Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 19 Feb 2020 01:17

Thanks for the details Indranil. So it's either on the pylons or on the airframe itself with the Cassidian MILDS-F sensor, but we're not yet certain which approach will be adopted? I suppose if the pylon mounted ones are just as effective then it'll also be more cost effective? Airframe mods will require to be made when the Su-30s go in for overhaul at HAL Nashik? Or will they be done as part of the Super-30 upgrade?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 19 Feb 2020 04:48

Pylon mounted ones have lower coverage.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 19 Feb 2020 08:43

Cain Marko wrote:What optical sights? There are optical sensors for forward looking and down ward targets iirc on the 35 series.


I had this brainwave (or did I read it somewhere) that 35 series had many optical sights mainly to uncover LO planes (that may not be so easily tracked by radar).

In theory, even 1 degree centigrade difference will be caught up by a IR sensor (and any plane flying through air will generate that, the IR suppression is mainly for engine exhaust, the leading edge and the front getting heated cannot be helped). That with multiple sensors on a plane through triangulation can find where the LO plane is (you will always get the bearing but not the range from Optical sensors). Also in fact you can target these planes with IR sensor based long range AA missiles. I believe that is Rus low tech (yet cheap) answer to LO, do not know though how effective it is.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby JTull » 19 Feb 2020 13:30

Thanks for the details.

Podded version allows faster deployment, while structural changes are slowly phased in fleet wide.

It will also allow for (aerodynamic studies allowing) deployment on other aircraft, viz, Tejas, Mig-29, M2K.

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby dkhare » 19 Feb 2020 14:21

Finally! MAWS on the Su-30MKI is great news. Thanks for the details Indranil. Glad to know they are proceeding to further enhance defensive sensors on the Su-30MKI. It is our premier air dominance fighter - Astra + MAWS bring much needed capability enhancements to this platform.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16939
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rahul M » 19 Feb 2020 20:43

great details ! thanks Indranil & Shaun.

this is excellent news indeed. any idea about timelines ?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 27 Feb 2020 03:32

Indranil, unless you have chaiwallah info about the shift to DCMAWS, there are several incorrect elements to the chronology posted.

The DCMAWS was not dropped merely after a bizjet flight. It was cleared for Su-30 installation thereafter. All DARE did was declare the original project closed and take the actual installation was to be taken up as a separate program.

CAG says:

Subsequently, DARE relocated installation of IR sensors on the aircraft to the satisfaction of Air HQ and expert committee, who concurred (February 2015) the installation of all the six sensors. M/s Elisra, Israel delivered (March/April 2015) all the six IR sensors only after the completion of factory acceptance test (FAT). The flight evaluation of DC MAWS was also carried out (March - April 2015) on a test bed (Cheyenne - a transport aircraft) available with M/s Elisra. An amount of `194.16 crore had been incurred on the project (March 2015).42 The heat emitted by aircraft plume and release of missiles will mask the IR sensors which in turn increases the thermal capacity of the sensors beyond saturated point thereby affecting its performance.

133Air HQ stated (April 2015) that flight trials of DC MAWS on Su-30MKI aircraft were expected to commence in December 2015. Audit also observed (June 2015) that in order to meet the latest PDC (June 2015) of the project, DARE, after development and testing of the system on test bed of transport aircraft available with M/s Elisra and not Su-30 MKI aircraft, closed the project claiming it successful.

In order to prove the developed DC MAWS system on Su-30 MKI aircraft, DARE had proposed (June 2015) to take up a separate project.

DARE further stated (June 2015) that the delay in development was due to time taken (from February 2012 to February 2015) by Air HQ to assess the impact on aerodynamics of the Su-30 MKI aircraft on fitment of sensors.

In response to Draft Report (April 2015), the DRDO HQ reiterated (June 2015) the views of DARE that DC MAWS project was taken up as a TD project and suggested to exclude the project from draft report. The replies may be seen in light of the fact that Air HQ had clearly projected (March 2008) the requirement of DC MAWS for Su-30 MKI aircraft and accordingly, the project was sanctioned under MM category.

Also neither DRDO HQ nor DARE took any initiative during development to obtain an amendment to sanction from MM to TD project. Further, flight evaluation of developed DC MAWS was carried out on test bed of Cheyenne transport aircraft and as such, the success or otherwise of DC MAWS with oversized sensors, would be known only after flight evaluation on modified Su-30MKI aircraft, for which a separate sanction was awaited. Till then, Su-30 MKI aircraft fleet would have to operate without missile approach warning capability.


By 2015, the core of the Indian contribution, the data processor unit had been completed.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/ ... mpse-ebook

In Oct 2016, India imported DCMAWS hardware from Israel (the development partner). Rs 2 Crores.

26-Oct-16 ISRAEL ELECTRONICS PARTS WITH ACCESSOTRIES PO DARE/FPD/DCMAWS/PO-01/2011-12 1 SET 20467650 Rs


Year end review 2016.
https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease ... lid=156049

Dual Colour Missile Approach Warning System (DCMAWS) for fighter aircraft (Su-30 MKI): DCMAWS provides warning to the pilot on detecting a missile threat on the aircraft. Upon the declaration of the threat, the system provides audio visual display to the pilot and activates the counter measure dispensing system through onboard MC. The DCMAWS is a passive missile approach warning system that utilizes two spectral bands in the mid band IR. The system is being jointly developed with M/s Elisra, Israel and MoD, Israel. System development is completed.


So the program did not stop in 2015 either.

It was regarded as complete by March 2018.
viewtopic.php?p=2279067#p2279067

Next, the fitment shown as a pylon is actually the DCMAWS fitment. Not the MILDS-F fitment. For reference see this:
Image

As we can see, each pylon now has two DCMAWS and one up and one down sensor.

Finally, does DCMAWS as a program still exist? Yes it does. Now, lets head to the DGAQA to see the active programs they are certifying. Clearly Amogh, DJag, DR118 are current programs. This link is at least from 2018 given the date for the GPS program but the Google weblink says May 2019.

https://dgaeroqa.gov.in/alisda.htm

CURRENT PROJECTS
Projects under QA coverage at ALISDA

Akash Army Luncher (AAL) at TPCL, Bengaluru
GPS Marg-2018 for MI-17 Helicopter at TCS, Bengaluru
COMPASS (EO/IR Pay Load) for ALH, LCH, MI-17 Helicopters at BEL, Chennai.
SSDVRS for MIG-21 Bison aircraft at Park Controls & communications (P) Ltd, Bengaluru.
Network Protocol Converter for ICNS aircraft (Navy) at BEL, Gazhiabad.
Digital clock cum timer for Chetah/Chetak Helicopter at SEPL, Bengaluru
ECFMC, GRP, CIU for LCA aircraft at L&T Defence, Bengaluru

Projects under QA coverage during Design & Development at ORDAQA (ADE)

RUSTOM-II UAV
GPS Marg-2018 for MI-17 Helicopter at TCS, Bengaluru
AMOGH - Mission Computer & DJAG - Radar Warner Jammer for DARIN III Jaguar
DR118 - Digital RWR & DP30 - Display Processor for SU-30 MK I
Network Protocol Converter for ICNS aircraft (Navy) at BEL, Gazhiabad.
IV. DCMAWS - Dual Colour Missile Approach Warning System - SU-30 MK I
V. AESAR - Active Electronically Steered Airborne RADAR for LCA

Projects under QA coverage at ORDAQA (CABS)

Development Of Airborne Early Warning And Control System On Embraer Aircraft

Projects under QA coverage at OAQA (BEL)

ALGCT &TROPO
Design & Development of LADC, Netcap, IMS, GES, MAWS etc.
DFCC, ADC, FSDU for LCA aircraft
DR118 - Digital RWR & DP30 - Display Processor for SU-30 MK I
RLSU, R-118, Transfers, Chokes etc. for SU030 MKI aircraft.
LRUs for UAV


Net, could MILDS-F be on the Su-30? Sure. But is it a given based on the chronology outlined previously, not feasible.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 04 Mar 2020 17:17

HVT, has noted on twitter that DCMAWs is the intended fit for the Su30 MKI and is headed for flight trials soon. So, yeah, no MILDS- F on Su-30 for now. This entire MILDS-F for Su30 was originally started by who else but the great Prasun and as usual, he is incorrect.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 04 Mar 2020 20:05

Karan,

DARE has always called the project as DCMAWS. You will learn that the sensors are no longer from Elisra, but from EADS.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 04 Mar 2020 21:39

I will await their confirmation because DARE calls their project *as DCMAWS as it is Dual Color*. They can't use single spectrum sensors and then continue calling it DCMAWS.

Furthermore, as my above post shows, as of 26 Oct 2016, they *were* still importing optical assemblies from ELISRA. Could it be they were just getting stuff back? Possible, but improbable.

So, does EADS even have Dual Color sensors is the next thing we need to look at. This is the MILDS-F, which says:
https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/HENS ... tranet.pdf

FunctionAN/AAR-60 (V) 2 MILDS F is a passive, true-imaging sensor device optimised to detect the radiation signature in the UV solar blind spectral band that is emitted from an approaching hostile missile exhaust plume.


This *is* the latest version as of 2018. It already has a pylon designed for it, we wouldn't need to make one either, bar having them customize it for the Su-30 MKI.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... gian-f-16/

"Solar Blind spectral band". This is typically a UV channel which works from 240 nm to 280 nm solar blind ultraviolet spectrum. For instance:

(Image: Lobachevsky University) Scientists at Lobachevsky University (UNN; Nizhnij Novgorod, Russia), the Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, and the Indian Institute of Technology Ropar have been working for several years to develop solar-blind photodetectors operating in the UV spectral band.1 In the field of electronic technology, this is an important task, since such devices cut off emission with a wavelength higher than 280 nm, which helps to avoid interference from sunlight and to record UV emission during daylight.

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/detecto ... plantation

Is this the same band, the original "DCMAWS" operated in?
Here:
Dual color missile approach warning system (DCMAWS) operating in the MWIR band provides reliable missile
detection capability with increased range, better response time and low false alarm rate. Radar-warning sensors and
ultra-violet missile-warning-sensors are the two other technologies usually used for missile type target detection. But
today’s most threatening targets like Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), rocket propelled grenades
etc do not emit active RF signals. Modern missiles use new propellants, which generate low-intensity plumes and
the detection range obtained with the current ultraviolet warning sensors is short resulting in less time available for
countermeasures after the threat detection. As a result, a passive IR detection system capable of detecting the
thermal profile of propelling chemicals in real time from a greater range will significantly enhance aircraft’s
survivability. However, IR sensors need to extract the target from a complex background/heavy clutter in contrast to
an ultraviolet sensor, in which the target is observed against an almost zero background. This leads to a higher false
alarm rate in case of IR MAWS. One way of reducing the false-alarm is to make use of the spectral difference
between missile plumes and the sunlight reflections, background clutter etc. By carefully choosing two wavelength
bands [1] (red channel 3.5-4µm and blue channel 4.5-4.8µm) in the MWIR (3-5µm), the contrast between missile
plume and background can be maximized. The potential scene is simultaneously sampled in the two IR bands
mentioned to detect the threatening target based on the spectral ratio analysis in the two bands. Such sensors are
fitted on the aircraft in multiple numbers in order to provide 360º coverage.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ING-SYSTEM

The difference between the two is simply explained here:
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/commu ... nse-system

Aircraft missile warning systems typically operate in the ultraviolet wavelength to detect the plumes of incoming infrared, or heat-seeking missiles. Ultraviolet sensors, however, are best a detecting relatively old missiles with bright exhaust flames. Infrared sensors, on the other hand, can have difficulty in high-clutter backgrounds.

Using two separate electro-optical sensors in the same system helps measure the contrast between missile plume and background to extend the system's detection range against incoming missiles with a wide range of missile propellants and help lengthen reaction times.


In short, the DCMAWS is meant to be more advanced.

Then, the relative size of the sensors, small and compact:
https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/HENS ... tranet.pdf
A simple, single window optic.

Whereas:
Now lets look at the DCMAWS picture release. Check the characteristic *two-windows* in each sensor but the sensor housing itself appears substantially bigger.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6s3hfalkQ4/ ... MAWS-3.jpg
This matches what DARE itself displays, look at the bottom part of the pic:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VHkYtIYz580/ ... -30MKI.jpg
Or
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kfhn4evoHg4/ ... 2BMAWS.jpg

The Cassidian now Hensoldt MAWS units which were sold to India as part of the Cheetah upgrade project for the IAF, but which are now being added to the IAFs Mi-17 choppers may look similar but they appear smaller and a second aperture, even if it is present, is located elsewhere:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fWOYqq9vJ2w/ ... 2BMAWS.JPG

But these do not match the top part of the collage which is Hensoldt's MILDS-F proposal as advertised by Alpha Design (their India representative) which image again matches the Hensoldt brochure above.

Putting all this together, it does not seem probable at present that Hensoldt has a 2nd DC MAWS sensor specifically for India which is also competing with their primary offering the AN/AAR-60 which operates in a different band.

If DARE uses the simpler MAWS optic, then their proposal would no longer be a Dual Color MAWS, so why even retain the name.

DARE continues to maintain its MAWS is not a UV MAWS but one based on the DC concept. 2019 updated website,
https://www.drdo.gov.in/labs-establishm ... hment-dare

IR based MAWS based on the dual colour concept has been developed by DARE for fighter aircraft and currently is being integrated into Su-30 MKI aircraft.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Prasad » 04 Mar 2020 23:15

DARE's MAWS is indeed the midband IR based system and does not use UV. UVMAWS is on helicopters atm working with an RWR. Dual colour from
By carefully choosing two wavelength bands [1] (red channel 3.5-4µm and blue channel 4.5-4.8µm) in the MWIR (3-5µm), the contrast between missile plume and background can be maximized.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Mar 2020 00:04

I think you guys are right. And I am happy that you are.

The gent who told me this was obviously confused between the parallel project with EADS+Alpha+BEL to provide MAWS for the wide-bodies and rotary-wings. 

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 05 Mar 2020 03:15

Yes, I think so too.

He has mixed up the DARE program with Alpha for a MSWS solution for cheetahs and chetaks with the DCMAWS.

This was a project done along with Alpha, this accounts for those BEL MAWS posters:
Alpha Design has already produced and supplied 469 MILDS as part of Cheetah Helicopter Upgrade to Army Aviation Corps through BEL (DRDO's Project) during 2015-16, it said.


Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... aign=cppst

Meanwhile HAL also has a parallel program sourcing Grintek now SAAB MWS/LWS etc for its ALH, LCH etc.

Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (IDAS): IDAS is a fully integrated warning system and includes radar warning (RWC), missile approach warning (MAWS) and laser warning sensors (LWS). In India, IDAS is integrated on the ALH Dhruv and ready for LCH.


https://saab.com/region/india/about-saa ... ndia-2019/

Alpha has also won a tender for the Mi-17 upgrade program which includes MAWS.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

It said its scope of work will involve manufacturing of key sub-units such as smart displays, new cockpit, transponder, Digital Voice Recorder (DVR), Missile Launch Detection Systems (MILDS), Cables and Brackets.


Elbit now owns Elisra and hence (ironically) the MILDS will come from the same firm that is working with DRDO on the DCMAWS.

MAWS is essential for low flying aircraft in the MANPADS envelope. For fighters at medium, high alts, not so much. By the time the missile gets to them, its usually in coast phase & the passive MAWS detects it too close.

Of course, as larger SAMs, dual-pulse motors, ramjets proliferate, this assumption may no longer apply. So MAWS becomes more and more necessary.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby agupta » 05 Mar 2020 03:25

Karan M wrote:Yes, I think so too.
....
MAWS is essential for low flying aircraft in the MANPADS envelope. For fighters at medium, high alts, not so much. By the time the missile gets to them, its usually in coast phase & the passive MAWS detects it too close.

Of course, as larger SAMs, dual-pulse motors, ramjets proliferate, this assumption may no longer apply. So MAWS becomes more and more necessary.


Karan, Indranil, Prasad - highly educational conversation. Thank you for the details

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 591
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby tandav » 05 Mar 2020 09:56

Quick question on AAMs

What is the probability of AAMs approaching A/C from the rear quadrant in the terminal phase of the intercept? In my mind and as per most movies I have watched most AAM in general approach the A/C in tail chase mode post launch. How true is this observation? Is the tail chase condition a higher probability only when the A/C MAWs detects the AAM and pilot initiates evasive maneuvers?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2174
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 05 Mar 2020 13:04

^ Some data and analysis which may be of help

Trends in Air-to-Air combat - John Stillion

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ashishvikas » 06 Mar 2020 07:49

HVT on Su-30MKI RCS

Su-30 with load out of 6 missiles and full fuel & other fighters with same number of missiles and full fuel (that means with drop tanks) get picked up at practically the same range in head on BVR combat. That's all that matters. Differences, if any, are insignificant.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12355 ... 92192?s=19

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 06 Mar 2020 09:58

https://twitter.com/sarthakcool34/statu ... 57025?s=20 ---> Sir, can u tell anything about upgrade i mean we know radar (Irbis E) is in the scope and rest? Also eager to know if the airframes are to be modified anyhow for RCS reduction?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12356 ... 97856?s=20 --> No RCS reduction envisaged. Radar, missiles, avionics, EW, cockpit, all are planned for upgrade.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 06 Mar 2020 10:02

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12356 ... 49856?s=20 ---> Sir, could you share the projected per unit cost of the SU 30 upgrade and the time taken to upgrade the entire fleet?

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12356 ... 75776?s=20 ---> Costs will be published after negotiations are completed. Typically, an upgrade like this would achieve certification in 5 years. Fleet modification will probably happen when the aircraft is under servicing or earlier based on IAF's schedule.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby mody » 06 Mar 2020 15:18

A lot depends on the success of Uttam Aesa radar and the time taken for it to be ready. If the radar can be ready to be fielded on the Tejas within 2-3 years and the performance is within +/-10% (difficult to quantify this way, but just for argument sake for us aam jingoes), of the Elta 2052, then we can think about developing a version for the Su-30MKI as well. If not, then the upgrade would involve either IRBIS-E or the a version of the 2052 Aesa. Russia would insist on the IRBIS-E. If we can get Uttam to the serial production stage, then for the upgrade program, the radar, cockpit, upgraded mission computer and missiles and other precision guided weapons, all will be indigenous. The EW suite would also have to work with the Uttam aesa radar and would mostly be a mix of Dare developed systems and Israeli Elta/Elisra systems.

A development program for an indigenous Dual band IRST was also announced. Don't know if that has actually started or not and what are the projected timelines for the same. Otherwise the latest iteration of the Russian IRST would have to be used for the upgrade.

No mention of upgrading the engines? More powerful radar and the EW suite etc., will require more powerful engines. The AL41 is the obvious candidate.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ranjan.rao » 06 Mar 2020 17:08

^^one basic question mody ji, why didnt we do the other way round..as in have the AESA radar for Su 30. Airframes wouldnt have been in shortage and we could have downscaled later on. Is it becaues
1. Russians would not be happy with that (not our phillipji)
2. There are challenges in downscaling

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby JTull » 06 Mar 2020 17:15

Fair question! It would have been easier for Uttam AESA to compete against Bars than an imported AESA in Tejas.

But, I'm more concerned about production. We're still struggling with scale issues for desi seeker. Even if we qualify Uttam, do we have the capacity to equip the entire Su-30MKI and LCA variants. That's nearly 500 aircraft over 10 years starting from 2023!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Mar 2020 22:55

Where did this claim that we are struggling with scale issues for a desi-seeker come from. Quite mistaken.

Making Uttam in numbers is possible, we are churning out radars round the clock for the IAF anyhow.

We are yet to qualify Uttam, that's the basic thing, and it will take a year or two more.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8061
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 06 Mar 2020 23:40

ashishvikas wrote:HVT on Su-30MKI RCS

Su-30 with load out of 6 missiles and full fuel & other fighters with same number of missiles and full fuel (that means with drop tanks) get picked up at practically the same range in head on BVR combat. That's all that matters. Differences, if any, are insignificant.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12355 ... 92192?s=19

I have said this before. Happy to see confirmation from people in the know.

One cannot just replace heavy weight with a light weight. A light weight will have to carry drop tanks to have the same kind of reach that the Su-30 has. Think about the drag too. If a Rafale (no bones against it . just a stand in for any medium weight) has to engage in an aerial battle, the drop tanks have to go. Modern drop tanks are not that cheap.

Horses for courses.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby ranjan.rao » 07 Mar 2020 01:02

Karan M wrote:Where did this claim that we are struggling with scale issues for a desi-seeker come from. Quite mistaken.

Making Uttam in numbers is possible, we are churning out radars round the clock for the IAF anyhow.

We are yet to qualify Uttam, that's the basic thing, and it will take a year or two more.

Karan ji,

My question was independent of any struggle...my question was why did we start with Tejas first and not with Su-30?

Is miniaturization a challenge?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Mar 2020 04:42

Because the Tejas needs a long range radar more than the Su-30 which already has that monster Bars. And also because we can add our own radar more easily to our own fighter. Zimble onlee.

Nothing prevents us from making an Uttam for the Su-30 as well. Mark my words, we will. A bunch of reasons why, and we most likely will field a Flanker sized Uttam sooner or later.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Mar 2020 04:43

HVT on Su-30 upgrade:

No RCS reduction envisaged. Radar, missiles, avionics, EW, cockpit, all are planned for upgrade.


Of course he means the short term, as AMCA work picks up, expect even some RCS mods to flow back to the rest of the AF fleet. And of course he can't talk about everything, given the nature of the program and mods.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Mar 2020 04:46

Also confirms that ODL first batch is first headed to Su-30s, LCA MK1A and Jaguar fleet. A test bed is getting ready.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Mar 2020 04:49

The Su-30 will likely get Russian radar and kit in Phase 1 bar the desi cockpit avionics, displays, RWR etc.
Phase 2 may see more desi gear including the dual-band IRST and desi SPJ.

The Irbis-E at full rating is no joke. A steerable PESA, it can definitely make a significant difference to BVR combat.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19145
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 07 Mar 2020 05:03

My understanding so far of DRDO's missile plans + HVT's reveals:

DRDO has an IIR BVR Missile in the works - analogous to Mica IR
They also have a CCM plan in the works
Astra Mk1 is > AMRAAM C-5/SD-10A
Astra Mk2 will be a dual pulse motor missile and bring parity vis a vis the PL-15 class missile, better/as good as the AMRAAM-D
Astra Mk3 is your SFDR and will be a Meteor equivalent, face off against the PL-21, likely the AIM-260

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4222
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Mar 2020 05:13

Karan M wrote:HVT on Su-30 upgrade:

No RCS reduction envisaged. Radar, missiles, avionics, EW, cockpit, all are planned for upgrade.


Of course he means the short term, as AMCA work picks up, expect even some RCS mods to flow back to the rest of the AF fleet. And of course he can't talk about everything, given the nature of the program and mods.

No engine upgrade? Wouldn't be surprised if some of the rcs mods from the 35 don't find their way to the mki

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1347
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Gyan » 07 Mar 2020 12:04

Karan M wrote:My understanding so far of DRDO's missile plans + HVT's reveals:

DRDO has an IIR BVR Missile in the works - analogous to Mica IR
They also have a CCM plan in the works
Astra Mk1 is > AMRAAM C-5/SD-10A
Astra Mk2 will be a dual pulse motor missile and bring parity vis a vis the PL-15 class missile, better/as good as the AMRAAM-D
Astra Mk3 is your SFDR and will be a Meteor equivalent, face off against the PL-21, likely the AIM-260


My guess:-

Astra MK1 with RF seeker
Astra MK1 with IR seeker as CCM

Astra MK2 dual pulse with RF seeker as BVR
Astra MK2 dual pulse with IR seeker as BVR

Astra MK3 Ramjet SFDR with RF seeker as VLR BVR AAM

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 591
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby tandav » 07 Mar 2020 15:35

tandav wrote:Quick question on AAMs

What is the probability of AAMs approaching A/C from the rear quadrant in the terminal phase of the intercept? In my mind and as per most movies I have watched most AAM in general approach the A/C in tail chase mode post launch. How true is this observation? Is the tail chase condition a higher probability only when the A/C MAWs detects the AAM and pilot initiates evasive maneuvers?



Any answers on this query?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Prasad » 07 Mar 2020 16:18

Perhaps on the return leg? When a bunch of fighters are detected and intercepted, the might turn tail and try to escape.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3792
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby kit » 07 Mar 2020 16:27

India needs a airborne electronic warfare equivalent of the Growler to just knee cap all sorts of communication in a particular area of interest. The future wars will be fought with misinformation and it helps to go the "Russian"way... Even inside it's territory

mody
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby mody » 07 Mar 2020 16:43

I doubt the Astra MK-2 will have a IIR seeker variant. Generally IIR seeker missiles will be used only for maximum ranges upto 40-50 Kms. The MICA-IR and ASRAM have similar ranges. A range greater than that will require the missile to be guided to within this range of the target, by the aircraft. This would make it similar to the R-27 IR guided missile.

With regards to the Uttam being developed first for the Tejas and not the Su-30, as Karan said, the pressing requirement is for the Tejas and not for Su-30. The Bars on the Su-30MKI, is better than or equal to any radar fielded by our opponents currently. For Tejas the choice is either signup for additional imports or develop our own, as quickly as possible.
Upscaling of the radar should not be difficult, however, the cooling requirements will increase. Currently we are still working on the backend of the radar, specifically for the air to ground modes. Even for the 2032 hybrid, the front end is ours, while the backend is from Elta.
As per tit bits given by the likes of Dileep, Uttam offers equal or better performance as compared to the current 2032 hybrid radar of the Tejas, in the air to air mode. However, another crucial aspect will be, its performance vis-à-vis the 2052 aesa radar.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 339
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby MeshaVishwas » 07 Mar 2020 18:36

Well what do we have here! (Wingtips are loaded with the SAP pods)

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12364 ... 32160?s=20 ---> SAP-518 integrated on Su-30MKI wing tip stations. It's an electronic counter measure podded system. Impregnable. Extremely effective against radars & EM/RF missiles in its operating band of 5-18GHz.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12366 ... 73984?s=20 ---> SAP-14 of has some envelope limitations. Su-30 equipped with SAP-14 & two SAP-518 pods is in-famously called Growlerski by some westerners, due to its immense ECM capability. I presume Growler also has envelope limitations.

Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11653
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Mar 2020 18:55

SAP or Dare Siva pod?

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 339
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby MeshaVishwas » 07 Mar 2020 19:37


fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

Postby fanne » 07 Mar 2020 23:07

Unresearched comment deleted.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests