafia in this country.

Docji is probably right, Uttam must be doing well for this press release. It is like info the arms commission agents letting them know of an opportunity.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2017 17:33

From what I remember, HAL floated a tender to multiple foreign vendors for an AESA radar on the Tejas. Thales was one of OEMs that this went out to. Can't blame them for responding upon being invited to participate in a multi million dollar radar tender by the OEM for the LCA.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 16 Oct 2017 17:50

brar_w wrote:From what I remember, HAL floated a tender to multiple foreign vendors for an AESA radar on the Tejas. Thales was one of OEMs that this went out to. Can't blame them for responding upon being invited to participate in a multi million dollar radar tender by the OEM for the LCA.

While nothing official has come out on the Tender, it was considered that Uttam will go on MK1A, due to some news articles and chaiwalla news and perhaps the tender hit a dead-end. But from this current press release, it seems that the process is still on.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 16 Oct 2017 19:19

^^ Just one of the contenders for the AESA RFP that has delayed the SoP 2018 Mk1A.

To maintain service numbers and production lines ongoing, some of the 83 Mk1A should be ordered to Mk1 FOC standard, that is good enough with Elta 2032 radar.

In fact, standardising Elta 2052 from Jaguar DARIN 3 should have greatly speeded up the process, but I'm sure some scoundrel in the system insisted on "fair play", called for an RFP, and will milk the contenders while criminally delaying SoP 2018.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Oct 2017 22:51

I feel they will end up making more FOC class aircraft till MK1A is ready to be shipped. I don't think they will keep the line empty.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Oct 2017 22:51

Q: why would Thales specifically make something for LCA w.o an agreement or project work signed per some RFI/RFP process? It was never reported earlier (or was it?) on oped. [Ps: brar ji, could you please provide links if any]

After so many years of 2052s and Israeli collaboration suddenly a news about RBE2 tailored for LCA. Was this a Thales move by quickly downsizing their existing radar for Rafael? Possible.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2017 22:59

They likely used a lot of the components from their existing radar families much like everyone else does now. But that does not an integrated radar make. If selected, you will still have to develop software, integrate it with the mission systems architecture of the Tejas and go through the entire gamut of developmental and operational testing. Unless Israeli companies go completely crazy with pricing I just don't see any other OEM being able to compete with something that is already integrated.

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 16 Oct 2017 23:01

Not sure why everyone is so surprised:

http://www.janes.com/article/66425/indi ... -tejas-lca

HAL issued on 14 December a request for quotation (RFQ) for AESA radars to Israel Aerospace Industries/Elta (Israel), Raytheon (United States), Rosoboronexport (Russia), Saab (Sweden), and Thales (France), envisaging the purchase of 24 fully assembled systems and another eight in kit form for local assembly.

The remaining 48 radars, the RFQ stated, would be licence-built by HAL under a technology transfer.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Oct 2017 23:03

So the tender only provides for hardware? There must be some reference software that they must pass along otherwise you really can't test hardware if you have to develop from scratch. It will need customization and integration with weapons Tejas needs to fire.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 16 Oct 2017 23:17

brar_w wrote:From what I remember, HAL floated a tender to multiple foreign vendors for an AESA radar on the Tejas. Thales was one of OEMs that this went out to. Can't blame them for responding upon being invited to participate in a multi million dollar radar tender by the OEM for the LCA.

I agree. Thales responded to the tender and have demonstrated that the unit that they are offering for the Tejas Mk1A is not some paper variant of the RBE2 that would require a lot more development work. The need of the hour for the Tejas Mk1A is to get it into flight tests and then into production, and if that means an imported AESA radar for the first 30-40 production units, then so be it. HAL cannot afford lengthy wait times for development primarily because the IAF has extremely tight deadlines to induct the Mk1A. Else, the import lobby has an opening to cut the numbers of Mk1A inducted and move those orders to the Single Engine Fighter program. The Uttam AESA needs to be demonstrated to the user and its kinks will need to be ironed out, but it shouldn't hold the Mk1A program's timelines hostage.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Oct 2017 23:36

Well said!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Oct 2017 00:34

KaranM, is the Uttam still born?

What is the point of all this bogus development which shows lab models?

enaiel · Post by **enaiel** » 17 Oct 2017 01:46

I am not KaranM, but MK1A was always supposed to use a foreign AESA radar while MK2 was supposed to use Uttam. Last we heard Uttam was undergoing ground trials on LSP2 for MK2 development. So the question should be: is Tejas MK2 stillborn?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2017 03:10

ramana wrote:KaranM, is the Uttam still born?

What is the point of all this bogus development which shows lab models?

Ramana, the point of Uttam was to develop an AESA radar capability and also, develop an AESA specifically tailored to the LCA's challenges, form, fit & power requirements. The first capability is the more important since it allows for AESA FCRs to be developed across platforms, including the AMCA or a Su-30 MKI upgrade etc, because all said and done, the MMR development was never closed and the XV-2004 and AEW&C programs, though they have given us a lot of expertise in airborne radar hardware, software, are still not fighter radars which move at far greater speeds. Now, the second point. Uttam is a LRDE program, but the final decision is HAL & IAF & ADAs. The latter three get to decide whether the LRDE program can be awaited or not. If for instance, the IAF feels the Uttam is not achieving or will achieve a certain Technical Readiness in some specific arena & either/or a foreign counterpart is superior, then they can and will push for an import. Simply put, we have a choice. Do we hold the LCA with some 60% indigenous LRUs and airframe, plus an imported engine/ 40% LRUs/radar waiting for reducing the imported radar OR we go ahead & keep the Uttam continuing to its penultimate game even if it does not enter series production on Mk1A.
Also, HAL will almost always be in favor of import. They are a production agency and want those airframes in the assembly line, firm orders & they give two hoots (to be honest) whether those radars come from the OEM or DRDO, as long as their overall production schedule is not affected. The IAF, ironically, contradictorily to what many may think of them, will be the ones who want the radar asap from local sources, because the advantages of having a local development capability are now glaringly obvious to them after all the trials and tribulations they have seen on other platforms.
However, if the Uttam is too far behind, they too will move for import.

Coming to Uttam itself.

What we do know - its HW is fairly ready. LRDE has significant experience in the same via multiple programs and TxRX were made by BEL & Astra. The same modules or variants thereof are being used for QRSAM.

Software has benefited from AEW&C program and the progress in XV-2004.
Testing on air to air modes (look up) has been achieved by roof mounted radar same as on AEW&C initial phases.

Now, the critical phase is to have it flying on LCA & debug the A2G modes and also, the look down modes in A2A (against clutter). Then there are the advanced tests (ECM), missile guidance and so forth.

Lets look at AEW&C progress to guage the same path for LCA. It has taken around 4 years of flight trials to get to IOC status in 2017. Now, the AEW&C is more than just a radar but a very complex mission suite, even halving the time in that case, means we are looking at least 2 years of flight trials and iterative improvement before we have a production ready Uttam.

The question then is whether that risk is worth holding up the MK1A.

So, to summarize:

- We need a ready radar fast for the LCA
- We need to develop our own fighter radar, non negotiable

In which case, import the first 80 odd units for MK1A if need be, but by ALL MEANS POSSIBLE, complete Uttam and not let it languish as a half baked testbed without completing development. In case you think India is not stupid enough to do something like this, I would refer to the MiG-27 EW program which was to have a variant of the EW suite on the LCA & the Jagrs and the MiG-29. To avoid CAG censure, IAF promptly declared the project surplus to requirements since the MiG-27s were anyhow going out of service, and the project was very raw to begin with, and DARE promptly dropped the program and left it unfinished, and had to then begin the effort anew on the MiG-29s and now apparently the LCA.

That is something that would be inexcusable.

In which case, the MOD better sit and work out a plan wherein a LCA Mk2 program emerges and the Uttam is sitting on it.

Our challenge is always we shoot for the very edge of the spectrum in timelines that are literally unattainable and the plan B is always import.

The one saving grace of the Uttam issue is the X Band TRM will also be used in the QRSAM program. However, a fast flying fighter radar it is not, neither that nor the AWACS India program.

Considering an average fighter radar costs anywhere between $2-3 Million, the IAF's 700 strong fleet is a market value of $1.4-$2.1 Billion, this without the strategic aspect or even lifecycle costs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2017 03:18

Now, given how much I have been in favor of having our own radar on the LCA and indigenization, the obvious question is whether I have dropped that rationale..no, I have not. My point though is we are much stronger in radars than we were in the 1990s and hence we have some breathing space even if we do not get Uttam on the first try.
Right now, we have some 2 AWACS programs in development (one on the anvil, but still). One MMSR program (likely a local radar, lets see). We have many AESA programs underway (some 7 odd apart from the BMD ones), GaN programs in development plus some other futuristic ones (long range AESA etc). In short, LRDE is not exactly withering on the vine regarding advancement.
At the same time, Mk1A is the LCA's - at present - critical effort. We need it in service asap, even if some gizmos are imported.
Just get it in service. Indigenize the rest as it happens.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 17 Oct 2017 03:19

Wow Karan. Both amazing posts. Very clear. Thank You.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Oct 2017 03:48

KaranM, Very good policy paper type posts that weigh the benefits of each option and where we are. I agree getting LCA is paramount and hence they need to pick a supplier for first 80 planes.

So there are three options:
EL-2032 radar
New AESA
Uttam

Now how does this compare to the EL-2032 radar already in the LCA?
Do they have to start from scratch wrt software?

Also when is Uttam supposed to be ready for testing? And then when will it be ready for IOC?
You estimate 2 years.

Do we have hard commitments from LRDE?

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Oct 2017 04:39

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&p=2131757&hili ... y#p2131672

Indranil wrote: Uttam AESA radar details

1. Each TR module is 10 W working at 1 GHz (X-band). Four TR module per "package"
2. When they went for volume production, components (power amplifier) were denied. The speaker calls it blessing in disguise . They had foreseen this and had started co-development with Astra microwave ahead of time. Last year, they qualified the indigenous QTRMs. BEL and Astra have already developed more than 4,000 units. The QTRMs are being used for 3 other strategic ground array systems.
3. Planks are packaged using vacuum brazing. They started with debrazing but could not qualify it inspite of many iterations. The vacuum brazed package works very well and has been indigenized.
4. Exciter/Reciever module: indigenous and qualified
5. Array power supply unit: indigenous and qualified
6. Cooling unit: indigenous and qualified
7. Complete array has been recently qualified. Safety of flight qualified. Ready for installation on the aircraft.
8. +-60 degree
9. Range: 115 km (subjective). Can be increased or decreased based on cooling, space and mission requirements.
10. Roof top testing done for qualification. Criticality lies in the software. Mission objectives need to be defined properly.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Oct 2017 04:42

The THALES unit will need to requalify ASTRA/SAAW/Python/Derby/R73/Bhramos-NG and other munitions for this new radar. But since they are going to be doing that for Rafale, they may get this for free. The upside of going with THALES unit for LCA, is that intraoperability of munitions between LCA and RAFALE units will become very high. It will be baby Rafale for all practical purposes.

That also means that the LCA units will end up being stationed on similar bases as RAfales for sure if Thales gets selected.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 Oct 2017 04:54

^^^

Don't see how a new AESA radar is going to be ready (all modes & weapons), integrated and qualified on an LCA in the next two-years. That's true regardless of whether the radar is THALES, ELTA or UTTAM. The production line for Mk.1 will come to an end in little more than 2-years from now. So unless Mk1A orders are going to be converted to Mk.1, production is going to halt.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Oct 2017 05:02

Arjun Pandit et al, How does all that address the LCA mfg capability? or lack of it?

My fear to be frank is we are seeing Arjun redux.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 17 Oct 2017 05:02

ramana wrote:Also when is Uttam supposed to be ready for testing? And then when will it be ready for IOC?
You estimate 2 years.

Do we have hard commitments from LRDE?

I think GoI is stalling to allow time for Uttam to become ready.

An accurate estimate of the timeline for a strategic program is sensitive information. I recommend that posters exercise caution.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Oct 2017 05:04

Will they be able to qualify all those weapons for Rafale by 2019?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2017 05:06

ramana wrote:KaranM, Very good policy paper type posts that weigh the benefits of each option and where we are.

I agree getting LCA is paramount and hence they need to pick a supplier for first 80 planes.

So there are three options:
EL-2032 radar
New AESA
Uttam

Now how does this compare to the EL-2032 radar already in the LCA?
Do they have to start from scratch wrt software?

Also when is Uttam supposed to be ready for testing? And then when will it be ready for IOC?
You estimate 2 years.

Do we have hard commitments from LRDE?

Thanks Ramana (and Rakesh) for the kind words

About Elta 2032 - its proven and it works. Reason I believe IAF wants AESA is because it wants the latest in technology & which will be ready for tomorrow, not just today and truly make the LCA a multirole aircraft.

A MSA like the 2032 can handle ground targets or air targets, not both. The talk of interleaving targets was much in vogue for captor and is yet to be properly demonstrated AFAIK. An AESA has three advantages over a similarly sized MSA:

- Better range (usually), because the losses between the various internal components, eg Tx to antenna are reduced. The TRM is one module and hence losses are negligible in comparison
- The beam steering is near instantaneous, instead of many seconds, milli seconds to scan an area of space, an entire antenna need not be mechanically repositioned. Hence faster tracking of targets, plus A2A and A2G both can be handled
- Better ECM resistance since the beam is electronically steered, you can do nifty things in hardware & software to reposition the beam around potential jammers, since multiple TRMs are involved, you can vary power levels dynamically (to avoid triggering RWRs) and so forth.
- A huge advantage often ignored in discussions, the HW reliability. If software is adequately debugged, an AESA solid state radar, without moving parts, will be many orders of magnitude more reliable than a MSA. This has huge ramifications for lifecycle operation including training. Any AF would be very happy with this, as a mature AESA can literally change the way it trains as simulators alone are not the answer

So EL/M- 2032 is, from what we know, in its LCA version, a circa 100 km + class radar (against a small, 3 sq mtr fighter sized target). The Uttam aims for a 150km class performance. (All boards etc show the same, and I believe the above account of Uttam misheard 150km as 115km). 150km range against a 2-3 squarem target is very credible, and firmly in the class of a MiG-29 class fighter or Mirage 2000 class fighter, MSA performance. In short, you get the radar performance in raw range of todays MMRCAs (bar the highest end ones like the F-16 Block 70/EF/Rafale) and the advantages of a homegrown AESA.

Another key capability advertised (which means its intended, as versus developed already) is LPI capability. In its maximal interpretation. This would mean LRDE plans to explore exotic waveforms to avoid triggering conventional, non digital RWRs and this is a very very big deal because most RWRs in PLAAF/PAF service are still the conventional type. So far, only F-35/F-22 claim true LPI capability, though one would think the Russian T-50 also has it in development.

Yet, this is still in development. 2 years, to be very honest, is an optimistic assessment. It can easily even be 4, for instance, if the IAF asks for specific modes or wants more testing & integration work. For instance in 2014, AEW&C was in Technical Readiness 8 for its primary system eg radar. In 2017, it achieved IOC, again, much more than radar involved, but this is our first radar, and we would be better off being very conservative.

It is in this milieu, that an off the shelf Rafale derivative or EL/M-2052 become attractive. However, we will be given only off the shelf hardware, little to no insight into the radar signal processing or its actual TRMs. At best, HAL or BEL will license assemble the radar (and given the TOT to precisely put together the radar and its LRUs, and test and verify it in some expensive in-house lab for the purpose, which will at least be useful). IAF may get some high level interface to feed in some weapons parameters to the weapons control system on the LCA & we will remain dependent on the OEM to add new complex weapons if they require specific changes to the radar itself, eg if a missile needs more accurate tracking information for A2G, then its back to Thales or Elta. We will have zero input into the signal processing or data processing boxes. Which is why an Uttam remains critical to our long term plans.

IMHO, this should be regarded as a strategic program by DRDO along with developing higher power GaN chips and exotic algorithms for low RCS or fast maneuvering targets.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2017 05:15

Now, from the viewpoint of numbers and current needs, I don't see why the IAF LCA today must and needs an AESA. Most of our fighters, MiG-29s and Mirages carry MSAs. They will be around for a long time to come. This is an example of chronic underfunding. The MOD/MOF if they opened up the purse strings would allow the IAF to field a large fleet of LCAs with a mix of radar types. The IAF instead is optimizing between multiple types each of which has to be state of the art, and ready from day one. Not for us, the PRC approach of taking whatever current industry has to offer and then gradually improving on it.

Now, Thales can offer - I think - RBE2 AESA derivative + PAJFA jamming
Elta will offer the 2052 plus a EL-8222 derivative
SAAB also has an indevelopment fighter radar plus a jammer.
The Americans will at the last moment pull out stating some SD approval was cancelled.

All said, I believe the French & Israelis are the farthest ahead with their solutions. IAF may choose from among them. The Israeli offer being stopped at the final hurdle indicates the MOD/IAF found their conditions (not just the LCA but give us Jaguar orders and this and that) onerous.
A 80 unit radar order is not peanuts. Its easily in the order of $300 Million plus, given integration costs and all sorts of assorted items. To then have the vendor act high and mighty might very well have irritated the HAL-ADA-IAF combine.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Oct 2017 05:39

Enlightening posts Karan M! Thanks as always!

So the competition is down to 2032 followon (2052), which could mean some LCA-Jaguar compatibility or more RBE2 for LCA-Rafale compatibility as far as weapons carried. I do think if we are going to go with another 36-44 rafales it may make sense to keep the radar common with Rafale as anyways they will continue to tweak the radar for us for a much longer time; that is till Uttam is ready.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Oct 2017 06:42

I think we should go with the 2032 and let the Uttam come along as second string in the bow.
The AESA will further delay the LCA as it has to be integrated.

In Telugu there is saying "beware of one who shows heaven in his palm!"

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 17 Oct 2017 06:45

Karan M wrote:The Israeli offer being stopped at the final hurdle indicates the MOD/IAF found their conditions (not just the LCA but give us Jaguar orders and this and that) onerous.
A 80 unit radar order is not peanuts. Its easily in the order of $300 Million plus, given integration costs and all sorts of assorted items. To then have the vendor act high and mighty might very well have irritated the HAL-ADA-IAF combine.

It's not just that. Integrating an Israeli AESA onto a frontline fighter while Israel sells very sensitive military technology (itself stolen from the U.S.) to China, is not wise.

https://www.defensetech.org/2013/12/24/ ... -to-china/

Secret U.S. missile and electro-optics technology was transferred to China recently by Israel, prompting anger from the U.S. and causing a senior Israeli defense official to resign.

The head of defense exports for the Israeli Defense Ministry resigned after a U.S. investigation concluded that technology, including a miniature refrigeration system manufactured by Ricor and used for missiles and in electro-optic equipment, was sent to China, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv ...

Ricor, on its company website, identifies a number of defense programs using its miniature cryo-coolers, including UAVs, airborne enhanced vision systems, missile warning systems, hand-held thermal imagers and thermal weapons sights.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 17 Oct 2017 06:59

As Arun_S warned, because of an AESA radar's high bandwidth, it is virtually impossible to ensure that the radar is not communicating with unauthorized third-party nodes. Due to the risk, a foreign AESA should not be used, if at all possible.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Oct 2017 07:18

interesting Karan, that you mention 2032 can't handle both air and surface target in a single mission. They claim it is a multi-mode radar, perhaps it needs to be configured for each mission. It is definitely we must look at for multi-mission radar rather multi-mode radar in separate mission configs - or to avoid confusion, we need multi-mode radar all in a single mission without any ground changes

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Oct 2017 07:39

SaiK it is not mission specific, you have to switch modes. So when doing A2G for that 1 minute or so A2A will be turned off. So you are vulnerable for that duration to aerial threats.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Oct 2017 09:17

Karan M wrote: Another key capability advertised (which means its intended, as versus developed already) is LPI capability.

Wat ij LPI