tsarkar wrote:Karan, you keep posting selective points supporting your PoV, that don’t communicate the full picture, that I will clarify below -
Unfortunately that is something you do. Furthermore, you lack civility when responding to people who respond to your increasingly aggressive queries patiently. Frankly, I see no point in your approach. If you expect respectful replies, lay off the sarcasm and acrimony.
With regards to the FBW system, you description covers only the digital FBW system that Dassault, a private company, was developing for the Rafale and felt their global commercial interests might be affected if this technology was given out. The analogue system was not even considered by ADA. It is incidents like this, where IAF operational criteria were snubbed, that resulted in IAF losing interest. Nowhere does AM PR mention in his book that IAF requirements increased weight.
This is absolutely wrong & nowhere did SR Valluri even make any claims of this sort & nor do successive accounts of what happened bear you out. The facts of the matter are that Dassault did not inspire confidence in the Indian developers who were the ultimate judge of what was feasible. If they had been the best vendor, they would have won as they did for the design consultancy. His points clearly note that that particular firms push at the time were hardly around meeting Indian requirements but more about we really dont need to share info with you folks, because the deal is as good as ours.
Not sure where you get these specs from, but the ones I know is atleast 100 km for 5 m sq target, that is pretty normal even in 1985.
My specs are from public information shared by the developers and the users. 100 km for a 5Sq Mtr target is NOT the benchmark set for the LCA MMR - point 1, and second, neither the "best" IAF MiG-29 & Mirage 2000 radars were able to achieve this way back in 85. Ranges apart, the performance achieved by the MiG-29 & Mirage 2000 suffered from several operational restrictions. The MiG-29 WCS in particular was infamous for its limitations in certain engagement criteria and heavily dependent on ground based GCI.
FWIW, F-16A/B presents 3 m sq in frontal aspect in A2A role. Hence, here also, no super performance specs were set.
That FWIW would be incorrect - as there are no standard F-16 A/B RCS measurements. With Have series RCS improvements, the RCS could be significantly lower. And with payload, the RCS could be significantly higher.
I do wish Harry was still around because he would have had the patience & time to share all the details which you quite clearly missed.
Compared to the relatively primitive MiG-29 and Mirage 2000-H radar, the expectations set for the LCA MMR were a generation ahead, 10 target TWS, dual target engage, 100 km PLUS range against a small fighter class target, ground mapping modes, TFR, multi-PRF operation autoselected for keeping track of targets in various conditions, maneuver/weather, both close combat & BVR modes, including raid assessment & ECCM features. Its instructive to note that NONE of the IAF radars of that generation had but a fraction of the capabilities expected of the LCA's MMR when looked at in entirety, considering size and weight constraints. As matter of fact, some of these capabilities are yet to arrive for the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29, and that too via upgrades circa 2011 onwards.
quote="Karan M"] Now, you keep mentioning without proof that IAF used Zhuk ME and APG-68 V(9) as benchmarks, when IAF wasn’t even aware of these radars, nor were details of these available at that point of time. This is obfuscation of facts. You need to compare with Thomson RDM radar in service with Mirage 2000 in late 80s early 90s.
It would serve you better to actually understand what I wrote before misinterpreting what i noted & claiming that the IAF used radars which did not exist as benchmarks. One thing I have observed about your comments - you generally lack the ability to civilly disagree with folks and ask for data, but tend to reply with provocative comments "obfuscation of facts" - it seems.
As matter of fact, I pointed out that the IAF expectations of what the MMR should be were beyond radars operated by them at the time and represent radars which exist TODAY as versus the radars that existed then. That was the basic point and one which you know get to, when you say compare it with the Thomson RDM radar. Thats the entire crux of the issue, the specifications for the MMR were leading edge & are still competitive.
Karan M wrote:It also was to have Doppler Mapping, DBR (A2G ranging) and Terrain Following Modes.
>> The requirements were Air to Ground ranging and Terrain Following Modes. Well even the RDM radars on Mirage 2000 delivered late 80s early 90s had these very basic air to ground modes. The ONLY reason why the Mirage 2000 was Air to Ground capable was because the radar did Air to Ground ranging! The Mirage 2000 needs this radar mode because it does not have a laser rangefinder like the Jaguar and MiG-27 carry in their chiseled nose. Eureka!!! Air-to-Ground ranging mode on radar avoids having to carry a laser rangefinder!!! So it was required in the multi-role LCA.
Selective pick & choose again - assuming that I did not know a basic fact such as that the Mirage 2000 does not have a LRF as on the MiG-27 or the LRMTS on the Jaguar!
The issue is not just of having one set of modes, but the entire quantum of modes that the MMR was expected to have, including close combat modes, long range modes (including VS), TWS and
getting best in class results of more than 100 km against a small target, while able to sustain dual targets. And all these to be assumed in a form factor of 130 odd kgs, which places a premium on LRU consolidation. The LCA MMR is but of a few which have adopted the ERP concept.
Even the Hunter and MiG-21 could drop bombs and fire rockets, and they did have ballistic computers. A laser rangefinder like Jaguar/MiG-27 or Air to Ground ranging mode in radar significantly improves air to ground accuracy even with unguided bombs. Incidentally, even the Tejas PV uses Litening Pod as a rangefinder while dropping unguided bombs. If you notice IAF exhibition, Aero India, etc Mirage 2000 armament fit, you'll notice the Matra Belouga submunition dispenser. Now these dispensers have very exact deployment envelopes to be effective, otherwise the mass of submunitions may end up hitting nearby friendly forces or result in area denial of adjoining target areas. So, unlike MiG21 rocket fire or bomb runs, they need the accuracy afforded by RDM radar air to ground ranging mode, since the Belouga never had laser guidance because these kits were expensive those days.
This is known stuff & you are rebutting something which was never said. The issue was not whether the IAF requires A2G modes, the issue was of the manner in which everything but the kitchen sink was added to the functional specifications for the LCA, with very challenging weight/size constraints making achieving these performance figures a huge challenge, so much so that even several partners demurred.
Here is what is interesting. No IAF fighter has had these features before Kopyo radar in late 2000's and that too Kopyo range is not even half that of LCA radar.
Correction, Thomson RDM already had these modes and A2A performance in 80s & 90’s. You are incorrectly implying IAF learnt about radars and Air to Ground modes only when the Kopyo entered service late 2000’s.
Your correction would be wrong.
Merely because you are cherrypicking statements and then claiming that others are "incorrectly implying" what is in actuality correct. The Bison was the first A2A plus multirole capable fighter in the IAF to introduce the *combination* of A2A BVR with ARH (implying shots made in TWS moving to high grade tracking for dual BVR shots) AND also have a robust combination of A2G modes including SAR.
The IAF did not have ANY radar that matches the quantum of capabilities the MMR was expected to bring till it got the Bisons and the Elta sets way later. The only radar that somewhat matches the Bisons capabilities was the limited ELTA 2032 upgrade earmarked for the Jaguar, but it never received the long range BVR integration.
Its only with the Su-30 MKI, decades thence that the IAF finally got the true-multirole set it required. FYI - the Mig-29 radar would actually lose track of multiple bogies when it switched to STT for engaging fighters with its Alamo. The Russians sought to compensate for this by moving the processing offboard and then feeding it back to the pilot using a datalink. The upgrades done thereafter for the IAF were limited in scope and the IAF today is seeking to replace this set with the Zhuk ME, because all said and done, the N019 can be dressed up only so much, even if it remains competitive against the vast array of junk the PAF/PLAAF have, it has lost its edge a while back against the sets the PRC is fielding. The RDM radar had limitations versus the N0-19 on the MiG-29, despite being on paper being credited with a 111 km range and a host of "basic A2G functions"!! IAF MiG-29 pilots went on record noting the same. The MMR specifications were far more ambitious than either.
Rewind to 1993. During those years, IAF was evaluating Su-30 and MiG-21 Bison packages. The MiG-21 Bison contract was signed in March 1996. Su-30 MKI package was signed in November 1996. Hence IAF knew the capabilities of the Kopyo and Bars very well in 1996. And IAF set more stringent air to ground performance specifications for Bars Mk3 in 1996! So “No IAF fighter has had these features before Kopyo radar in late 2000's” is another piece of misinformation on your part.
Cherrypicking statements again while accusing others of misinformation. Civility goes out of the window, whilst winning the arguement by all means takes precedence. The MMR did not come about in 1993, FYI - the MMR specifications were drawn up earlier, while looking at the "best in class" systems of that era, which were the APG-66 and the APG-65 series. As the IAF evaluated more and more systems, they asked for more, but even if it were true it only adds to the point that the IAF kept adding to the specifications based on in development sets which took decades to mature. Heck, the IAF is still looking for achieving the MTBF promised by Russia for the Kopyo-21 circa 91-93, in 2011.
Furthermore, if you see IAF requirements circa 2003-05, SAR has been added to LCA radar. Because now latest fighter radars come with SAR.
>>Yes, otherwise the ELTA processors containing SAR processing algorithms could not have been budgeted or purchased, could it? If you’re buying the processors for A2A mode, why not buy the A2G mode as well?
Mixing up cause & effect, I'm afraid. The SAR mode was not purchased as afterthought - it was purchased because it was the key driver the HAL team had not been able to deliver and ADA was certain that it would not be available in enough time to keep the LCA program running. The A2A mode for the LCA had already been tested against several targets and demonstrated reasonable performance. The IAF noted that they wanted both & the signal processing in the radar would have to be redesigned for high resolution A2G mapping which is what SAR requires. The IAF wants SAR because the IAF wants the LCA to be multirole from the word go, and it wants top of the line capabilities.
Another gross misinformation. Where is it mentioned that the 130 kg radar weight was IAF specification? ADA could include 260 kg or 390 kg or 520 kg radar weight as long as flight and maneuverability criteria were met.
What gross misinformation? Just because you are unaware of certain things does not mean that everyone is similarly disadvantaged! Your statement is akin to saying that make us a MiG-21 sized plane - we dont care what size radar goes into it, as long as the aircraft is of x dimensions and can do y job! Will the developers then squeeze in a 500 kg radar then? Instead of arguing for arguements sake, admit where the issue is. The requirements demanded of the LCA "we want Mirage 2000/MiG-29 style performance in bases that can handle MiG-21s" - words to that effect spoken right in front of me by an AF guy - implies every system has to be optimized to extreme limits, putting significant strains on technology development. Contrast that to the clean sheet given to Sukhoi and the approach adopted by them when developing the Flanker - yes, we know our electronics are heavy, so lets develop the airframe to compensate, and the AF guys agreed. Kota Harinarayana went on record at a public event noting design specifications led by the IAF were about a MiG-29/Mirage 2000 equivalent able to tangle with a F-16!! And you wont get this on google or the net, either.
The fact is a fact - a 130 kg radar has to perform as much as 220kg one, when the latter has been developed by one of the best radar houses on the planet because the specifications demanded of it are extreme! Thats the same darn reason the developers have been looking for ambitious and hard to achieve solutions, such as combining the ERP into one package, which experience has now been used for other projects!!
Wrong, the IAF did not specify weight and the capabilities were present in Mirage RDM radar in the 80s & 90's as well. How does one expect the Mirage 2000 to fire the Super 530D missile if the radar doesn’t have a search range of atleast 100 km and tracking range of atleast 70 km to cue the 40 km ranged missile?
Hardly wrong! Because you are merely cherrypicking one data point & extrapolating it to the *package* expected of the MMR. The RDM has a range of 111 odd km against a 5 Sq Mtr target and that too in ideal conditions. There are several who would disagree about what that era of radar could and could not achieve!! The MMR is expected to have significantly more range given its baseline performance is expected against a smaller sized RCS and not only that, it is expected to be lighter, more robust, have better all round performance against a wide range of criteria. Not going to post the exact numbers I am afraid - even if there were once declared publically.
In specifications expected, the French radar that most closely compares to the MMR is the RDY-2, developed a decade after the RDM and then the RDY. Unlike the MMR, it actually uses dual TWT to get an average power of 800 W (the MMR has 650W) & drive its performance - again, another indication of how the MMR effort has had to optimize LRU count and develop each system keeping stringent weight & volume constraints in mind.
Karan M wrote:Every engine generates ample electricity, so it is factually incorrect. Its absurd to note the Mk1 has deadweight infrastructure for EW systems that will go in Mk2. Basic rule of aeronautical engineering is to avoid carrying deadweight. So operational Tejas Mk.1 will not carry deadweight infrastructure for Mk2.
The only thing absurd is how far the forum has deteriorated when a conversation which would have otherwise lead to information sharing has folks like you seeking to always score one up! "Every engine generates ample electricity" - tell me something new! And perhaps that is the reason why the Su-30 MKIs cannot handle the Irbis? Or is it that "every engine that generates ample electricity" has to be coupled with dedicated power generation/transfer equipment able to handle and supply the correct voltage/current required by disparate systems. But I tire of this useless bickering.
You speak of it being "absurd that the MK1 LCA has deadweight infrastructure for the LCA MK2". Tell me, what do you know of the LCA MK2? Go on, educate me.
And for the record, since I really don't have the time to dig out and reply to your statements about EW systems & the LCA fit - pretty much everything you said there was mistaken as well. The LCA ECM is
multidirectional. AESA equipped current gen state of the art systems DO approach all round coverage provided platform space/power constraints are provided & an Indian upgrade actually provides for near complete protection, beyond the limited frontal sector & is already under acquisition.
So tell me about the LCA MK2. Tell me about its avionics systems, its expected LRUs, what systems were meant to be on the original LCA and what the designers have planned for & already incorporated! Go beyond stuff on the net. Do inform me of the detailed avionics & systems planned for that aircraft. I'd love to see some actual statements about the reality from actual aeronautical engineers & those who actually worked on the plane - as I have had the opportunity to hear what some of those kind folks say, as versus internet vehemence about what is "absurd" and what is not.