LCA News and 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.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2154
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby merlin » 22 Feb 2011 12:59

neerajb wrote:


Wow! PS Subramanyam fights back the DDM. :twisted:
I get this eerie feeling that DRDO/ADA guys go through this forum for motivation/'What to do next' purposes as far as PR is concerned. Distinctly remember Shivji's recent piskological post on how DRDO has withdrawn into it's shell by DDM's constant/irrational criticism of DRDO/PSUs/Desi stuff. Rajat Pandit et al, did the article whir grey matter (if any) in your thick heads?

Cheers....


Now that was a kick arse article especially the last few points - we will have built the Tejas and all its associated infrastructure for less than what it cost Sweden to build the Gripen and they had all the experience gained with the Draken and Viggen and no sanctions on them at all.

That is a tremendous achievement any which way you look at it (which unfortunately old timers like Victor will happily ignore).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Feb 2011 20:02

Thanks for the insight gurujies.


-- was searching for data on what were the dos and donts for pilots on spin recovery.. how an unstable a/c be CLAWed to help these steps in any better way.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/fli ... _recov.htm
at the end of page, has nice little steps for the pilots.


So, for LCA tejas mk2, we would definitely have the parachute recovery system in place. This would have to be employed at some time before any ejection thoughts goes in or it can still be recovered after ejection? I think, it is the later that we can salvage as much the a/c as possible.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1442
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Craig Alpert » 22 Feb 2011 20:23

krishnan wrote:My comment

Funny, no one complains when crores are wasted in bollywood good for nothing movies. Why? Cause Malika shows her skin?
:P

:twisted: The crores are well worth it when it's "munni badnaam hoi, darling MERE liye" :P jokes apart that was an article to help silence the critic once and for all. God Speed to the Tejas team/program.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Feb 2011 20:30

SaiK wrote:Thanks for the insight gurujies.


-- was searching for data on what were the dos and donts for pilots on spin recovery.. how an unstable a/c be CLAWed to help these steps in any better way.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/fli ... _recov.htm
at the end of page, has nice little steps for the pilots.


So, for LCA tejas mk2, we would definitely have the parachute recovery system in place. This would have to be employed at some time before any ejection thoughts goes in or it can still be recovered after ejection? I think, it is the later that we can salvage as much the a/c as possible.


recovery chute is only used in test aircraft. service aircraft will be ok with normal spin to recover using normal controls - assuming FMC is operational and in control. if not then you need to bang out anyway. a flat spin should not arise - if it does, and hte chances are 1 in a zillion - then more cost effective to bang out

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 22 Feb 2011 20:31

merlin wrote:Now that was a kick arse article especially the last few points - we will have built the Tejas and all its associated infrastructure for less than what it cost Sweden to build the Gripen and they had all the experience gained with the Draken and Viggen and no sanctions on them at all.

That is a tremendous achievement any which way you look at it (which unfortunately old timers like Victor will happily ignore).

even more so considering the fact that gripen used a LOT of tech off the shelf from US and europe that ADA/HAL had to develop themselves, FBW being the most important one. then again there was the cost increase due to having the recreate FBW related work due to Pok2 sanctions, not to mention the delay which adds its own cost escalation.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 22 Feb 2011 20:39

the movie top gun has a sequence featuring a flat spin - from memory this is when goose buys it

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Feb 2011 21:18

I am thinking modes/roles would be better.. in the sense test/training mode and war/service mode where various sub systems behave, and thus maximizing the platform usage.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Hiten » 22 Feb 2011 21:57

NFTC Chief Test pilot Capt. [IN] Maolankar speaking about the Naval Light Combat Aircraft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJjNXA9w3dg

A paper had been presented about the some time back prior to the aircraft attaining IOC

Tejas Flight Tests: lessons learnt so far

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http: ... 162-14.pdf

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16211
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Feb 2011 22:26

Hiten wrote:Tejas Flight Tests: lessons learnt so far

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http: ... 162-14.pdf


Please check the date on that paper. Is it from 2005? Original:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 162-14.pdf

shaunb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 22 Oct 2009 01:42

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shaunb » 22 Feb 2011 22:40

From Ajai Shukla's article...

Only three major milestones noted for Tejas Mark 1 FOC
What remains is to integrate a long-range missile; to enable mid-air refuelling; and to enable the Tejas to fly as slow as 200 kmph.


Interesting to see that mid-air refuelling would be done on Mark 1.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Hiten » 22 Feb 2011 22:43

NRao wrote:
Hiten wrote:Tejas Flight Tests: lessons learnt so far

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http: ... 162-14.pdf


Please check the date on that paper. Is it from 2005? Original:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 162-14.pdf


Yes that is the original URL - just re-routed it through Google Docs for convenient viewing

Sorry did not notice the date in the footnote - my apologies

I searched the title here before posting. Not finding it, thought of posting it

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16211
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 23 Feb 2011 04:17

NP.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 23 Feb 2011 09:11


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3368
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby suryag » 23 Feb 2011 09:13

yeevil hakim

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66430
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2011 09:53

:) shiv saar poking fingers in sensitive echandee places....

the Mk1 tejas would have a fixed m2000 style aar probe - iirc, the british co (flight refueling intl) who did the MKI buddy buddy refuel work has been tasked to develop a conformal EF style folding probe for Mk2? if you note its not completely internal in EF, the pipe forms a conformal bulge near the cockpit...which is acceptable.

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby kmc_chacko » 23 Feb 2011 20:37



time passed :)

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 811
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby neerajb » 23 Feb 2011 20:45

Has Tejas's gun been tested? Read recently on BR that Tejas flies without one.

Cheers....

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66430
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2011 20:54

no I believe its on the pending list.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 811
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby neerajb » 23 Feb 2011 20:58

So the 'To Do' list for FOC includes:

1) BVR missile integration/gun testing.
2) IFR integration.
3) High AOA/spin tests.

Am I missing something?

Cheers....

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2601
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 23 Feb 2011 21:04

4) wake flutter tests?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66430
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2011 21:15

WVR radar cue for R73 too.
sudarshan/paveway/spice
full set of EW/SPJ/flare/chaff tests
DACT to id strong and weak points vs iaf fighters / get the singapore F16s to play dact with it
over-the-sea usage
many more night flights
full set of radar tests

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 23 Feb 2011 21:27

Singha wrote:DACT to id strong and weak points vs iaf fighters / get the singapore F16s to play dact with it

While that will be done sooner or later it will become a FOC requirement only if the IAF lets BRF jingos create the list, I think. :P

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2987
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 23 Feb 2011 21:27

Austin wrote:Personally I do not think they would integrate R-77,AMRAAM,MICA etc with Tejas ... it might just end up being expensive and these countries would not allow such integration or might just ask blood money for it.

Right now integration of Derby/Python 5 should just do fine , these two missile have a overlapping kill zone and NEZ , integration of two will just play along quite well , it will make up for some shortcoming in range with high probability of kill and better ECM/Decoy protection.

Once Astra gets developed which should be accelerated as quickly as we can , we will get a AMRAAM C5 class BVR capability and if that comes with with Tejas Mk2 its fine , for Tejas Mk1 Derby/Python and at a later stage integration of Astra should go well.


The Derby is essentially a modified python 4 and is considerably less capable to the highly agile and smart python 5, but the P5 costs nearly twice as much.The Derby depends more on radar guidance compared to IR/Electro optical homing for the P 5.That also would explain why that is chosen., as the LCA radar is going through its paces.Its quite possible that the derby is considered as a stop gap measure for the ASTRA.The current ongoing deployment of the LCA is nowhere near the 'hot' zones.So it is considered as 'adequate'.
Last edited by kit on 23 Feb 2011 21:48, edited 1 time in total.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 281
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Drishyaman » 23 Feb 2011 21:42

So, many different types of system integration need to be done before FOC for Tejas.
Just wondering, if the deadline would be enough for the same ?
Can someone put some light ?
I am not trying to be pessimistic here.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 24 Feb 2011 00:05

well, "system integration" tests comes much much earlier to user trials. So, relax.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3474
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Feb 2011 04:08

The Derby is a good decision imho. The Tejas needs a BVR in double quick time and in all probability only the Derby can be integrated quickly considering a) similarity of El-2032 and MMR, and b) HAL's experience in integrating it for the LUSH upgrade, c) The IN already chose this AAM, which means that it is that much less work to integrate it as compared to a totally different missile.

In any case, the next one due is the ASTRA, so Derby is a decent stop gap. Also its performance seems rather decent (take a gander at the comparison chart posted in the AI seminar as shown at Livefist). IIRC, the 80km range also matches what some Israeli AF folk have said in the past - that the missile packs a rather decent range unlike the Amraam!

CM

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4257
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 24 Feb 2011 04:30

Cain Marko wrote:The Derby is a good decision imho. The Tejas needs a BVR in double quick time and in all probability only the Derby can be integrated quickly considering a) similarity of El-2032 and MMR, and b) HAL's experience in integrating it for the LUSH upgrade, c) The IN already chose this AAM, which means that it is that much less work to integrate it as compared to a totally different missile.

In any case, the next one due is the ASTRA, so Derby is a decent stop gap. Also its performance seems rather decent (take a gander at the comparison chart posted in the AI seminar as shown at Livefist). IIRC, the 80km range also matches what some Israeli AF folk have said in the past - that the missile packs a rather decent range unlike the Amraam!

CM


Agree with you CM. Quick integration with the MMR/2032 and quick induction into service is the need of the hour. With Capt Maolankar having been of the pilots who tested the LUSH with the Derby, there is direct experience at NFTC in this field too with the Derby. And once the Astra is ready and available to be integrated, they can replace or complement the Derby with the Astra based on the relative merits of the two missiles.

The only figure I'm not so certain about is the Derby range- previous figures were said to be ~50 kms, not 80 km. Considering that the missile diameter (and consequently motor dia) is the smallest of the lot compared, the range will most likely be the lowest of the lot as well.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3474
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Feb 2011 05:30

Kartik wrote:Agree with you CM. Quick integration with the MMR/2032 and quick induction into service is the need of the hour. With Capt Maolankar having been of the pilots who tested the LUSH with the Derby, there is direct experience at NFTC in this field too with the Derby. And once the Astra is ready and available to be integrated, they can replace or complement the Derby with the Astra based on the relative merits of the two missiles.

The only figure I'm not so certain about is the Derby range- previous figures were said to be ~50 kms, not 80 km. Considering that the missile diameter (and consequently motor dia) is the smallest of the lot compared, the range will most likely be the lowest of the lot as well.

Yup I think you have a point about the Derby - I was getting a bit mixed up. Rather small missile but they have been at it for over 10 years now. Still, that range figure makes one wonder? Anyways, there was a report by S. Unnithan ages ago that put the range @ about 60km.

CM

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2288
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 24 Feb 2011 05:50

I think anything that allows it to defend itself in a situation is the way to go (close to mid range is great for now) Astra should be the weapon of choice for us as we move along 4-5 years down the road. Given that these long range puppies cost us a million dollar a pop and require refurbishing after 40 hours of flight, home made stuff is the way to fight. The real force multiplier is AEW. We will always have a few of those up in air scanning, helping all other assets. This will allow even LCA's to perhaps take birds with longer reach weapons by allowing it position itself strategically. Most birds without eyes(AEW/GCI) have a pretty narrow scan angle on them. They do need pointers from either air or ground based radars to point them in the right direction.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 24 Feb 2011 15:00

cybaru speaketh the truth
network centricity is the key element of performance that has to be in place
ofcourse, this is largely invisible to mango jingo's

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17890
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 24 Feb 2011 23:49

tsarkar wrote:Karan, not quite correct. EW aperatures are forward facing rather than sideways, because that is the direction most threats are faced from. Fighters try to present their least profiles to AD radars, and the forward profile is the least one. No fighter on earth has sideways facing - and radiating - EW aperatures. Tempest (I incorrectly mentioned Tranquail in earlier posts) is in MiG-27 nose and vertical tailfin leading edge (not side spot).


No, not necessarily as there is no hard & fast rule per se that EW apertures only face the forward position alone! The more powerful Fighters with enough space for a proper EW fit, on account of space & fitment constraints, go for forward and aft fitments for a cone radiating outwards towards the front & towards the back, but as you can well imagine it leaves a "blind spot" on the side of the fuselage. But its no longer entirely certain, that all fighters in the world have only such an arrangement. This is a very sensitive area, and as such no OEM talks much on the topic, but buzz for the past few years, has been about compact solid state transmitters having advanced to the stage that ~200-240 deg coverage is mentioned, if not complete 360 degree. Plus methods are mentioned for near hemispherical coverage - at least versus GBAD using a variety of techniques from widely dispersed apertures. I have also seen public proposals of AESA based jammers which are located across airframes & even pods (a spherical installation - think of concentric rings one behind the other, but of AESA tiles/bricks) which provide sideways jamming. Basically, the field is developing constantly, and its by no means certain what we have today, is what is available today or not even fielded. Why, just a few days back, I learnt that GaN radars are already in public production and are being advertised as such.

But the larger point I was making was that the aperture I mentioned could be very well for the new EW fit. Remember, the apertures in this platform are not just for Tx but Rx as well, and the MiG-27 has long had an issue with space & blanking issues with even the latter. Plus, it is a test platform & a deliberate non standard fitment is also possible, for checking out ERP & other issues.

It is definitely an add-on & from what I have discussed, seems well in line with depictions of the system, small aperture, possible inlet. I guess we'll know for sure once details are out in a few years time..

We were discussing LSP aircraft determining IOC capabilities in 2010, that never had this system in the first place. No one was assessing 2012 performance with 2012 systems in December 2010. December 2010 IOC was done with what was available. I am simply refuting the then-prevalent PoV that Mk.1 design was perfect/close-to-perfect-theory or new-systems-added-one-ton-weight-theory. Both these theories are grossly incorrect. Not sure why you're defending those theories. FWIW, the Mk.1 specs in the picture posted by Shiv above lists EW suite as an external store.


You are of course, welcome to your opinion but I'll have to stick by mine that new systems did add weight & the provisos for systems continue to evolve. December 2010 IOC would of course be done with what is at hand, but it is important to note that even that has been achieved with mostly PV & TD aircraft, and hence even these are not reflective of production standard LSP, which too may see change before we have MK1 (40 aircraft). For instance, quite some time back, Business Standard notes that of the 10.5T aircraft w/7 pylons, fuel & 2 R73E, the designers would "save" some 300-400 kg taking off telemetry equipment and hoped to save further weight elsewhere, even while there was talk of the aircraft being 2T overweight. But we know now the weight of telemetry items was included & today the weight is around 1T vs originally specced but even here we have work in progress. So, clearly, the weight goals have been iteratively realized through the program and will continue to be. However, the lack of a dedicated press outreach organization or the like, prevents us from knowing what is what, until some event or the like comes along. Second, the specs posted by Shiv are interesting, but like I said, the next Aero India (circa FOC) will give us a better idea of whats on the actual aircraft heading for production & the one thereafter may give us the best view yet of production standard MK1s and what should be on the MK2. Right now, from what I determined, the MK2 fits are still in progress & MK1 improvement is still underway.
The reason I am fairly certain that an internal EW fit was contemplated, beyond the usual 7th pylon EW Pod thing which we all know about, was because a possible fit was publicly discussed, with the point that IAF requirements called for it. Now, whether it will make its appearance on MK1 or MK2, remains to be seen.

IAF Mk.2 shows much more area ruling to improve aerodynamics, and IN Mk.2 MLG is being re-designed. Mk.2 simply irons out Mk.1 performance deficiencies. It adds some incremental performance enhancements from Mk.1 as a positive side effect. The intent is to keep the empty weight constant while using a higher engine to compensate.


No issues there, but one thing is more avionics improvements are being contemplated and are in development. The AESA decision shows these may be introduced as upgrades (good to have versus essential to have) but some amount of design modification will have to be done to keep these inputs in mind. I'd rather they be conservative and stick with what they have currently itself, because a literature comparison shows it to be fairly up to date versus peers and contemporaries.

And in your pods-vs-internal EW discussions, normal fighter internal EW suites offer only X-Band jamming. Pods are must for wideband jamming. Sukhoi has a Su-30MKI/A/M variant that carries 3 pods for wideband jamming, to accompany standard Su-30MKI/A/M. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 04eb28a9aa That is why we have EA-6 Prowler and the US Navy jammer equipped Hornets. If internal jammers were so good, they wouldnt be building these planes to carry pods.


No, normal fighter suites dont jam only X Band, that would be a very limited band. They jam what can be simply referred to as fire control bands (X, Missile seeker ones), while pods are used for "surveillance bands" (L,S etc). Nowadays, that distinction is somewhat going for a toss, because more & more missiles are cued by search radars in TWS, and with proper network centric cueing can home in one targets even how, but generally, since fighters & missile seekers remain in the X,K,Ku bands, the internal jammers remain at that level and are optimized for these bands.
Like I said, multi band transmitter jammers are common nowadays.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Rad ... Italy.html

This is the one used on the MiG-35.
E- to G-band and H- to J-band self-protection radar jammer.
E-G: So thats 2-6 Ghz, corresponding to parts of IEEE LBand & SBand
H-J: 6-20 Ghz, corresponding to X, Ku, and a bit of K band

The E-G will be podded, and the H-J will be internal, as these are the usual airborne firecontrol & missile seeker bands.

Note, in particular:

Designed for installation aboard multi-role combat aircraft, the ELT/568(V)2 is a solid-state radar jammer that in all-up configuration incorporates a Jamming Source Unit (JSU), three high- and two medium band Antenna Array Units (AAU), one medium and two high-band Solid-State Transmitter Units (SSTU) and two cooling units. In a typical installation, the system's JSU is installed in the aircraft's centre fuselage, with the AAUs being located in the platform's wing roots, fore and aft in an underwing pod and in the base of its vertical tail surface. While not confirmed, Jane's Radar and Electronic Warfare Systems believes that ELT/568(V)2 can also be configured for all-internal installation if required


So to reiterate, multi band coverage, via multiple transmitters.

Basically, the standard fitment is for the high (fire control) bands to be fitted internally, while the low/medium bands are available as a podded version (versus surveillance radars).

And like Janes says, there is talk of an all internal fit being possible, provided the aircraft has space, volume, provisions for suitable modification etc. Not always the case, for legacy platforms which rarely if ever have even a few inches of space in key areas. The fitment also shows the typical forward (wing root) & backward (aft at base of its tail surface) fitment, whereas the pod would do the same, but for different bands. Given enough volume & space, much can be done.

Coming to the Su-30 "variant" - thats not really a variant per se, per reports it was a standard Sukhoi 30 MK model but carrying the new SAP pods which allow for more jamming options, but some degree of customization would have occurred for integration onto onboard avionics etc, but doubtful it is as comprehensive as the Growler which has huge amount of cabling for the EW mission. The Growler is not just a jammer, its a very well fitted out aircraft for the ESM mission.

The Prowler is pretty much obsolete and will find it hard to incorporate newer systems internally. The US has publicly noted or implied that even the ALQ-99 pods are finding it hard vs SA-21 level threats.

Internal jammers are good, but they complicate an aircrafts schema & most aircraft designers did not include EW suites in original development. Its only now they are considered as essential to the aircraft, as at one time, a gun was or then a radar. As such most fighters today, and almost all being designed today, are to carry an internal jammer. The only exceptions to the rule, as I mentioned, were the F22 and F35 but at least the latter now, is being prepared for the NGJ- Next Generation Jammer, with stealthy shaping to minimize signature.

Pods are useful for multi band coverage including exotic bands, like I noted earlier, and also in threat scenarios where the EW scenario is very intense. Eg multiple SA-3XX type platforms available versus legacy platforms - in which case more ERP you have, the better!

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2687
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 25 Feb 2011 21:28

Karan M wrote:No, not necessarily as there is no hard & fast rule per se that EW apertures only face the forward position alone! The more powerful Fighters with enough space for a proper EW fit, on account of space & fitment constraints, go for forward and aft fitments for a cone radiating outwards towards the front & towards the back, but as you can well imagine it leaves a "blind spot" on the side of the fuselage.
Firstly, jammers are designed as per threats. EW systems radiate in the direction where most threats are faced. Fighters normally fly forward towards targets. So interceptors (fighters or missiles) will fly towards them. So a normal fighter faces most of its threats in the forward hemisphere. Also, mission flight paths are planned ensuring only the least profile is presented to enemy radars. The forward profile of a fighter presents the least cross section. Hence EW only radiates forward, where enemy threat is maximal.

This is what every operational fighter with internal EW jammer does today.

Karan M wrote:You are of course, welcome to your opinion but I'll have to stick by mine that new systems did add weight & the provisos for systems continue to evolve.
Sorry, this baby has heavier bones from birth, though not necessarily stronger bones. It is being fitted with a bigger heart. To set the record straight,
The actual Tejas internal EW system is described in page 8 of 17 here http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... 011%20.pdf
it is provided with EW armour comprising radar warning receiver (RWR) and countermeasure dispensing system (CMDS)
The RWR activates the chaff cartridges and there is NO INTERNAL JAMMER in Tejas Mk. 1. Just an RWR LRU and CMDS LRU, none of which can possibly lead to four digit weight growth.

This is what OBOGS looks and weights like, certainly not more than double digit kg.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... S.jpg.html

Karan M wrote:But the larger point I was making was that the aperture I mentioned could be very well for the new EW fit.
No it won’t. The shoulder aperture in Tejas Mk 2 model that you’re claiming EW jammer aperture, in reality, is present in Mk 1 as well. The over wing shoulder aperture is where the airflow separated by inlet diverter exits from under the wing, as depicted clearly here –
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/LCA%20Te ... ia_001.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/LCA%20Te ... ia_002.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/LCA%20Te ... ia_004.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/LCA%20Te ... ia_019.jpg

Like I said, multi band transmitter jammers are common nowadays.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Rad ... Italy.html
Your own quote says
in an underwing pod While not confirmed
This system is not used operationally by any fighter in the world, including Italian Air Force Typhoons, because it is in a very nascent phase. The only fighter where it was proposed was MiG-35 for IAF. The system is a concept, that Elettronica S.p.A. can build if someone orders.

Also, New Generation Jammer has not even been properly defined. Only available technology assessed http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ape&next=0
There are no requirements yet, but an inventory of emerging capabilities is underway

Anyways, it’s a fig leaf claiming because Elettronica S.p.A has a basic concept in place, DRDO can make the quantum leap from triggering chaff cartridges to an operational internal omni-directional jammers array by 2014. I strongly believe what DRDO calls RWJ will in all probability be Tusker pod triggered by RWR.

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

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby vina » 26 Feb 2011 09:26

tsarkar et al. After looking at the final billboard figures of the MK1 empty weight, it is a great job that ADA have done. This IS a Gripen C/D class fighter with all the bells and whistles that go into it and has come out slightly LIGHTER than the Gripen.

So, I really dont think there is any "under design/over design" whatever. Now from the initial 5500 kg to 6500kg , what could have accounted for the weight growth ? Well, my guess is that the intial 5500kg was for a Mig21 replacement. Now what you have is a Gripen C/ M2K 5/9 class fighter with significant A2G and multirole capability. That does account for a chunk of the higher empty weight. So let us not conjure up issues where none exists.

For those who ask, well, how does the Gripen C /D have no "issues" with a lesser powered engine while the LCA seems to have "issues".

Well, that assumes that the SwAF requirements are the same as the IAF ASR ? It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D ! My bet is that the Gripen C/D as it is currently wont meet the IAF ASR for the LCA as well. It simply can't (especially with take off length in Indian summers and all that, given the lower T:W ratio and the take off length does not need the full AoA etc).

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby khukri » 26 Feb 2011 11:32

vina wrote:For those who ask, well, how does the Gripen C /D have no "issues" with a lesser powered engine while the LCA seems to have "issues".

Well, that assumes that the SwAF requirements are the same as the IAF ASR ? It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D ! My bet is that the Gripen C/D as it is currently wont meet the IAF ASR for the LCA as well. It simply can't (especially with take off length in Indian summers and all that, given the lower T:W ratio and the take off length does not need the full AoA etc).


Its hardly likely that the ASR's for the LCA, which were presumably established early in its development cycle and therefore several years before the MRCA requirements were specified, were more stringent than the MRCA requirements? That seems to fly in the face of logic - but hey, maybe in lahore that logic rocks!

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 11:40

vina wrote:For those who ask, well, how does the Gripen C /D have no "issues" with a lesser powered engine while the LCA seems to have "issues".

Well, that assumes that the SwAF requirements are the same as the IAF ASR ? It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D ! My bet is that the Gripen C/D as it is currently wont meet the IAF ASR for the LCA as well. It simply can't (especially with take off length in Indian summers and all that, given the lower T:W ratio and the take off length does not need the full AoA etc).


I agree.

khukri wrote:That seems to fly in the face of logic - but hey, maybe in lahore that logic rocks!



How does Lahore fit into the Gripen vs. LCA argument? More over, no one knows if Gripen really did well against IAF ASR for MMRCA and so is better left out of the discussion. The SwAF claims the Gripen is very satisfactory for their needs. But, IAF does not claim so in case of LCA, even though (on paper) the LCA seems to be a better fighter (in general). In that sense, the only logical conclusion can be that SwAF has a more relaxed ASR as compared to the IAF's.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10696
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Feb 2011 11:52

khukri wrote:quote="vina"For those who ask, well, how does the Gripen C /D have no "issues" with a lesser powered engine while the LCA seems to have "issues".

Well, that assumes that the SwAF requirements are the same as the IAF ASR ? It is highly probable that the IAF ASRs are much tougher than the Swedish ones for the Gripen C/D ! My bet is that the Gripen C/D as it is currently wont meet the IAF ASR for the LCA as well. It simply can't (especially with take off length in Indian summers and all that, given the lower T:W ratio and the take off length does not need the full AoA etc).quote

Its hardly likely that the ASR's for the LCA, which were presumably established early in its development cycle and therefore several years before the MRCA requirements were specified, were more stringent than the MRCA requirements? That seems to fly in the face of logic - but hey, maybe in lahore that logic rocks!


Khukri, some simple research before critizing Vina, Gripen C/D has not been offered by SAAB for MMRCA but Gripen NG which is still not in production. Infact, there was a complaint that Gripen NG was not sent for some of the Trials but only Gripen C/D. Now why would SAAB do that?? BECAUSE Gripen C/D does not meet the ASR requirements for MMRCA but only Gripen NG can.

So Vina's contention that Gripen C/D would not meet ASR requirements for LCA still holds.
Last edited by Aditya_V on 26 Feb 2011 14:34, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 26 Feb 2011 12:07

khukri ji, LCA ASR has not stayed still. the LCA today is not the same one that was envisaged back in 80's.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66430
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 26 Feb 2011 12:08

is there a complete copy of the current Tejas ASR in open source ? or for that matter the Gripen-C ASR ?

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby khukri » 26 Feb 2011 17:12

khukri wrote:That seems to fly in the face of logic - but hey, maybe in lahore that logic rocks!



How does Lahore fit into the Gripen vs. LCA argument? More over, no one knows if Gripen really did well against IAF ASR for MMRCA and so is better left out of the discussion. The SwAF claims the Gripen is very satisfactory for their needs. But, IAF does not claim so in case of LCA, even though (on paper) the LCA seems to be a better fighter (in general). In that sense, the only logical conclusion can be that SwAF has a more relaxed ASR as compared to the IAF's.[/quote]

Once you've been on BRF long enough, you will become familiar with the concept of Lahori Logic.....

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: LCA News and Discussions

Postby khukri » 26 Feb 2011 17:18

Rahul M wrote:khukri ji, LCA ASR has not stayed still. the LCA today is not the same one that was envisaged back in 80's.

Well Rahul, the implication of that argument is that the evolving ASR's for the LCA have been set at a higher level than those for the MRCA, which is supposed to be an aircraft for the future, and that would seem to absurd?

Perhaps you can illustrate how these ASR's have evolved, I.e. What the previous ASR was and what the now evolved one is?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ravikr, srin, VickyAvinash, Yagnasri and 63 guests