Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15945
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chetak » 05 Sep 2017 08:20

PIB India
Published on Sep 22, 2015

A Comprehensive and authentic account of the 1965 #IndoPakWar with rare footage of the actual action.

1965 INDO-PAK Air War

https://youtu.be/Y6mPJm_I-X8


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Sep 2017 14:16

Rakesh wrote:Indian Air Force likely to start trials of Astra missile from today
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 50442.html


indigenous seeker ? Error in reporting or good news ? Would this mean the LSPs are supplied with AGAT seekers and the production switching midway to Indigenous one ?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9266
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Sep 2017 13:53

Any idea why we cant develop Kangra Airport into an IAF Base, it can be very useful supporting Pathankot

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 08 Sep 2017 06:55

Rakesh wrote:Indian Air Force likely to start trials of Astra missile from today
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 50442.html



Did the trials start?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 08 Sep 2017 14:41

Thakur_B wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Indian Air Force likely to start trials of Astra missile from today
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 50442.html


indigenous seeker ? Error in reporting or good news ? Would this mean the LSPs are supplied with AGAT seekers and the production switching midway to Indigenous one ?


Yes that would be my understanding. As usual Agat TOT had some modules held back by Russia.

From DRDO, 2015:
Project Astra: AGAT seeker was integrated with missile and flight tested in December 2012. Two
seekers were tested successfully with AIR targets. Indigenous development of Ku band seeker to
replace non-ToT modules of AGAT seeker is under progress. ToT from M/s AGAT, Russia to M/s BEL
have been initiated for realisation of Ku-band seeker.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 08 Sep 2017 14:43

In Bars, the Russian side held back on TOT for some key hardware modules. Of course, the software was also theirs.

Having our own seekers mean we can reprogram the systems quickly for emerging threats. And develop our own variants.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19911
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 08 Sep 2017 14:45

Karan M wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:
indigenous seeker ? Error in reporting or good news ? Would this mean the LSPs are supplied with AGAT seekers and the production switching midway to Indigenous one ?


Yes that would be my understanding. As usual Agat TOT had some modules held back by Russia.

From DRDO, 2015:
Project Astra: AGAT seeker was integrated with missile and flight tested in December 2012. Two
seekers were tested successfully with AIR targets. Indigenous development of Ku band seeker to
replace non-ToT modules of AGAT seeker is under progress. ToT from M/s AGAT, Russia to M/s BEL
have been initiated for realisation of Ku-band seeker.


Why Ku band why not a high power seeker in Ka band or longer range X band ?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 08 Sep 2017 14:55

The power of the seeker is not band specific although when you move higher up in frequency you will have a narrower beam and could technically focus higher power on a given area thereby increasing range. Depending upon the operating frequency range the wavelength wouldn't be very different on a Ku band and an X band seeker but the Ku band seeker will have a narrower beam since it is operating at a higher frequency compared to an X-band seeker. The difference may not be very significant depending upon where a potential Ku band and an X band seeker are operating but it will be there.

The difference is more apparent when you switch to Ka band seekers where you are essentially increasing the frequency by >2x compared to X/ku band. Here the advantages in range (in certain conditions) and resolution/accuracy would be dramatic. If you see some of the modern interceptors with RF seekers that have diverse and challenging target set you will see that few of them have made the switch or are on their way of making a switch to Ka band because of this. Challenge are technical (power and thermal performance) and affordability related especially when cost margins for certain mission applications aren't very wide. Both areas are being addressed with AESA based seekers which we should be seeing on Sub $2 Million interceptors in the next 5-8 years imho.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2017 01:21

Great post Brar.

Austin - Ku seekers are mature tech. We are familiarizing ourselves with that, why sprint before a walk? So aim is to mature Ku seekers for BMD, AAMs etc. Then local perspective, Ka Band seekers are in development - 2020 time frame.

X-Band is usually for FCRs, the higher frequencies get more attenuated also by rain, moisture. Antenna size required is also larger for the lower frequencies. X-Band offers a good beamwidth (narrower) in turn, so is the band of choice for fighter radars.

Brar - did US ever explore non X-Band FCRs for fighters or other aircraft?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 01:31

X band seekers are pretty common - Aim-120 AMRAAM, Standar Missile - 6, ESSM-Block 2 and the new SM2 Active all share that. Ku band (2.4 cm to 1.7 cm wavelength) seekers operate at a higher frequency compared to X band (3.7 cm - 2.4 cm wavelength) but only slightly, the difference is not as significant as making the jump to Ka band (1.1 - 0.7 cm) for example which is substantial from a capability and integration perspective. Hence interceptors that are challenged by the hardest target sets (1000 km Ballistic missiles to low flying cruise missiles) have made those trades..One example is the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE. Newest variant of the Aster do the same.

Non X band FCRs? No idea, perhaps but you have to design aircraft differently. X band trades are the best when one factors in the size and power footprint. Based on physics they offer the bet trade off between range and accuracy when a fighter nose size is held constant. That will not change although there are interesting things happening on the ground radar side with shared aperture antennas (Lockheed debuted one of the first ones in the world) but the size of a fighter FCR is too small to explore those capabilities. Moreover you are upgrading from FCRs to fused FCR and ESM and IR so you have active and passive bases well covered. I suppose it is the passive side of the equation that will be more critical given network on network warfare. There are ways to considerably increase power of existing FCRs within the established trade space. GaN+ is at low Technology maturity but say 2025 or 2030 you will have it replace established GaN state of the art and that will add performance. Lower Frequency trades can stay behind and be networked as larger wavelengths lend themselves very well to long range surveillance for target hand offs.

One thing to note is the interceptor and FCR dynamics. The higher your discrimination abilities the lesser your intercept has to correct in the end game. This impacts size. One example of this is the THAAD where the choice of an X band radar (at considerable cost, and power penalty) influenced interceptor performance requirements in a positive fashion, allowing light weight and optimally sized interceptors which provided better raid performance since each battery could show up with up to 48 ready to launch interceptors. Go to a lower frequency radar and the discrimination capability won't be as good so you will require a faster interceptor that must correct more in the end game. This means a larger motor, larger kill vehicle that can make dramatic adjustments in the end game and most likely, also a warhead of some kind to ensure the same level of PK.

Same applies to A2A missiles although the penalty is more severe..The reason why the Meteor and Aim-120D have a two way data link are improving seeker and processing is partly to make it capable of overcoming jamming and partly to make sure it is at the right place at the right time to complete the intercept. For this you need to provide it the highest quality data at update and to use its data and communicate through the 2-way data link - to make sure it is seeing what it is supposed to see and not being decieved. This is important at any range but EXTRA important for very edge of the envelope shots where your ability to make dramatic alterations in the end game are minimal at best.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Sep 2017 17:03, edited 6 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 09 Sep 2017 06:11

Great stuff Brar. India needs to climb the GaN totem pole and start fielding modules asap. It finally has basic AESA designs worked out, the next is to advance them power wise & in the signal processing side.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 14:48

Semiconductor industry demand for materials really are driven by the commercial side so Indian defense establishment would do best to rope in as much of that as possible and really work on commercial (rather than NatSec) timelines. While specific higher frequency applications are more of a defense demand issue and a protected area, where commercial players can come in is with helping with the manufacturing processes and yields since the commercial demand are and will remain many times larger than defense needs allowing commercial players the chance to hone in their techniques through multiple process improvement opportunities enabled by the higher volumes.

One thing with baseline GaN is that although it is a considerable leap in power, and efficiency and is a widebandgap material compared to GaAs based systems, it is only scratching the surface of what is possible. The real capability it unleashes is going to come when you find a way to manage the thermal footprint so that you can drive even higher levels of power, even compared to baseline GaN systems currently out there. While basic GaN in the west is at full maturity (from a military hardware perspective), the next leap GaN + will require another decade or so to develop. Once you figure the thermal issue you will completely revolutionize the sensor side for radar, electronic warfare and communication applications.

Image

If you can get these power density gains through intra chip cooling you are really looking at much broader utilization of the spectrum. mmW and higher frequencies can then be roped in for a whole host of applications that are currently not possible due to power and thermal issues associated with higher frequency (tens of thousands of very small T/R modules and the general decrease in amplifier efficiency the higher up you go in frequency). Your existing airborne and ground based radars can be made many times more effective. Same with communication and electronic warfare capabilities. Thinking of terahertz space for "beyond communication" applications would not be too far fetched.

On the flip side, if you go with baseline GaN, the higher operating temparutre possibilities of the system opens up other applications as well. You can field powerful multi-mission radars like the TPS-80 (e.g..) that are totally air-cooled, and ruggedized enough to sling load on a helicopter something that you may not be able to do with GaAs if you require same output power and efficiency for a fixed array size and weight, which would make you put together some sort of liquid cooling set up making meeting the requirements for flexibility deployability tougher to meet.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Sep 2017 20:20, edited 11 times in total.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1731
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 09 Sep 2017 15:03

A version of this story is in the FGFA thread already. But I want to discuss the possibility of us buying the goddam MiG-35 as a sop to the fvcking Russkis for making a mess of the PAK FA.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/russia-pitches-mig-35-india-fgfa-project-falters/


As the contest to supply a new fighter aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF) heats up, the MiG-35 has emerged as a viable candidate. India is supposedly seeking about 220 single-engine fighters to replace 11 squadrons of MiG-21/27s that entered service in the 1990s.

Rosoboronexport is believed to have offered a licensed production deal for the twin-engine MiG-35 that would compensate for the IAF’s reluctance to proceed with the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project.

At the MAKS 2017 airshow in July, Ilya Tarasenko, director general of Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG, said: “We are actively working with the IAF in order to win the tender.”

...

According to an Indian defense official, “The MiG-35 is 25 percent cheaper [than rival candidates for the IAF requirement]; has an AESA radar; has commonality with the fleet; and being in the light to medium category enables it to land in the same airfields that the [indigenous] Light Combat Aircraft does. If the FGFA does not go through, Russia will have to be compensated, and this is the only contract left at the moment.



This would be the nightmare scenario. Needing to take a Russian retread because of circumstances over FGFA, NOT on own merits, in a "single-engine" program that impacts the LCA adversely. If this comes to pass, we'll rue the F-Solah proposal which at the very least would expose us to American fighter tech we never had before instead of yet another derivative of the Fulcrum that has given us an endless litany of issues.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 09 Sep 2017 16:10

good insight brar saheb. never occurred to me that seeker quality helps bring down missile size and G loads.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 09 Sep 2017 16:14

Not only seeker but also sensor feeding data to the missile. As I had discussed earlier in the ABM thread, having a higher frequency radar provide targeting information can go a very long way in improving missile PK without having anything to do with improving the missile performance (seeker, processing or kinematics). This is the reason why the US MDA is adding an S-Band GaN Long Range Discriminating Radar to the Ground Based Defense interception needs. Currently, they are relying on UHF band EW radars improved to help in targeting (plus the floating X band radar whenever it is available and in position).

This is not optimal as the frequency (UHF) while excellent for efficient surveillance of very large area, is not suitable for precise discrimination between warheads, decoys, and other debris (therefore they deploy the X band radar and AEGIS ships to aid). In other words it is great to provide early-warning, something it was designed to do during the cold-war days but it is not optimal for using data and shooting down an actual warhead as it forces the interceptor to make massive corrections once it gets multiple targets in its own seeker FOV and therefore impacts the seeker cost but also PK. Moving to S-band radars will dramatically improve discrimination and will therefore improve missile PK.They originally wanted X band LRDRs but at 100,000+ T/R modules per face the procurement and life-cycle costs would have been very high so they settled on S-Band as a compromise as it allows a considerably smaller number of, more efficient T/R modules provide similar performance using much less power and cooling (for a fixed performance requirement).

Here are three comparable multi-function AESA radars for module count purposes -

- MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar (X-Band) - 8000 - 10,000 T/R Modules
- SAAB Giraffe 4A, Northrop AN/TPS-80 (both S-Band) - roughly 2000 T/R Modules

The lower frequency solutions provide an opportunity to reduce module count on account of more powerful and efficient power amplifiers and also allows you to make use of the frequency properties to extract better long range surveillance performance (count is also determined by array size limits since you can fit more higher frequency modules on a given fixed array sized). Higher frequency radars drive up cost but they offer the best discrimination against stressing targets. This is why what Lockheed is doing with its LTAMDS radar is so fascinating since it has the ability to operate in either S band for long range surveillance, but also in C band for better discrimination and to provide missile communication uplink - And do this through the same antenna array.

Same applies to air-air missiles and fire control radars, where as I had mentioned earlier the margins are narrower since the difference in size between an A2A MRAAM, and a medium-heavy SAM is quite dramatic - you can't count on a very large seeker on the missile to compensate in the end game, and given the 6-8 inch missile diameter trade space for most A2A weapons the same also applies to the motor and kinematic performance. This is something stealth aircraft rely on to break the kill chains since, even at medium to short ranges the data an opponent may have on them would be of much lower quality considerably lowering the effective missile envelope against them. Sure the missile may be ramjet powered, or may have a booster or be dual pulsed but if the aircraft providing it update cannot successfully get it within seeker range (and if that seeker range is significantly reduced on account of lower target RCS) at long range the kinematic advantage is effectively negated. This is one of the reasons the so called 'HALFRAAM" concepts are gaining traction as a means to trade extremely long range intercepts (which you can't do anyways against the most challenging targets) for smaller, more compact missiles that allow for the magazine size to be incresed without impacting volume. Think of it as trading 4, 80 km missiles for 8-10 30 km missiles.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Sep 2017 20:09, edited 12 times in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3342
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 Sep 2017 16:48

chola wrote:A version of this story is in the FGFA thread already. But I want to discuss the possibility of us buying the goddam MiG-35 as a sop to the fvcking Russkis for making a mess of the PAK FA.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/russia-pitches-mig-35-india-fgfa-project-falters/

....


Note the "we are willing..." tone. They are going to do us a favor :)

The FAK PA is FUBAR. The IAF wants nothing to do with it and said so.

If the Russians want us to support their MIC, why don't they open up the sub technology to us? That's something they are competent at. Instead we get these half baked things like frigates without engines, M29Ks and an a/c carrier that has an island the size of Greenland and wants to go back to being the helicopter carrier it once was.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17812
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2017 12:21

X-posted from the Strat td.

Saw it somewhere,why the Chins will hesitate to invade India,becos the infrastructure on our side of the border is so abysmal! Their AVs and mech. columns would make little progress ingressing into India territory ,esp. as their troops are so spoilt using superb Chin roads,etc.,in Tibet.

Now the CoAS' statement about the state of Chin airpower in Tibet is in direct contrast to that of the army chief.,who has warned us about future Chin mischief. We next have a retd. admiral calling for a 5 star CDS as well as theatre commanders! These contradictions do not spell well for the services in general.Several chiefs ago,I think it was Gen. Rodrigues,who when interviewed said that Pak was merely an irritant but China was our main enemy.He was a true prophet.

If the current air chief is so dismissive about the Chinese threat from the air,Tibet's high alt. etc.,why then is the IAF demanding "only Rafales' at $200M a pop to defend ourselves against the Sino-Pak threat,Rafales to be used mainly against China? In the light of his statement we must take the IAF's battle order to the appropraiate mil td.,but suffice it to say that it IS the IA that always feels the heat first and gets into physical grips with the "yellow peril"always and not the other tw services.Therefore,serious credence must be given to views of the army chief first.This statement also underscores the IAF's preference to fight lordly air battles aka the "Red baron",with the dirty work of close air support as secondary to the war. Strangely,this area is exactly where the heaviest air losses have taken place in all post-Independence Indian wars. The bitter battle between the IA and IAF over control of attack helos is indicative of the IA's desire to boost such CS supporta s much as it can through its own assets saving crucial time when demanded on the battlefield when under its own control.

Nevertheless,Doklam has been a signal warning to India ,reinforced by Gen.Rawat,of the malafide Chinese intentions anywhere on the LAC. WE have to be prepared.I suggest that the IA chief too reworks his threat assessment.He should not later on when surprised by PLAAF air attacks,blame any failure upon faulty intel.If he and his force are is sure of their assessments,then it will come I'm sure as a great relief to the MOD/GOI,who can then save much money and buy for example,Gripens,MIG-35s and FGFAs for the IAF's current and future needs,instead of ultra-expensive Rafales! The money saved could also go towards tanker,AWACS,AEW and transport buys ,though one is aghast at spending $330M+ for a single C-17,the last "white tail" one!


Adding to the above,the air chief's statement should make one pause and reassess the threat from the air to the nation from the Sino-Pak JV,the demand for 45-60 sqds. for the IAF in the future and contents of the inventory/assets. What then should the composition of the IAF's fleet be? We need a serious reassessment here ,a holistic look at the IAF's needs in the short.,med.,and long term before we embark upon decidong upon another SE light fighter,extra med. fighters,etc. One gets the feeling that the F-18 is the Yanqui bird of choice to be dumped upon India,not the F-16 for all the right reasons,esp. the fact that Pak has operated the bird for decades. The F-18 is being touted as Rafale replacements,that bird being so exotic and exotically priced too.Sensing this possibility,the Russians too are throwing their hat into the ring with the MIG-35, at least "25%" cheaper say its manufacturers. The tiny bird in the room that no one is talking about in the hunt for the "missing link" is the LCA! Where is it?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6612
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prasad » 11 Sep 2017 13:20

Threat for IAF over Tibet comes not from the fighter squadrons china can deploy but by its AA defenses.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48093
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2017 21:10

Philip, IAF should get to 45 combat squadrons as a first step.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 16 Sep 2017 16:51

Indian Air Force@IAF_MCC

Marshal of IAF Arjan Singh is critically ill and in Army Hospital R& R. Hon'ble RM Smt Nirmala Sitharaman visited him in the hospital.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1016
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 16 Sep 2017 17:31

Its over gents. He has flown away for the last time.
Rest in Peace , Arjan Singh the spine of 65.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Sep 2017 17:37

Pranaams to this great son of India. May he merge with the maker.

Sincere condolences to the IAF family.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 16 Sep 2017 18:11

It is not over yet

Narendra Modi‏@narendramodi 5:55 PM

Went to R&R Hospital to see Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh, who is critically ill. I also met his family members.
We are all praying for the speedy recovery of Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh. Doctors are doing their best.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Chinmay » 16 Sep 2017 21:20

https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/909079382400147456

The Marshal of the Air Force has passed on. May he attain moksha.
Last edited by Chinmay on 16 Sep 2017 21:21, edited 1 time in total.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1803
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby AdityaM » 16 Sep 2017 21:21

The Marshal is no more.
may his soul obtain peace.

KJo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9446
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 02:54

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby KJo » 16 Sep 2017 21:32

Image

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1803
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby AdityaM » 16 Sep 2017 22:32



With the amount of dust raised on landing & takeoff, how long does it take for the way to be cleared for the next plane to land/takeoff

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Sep 2017 01:32

Chinmay wrote:https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/909079382400147456

The Marshal of the Air Force has passed on. May he attain moksha.


Goodbye sir. Thank you for your service to protect the nation through trying times.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14608
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2017 04:24

Judging by the fleet numbers here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... _Air_Force

IAF still has time. The PLAAF has a core of around 200 Flankers and 240 J-10s, with a large number of J-7, J-8, JH-7 which will be very limited when taking off from PRC bases at altitude.
Some 11 AEW aircraft, again seven of them turboprops.
Wonder what's really in their EW birds.

Their other real threat are their SAM batteries.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5073
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 18 Sep 2017 05:31

brar_w wrote:The Russian pods would have been a better option unless of course one attributes mythical capabilities to the Israeli pods that they themselves do not claim.

I don't think Israeli capabilities with respect to EW & EO systems are anymore mythical than their UAV tech. It exists, its proven and the IAF/IN are enthusiastic customers. May not have precipitated the mass resignations on a destroyer by neutralizing the Aegis but they're good enough to be preferred by the IsAF for the F-16I over spec-OEM gear.

There is a good reason there are no one size fits all solutions to tactical wideband Electronic Attack, the aircraft and mission systems to an extent need to be designed around one another. If it were easy everyone would be buying them for their needs

Err.. the Su-30 is pretty much sized to fit them all. The EL/L-8251 is RAT-powered and has an independent receive channel. After that its primarily a question of integrating it with the aircraft's MC and designing the software to allow multiple units to operate simultaneously.

Regardless, I would be closely following this to see what configurations and size, weight and power the Su-30s eventually choose in terms of a pod and how it is integrated with the current mission systems fielded. Throw enough money at it and budget enough time and you could probably make it work but it sure does sound like the much heavier lift compared to the existing Russian options which are designed around the flanker family and are designed to operate alongside known flanker family mission systems.

We're already developing an indigenous system as an alternative for the Russian systems in question, for less exotic employment.

How A Secretive DRDO Lab Is Saving The IAF Su-30MKI - Feb 2017
It all begins with the Russian SAP51A jammer pod that Moscow supplied with the Su-30MKI. After grappling for years with the pod, the Indian Air Force finally in 2015 realised it simply couldn’t use them for two reasons. One, they were heavy — and when slung onto wingtip hardpoints, they cut into flying envelope like a butcher’s knife.

‘With the Russian pods, the Sukhoi is basically a transport aircraft,’ one of the scientists says.

The second issue is even worse. The IAF realised the SAP51A pod hadn’t been properly interfacing with the indigenous on-board radar warning receiver (RWR), therefore killing pilots’ chances to exploit both systems fully. While the reasons why the IAF took their time remains unclear (but at one level understandable), DRDO’s Defence Avionics Research Establishment stepped in immediately, offering to help. The result is the pod you see those three scientists standing next to in the photograph above.

DARE’s High Band Jammer (HBJ) pod begins dummy carriage trials in six months on an IAF Su-30MKI, with full integration within the year. By 2019, DARE has committed to seeing the pod become fully operational with the IAF’s Flanker fleet.

Significantly, the HBJ pod will be a fully indigenous one. A DARE scientist explains that the HBJ pod currently has three major systems: the integrated EW suite, the active array phased transmit-receive unit and the cooling system. While the first two have been rapidly developed in-house, the complex cooling system is in process, with DARE sourcing an Israeli system for the moment. The team says they’ll have a fully functional Indian cooling system on the HBJ pod before full integration trials by the end of the year.

Better still, the HBJ pod, the scientists tell Livefist, will spawn a family of EW sensors and systems for platforms like the LCA Tejas, MiG-29 and any other fighter the IAF chooses to operate.

The Indian Air Force, which has embraced the wares from DARE more than kit from most other DRDO labs is expectedly thrilled. An IAF Su-30MKI pilot at the show confirmed that the HBJ pod was a ‘very promising system’ and that ‘more than anything, it is our own in-house development, so I don’t have to run to the Russians if something doesn’t work’.

A DARE scientist associated with the project tells a familiar story: Russia’s unwillingness to share codes (or its insistence on an additional commercial understanding) that could have helped manage the interfacing issues between the SAP51A pod and Indian RWR better and faster.

Incidentally, the indigenous DARE RWR on the IAF’s Su-30MKIs will also be replaced soon. The lab is in final testing of an all digital RWR (the existing system is analog) christened ‘Dhruti’ that will begin ground testing in May this year, followed by a phased installation across the fleet.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 18 Sep 2017 05:41

I don't think Israeli capabilities with respect to EW & EO systems are anymore mythical than their UAV tech.


Umm this is not what I meant. What I meant was that the Israeli pods are designed around a certain frequency coverage. Attributing coverage where no evidence exists of those band being even covered is not a good idea. We can continue on this track and claim that their fire-control radars can also have abilities to cover frequencies they don't claim but that would be pure guesswork and fantasy. There are physical design differences that influence transmitter charecteristics when operating at the ranges in question. Of course one configuration cannot do it all so you would essentially need a totally different transmitter like the Cobham system does on the ALQ-99s. This means a fresh look at the requirements, capabilities, mission trades and engineering work. There is no evidence that the Israelis have something that does that and secretly market it while having a non-secret version that they publish specs on. These are fundamentally different capabilities.

Err.. the Su-30 is pretty much sized to fit them all. The EL/L-8251 is RAT-powered and has an independent receive channel. After that its primarily a question of integrating it with the aircraft's MC and designing the software to allow multiple units to operate simultaneously.


I did not mean the physical size of the pod but the Israeli marketing where they claim that they have a wideband EA pod that can hop platforms. It is not as easy as that sounds or appears on a brochure and no integrating it with the mission computers is not the only thing you have to do. You have to design it to be compatible with each and every mission system and communication node onboard. Case in point, the Growler which is close to a decade in service still struggles to maintain all radar performance while it is transmitting, a deficiency that is unlikely to be fully sorted out till the arrival of the NGJ pods. This with the system designed specifically to perform with established pods. Even the INCANS took a long time to develop and hammer out on the Growler systems. Integration on such systems is a lot lot more than just building it to be compatible with mission computers and adding software..Aircraft are equipped with lots of highly sensitive systems onboard, systems that not only need to survive the new environment created by a high power wideband jammer operating in close proximity but they need to still perform without degradation in performance. This before we go all fancy with concurrent SEAD and DEAD mission prosecution.

The second issue is even worse. The IAF realised the SAP51A pod hadn’t been properly interfacing with the indigenous on-board radar warning receiver (RWR), therefore killing pilots’ chances to exploit both systems fully. While the reasons why the IAF took their time remains unclear (but at one level understandable), DRDO’s Defence Avionics Research Establishment stepped in immediately, offering to help. The result is the pod you see those three scientists standing next to in the photograph above.


This just illustrates podded high power EA solutions on an aircraft with disparate mission systems onboard that were not designed with these pods in mind form the ground up. When you scale up in power and coverage it only makes the challenge harder.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5073
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 18 Sep 2017 06:19

brar_w wrote:Umm this is not what I meant. What I meant was that the Israeli pods are designed around a certain frequency coverage. Attributing coverage where no evidence exists of those band being even covered is not a good idea. We can continue on this track and claim that their fire-control radars can also have abilities to cover frequencies they don't claim but that would be pure guesswork and fantasy. There are physical design differences that influence transmitter charecteristics when operating at the difference ranges. Of course one configuration cannot do it all so you would essentially need a totally different transmitter like the Cobham system does on the ALQ-99s. This means a fresh look at the requirements, capabilities, mission trades and engineering work. There is no evidence that the Israelis have something that does that and secretly market it while having a non-secret version that they publish specs on. These are fundamentally different capabilities.

Well, the ALQ-99 AFAIK isn't available to India or anybody else (though I believe they've made an exception for the RAAF). The EL/L-8251 is, and can when equipping the Su-30 bring it as close to the Growler as can reasonably be expected.

I did not mean the physical size of the pod but the Israeli marketing where they claim that they have a wideband EA pod that can hop platforms. It is not as easy as that sounds or appears on a brochure and no integrating it with the mission computers is not the only thing you have to do. You have to design it to be compatible with each and every mission system and communication node onboard. Case in point, the Growler which is close to a decade in service still struggles to maintain all radar performance while it is transmitting, a deficiency that is unlikely to be fully sorted out till the arrival of the NGJ pods.

Aircraft are equipped with lots of highly sensitive systems onboard, systems that not only need to survive the new environment created by a high power wideband jammer operating in close proximity but they need to still perform without degradation in performance.

It doesn't have to be 'easy' to be preferable. And aside from the radar, all other transmitting systems on the Su-30MKI - RWR (BEL), datalink (IAI), radio (Rockwell-Collins) and in the future SATCOM (Avantel) are all, or will all be, of non-Russian origin, so I fail to see how opting for Knirti's solution would expedite development.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 18 Sep 2017 06:24

Those will only further add to the challenges since you are taking these disparate systems and trying to fit a pod that is not specifically designed around them and the aircraft. As the Growler example shows, you run into challenges and require "first of kind" solutions even when you have total control of the systems and when you are designing a platform and its mission systems to absorb a fairly well understood EA pod with hundreds of thousands of hours of operational usage.

This is why I take Elta's marketing with a bucket of salt. There is no such thing as a true "drop in" wideband EA pod like they market..It will require substantial integration challenges to be overcome and this will take a fairly good amount of time. I agree there may not be good solutions besides adding more Electronic Attack protection to the strike aircraft in order to reduce the need for escort protection much like what the Rafale does but the path chosen might just be the hardest from an integration perspective.

AFAIK isn't available to India or anybody else


You are right the ALQ-99 is cleared to Australia and Aussie Growlers already operate it. Australia is also now a developmental partner in the Next Gen. Jammer-Mid something that will likely extend to the Low Band program which will go into a competitive source selection in the next year or so (technology on the current ALQ-99 Low band transmitter is relatively new). But regardless (not that the ALQ-99 is going to be an option) integrating it on a new platform with disparate systems is going to be an equally significant if not more significant challenge given its wider operating range and transmitting power.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5073
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 18 Sep 2017 06:51

brar_w wrote:Those will only further add to the challenges since you are taking these disparate systems and trying to fit a pod that is not specifically designed around them and the aircraft. As the Growler example shows, you run into challenges and require "first of kind" solutions even when you have total control of the systems and when you are designing a platform and its mission systems to absorb a fairly well understood EA pod with millions of hours of operational usage.

The integration challenges are not avoidable since the Knirti solution is designed for a Russian Flanker (and I doubt even that allows for simultaneous operation with the Bars). And I'd expect IAI/Elta to have a fair bit of familiarity with the MKI's systems having already participated in the 8222 integration.

This is why I take Elta's marketing with a bucket of salt. There is no such thing as a true "drop in" wideband EA pod like they market..It will require substantial integration challenges to be overcome and this will take a fairly good amount of time. I agree there may not be good solutions besides adding more Electronic Attack protection to the strike aircraft in order to reduce the need for escort protection much like what the Rafale does but the path chosen might just be the hardest from an integration perspective.

Between the IAF's Mirages, MiG-29s, Jaguars & Su-30s we're looking at 500 fighters, give or take. Equipping the whole lot with anything more than bog-standard SPJ protection isn't a feasible option. There aren't any real alternatives to escort jamming for conventional strike aircraft in a high-end threat environment, and with the continuously expanding range of AD systems even the IAF's ARM-equipped SEAD/DEAD aircraft will eventually need EW support to get within range of hostile emitters.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5999
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 18 Sep 2017 06:55

As I said, it would be an integration program to follow. I agree very few options other than to acquire more survivable assets and create a subset of strike fighters that are better protected. LCA, Rafale and MKIs should be able to do it but older MiGs may not. Anyhow, in my opinion this will take a while to develop.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1077
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Kakarat » 18 Sep 2017 23:47

Indranil wrote:Singha sir,

I am a big fan of the A-10s and the Su-25s. I wish HAL designed an equivalent. Although Abhibhushan sir has asked for a mudmover, IAF has never officially shown interest in one. Has it?


I too wonder why the IAF has not shown interest on CAS aircrafts even after all wars have seen major Tank battles. I don't think an Multi roll aircraft can takeover the roll of a CAS and also CAS aircrafts are much better than attack helicopters

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Sep 2017 23:52

chola wrote:A version of this story is in the FGFA thread already. But I want to discuss the possibility of us buying the goddam MiG-35 as a sop to the fvcking Russkis for making a mess of the PAK FA.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/russia-pitches-mig-35-india-fgfa-project-falters/


As the contest to supply a new fighter aircraft to the
...

According to an Indian defense official, “The MiG-35 is 25 percent cheaper [than rival candidates for the IAF requirement]; has an AESA radar; has commonality with the fleet; and being in the light to medium category enables it to land in the same airfields that the [indigenous] Light Combat Aircraft does. If the FGFA does not go through, Russia will have to be compensated, and this is the only contract left at the moment.



This would be the nightmare scenario. Needing to take a Russian retread because of circumstances over FGFA, NOT on own merits, in a "single-engine" program that impacts the LCA adversely. If this comes to pass, we'll rue the F-Solah proposal which at the very least would expose us to American fighter tech we never had before instead of yet another derivative of the Fulcrum that has given us an endless litany of issues.


I think the article is FUBAR, not the fgfa. The special committee appointed for the fgfa has already green lighted it. Mig is as usual pitching it's 35 and k solution for the sef and Navy tender.

No need to confused the separate programs as the article is doing. Btw, who is the author of said article with usual unnamed sources?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5073
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 19 Sep 2017 01:19

Cain Marko wrote:I think the article is FUBAR, not the fgfa. The special committee appointed for the fgfa has already green lighted it. Mig is as usual pitching it's 35 and k solution for the sef and Navy tender.

No need to confused the separate programs as the article is doing. Btw, who is the author of said article with usual unnamed sources?

Neelam Mathews

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2811
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Sep 2017 02:27

Viv S wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:I think the article is FUBAR, not the fgfa. The special committee appointed for the fgfa has already green lighted it. Mig is as usual pitching it's 35 and k solution for the sef and Navy tender.

No need to confused the separate programs as the article is doing. Btw, who is the author of said article with usual unnamed sources?

Neelam Mathews


Thanks, wouldn't show up on my mobile. Doubt they will dump the FGFA at this stage and after the committees report. My guess is that Modi's ambitious defense upgrade (paid over the next 5 decades) includes:

Rus: S-400, FGFA, Su-30upg, SSN/GN, FFG, Tu-22?
US: F-16 (likely), IN -JSF (? unsure), UAVs, MPAA, Tankers?, Attack helos
Eur: SSK, IN - Rafale (likely), AWACs, Tankers?
Isr: SAMs, AAMs, EW, FCRs



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karan M, rajsunder and 46 guests