Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

[nam]

Having said that, Myech would still detect the Gripens unless the Gripens used superior tactics.

Much have used datalink and silent mode, to keep the firing solution out of J11's radar envelope, allowing to fire away with the J11 not knowing what hit them.

Our Su30 with LCA will play this game. The adversary's radar will always prioritize Su30 over a LCA. The Su30 will place LCA in firing position, while the adversary is busy concentrating on Su30..

[Kanson]

So what exactly does this mean?

The prototype of the Tejas (Mk-II) is expected to be flying in about two years. The metal cutting will take about a year to 18 months. Tejas Mk -II, which will be fitted with a GE-414 engine, is scheduled to make its first flight in 2024. .

That the prototype will fly in approximately 24 months and then the first series production model at IOC level will fly in 2024? So 24 months for achieving IOC for the MWF?

Indranil, JayS, any chance you could shed any light on this?

Instead of TD -> to-> PV to -> LSP like transition as on the Tejas Mk1, where the TD simply demonstrated the basic technology and the PVs weren't upto the production standard spec at all..and then LSPs had to be used for proving out most of the test points and making changes.

Instead the MWF prototypes will be equivalent to LSP jets and will hopefully need minimal changes to get into production.

I would imagine the development will be phased, with the first 20 or 30 jets at IOC level and then once FOC is achieved, the production transitioning to FOC standard jets.

It was designed to goto FOC standard directly. No IOC.
Those jets are made to "Production standard", that is FOC standard. This is i believe what he meant.

There are no intermediates, this is to reduce time.

[Cain Marko]

Having said that, Myech would still detect the Gripens unless the Gripens used superior tactics.

Much have used datalink and silent mode, to keep the firing solution out of J11's radar envelope, allowing to fire away with the J11 not knowing what hit them.

Our Su30 with LCA will play this game. The adversary's radar will always prioritize Su30 over a LCA. The Su30 will place LCA in firing position, while the adversary is busy concentrating on Su30..

Data linking and passive attacks is not something unique to the gripen. While the j11 equipped N001s can't manage it, the Bars can easily do it and so could the zaslon, from which it is originally derived. The mki is called a mini Awacs for a reason.

[chola]

Check out my post on the J-11/Gripen exercise in 2015 between Cheen and Thailand. The Gripen annihilated the Flanker in BVR range because of the difference in RCS. The Gripen detected the J-11 way before itself could be detected. The Tejas' RCS is smaller than the Gripen's.

I always wonder how do they record BVR hits in these exercises. There is no actual BVR fired. So i guess it is a case of keeping the target locked on your radar, for the flight time of the BVR.

If that is the case, then the Gripen pilots BVR tactics whipped PLAAF pilots anti-BVR tactics.There will be lot of things to consider in BVR, as seem on 27 Feb.

One of the aspect of BVR fight is height. You want to get higher than your adversary. J11 being double engine should be able to get higher..

PLAAF pilots train BVR with.. PAF, . Ours train with USAF, France, UK, Israel etc.. Our pilots dodged Aim120 in real life, PLAAF could
not in training!

If you use google translate and import the picture you can translate each relevant row!


The big ones for me is that the RCS, missile range, radar range and radar engagement targets. The Gripen is 5-6 TIMES smaller by RCS, its radar can detect longer at 160Km to 120 and can engage 4 targets to the J-11's one, and the AMRAAM has a range of 80Km to the 50Km of the PBB-AE (R-77).

It might be harder to dodge in training since you assume the mijjile will work once certain parameters are met. But I have no doubt IAF pilots are better trained.

The differences in size with RCS is what intrigues me the most though. The most dangerous opponent would be a small fighter with an advance radar set and modern BVR. Mabe BARS can make up for the size/RCS discrepancies (being able to detect smaller targets further) but it would seem a large plane would need to be more defensive in general.

A fight between a Tejas and a J-11 would have way better odds than a MKI vs a J-11.

[chola]

According to this Alert5 article, the PLAAF pilots employed poor tactics, were overly aggressive and their early model J-11As might have poor equipment and systems integration issues.

http://alert5.com/2019/12/10/plaaf-j-11 ... rike-2015/

But still the Flankers were very dominant in the WVR portions of the exercise.

In the real world, they would have to fly through BVR range to get into WVR.


So lessons are there. It is obviously there for the chinis which how these slides were leaked.

[Bharadwaj]

Seeing the above one can understand the lust in some quarters for the gripen especially if you see the ease of maintanence videos.The bird just works period. The tejas is almost there with the 1a and will go beyond with the mk2.

[nam]

The big ones for me is that the RCS, missile range, radar range and radar engagement targets. The Gripen is 5-6 TIMES smaller by RCS, its radar can detect longer at 160Km to 120 and can engage 4 targets to the J-11's one, and the AMRAAM has a range of 80Km to the 50Km of the PBB-AE (R-77).

You may be able to detect Flanker at longer range, but it is of no use, when the BVR is able to travel only 80KM. If the Gripen wants to shoot down a flanker, it needs to be at 80KM. By that time, the flanker would have noticed the gripen, as well.

Not to mention the fact that no fighter has got hit at 80KM so far! Then there is also how far the Gripen radar envelope is. If the flanker stays away from the envelope, it is undetected, even at 10 times more RCS!

So it is all tactics. And how well the fighters are placed in firing position. Historically, BVR hits were achieved when the target did not know what hit them or knew too late!

[brar_w]

You may be able to detect Flanker at longer range, but it is of no use, when the BVR is able to travel only 80KM. If the Gripen wants to shoot down a flanker, it needs to be at 80KM. By that time, the flanker would have noticed the gripen, as well.

Detecting at long range, organically, or via EW, is important when you are jousting for a favourable position for both your own weapons solution, and to deny the enemy an advantageous position as well whether that is gaining altitude/speed, or positioning yourself in such a way so as to prove to be hard to detect and track.

[Kartik]

It was designed to goto FOC standard directly. No IOC.
Those jets are made to "Production standard", that is FOC standard. This is i believe what he meant.

There are no intermediates, this is to reduce time.

I don't believe that. Every program progresses through phases and the IOC is a phase where 60-70% of what is required in the eventual platform, is flight tested and certified. Some features and software continue to be developed while the airframe, FCS and other software is ready. Basically to help in the production line getting started off rather than waiting till everything is developed and certified.

Of course, the rich experience gained with the Tejas Mk1 means that a lot of capabilities that took more time to be developed and certified will take less time. The flight testing will not be as long drawn as fewer test points will be checked out, but nevertheless, every thing still needs to be tested and certified.

[Kartik]

The big ones for me is that the RCS, missile range, radar range and radar engagement targets. The Gripen is 5-6 TIMES smaller by RCS, its radar can detect longer at 160Km to 120 and can engage 4 targets to the J-11's one, and the AMRAAM has a range of 80Km to the 50Km of the PBB-AE (R-77).

You may be able to detect Flanker at longer range, but it is of no use, when the BVR is able to travel only 80KM. If the Gripen wants to shoot down a flanker, it needs to be at 80KM. By that time, the flanker would have noticed the gripen, as well.

And yet what can the Flanker do even when it knows of the Gripen's presence? All it can do is to go cold and try to dodge the AMRAAMs, which when fired head on at a target approaching, can get upto 80 km away. The Flanker's primary BVR weapon, the RVV-AE cannot even get a firing solution till it gets within 50 km of the Gripen. By which time the Gripen would've put the Flanker on the defensive, similar to what was seen after Balakot where the Su-30MKI's R-77s could not be used before the F-16s got their AMRAAMs away.

Not to mention the fact that no fighter has got hit at 80KM so far! Then there is also how far the Gripen radar envelope is. If the flanker stays away from the envelope, it is undetected, even at 10 times more RCS!

So it is all tactics. And how well the fighters are placed in firing position. Historically, BVR hits were achieved when the target did not know what hit them or knew too late!

It isn't just about hitting someone at 80 km. The very fact that the target has to employ defensive tactics to try and evade the AMRAAMs even at more than 60 kms, is what you'd want. However, the fact that the Gripen can only carry at most 4 AMRAAMs and is fuel constrained as well being a light fighter means that if the fight goes on longer, the Flanker will use its far superior range and endurance to last out the salvo of AMRAAMs at long range and then try to get closer to the Gripens..and they'll have no option but to egress as fast as they can. Of course, the tail aspect range of most missiles is so low that hitting a fighter that is fast receding is unlikely.

The Astra BVRAAM is the way to go for the MKI fleet for now. With a head on range of ~90 km, it gives the MKI a stick as long as the AMRAAM C5, bringing parity back. Astra Mk2 should give the advantage back to the MKI, assuming of course that the PAF F-16s don't have access to the extended range C7 variant.

[ashishvikas]

Rs 26k-crore order for building Tejas Mark 1A to open door for Mark 2
By Ajai Shukla

Indian Air Force (IAF) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) have fixed the price of the Tejas Mark 1A light combat aircraft (LCA) at about Rs 310 crore per fighter, say Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources involved in the negotiations.
Now HAL is awaiting a formal contract, worth some Rs 26,000 crore for building 83 Tejas Mark 1A fighters that the MoD has already green-lighted for purchase. According to the agreed schedule, delivery of the Mark 1A will begin 36 months after the contract date. If the order is placed at the start of 2020, Tejas Mark IA deliveries will start in 2023.
With 16 fighters to be delivered each year it would take another five years to deliver all 83 fighters – that is by 2028.

https://wap.business-standard.com/artic ... ssion=true

[kit]

Rs 26k-crore order for building Tejas Mark 1A to open door for Mark 2
By Ajai Shukla

Indian Air Force (IAF) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) have fixed the price of the Tejas Mark 1A light combat aircraft (LCA) at about Rs 310 crore per fighter, say Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources involved in the negotiations.
Now HAL is awaiting a formal contract, worth some Rs 26,000 crore for building 83 Tejas Mark 1A fighters that the MoD has already green-lighted for purchase. According to the agreed schedule, delivery of the Mark 1A will begin 36 months after the contract date. If the order is placed at the start of 2020, Tejas Mark IA deliveries will start in 2023.
With 16 fighters to be delivered each year it would take another five years to deliver all 83 fighters – that is by 2028.

https://wap.business-standard.com/artic ... ssion=true

Good to know, that's a respectable number per year!

[chola]

^^^ Good news. Though my gut tells me to wait for the formal agreement for the 83 before I go all in.

I think these three things in this thread -- the chini-thai exercise, the fact that the F-16 kill was made by a Bison while the MKI's were dodging mijjiles and former ACM Dhanoa admitting that the lack of new aircraft was the cause behind a less than punishing response -- should show that powers that be that there is a place for a smaller fighter like the Tejas in the air force. Especially one that will be outfitted with advanced avionics and BVRAAM.

The PAF has one viable fighter and that is the F-16. It has a RCS of 4-5. The Gripen from the chini chart above is 1.5 -2. The Tejas is smaller and has more composite so the RCS should be even better than the Gripen. Equipped with Astra or Meteor and would more than even the odds with the F-sola/AMRAAM combination.

[kit]

I don't think composites reduce RCS at least not what Tejas uses, .but Tejas is small

Pl correct if I am wrong !

[srai]

...

“The initial batches of the Tejas Mark 1A mayfield an imported AESA radar, but the DRDO is developing its indigenous Uttam AESA radar. As soon as it is proven, the Uttam will start equipping the Tejas Mark 1A,” said Deodhare.

The Uttam AESA radar is already flying on a Tejas prototype and has completed 11 successful test flights. “We need to do a couple of more years of flight testing before it is certified and ready for production. Thereafter, all Tejas Mark 1A will incorporate the indigenous radar”, he said.

...

Rs 26k-crore order for building Tejas Mark 1A to open door for Mark 2
By Ajai Shukla

Indian Air Force (IAF) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) have fixed the price of the Tejas Mark 1A light combat aircraft (LCA) at about Rs 310 crore per fighter, say Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources involved in the negotiations.
Now HAL is awaiting a formal contract, worth some Rs 26,000 crore for building 83 Tejas Mark 1A fighters that the MoD has already green-lighted for purchase. According to the agreed schedule, delivery of the Mark 1A will begin 36 months after the contract date. If the order is placed at the start of 2020, Tejas Mark IA deliveries will start in 2023.
With 16 fighters to be delivered each year it would take another five years to deliver all 83 fighters – that is by 2028.

https://wap.business-standard.com/artic ... ssion=true

[Thakur_B]

Only in india do we dither so long to procure a domestic product when we have huge shortages. If only this was done in 2017-18 instead of 2019-20, the line wouldn't be idle and deliveries would have concluded by 2026 to timely transition on to mk2 line.

[ashishvikas]

Harsh Vardhan Thakur retweets - so negotiations & figures are almost confirmed.

Rs 26k-crore order for building Tejas Mark 1A to open door for Mark 2 | Business Standard News @MIUI|

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12064 ... 99680?s=19

[nam]

So mk1a will be in 2023. no lca between 2021(foc delivery ends) and 2023?

We should all stop wasting time discussing about fighter shortages, when IAF is not concerned about it.

HAL is not even pretending it wants a 24 line.

[srai]

^^^
There are 8 x LCA MK.1 Trainer FOC. Then another 10 MK.1 Trainer for MK.1A order. Buys another couple of years at current/planned production rates.

There might be 8 x LCA Navy MK.1 as well.

As far as LCA MK.1 goes, more orders should have been placed two-years ago. Production gap was looming large even back then. Spurts-and-stops is how Indian MIC operates.

[JayS]

The prototypes of MK2 are likely to fly with mostly the current avionics with bare minimum changes. That is what I heard.

Saar, Shuk-law ji reports that DFCC for Mk2 aka MWF is already qualified. They even have ported it to the MK1 LRUs to be fitted in MK1A. I don't take Shuk-law ji at face value these days, but he is quoting Dr Deodhar directly in this case.

This incremental approach is also evident in the “digital flight control computer” (DFCC) – a fighter aircraft’s brain – that ADA has designed and qualified for the Tejas Mark 2. The upgraded DFCC is ready and qualified, but it could not go into the Mark 1A because it was built bigger to allow easier maintenance access in the larger Mark 2 fighter.
“We took the upgraded cards from the Tejas Mark 2’s DFCC and installed them into the smaller Mark 1 DFCC chassis, effectively upgrading it for the Mark IA. The new Mark 1A DFCC will have significantly higher processing power allows us to add many more advanced capabilities in the FCS,” said Deodhare.

Perhaps a lot of most current Avionics is already at the planned Mk2 level...??? Or could be, in coming 1-2yrs before the LRU's need to be frozen to go in the MK2 prototype..? First flight is in 2023, which means 2024 in best case. We have a lot of time at hand.


Some other notable quotes from the news:

The Uttam AESA radar is already flying on a Tejas prototype and has completed 11 successful test flights. “We need to do a couple of more years of flight testing before it is certified and ready for production. Thereafter, all Tejas Mark 1A will incorporate the indigenous radar”, he said.

“The initial batches of the Tejas Mark 1A mayfield an imported AESA radar, but the DRDO is developing its indigenous Uttam AESA radar. As soon as it is proven, the Uttam will start equipping the Tejas Mark 1A,” said Deodhare.

In 2017, LRDE folks were claiming they need only 1yr to finish Uttam from the day they get an LCA airframe, Fast forward to 2019, we have piss-poor 11 test flights in last 11 months. And couple of more yrs still required. Add 2 more for the usual delays. Why do DRDO folks even bother to give dates..??

Giving the Tejas Mark 2 the contemporary look of the Rafale and Eurofighter, it will be built with canards on the front of the fuselage. These fin-like structures serve to make the aircraft unstable, and therefore more manoeuvrable. Deodhare says ADA decided to fit canards after discovering that increasing the Mark 2’s internal fuel capacity to 3300 kilogrammes (from 2400 kg in the Mark1) made the fighter excessively stable. Designing canards near the nose of the aircraft regained its manoeuvrability.

“We are targeting the first flight of the Tejas Mark 2 by 2023. We are confident of this since most of the technologies that will go into it are already matured through LCA Mark 1,” said Deodhare.

[Prasad]

The stuff on DFCC is correct. Mk1A will get it. I thought it was there in our article.

[Cybaru]

Opportunity to produce more Mk1 or Mk1 SPORT or Mk1 for external customer.

[ramana]

^^^
There are 8 x LCA MK.1 Trainer FOC. Then another 10 MK.1 Trainer for MK.1A order. Buys another couple of years at current/planned production rates.

There might be 8 x LCA Navy MK.1 as well.

As far as LCA MK.1 goes, more orders should have been placed two-years ago. Production gap was looming large even back then. Spurts-and-stops is how Indian MIC operates.

I think this is the plan to fill in the gap years with Naval LCA.

[Kartik]

The 16 per year figure is disappointing. HAL should target a production line of at least 24 per year otherwise there is no way that any export order could ever be delivered in time, assuming any export order comes through. At 16 per year for the Tejas Mk2 MWF, they'll be delivering Mk2s into the 2040s!

[Nikhil T]

The 16 per year figure is disappointing. HAL should target a production line of at least 24 per year otherwise there is no way that any export order could ever be delivered in time, assuming any export order comes through. At 16 per year for the Tejas Mk2 MWF, they'll be delivering Mk2s into the 2040s!

In Feb, Ajai reported that HAL is planning a 24/yr production rate, with a new production line in Bangalore. It was waiting for the MK1A contract to conclude to set it up. As of now, I believe 16/yr is the authorized capacity, based on current set of orders.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 361_1.html

Once the Mark 1A obtains operational clearance, HAL plans to deliver all 83 fighters — each of them priced at about Rs 400 crore — in three-four years. To ramp up production, HAL has set up a second production line in Bengaluru and resorted to outsourcing aerostructure assembly. On December 20, 2017, the defence minister told Parliament: “For ramping up production capacity from existing eight aircraft to 16 aircraft per annum, the Government of India has sanctioned Rs 1,381.04 crore in March 2017”.

After significant delays because of teething troubles in manufacture and repeated changes in specifications by the IAF, HAL is on track to deliver eight fighters in 2018-19.

“We are expanding our capacity to 16 Tejas per year. By the time the Tejas Mark 1A goes into production, our capacity will increase to 24 at least. That is how we intend to deliver the entire order for 83 Mark 1A in three-four years,” explained HAL’s design director, Arup Chatterjee.

That said, it remains to be seen if additional production capacity converts to actual production. There have just been 4 new Tejas flights this year (SP 13-16), I think the target was 8, although as recently as 2018, HAL had promised 16 new Tejas in 2019 so take that with a grain of salt.

From Pg 1 of thread:
Year-Over-Year Tejas Production

• 2015-16: One
• 2016: Two
• 2017: Three
• 2018: Six
• 2019: Eight [Projected]
• 2020: Sixteen [Vision]

[Kartik]

Still awaiting news on SP-21. I don't think we'll see a first flight this year with just 15 days left. Perhaps the strike at HAL delayed things.

And yeah they've been claiming that they can scale up production to 24 per year and Ajai Shukla indicated that would be how it would go. But now it seems that 16 per year is the number they've agreed on with the IAF. Which is a pity given the urgency of the MiG-21 replacement issue. And if an export order does land up in their kitty (which TBH, is highly unlikely given how poor HAL is at marketing the Tejas), how on earth will they meet that without further delaying IAF orders?

[Cain Marko]

You may be able to detect Flanker at longer range, but it is of no use, when the BVR is able to travel only 80KM. If the Gripen wants to shoot down a flanker, it needs to be at 80KM. By that time, the flanker would have noticed the gripen, as well.

And yet what can the Flanker do even when it knows of the Gripen's presence?
.

What about the R27s? They have longer reach, iirc 110km. Yes the flankers would give up their positions keeping the target lit for almost the entire course of the missiles the flight but the advantage then would be on the side of the flanker. If there are multiple flankers involved, some of them could stay silent and get close enough for ARH launch while the enemy is on the defensive.

[Dileep]

Yes, a lot of stuff is ready for MK1A and also getting back ported to Mk1. But the cockpit avionics of MK1A will 'look' the same, ie three 5X5 MFDs.

I also heard that Uttam A2A mode is excellent. But A2G was not so. The 'opinion' of my source is that LRDE used to say "Oh.. we know A2G very well onlee" and the results surprised them.

[Indranil]

Information on DFCC is correct.

[Haridas]

I don't think composites reduce RCS at least not what Tejas uses, .but Tejas is small

Pl correct if I am wrong !

Bulls eye.
People get wrongly excited on RCS for wrong reasons.


On the BVR engagement capabelity is the product of RCS & radar range. The small nose dia inherently limits detection range (assuming comparable RADAR tech amongst the antagonists).
Sooner one moves over to GaN in the TR module to exploit the time window of tech lead, the better it can duke it out.

[nam]

And yet what can the Flanker do even when it knows of the Gripen's presence?

This is OT, however the answer is quite a lot.

It is a myth that just because a fighter is larger than it's adversary it is a sitting duck. If that was the case there would be no F14,F15 etc in USAF.

It is all about getting in a favorable firing position and blindsiding the target. Not allowing it enough time to react.

For this to happen, it is about tactics. Not the size of aircraft. It is NOT easy to hit target in a BVR.

One thing i learnt about M2000 vs F16 is that M2000 given it's pure delta is able to fly higher than F16! A great advantage.

There is a fascinating story about a Serbian Mig29, with jammed radar, managed to dodge BVR hits from USAF and reach safely back to base!

[nam]

I also heard that Uttam A2A mode is excellent. But A2G was not so. The 'opinion' of my source is that LRDE used to say "Oh.. we know A2G very well onlee" and the results surprised them.

Didn't we have the same problem with the current radar on MK1? We had to ask the Israelis to let us use the 2032 .

Our A2G processing algo seem to be weak...

[Karan M]

The small nose dia inherently limits detection range (assuming comparable RADAR tech amongst the antagonists).

LCA nose size is in same class as MiG-29, M2K, and its peers like JF-17. It can't however match a Flanker class platform where it is at a significant disadvantage size wise.

Didn't we have the same problem with the current radar on MK1? We had to ask the Israelis to let us use the 2032 .

Our A2G processing algo seem to be weak...

We had far more problems than just the A2G on that design. One of the key issues with A2G is the fact signal processing while dealing with clutter and relative speed requires a lot of effort. The AEW&CS radar, XV-2004 for instance are on slower platforms.

[Kartik]

Yes, a lot of stuff is ready for MK1A and also getting back ported to Mk1. But the cockpit avionics of MK1A will 'look' the same, ie three 5X5 MFDs.

I also heard that Uttam A2A mode is excellent. But A2G was not so. The 'opinion' of my source is that LRDE used to say "Oh.. we know A2G very well onlee" and the results surprised them.

If the 3 5"X5" MFDs suffice, then it's ok to keep them the same. No point adding scope to the Mk1A program unless the IAF is really not happy with them.

Heartening to hear that about the Uttam's A2A mode. While I'm not very knowledgable about radars, I feel that it is better that the A2A mode is excellent. The A2G modes can still be worked up and improved and hopefully it's just the algorithms that need working on. But if there were issues with the A2A mode then it would probably be attributed to far deeper problems with the design?

Question- are the A2A and A2G modes on the Uttam derived from those on the Elta 2032-MMR? or are they being developed from ground up by LRDE?

[Kartik]

So it isn't really the LCA taking on any RuAF fighter but rather having a Russian pilot flying in the backseat of a Tejas trainer. And it seems like it was ADA and NFTC that did the flight and not No.45 Squadron. a bit disappointing.

I am still yet to see any RuAF jet in India for INDRA 2019.

Twitter link

#INDRA2019 is the 2nd edition of this Joint Tri-Services Exercise between #Indian & #Russian Armed Forces which is being conducted from 10 Dec to 20 Dec 2019. Indian Air Force is undertaking joint missions during the exercise.

Twitter link

Today a pilot of the #RussianFederationAirForce (RFAF) flew in an Indian Light Combat Aircraft trainer. The sortie was a demonstration of the operational & avionics capabilities of the indigenously developed #LCA.

[Indranil]

Kartik,

Trainers for the IAF have not been built yet! The trainers are with NFTC. drawings have been released to HAL in June last year.

Mk1A will have three 5X5 screens.

[fanne]

LCA did best in A-G mode in at least 3 IAF exercises (meaning that the LCA radar bad A/G mode is not hindering the in A/G weapon delivery, perhaps because it uses Litening pod and other aides to deliver weapon). It's A-A mode works great....so both A/G and A-A are covered (perhaps Air to sea is not covered) what is the hold up. It can go to fight with the current radar to war and win. We can in the mean time debug a/g and any other modes (I am reading A/G radar mode as SAR mapping, maybe doppler detection of ground radar etc.)

[Dileep]

The current Radar on LCA (the modified 2032) is a kick-ass piece in both modes. But the signal processing is Israeli onlee. As I hear, one of the reasons why the yindoo signal processor was replaced with yehudi one was the poor A2G performance. Essentially too much clutter.

But things are improving onlee. Our guys are quite capable in these kind things. It just takes time. There is no shortcut.

This is a quip I heard, about the aeronautics of MK2.

"These guys have their laptops loaded with the CFD software. They constantly experiment with all kinds of options and variations and refine them and make evaluations. So, during the lull period, a lot of experience is gained, and almost all things imaginable with MK2 are already tried. When the user mentions something, they pull out the data and show them!"

[JayS]

Yes, a lot of stuff is ready for MK1A and also getting back ported to Mk1. But the cockpit avionics of MK1A will 'look' the same, ie three 5X5 MFDs.

I also heard that Uttam A2A mode is excellent. But A2G was not so. The 'opinion' of my source is that LRDE used to say "Oh.. we know A2G very well onlee" and the results surprised them.

Dileep Saar, are we starting to productionise Uttam now..? If not, what is stopping us..?? SW issues can be worked out in parallel and even after induction. Would Uttam need tweaks at HW level now..?? If yes, can the changes be managed in the form of modular design, so that we get on with the long lead items while those particular HW modules are still fine tuned. How much time would be needed for starting serial production..?? If they are expecting it to finish certification in 2-3yrs timeframe, the production line should have been starting to warm up now itself. The long lead items are the ones which are frozen on priority and component level Mfg drawings are released. I never understood this production-go-ahead thinggy we have in our domestic MIC.

The MK1A will have 5x5 SMFDs which is an upgrade over MK1 itself as I understand. Its perfectly fine to keep it that way.

[mody]

Even for the Netra AEW, the air to ground modes took the longest to develop. The air to air mode was ready much before that and the performance of the same was touted as being very good.
For the 2032-MMR, the front end is from us and the back end processing is from 2032. This only shows that our processing algorithms, have some way to go.
For the Uttam-Aesa, the air to air mode giving good results is heartening. Hopefully the processing of the air to ground mode, will also come along over the next 12-18 months.