Radar - Specs & Discussions

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

SaiK wrote: imho, if LCA-MMR did fail, like Kaveri, we better ToT for 2052s direct. The cost of help in making the LCA-MMR is not worth (if it needs Elta's help for more 10% of the project cost).. rather a direct ToT for 2052s would jump start things.

and, IAF would luv it too.
Kaveri didnt failed :evil:

MMR is on track as well, please check r&d papers almost everything of MMR is inhouse developed.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

definition of failure has a perspective value. you have to define the parameters. imho, kaveri failed to be on LCA by this time is a measurable factor (time issue). having obtained only 80 to 85% of the thust required, does not mean a success (unless the intent is only to achieve that much). calling for a intl parternship means a failure. failing to fund more into kaveri is another failure from mgmt (GoI). failure to monitor progress., and one can list yadi yada.. when we talk failure, we should take things in a positive way (constructive, if anything left).

furthermore, take holistic view of things. see the if conditions, etc. don't dissect views, and extrapolate from the part., normally many experienced posters do that to deviate attention and concentrate on only on those that they are interested to.

imho.
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Post by Kartman »

SaiK wrote:We need to define JV clearly. If its not going to be an indigenous effort, why spend money in such a transition. its better to do AESA-MMR. OTOH, if Elta is only just helping us only on a few of the software /hardware critical issues, then we can just pay them consulting fees., and we could proceed LCA-MMR->AESA-MMR., since 95% of it is indigenous.

imho, if LCA-MMR did fail, like Kaveri, we better ToT for 2052s direct. The cost of help in making the LCA-MMR is not worth (if it needs Elta's help for more 10% of the project cost).. rather a direct ToT for 2052s would jump start things.
The only thing "full" ToT, "direct" ToT, "deep" ToT, "profound" ToT, etc, etc would jump start are the BMWs, Mercedes, or private jets of foreign vendors :cry: ... there are no short-cuts to doing things on your own.

Of course, this is not to say you shouldn't "buy" tech if it's on offer... but most often it's not. JVs, of course, are a different kettle of fish...

Better to take ~50+ % Elta/NIIP/whoever's help to get our own slotted-array MMR on its feet, than get some mythical "deep" ToT for AESA 2052s. At that rate, your grandchildren and mine will be having the same discussion on UBRF (Ujjwal Bharat Rakshak Phorum) in the year 2052 for "deep" ToT for the Ulta-Pulta 1008v420 Protonic ABXESA :(

There are no shortcuts to tech development... ToT is good, but mainly from a availability p.o.v, ala sanctioned Amriki radar parts, or unavailable-for-love-or-money Russi engine spares.
and, IAF would luv it too.
That they certainly would... but wotz best for the IAF is not necessarily good for the nation.
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Post by Kartman »

SaiK wrote:definition of failure has a perspective value. you have to define the parameters. imho, kaveri failed to be on LCA by this time is a measurable factor (time issue). having obtained only 80 to 85% of the thust required, does not mean a success (unless the intent is only to achieve that much). calling for a intl parternship means a failure. failing to fund more into kaveri is another failure from mgmt (GoI). failure to monitor progress., and one can list yadi yada.. when we talk failure, we should take things in a positive way (constructive, if anything left).
That's if you take the usual DDM or IT-crowd's definition with a binary criterion... "XYZ is a success, if and only if, it is delivered by Jan 24, 2007 before 8.05 PM" .... might be adequate in IT/Services where "I have delivering some N lines of code to a client in T amount of time" or "I will cancel my order with Domino's if the pizza doesn't arrive in 30 mins", or with DDM ("I have to deliver K column-inches of proof-read text by the type-setter's deadline at 2.55 AM")...

But that's hardly the way to judge success or failure in R&D :roll:
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Raj Malhotra wrote:It is interesting to see that MMR is put down as JV in PAC reports, which makes me wonder, if we have tied up with Israel for a development path for MMR. Something like 3-4 ELTA radar, then MMR and then AESA MMR radar
Its a JV with LRDE. When reading the report, go to the next section which goes into HAL R&D in more detail and mentions the same explicitly.

Also note HAL funding Phased array antenna.
deovratsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 07:11
Location: USA

LCA and MMR

Post by deovratsingh »

In the context of above post of Kartman:

The success and failure are relative as well. That is how you define success and its parameters/components used to measure the success? If functional MMR arives by 2020 and Kaveri gets thurst of 110% by 2020; then although you can claim that project was a success, but will be a failure in eyes of IAF/the end user. It seems like LCA, its Avionics, design, MMR all are state of the art. But its late and will be very late by 2012, due to advancement in Techs, as the user wanted the product in 1995. In this respect Swedish Grippen was a success.

Secondly, the defense industries and technologies are not static and they are constantly changing,evolving and getting more challenging which is a direct function of time, dedication,environment and needs of the situation you are in. The Gold standard in 1983( when LCA was conceived/thought of) was F16 and and F15. Now they would be F22 and F35.As future Acs would compared against these fighters.

I strongly believe in India being 100% self reliant, so it can not be black mailed by even Russians. However slow decision making of MOD and Indian politicians, lack of will power among leadership(i.e they will be scrutinized by next Govt) is making armed forces suffer. The Kaveri Engine is a shining example of reinventing the wheels. Even they could have gone for 50/50 venture to begin with( French/Russians or Germans) and would had operational Engine by 2001. The question of sanction will always be there- as we are taking risks with 40 LCAs by using GE engines.
In future if Russians are unhappy they might Sanction as well.

Same issue with MMR- they could have chosen the Blue-Vixen radar/FCS and continued to work on MMR/ AESA at their own snail pace to develop the radar, when time was right. In case of Kaveri, DRDO has realized, that they have hit technological road block. They might be able to solve if time and money was not a factor. However in today's world time and money are big factor, except in India( in context of PSUs), where ploitics is the big factor. In private sector as well as in global business, on time performance and delivery of the product is a single most important parameter to judge. We are willing to pay higher prices for, on time deliveries, and will kick out companies who will not deliver on time. The Americans have choice, as they always have a competing product and back up plans in case one fighter project gets delayed.

DRDO in its zeal to get credit and money( and it is not DRDO bashing, but a healthy criticism) did not realize the complexities involved in these projects, ultimately it is IAF who is suffering. i saw news flash that they will be down to 28 squadrons pretty soon. If this is so,then IAF will loose edge & its numerical superiority against PAKI's, which is not very good scenario. The Indian Defence Doctrine is based on being able to simultaneously defeat both Chinese and Pakis conventionally. Chanakya's principle calls for- Do not underestimate your adversaries and Gen Schwartzkoff's principle calls for overwhelmig force of 3 times for Shock and Awe.

I still did not get my answer about MMR and Kaveri- i.e how far away we are, before realization of our dream. I will host a party- with Merlot, shiraz, Caberne-Saunviogn/ and scotch to all my LCA colleagues and friends.

Regards,

DSingh..
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Raj Malhotra »

JCage wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote:It is interesting to see that MMR is put down as JV in PAC reports, which makes me wonder, if we have tied up with Israel for a development path for MMR. Something like 3-4 ELTA radar, then MMR and then AESA MMR radar
Its a JV with LRDE. When reading the report, go to the next section which goes into HAL R&D in more detail and mentions the same explicitly.

Also note HAL funding Phased array antenna.
I read that line but I was not sure that collaboration with LRDE will called JV or it is reference to foreign help. One way or another it does not make much difference till first 20 LCA have MMR
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

If it will not make much difference, why bother discussing it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

http://frontierindia.net/primary-radar- ... rogresses/


Primary radar for indigenous AEW&C progresses
May 21st, 2007 (FIDSNS)

Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) a unit of Defence Research and Development (DRDO) is working on Primary Radar for Airborne Early Warning and Control system (AEW&C).

Detailed design of Active Array antenna unit and central unit subsystem has progressed. Design of linear array of ridge slot has been completed. Prototype linear array is under fabrication. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for (transmission/reception) T/R modules and PDR for Primary radar system held.

The S band 7 kW transmitter for airborne surveillance platform is already ready. (I think FI mixed this up with this report, the S Band TWT was for the ASP ie the crashed Airavat)

Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) has already created a state of art (Radar Warning Reciver/Electronic Support Measures) RWR/ESM and self protection suite for the AEW&C.

Center for Military Airworthiness & Certification (CEMILAC) has released the roadmap for certification of AEW&C aircraft platform. The selection of of a suitable aircraft for the system is in progress.

The Center for Airborne Studies (CABS) has finished the System Engineering for AEW&C system. The Prototype of IFF Antenna has been made. CABS has also finished the PDR for AEW&C system.

The DRDO, the Indian Air Force (IAF), Indian Universities and Private sector companies are involved in the development of the indigenous AEW&C. DRDO and IAF are going to hold critical design review (CDR) of the AEW&C mission avionics.
gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Post by gopal.suri »

JCage wrote:http://frontierindia.net/primary-radar- ... rogresses/
The S band 7 kW transmitter for airborne surveillance platform is already ready. (I think FI mixed this up with this report, the S Band TWT was for the ASP ie the crashed Airavat).
I read your posts. You are very well informed. Thi article had bits and pieces of information on the techlogies either ready or are in process. The transmitter is projected more as an tech validation than fina product. The only final product is the EW suite.
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Raj Malhotra »

JCage wrote:If it will not make much difference, why bother discussing it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
It will not make much of difference if it is delivered. The point I was making was that effort is being made to get MMR ready and it may see the light of the day. If you don't like my post just ignore them!
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Raj Malhotra wrote: It will not make much of difference if it is delivered.
Are you saying that a JV with Elta is the same as a JV with LRDE in terms of advantages?
The point I was making was that effort is being made to get MMR ready and it may see the light of the day.
Where and when did you say that? In fact you appeared to be saying exactly the reverse- check your own words..
If you don't like my post just ignore them!
Actually- it appears you cant stand anyone commenting on your posts. If you put more effort into making them lucid instead of making them pithy one liners, then you could claim that they were clear to understand!!

You asked a qn- what does that JV refer to.

I answered it.

Then you stated "it does not matter anyhow"..

So why ask the question?

As straightforward as that..
Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Raj Malhotra »

Your problem is that everything is personal attack to you. You really need to get a life outside the internet. "it does not make a difference" was not directed at you, it meant that till radar gets ready, it does not matter how they do it. Anyway, you can continue to nitpick, this is my last post on the issue
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

First this:

Raj Malhotra wrote:Your problem is that everything is personal attack to you.
followed by:
You really need to get a life outside the internet.
:rotfl:

Brazen hypocrisy, as usual.

Perhaps one of these days I'll join you in gutter-talk and behave the way you generally do - but not this day.

So thank you- I do have a life outside the net- and luckily enough, it does not include the likes of you.
"it does not make a difference" was not directed at you, it meant that till radar gets ready, it does not matter how they do it. Anyway, you can continue to nitpick, this is my last post on the issue
Anyone here can see the obvious- you asked a question, you were answered, and your ego did the rest, as usual in reacting adversely.

And secondly- just to point out what should be obvious- it does matter how they get it ready whether by local JV, since each impacts the degree of expertise and design capability achieved locally.

If it were a JV with Elta, that would mean that Elta would have a far greater impact on the program than acting as just a consultant.
Last edited by JCage on 27 May 2007 21:14, edited 3 times in total.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

gopal.suri wrote:
JCage wrote:http://frontierindia.net/primary-radar- ... rogresses/
The S band 7 kW transmitter for airborne surveillance platform is already ready. (I think FI mixed this up with this report, the S Band TWT was for the ASP ie the crashed Airavat).
I read your posts. You are very well informed. Thi article had bits and pieces of information on the techlogies either ready or are in process. The transmitter is projected more as an tech validation than fina product. The only final product is the EW suite.
Apart from the transmitter-info (which is actually for the earlier ASP, the MTRDC developed 7KW TWT), the rest are somewhat relevant to the current AEW&C. These are not technologies per se, but the product itself. Incidentally, the EW suite is mentioned as "ready" in the FI report, but it at best, is an interim fit. The actual ESM suite is being developed afresh and includes ESM and CSM both.

The secondary radar is basically the IFF, semantic designations apart - it will probably be AESA as well.

The ESM + CSM are combined with a SP suite with MAWS, CMDS, RWR via a Mission controller, Datalinks are joined to that, and the entire info is displayed by a Data handling system.
KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Post by KiranM »

Hi, what is CSM and CMDS? Thanks in advance.
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Post by saumitra_j »

KiranM wrote:Hi, what is CSM and CMDS? Thanks in advance.

CSM = COmmunication Support Measures???? Sorry JC not too sure about this acronym.....


CMDS=Counter Measure Dispensation System
Check this link: Bharat Dynamics CMDS

cheers

Saumitra
gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Post by gopal.suri »

JCage wrote:
gopal.suri wrote: I read your posts. You are very well informed. Thi article had bits and pieces of information on the techlogies either ready or are in process. The transmitter is projected more as an tech validation than fina product. The only final product is the EW suite.
Apart from the transmitter-info (which is actually for the earlier ASP, the MTRDC developed 7KW TWT), the rest are somewhat relevant to the current AEW&C. These are not technologies per se, but the product itself. Incidentally, the EW suite is mentioned as "ready" in the FI report, but it at best, is an interim fit. The actual ESM suite is being developed afresh and includes ESM and CSM both.

The secondary radar is basically the IFF, semantic designations apart - it will probably be AESA as well.

The ESM + CSM are combined with a SP suite with MAWS, CMDS, RWR via a Mission controller, Datalinks are joined to that, and the entire info is displayed by a Data handling system.
You are right. I am not good at such details. That article is too much technical stuff. I am not into it. As long as they tell me it is flying, I am ok with it.
:lol:

What TWT will this new system use? What TWT does the comparitive systems use? :-o
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

KiranM wrote:Hi, what is CSM and CMDS? Thanks in advance.
Saumitra got it...

CSM= Communication support measures...able to intercept all voice comms, including freq hopping systems and analyze voice transmissions
CMDS= Chaff and Flares, BDL has a local system ready..

So ESM+ CSM = all the electronic analysis conducted by the A/c
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

TWT is not applicable for AESA. I do hope that on this new design all radio elements used AESA instead of single path Tx-Rx channels or Passive phase shifters.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

TWT is not applicable for AESA.
Exactly! The 7 KW TWT for the ASP (the name gives it away), is the S Band TWT made for the earlier "Flying Chappati" ie the ASP
I do hope that on this new design all radio elements used AESA instead of single path Tx-Rx channels or Passive phase shifters.
Thats the plan...iirc even the IFF is going to be AESA, and fitted into the radome with the primary AESA array, only issue was of making the IFF modules compact enough..
gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Post by gopal.suri »

Ok, got it magnetron/klystron/TWT ain't for AESA.

Just one more Q. the FI article talks about
Design of linear array of ridge slot has been completed. Prototype linear array is under fabrication.
This has anything to do with a TWT? I assume liner array will be mounted on fuselage for 120 degree coverage.
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Re: LCA and MMR

Post by Kartman »

deovratsingh wrote:In the context of above post of Kartman:

The success and failure are relative as well. That is how you define success and its parameters/components used to measure the success? If functional MMR arives by 2020 and Kaveri gets thurst of 110% by 2020; then although you can claim that project was a success, but will be a failure in eyes of IAF/the end user. It seems like LCA, its Avionics, design, MMR all are state of the art. But its late and will be very late by 2012, due to advancement in Techs, as the user wanted the product in 1995. In this respect Swedish Grippen was a success.

Secondly, the defense industries and technologies are not static and they are constantly changing,evolving and getting more challenging which is a direct function of time, dedication,environment and needs of the situation you are in. The Gold standard in 1983( when LCA was conceived/thought of) was F16 and and F15. Now they would be F22 and F35.As future Acs would compared against these fighters.
The LCA can still be the gold standard for India in 2010 ! We are not the US, and will be nowhere close to them even in 2020 or 30, so it's futile to compare ourselves with the world-leader.

Even the EF and Rafale achieved FOC only earlier in this decade, and these programs are still ongoing ! So the LCA would be competitive globally in its class, not to mention in the Indian subcontinent vs the Paks/Chicom...
The Kaveri Engine is a shining example of reinventing the wheels. Even they could have gone for 50/50 venture to begin with( French/Russians or Germans) and would had operational Engine by 2001. The question of sanction will always be there- as we are taking risks with 40 LCAs by using GE engines.
Kaveri = reinventing the wheel ? :roll:
There are no shortcuts if you want to get up there (i.e. a military low-bypass turbofan designed to Western maintenance specs) ... you have to "reinvent the wheel" (as you put it), simply because no one is going to give you the tech for love or for money.

All this talk of a 50/50 venture comes up only when they (i.e. foreign manufacturers) know that indigenous programs are progressing, even if with problems... as a way of cashing-in on whatever they can. Else, without the indigenous development, they would only be interested in selling their finished products.

Note what's happening with the Shakti... despite the (so-called) co-development, the "hot" section would still be supplied by the French (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
Same issue with MMR- they could have chosen the Blue-Vixen radar/FCS and continued to work on MMR/ AESA at their own snail pace to develop the radar, when time was right. In case of Kaveri, DRDO has realized, that they have hit technological road block. They might be able to solve if time and money was not a factor.
Here what you're assuming is that the product (replacement for MMR or Kaveri) is actually available, with deep ToT/source codes, etc.

Wherever available, DRDO/HAL/etc do source foreign components with parallel indiginization programs.
However in today's world time and money are big factor, except in India( in context of PSUs), where ploitics is the big factor. In private sector as well as in global business, on time performance and delivery of the product is a single most important parameter to judge.
You'd probably have a heart-attack if I told you stories about places like Bell Labs, IBM Research, NASA, etc. :rotfl: ... often considered the benchmarks.

R&D is inherently unpredictable, more so when you start from scratch, rather than developing incrementally from an existing base. The most common approach to minimizing this risk is to have multiple programs, at least some of which do not make a significant leap in tech (so-called incremental tech. dev.)
The Americans have choice, as they always have a competing product and back up plans in case one fighter project gets delayed.
And why is that ? Does money have anything to do with it ? If so, do we have that sort of money to throw around ?

Do we have the scale to fund parallel projects ... say, HAL v/s Tata Aerospace :P ?
DRDO in its zeal to get credit and money( and it is not DRDO bashing, but a healthy criticism) did not realize the complexities involved in these projects, ultimately it is IAF who is suffering. i saw news flash that they will be down to 28 squadrons pretty soon. If this is so,then IAF will loose edge & its numerical superiority against PAKI's, which is not very good scenario. The Indian Defence Doctrine is based on being able to simultaneously defeat both Chinese and Pakis conventionally. Chanakya's principle calls for- Do not underestimate your adversaries and Gen Schwartzkoff's principle calls for overwhelmig force of 3 times for Shock and Awe.
Vacuous platitudes apart, what do you suggest ?
PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: LCA and MMR

Post by PaulJI »

Kartman wrote: ...Kaveri = reinventing the wheel ? :roll:
There are no shortcuts if you want to get up there (i.e. a military low-bypass turbofan designed to Western maintenance specs) ... you have to "reinvent the wheel" (as you put it), simply because no one is going to give you the tech for love or for money.

All this talk of a 50/50 venture comes up only when they (i.e. foreign manufacturers) know that indigenous programs are progressing, even if with problems... as a way of cashing-in on whatever they can. Else, without the indigenous development, they would only be interested in selling their finished products. ...
Not quite right. If there's someone out there who is losing out to the competition, they might be willing to set up a joint venture with technology transfer as a way of staying in the market. It'll capture your market, & the combination of development money & revenue from sales gives them the chance to get back into contention in other markets - they hope. Or if things are bad enough for them, they might see selling out completely to you as the best way to get value out of their firm, rather than folding.

But that carries the risk for you that whatever the reason for them losing out will adversely affect you. Best prospect is a player which is marginal for political or economic reasons (e.g. based in a smallish country), but technologically competent. A marginal producer based in a major country is likely to be losing out because its products or management aren't up to scratch, so it's risky. But still, it might be able to help you along, depending on your circumstances.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Paul

Thats true, but where are these marginal players right now? Remember, we want a western firm, since Klimov is not really into high MTBF cutting edge engines, and adapting the russian approach to the Kaveri will be a hard call at the best of times, with liberal timelines- which we dont have. The Russians eg stick to GOST standards, India has gone mostly for western peer reviewed methods and the Ge404 influence on Kaveri is also present.

So in the west- there are consolidated players- the Safran group, the American heavies, and Rolls Royce. Of these, political issues affect the second, the first will burn a hole in Indias pocket apart from being obdurate about IP (and well they might, its their differentiator!), I dont think Rolls Royce will be different either. So that leaves Volvo Flygmotor. And Volvo itself is more into niche manufacturing, product design and development and license manufactures Ge404 variants.

So while you are correct in the generic sense, in reality, there are but a few whom India can work with, and each of them has its own interests which directly contradict Indias.
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

I dont think kaveri = reinventing the wheel at all,

You see what is Kaveri? a engine,
Dont we have talent to make one? We do,

So its simple and natural a good project team led by good amount of funds can thousand percent sure finished kaveri within a decade or 15 years.

That time is required for any country when your first try is 20000 lb's with a tw ratio of 1:8.

Blame the management/fund not the project, r&d itself is nothing but a groupd of talented fellows need to stick to it and keep on working, it comes around, these guys are working in worlds best institutes , why cant they do a engine eh?
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Post by Kartman »

joey wrote:I dont think kaveri = reinventing the wheel at all,

You see what is Kaveri? a engine,
Dont we have talent to make one? We do,

So its simple and natural a good project team led by good amount of funds can thousand percent sure finished kaveri within a decade or 15 years.

That time is required for any country when your first try is 20000 lb's with a tw ratio of 1:8.

Blame the management/fund not the project, r&d itself is nothing but a groupd of talented fellows need to stick to it and keep on working, it comes around, these guys are working in worlds best institutes , why cant they do a engine eh?
Note that, per recent reports incl. from AI07, Kaveri develops 90%+ of the dry thrust. Let us for a moment assume that no progress can be made beyond that level... even then, a non-afterburning Kaveri can be used for a LIFT variant of the LCA, or in a dedicated low-level strike variant of the MCA (where the requirement is biased toward an efficient turbofan, rather than raw thrust).

Of course, there would still remain the hurdle of actually productionizing the engine...
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Post by Kartman »

Oops... didn't realize this was the Radar thread :P ... let's take this to the Kaveri one
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

JCage wrote:So in the west- there are consolidated players- the Safran group, the American heavies, and Rolls Royce. Of these, political issues affect the second, the first will burn a hole in Indias pocket apart from being obdurate about IP (and well they might, its their differentiator!), I dont think Rolls Royce will be different either. So that leaves Volvo Flygmotor..
You forgot MTU. They don't manufacture whole engines maybe, but their expertise is second to none. In fact many of the compressors of P&W engines (PW 6000 for eg) and IAE engines (where they are part of the consortium) are of MTU design..they also contribute to Eurofighters EJ200 and were part of the RB199 for Tornado.. They are cutting edge in 3d aero designs and they have very good proprietary stuff in that area gained from sustained investment and research..
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Post by JaiS »

Turning AESA Radars Into Broadband Comlinks

June 13/07: Northrop Grumman Corp. and its teammates L-3 Communications, Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. have successfully conducted the first in-flight communication's link with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Using off-the-shelf, L-3 programmable modems and a new R-CDL waveform, the Radar Common Data Link (R-CDL) used the AESA radar's fire control transmitter and antenna to perform high-data rate, two-way communications, streaming synthetic aperture radar map imagery and streaming video from a Northrop Grumman BAC 1-11 test aircraft to an L-3 Communications ground station. During the mission, the team transmitted and received in full duplex at 274-megabits per second burst rate.

For the testing, the F-22 Raptor's AN/APG-77 radar was linked to an L-3 Communications modem. The modem is software-programmable, which means it can be adapted to send and receive using various protocols ("waveforms"). For the test, they used a modified CDL [Radar Common Data Link] waveform, and the entire array of elements in the radar. They then demonstrated the transfer of a 72 MB synthetic aperture radar image in 3.5 seconds at a data rate of 274 Mbps. That would have taken 48 minutes using Link 16, which is the standard data exchange system in US and allied equipment. In practice, that means the sensor data is downloaded and communicated only when the plane lands.
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Post by JaiS »

ELTA Systems’ First Conformal Airborne Early Warning & Control Aircraft (CAEW) Completes Major Milestone

PARIS AIR SHOW, Le Bourget --- ELTA Systems Ltd, an IAI (Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd) wholly owned subsidiary, has completed a major milestone - mission systems installation, integration and testing of its first Conformal Airborne Early Warning & Control (CAEW) system.

ELTA is the prime contractor, system developer and system integrator of the CAEW Program.The CAEW will be operated for a variety of missions including early warning, intelligence gathering and air combat command and control.

Prior to delivery the aircraft underwent a series of flight tests in the United States to verify in-flight performance and airworthiness. Since its arrival in Israel, ELTA's engineers have worked intensively to install, integrate and test the mission systems onboard the aircraft.

Nissim Hadas, President of ELTA Systems, said: "The maturity of ELTA's electronically scanned phased array technology has enabled us to demonstrate the performance of our radar in actual flight in record time. The CAEW radar and other mission equipment have demonstrated excellent performance during the flight tests. We are confident that we will successfully complete all of the testing by early next year and meet the current delivery schedule of the program."

The CAEW aircraft is the third generation of early warning systems developed by ELTA since the mid-1980s. ELTA is an international pioneer in the development and deployment of AEW&C utilizing phase array technology.
deovratsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 07:11
Location: USA

JCage- Relations with West

Post by deovratsingh »

At some point you have start taking risks in absence of old track reord( or negative experience in case of US and UK). India has already started taking risks by decision to equip 40 LCAs with GE404. In this unipolar world and politics of horse trading ( international or domestic), when push comes to shub, US will be able to influence all Western Suppliers ( France, Israel, UK, Swedes, South Africans and to some extent Russians as well) to deny neccesary technologies to any nation they wanted to( eg MTCR, Nuclear energy to name a few).

The Foreign ministry,MOD and GOI knows this very well, and want to build a positive and lasting strategic and economic relationship with USA. The best we can hope to get from this relationship is to learn and get technologies, while we have good relations and Indian interests are aligned with that of US. As long US does not have a competing a interest with India, small things will not bother US and would continue cordial realtions with India, so will military technologies to India. With collapse of Siviet Union there is no more desire of " either me or him"; hence their is a lot of room to play around. This is why US wants to see the largest democracy of the world to flourish and be strong, because this is in the best interest of US and India both in the long term. In the long term this policy and strong India will contain china, and Pakistan, Burma and stabilize Malasia and other Esatern countries. That is there is tremendous military to military contacts between US and India, and US does not have any problems intraining and developing any tactis with India.

The best India will do is, not keep all eggs in one basket, so that diversify its acquisitions from Russians, US and French; simultaneously benefitting from the competition and lower prices. In this process India will be getting best equipment and technologies, same time it will be hedging against sanctions (in worst case scenario).

Americans are not going to give Indians cutting edge" disruptive" military technologies( like F22), however they will give FA18 E/F, as similar aircrafta and capability is available to India from other sources any way. This decisionof USA is purely commercial with intention of improving good business political ties. In US commercial and military interests are most often aligned and both can be used to gain same results in the long term. You can not keep hungary population and fight a long and costly wars?

So this all hoop-hola about FA 18 and F16 is meaning less, when India itself has committed to 40 + LCAs and GE engines any way. India has calculated worst case scenarion they may have to change those engines to Kaveri and RD 33.

Altough it is anxiety provoking at present( and Indian Defence establishment is skeptical at present) however I personally feel in long term this will be a mutually beneficial relationship between two countries.

Regards,

DSingh.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Post by kit »

Just wondering .. is it that easy to change the LCA s engine from F404 to the RD .. maybe the kaveri engine ?!! .. the pak shouldnt have had a prob when the RD33 was initially denied to them
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Post by JaiS »

Northrop Grumman Joint STARS Completes First Advanced Targeting Flight Test

MELBOURNE, Fla. --- Northrop Grumman Corporation recently completed its first test flight of an enhanced targeting capability for the U.S. Air Force's E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) from its facility here. The flight of the Joint STARS test aircraft demonstrated the next generation tracking capability offered by Northrop Grumman-developed Data Fusion System(tm) (DFS) and related system improvements to the Joint STARS radar and navigation subsystems.

The flight was conducted under the Enhanced Land Maritime Mode/Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement/Advanced Radar Modes (ELMM/AMSTE/ARM) upgrade contract awarded to Northrop Grumman late last year. During the ELMM first flight, crews demonstrated precision and long-term tracking of maritime targets, maintaining an automated track of a maritime target for over two hours during one segment of the flight.

“The DFS lets the system track multiple targets within the radar's field of view,'' said Dave Nagy, Northrop Grumman vice president for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems. “It automatically tasks the radar or other sensors to collect data required to maintain track quality of all selected tracks. The system provides automated target re-acquisition.''
Kartman
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 15 May 2007 20:53

Post by Kartman »

kit wrote:Just wondering .. is it that easy to change the LCA s engine from F404 to the RD .. maybe the kaveri engine ?!! .. the pak shouldnt have had a prob when the RD33 was initially denied to them
Would be a fairly painful job to make the structural mods to change engines... esp. since engine layouts are different, would be easier to change one Western-designed/inspired engine for another.

But if/when push comes to shove, it can be done... JMHO onlee
PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Post by PaulJI »

Kartman wrote:
kit wrote:Just wondering .. is it that easy to change the LCA s engine from F404 to the RD .. maybe the kaveri engine ?!! .. the pak shouldnt have had a prob when the RD33 was initially denied to them
Would be a fairly painful job to make the structural mods to change engines... esp. since engine layouts are different, would be easier to change one Western-designed/inspired engine for another.

But if/when push comes to shove, it can be done... JMHO onlee
EJ200 should fit. There was a feasibility study done to see whether EJ200 could replace the RM12 (F404 variant) in the Gripen, & the conclusion was that it was rather easy.
deovratsingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 07:11
Location: USA

EJ2000 for LCA

Post by deovratsingh »

If USA is so much ticked off to put pressure on India, and wants complete tech denial then all of the western Engines and Techs would be off limit
( e.g in case of Iranians,Libiyans, Cubans, North Koreans and advance fighters to Chinese). I like EJ 2000 is better, and I wonder why India went for GE404 ?( may be EJ2000 was not mature and ready and perhaps cost?). Germans would have given complete tech transfer for a price.

In event of another WMD testing by India, if US is forced to put sanction
( i.e they don't invoke national security interest clause) and move to go for sanctions, they would find one way or other to prevent German's transfer of EJ 2000( which is probabaly better Technology than GE 404).

If they did not do that, then they would defeat whole purpose of sanctions and would be punishing US companies unneccessarily. It is another subject how much India would be affected by sanctions? Our experience in this country is that German Techs and machinery is better, and has lees tendency to break down( although very expensive in comparison to US and Japanese machines).

Regards,

Dr. DSingh.
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

The GE F404 was choosen because of a reason, there wont be spare issues as such as you think it to be, think of it! GE Indias revenue would be 8 billion $ within next 3 years from India, spare parts wont be a problem in such case of severe sanction!

US cant afford to sanction India/China in the scale of Iran.

Kaveri will be replaced by GE thus EJ2000 wasnt choosen which wasnt ready that time.

We made a huge strategic mistake of not buying the german Company MTU which was up for sale... absolute strategic mistake :cry: :cry:
PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Post by PaulJI »

BTW, everybody, it's EJ200, not EJ2000.

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ss_tp_tp.asp
sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Post by sunilUpa »

What on earth Kaveri, GE 404 and EJ200 (2000) are doing in Radar thread?
Post Reply