LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2011 23:41

but none yet that fuses multiple seekers: mmw and electro-optical-ir seekers into one missile.

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Feb 2011 04:47

Gurneesh wrote:LCA already uses r-73, so i guess ruskies would not have too much problem with R-77 either (specially when MMR radar is already fixed and it is either sell BVR missiles to LCA or nothing).

If I am not wrong then, R77 is much better than Derby (even performance wise). Gurus clarify...

I was watching the webcast of the AI seminar by two IAF folks on upgrading legacy Eastern fighters. They talked specifically about the Mig 27 upgrade.

Seems like that most soviet fighters don't have a data bus and a specific protocol.

In fact, the Russians were highly secretive about sharing the R-73 interface with the ADA and wanted some massive amount of money and said that they would do it for us! I think the ADA managed to fix it and integrate it, not sure, how much of the total functionality is available if done without the interface knowledge from the OEM /weapon makers.

Atleast with a heat seeking fire and forget missile, it is easier. With an active /passive radar guided missile like the R-77/R-73, the task is much harder becuase there needs to be lot of data sharing and communication between the radar and missile and unless you know the full interface, very difficiult to do.

That is why it is always better to go with a defined standard like the MIL 1533 (data bus) and the pylons and stores interface protocols per NATO/ IEEE whatever. That way, you can integrate an off the shelf missile that the OEM confirms and guarantees that it conforms to the standard with atleast the published and well known functionality of that particular standard.

Sure, if you go to the OEM and ask them for an R-77 with a MIL std interface, you will get one today. But I doubt the R77 in the IAF inventory would actually have that kind of thing as of today. Integrating that with any IT/Vity controlled weapons bus is a separate project in itself!

No need to run around chasing our own tail. There are very good and competitive BVR missiles out there (even the Meteor is an option) that will integrate and work off the box with reference to the standard interface. Far better to go with one of those (MICA, AMRAAM, Meteor etc) than a long in the tooth and doddering R-77 whose interface the Russians dont want to share!

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 15 Feb 2011 05:47

vina wrote:
Gurneesh wrote:LCA already uses r-73, so i guess ruskies would not have too much problem with R-77 either (specially when MMR radar is already fixed and it is either sell BVR missiles to LCA or nothing).

If I am not wrong then, R77 is much better than Derby (even performance wise). Gurus clarify...
I was watching the webcast of the AI seminar by two IAF folks on upgrading legacy Eastern fighters. They talked specifically about the Mig 27 upgrade.

Seems like that most soviet fighters don't have a data bus and a specific protocol.

In fact, the Russians were highly secretive about sharing the R-73 interface with the ADA and wanted some massive amount of money and said that they would do it for us! I think the ADA managed to fix it and integrate it, not sure, how much of the total functionality is available if done without the interface knowledge from the OEM /weapon makers.

Sure, if you go to the OEM and ask them for an R-77 with a MIL std interface, you will get one today. But I doubt the R77 in the IAF inventory would actually have that kind of thing as of today. Integrating that with any IT/Vity controlled weapons bus is a separate project in itself!

No need to run around chasing our own tail. There are very good and competitive BVR missiles out there (even the Meteor is an option) that will integrate and work off the box with reference to the standard interface. Far better to go with one of those (MICA, AMRAAM, Meteor etc) than a long in the tooth and doddering R-77 whose interface the Russians dont want to share!

ukrain produces r73 and r27 missiles along with seekers and sura hms and saying that russians asking money to integrate r73 is simply not digestive.

as far as the data bus is concerned which can integrated on any jet.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Feb 2011 06:31

Baldev wrote:quote="Gurneesh" Tejas to be fitted with Israeli Derby missile

http://idrw.org/?p=2773

The Sea Harrier upgrade with the Derby missile was criticized by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) last year in a report, saying the navy zeroed in on the Derby without a proper open tender procurement process. During trials, the Derby did not perform at the required range, but was still accepted, the CAG said.
Maybe they chose it because of MMR's 2032 lineage. Or maybe R77 was just too heavy (though it weighs only 50 kg more). Though for commonality sake R77 would have been better (as MKI, Bison and Mig29upg all use it)./quote

if bison can carry 2 r77 then its pretty obvious lca can carry 4-6 of them without any problem.

r77 already in inventory then there is no need to spend money on derby,but someone wants to spend peoples money.
on the other hand rdy3,mica,asraam,topsight also a better option because these are going to be bought for m2000,jags so for tejas it will have commonality.

having 3 types of missiles r77,mica,derby is menace

You have to remember that the IAF has already ordered 18 batteries of Spyder LLQRM SAM system from Israel (with start of delivery in 2012). Spyder SAM system uses both the Python-5 and Derby AAM (without any changes to them). This means the same missiles can be used as an SAM or as AAM. Also, the hybrid 2032/MMR radar already supports Derby BVR AAM. This will save the ADA/IAF a lot of time in integrating a BVR on the LCA and with Derby they are more likely to achieve BVR capability by the end of 2012. Derby is an interim BVR AAM for the LCA. Astra will be the primary BVR AAM of the LCA in the future.

IAF did try integrating the R-77 on Mirage-2000 a long while back ... without any success. If you want a BVR missile on an LCA by 2012, then R-77 is not the option.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Feb 2011 06:57

Video of interview with Tejas pilots' chief at NFTC

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Feb 2011 07:16

Baldev wrote:ukrain produces r73 and r27 missiles along with seekers and sura hms and saying that russians asking money to integrate r73 is simply not digestive.

Nope. They are Russian alright. And it is a fact that the Russians wanted an arm and a leg to give the interface so that it could be integrated with the Tejas. Whether you digest it or not is immaterial.

as far as the data bus is concerned which can integrated on any jet.

Sure, and any missile can be integrated with any aircraft in theory. But what do you do with existing missiles in the inventory that didn't use any data bus based architecture and if you want to integrate it?

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 15 Feb 2011 07:50

vina wrote:Nope. They are Russian alright. And it is a fact that the Russians wanted an arm and a leg to give the interface so that it could be integrated with the Tejas. Whether you digest it or not is immaterial.

Sure, and any missile can be integrated with any aircraft in theory. But what do you do with existing missiles in the inventory that didn't use any data bus based architecture and if you want to integrate it?

r73 and its seeker are made in ukrain and this is true for r27 as well.if you don't believe then i can give you links.

and moreover even if according to you they could integrate r73 then why r77 could not be integrated?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Feb 2011 08:11

Maybe they chose it because of MMR's 2032 lineage.

MMR has no 2032 lineage (

) what it does have is a processor backend from 2032. two entirely different things.

Baldev wrote:ukrain produces r73 and r27 missiles along with seekers and sura hms and saying that russians asking money to integrate r73 is simply not digestive.

then the problem is with your digestion. AM Rajkumar clearly mentions the issue in "The Tejas Story", he was part of the negotiating team.

and moreover even if according to you they could integrate r73 then why r77 could not be integrated?

the difference between a radar guided missile and a close combat IR guided one.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Feb 2011 09:54

In the light of "wake penetration tests" for the LCA here is a short 8 sec video from Aero India showing the effects of wake penetration. The aircraft seen in the latter half of the video, moving away from the camera, hits the wake of the aircraft that has gone past in the opposite direction and rolls suddenly to the right . The pilot corrects that and then rolls away to the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRH9MHHPIJk

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 15 Feb 2011 10:06

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110215.htm

The LSP-3 streaks into the sky. Singh's mission is to test a new smoke winder -- an under-wing pod that trails smoke. The device will help NFTC test the Tejas' reaction when it flies into a jet wake, a deadly 250-kmph blast of air emitted by a jet engine flying ahead.

Jet streams confuse fly-by-wire fighters like the Tejas, which are kept stable by on-board computers.

Swedish company Saab crashed one of its Gripen fighters during testing when it flew into one. But these NFTC pilots seem to believe that flying the Tejas into a jet stream is just another day at the office.

"Not this week, definitely. We will be doing aerobatics twice daily and, as an article of faith, we don't drink for 48 hours before flying." But then the professional mask slips just a fraction and there is a gleam in the Air Commodore's eyes.

"But don't go away with the impression that these guys are loners. Test pilot school parties are famous in the Air Force."

So it has gone through some kind of wake test

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 10:29

I found a link which shows the ukraine connection with current Rus missiles. ofcourse the ukraine regime is quite moscow friendly now that the revolution failed. but looks like for PAKFA missiles Rus will make everything itself. but ukraine/Rus has been selling everything to china and pak as well. no doubt the chinese SD-10 and PL-12 projects benefitted from ukraine/Rus expertise like agat seekers.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 283.5;wap2

Vympel plans to develop air-to-air missiles for Russia's PAK FA fighter
19-May-2006 Jane’s Missiles and Rockets

Russia's Vympel (Toropov) State Engineering Design Bureau Joint Stock Company (JSC) is developing advanced air-to-air missiles of short, medium and long range for use on the planned fifth-generation fighter (PAK FA), writes Yevgeniy Letunovsky. According to Vympel chief designer Gennady Sokolovsky, the new missiles are being designed for carriage within an internal weapons bay. Stowing the missiles in an internal bay helps to reduce a fighter's radar cross-section (RCS). The F-22 and F-35 incorporate weapons bays, and the PAK FA will be the first Russian fighter with this feature.

Sokolovsky said that the new missiles will incorporate advanced concepts in areas such as configuration, propulsion, guidance and warhead technology, and are intended to allow the PAK FA to win air superiority over Western aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Under a reorganisation of the Vympel design bureau, Gennady Sokolovsky (who formerly had the dual role of both General Designer and General Director) now serves as General Designer. The General Director of the Vympel is Victor Rats, while Peter Vasilev is chief of the design department.

Another goal of the programme is to create missiles of all-Russian manufacture. Many current air-to-air missiles carried by Russian aircraft incorporate subsystems provided by manufacturers in countries such as Ukraine. For example, both current versions of the R-73 - the R-73K (fitted with the Krechet radar proximity fuze) and the R-73L (with the Yantar laser proximity fuze) - are based on the Mayak-80 series of infrared (IR) seekers produced by the Arsenal State Kiev Enterprise in Ukraine, an autopilot produced by the Moscow-based AVIONIKA MNPK, and the RDTT-295 solid-propellant rocket motor developed by the ISKRA State Unitary Enterprise in Moscow.

For many years following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, political factors slowed work on creating improved R-73 variants. However, two interim models were produced - the K-74 (probably begun as izdeliye 740), with an improved Mayak-80M IR seeker operating at angles of +/-60ⅹ off boresight, and the K-74M (izdeliye 750) with an angle of +/-75ⅹ.

For the PAK FA, Vympel is developing two new missiles based on R-73/R-74 technology. The first of these is izdeliye 760. Based on the K-74M, this is intended to match the performance of the MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder. It will have an improved IR seeker, an inertial control system, a datalink receiver for target updates and an advanced rocket motor with a longer burn time. To make the missile suitable for internal carriage, its cross-section will be reduced to 320x320 mm.

To maximise the weapon's coverage, it can be fired in lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) mode, starting under inertial control before achieving in-flight lock-on. It will be able to engage targets up to 160ⅹ from the aircraft's heading.

According to a Vympel representative, izdeliye 760 is about to begin flight tests. Development is due to be completed in 2010.

The follow-on K-MD (izdeliye 300) is intended to outperform the ASRAAM and AIM-9X. Although it will draw on the experience gained with the R-73/R-74 series, for most practical purposes it will be an all-new missile.

Its guidance system will be based on a new IR seeker incorporating a focal-plane array (FPA). This will have more than twice the lock-on range of the izdeliye 760 seeker, a high resistance to countermeasures and a target-recognition capability.

Russian air-to-air missile programmes have been slow to adopt FPA technology, which is already used in 'dogfight' missiles such as the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, the Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T and Rafael's Python-4 and Python-5. Russian work in this field is still at an early stage.

The reason for this time lag is essentially historical - until now, the IR seekers for the R-73/74 series and other Russian short-range air-to-air missiles were developed by Arsenal in Kiev.

According to Peter Vasilev, chief of the Vympel design department, several Russian companies are candidates for the task of creating a state-of-the-art FPA-based seeker. Obvious candidates are the Geophizika JSC or GNPP Impulse companies, but the Azovskii Optiko-Mekhanicheskii Zavod (AOMZ) recently announced that it planned to work on advanced seeker technology.

Geophizika was responsible for the 36T IR seeker for the R-27T air-to-air missile, and for semi-active laser seekers such as the 24N1 used on the KH-29L and KH-25L air-to-surface missiles, and the 27N for KAB-500L and-1500L laser-guided bombs, while AOMZ manufactured all three. GNPP Impulse (formerly known as NII-504) has developed various types of semi-active laser and TV seekers.

The new missile will have an improved aerodynamic configuration of minimal drag, and will be powered by a dual-mode solid-rocket engine with a high specific impulse and a total burn time of about 100 seconds. The R-73 used a system of four moving thrust-vector control vanes mounted around the motor nozzle. For the K-MD, Vympel has developed what it described as 'a three-channel gas-dynamic control unit (gas control vanes)'. An adaptive warhead will provide optimised lethal effects to suit the final interception conditions.

Development of the K-MD is expected to end in 2013, giving the PAK FA a 'dogfight' weapon of much-increased range, all-round coverage and the ability to engage aircraft or missile targets.

To provide the aircraft with a medium-range and long-range armament, new missiles will be developed based on the current R-77 and R-73 respectively. As with the short-range weapon, this will be an evolutionary process, starting with improved variants and moving towards what will eventually become an all-new missile.

The use of internal carriage for all three classes of missile, and for the aircraft's air-to-surface weapons, will require the use of a new pattern of launcher able to catapult the round out of the aircraft's weapons bay. Two versions are planned. The UVKU-50L lightweight launcher is intended to carry missiles weighing up to 300 kg. Heavier weapons weighing up to 700 kg will be carried on the UVKU-50U universal launcher.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Feb 2011 10:31

Baldev wrote:and moreover even if according to you they could integrate r73 then why r77 could not be integrated?

From what I have read most of the RF A2A missile makers be it Russia or US are not keen to integrate RF guided missile with 3rd party radar , because of not any interface or money issue but because these interface will need close integration between Main Radar and RF guided missile which will mean parting some of the codes modes/ECM features of RF missile to the 3rd party radar developer making it easy for them to develop counter measures to defeat the RF missile , bottom line is they want to guard their core technologies that will make it easy to defeat the missile.

Hence you will never see a AMRAAM or R-77 getting integrated with ELta Radar but only with their respective radar.

I recollect reading Israel wanting to integrate AMRAAM with their Elta radar and US simply refused to part with it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 10:34

^quite true. we see only IR guided missiles (no midcourse comms from the launch platform) getting into 3rd party radar planes. once its launched with its initial target co-ordinates its on its own and no RF comms take place.

derby != amraamC7/mica but most pragmatic decision for hassle free FOC ... rafael could have improved the seeker, propellant and ECCM by now for spyder contract using newer tech but slipped it under radar by not renaming it

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 15 Feb 2011 10:39

Thanks Shiv. Now I know what wake is. Lovely example which illustrates perfectly.

Cheers

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 Feb 2011 10:52

Aero Gurus tarmak has a wonderful set of videos. Please go ahead and analyse since the videos are upclose

TV-007 more trials: Tracking the Tejas

vina · Post by **vina** » 15 Feb 2011 11:13

Austin wrote:Hence you will never see a AMRAAM or R-77 getting integrated with ELta Radar but only with their respective radar

Screw em. There is MBDA and others waiting to sell stuff like Meteor that is integrated with the Eurofighter , Rafale AND the Gripen. Get that baby , the latest and best out there (atleast on paper!).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Feb 2011 11:24

vina wrote:Screw em. There is MBDA and others waiting to sell stuff like Meteor that is integrated with the Eurofighter , Rafale AND the Gripen. Get that baby , the latest and best out there (atleast on paper!).

AFAIK Meteor will be available post 2014 and did MBDA claimed that they would integrate Meteor with Elta or Indian Radar or will they insist buying an European radar and then integrate Meteor with it for a peremium ?

Bottom line is to develop your own AAM like Astra and then you can integrate with what ever aircraft you have it in service at probably lowest possible price , much like Israel realised it painfully after US kick and developed Derby which is still a half hearted BVR missile , atleast Astra will be in true BVR class.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 15 Feb 2011 12:18

In addition to what Singha and Austin says, system integration is a technical, monetary and effort-wise pain.

Slaving a short range R-73E is easy. For LOBL, it gets its initial cues from the HMDS &/or radar computer while still on the pylon. After launch, the weapon places itself in a position where the target is within IR seeker FoV. Thereafter the IR seeker takes over. For LOAL, it is launched with the target in +/- 45 degree elevation/azimuth FoV, and the IR seeker takes over. This mode was displayed during the Vayushakti exercises.

Long range missiles use a datalink. Typically, mating an Israeli radar to Russian missile datalink is a huge pain. The Russians have designed a mating pack to integrate R-77 with western radars. The pack uses a separate datalink pod to transmit mid course upgrades to R-77. Not a very efficient system.

However, Russian missiles are mated to Russian radars during development, and so are Israeli. That is why Sea Harrier and Tejas, that use 2032, find it cheaper & hassle free to use Derby.

Both R-77 and Derby are legacy missiles, vis-à-vis Astra that uses open system architecture. I believe Astra should be able to receive datalink updates from both Israeli or Russian datalink transmitters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 12:24

if we go EU with the MRCA, I would consider Meteor a distinct possibility for Tejas Mk2 if the Astra mk2 does not enter IOC within 5 yrs which is quite likely unless they are working in parallel on the two astras.

in 2015 we should have the astra mk1 FOC'ed....a Tejas with 6 of these should be scary enough in AD roles. Meteor would be more useful to hunt down high value targets or raise a scare by knocking off inbound ac long before they get within effective range for their own missiles - the scare factor.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 12:41

Austin wrote:AFAIK Meteor will be available post 2014 and did MBDA claimed that they would integrate Meteor with Elta or Indian Radar or will they insist buying an European radar and then integrate Meteor with it for a peremium ?
..

Well there is already work going on an F-35(which of course has an american radar) version of the Meteor, I think they are quite keen on selling the missile beyond the European borders.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Feb 2011 13:39

abhik wrote:Well there is already work going on an F-35(which of course has an american radar) version of the Meteor, I think they are quite keen on selling the missile beyond the European borders.

Quite Nice but I will believe it when it see it , Integrating AMRAAM with any thing other then American system for a Non-NATO country will be any thing but painful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Feb 2011 13:55

Check it out folks..
http://kedar.smugmug.com/AeroIndia2011/ ... ttR2-X2-LB

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 15 Feb 2011 14:01

Society Of Experimental Test Pilots

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 15 Feb 2011 14:22

What is this grey thing in the middle ?

http://kedar.smugmug.com/AeroIndia2011/ ... 8Pve-X2-LB

and is that "black thing" about a meter behind the cockpit an air intake ?

Excellent pictures Kedar jii

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 15 Feb 2011 14:25

Thats the closest shot i have seen of tejas

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Feb 2011 15:17

normally an auxillary air intake, could be for a number of purposes - most probably cooling air intake for avionics. ram air turbine intakes (other option) tend to be facing into the airflow

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Feb 2011 17:13

Lalmohan wrote:normally an auxillary air intake, could be for a number of purposes - most probably cooling air intake for avionics. ram air turbine intakes (other option) tend to be facing into the airflow

The big grey thing in the middle is the LCA itself.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 15 Feb 2011 17:29

its an aerial, question is for what?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Feb 2011 17:47

Lalmohan wrote:its an aerial, question is for what?

According to my unkal it may be a UHF blade antenna
http://flytparts.com/index.php?main_pag ... 3_12_29_42

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 15 Feb 2011 18:16

Austin wrote: From what I have read most of the RF A2A missile makers be it Russia or US are not keen to integrate RF guided missile with 3rd party radar , because of not any interface or money issue but because these interface will need close integration between Main Radar and RF guided missile which will mean parting some of the codes modes/ECM features of RF missile to the 3rd party radar developer making it easy for them to develop counter measures to defeat the RF missile , bottom line is they want to guard their core technologies that will make it easy to defeat the missile.

For an ARH missile, only the datalink matters. the radar frequency/code doesn't matter. Of course, the datalink is critical, because it can be jammed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Feb 2011 19:53

Could sending burst of giga speed bits reduce jamming? Of course given t/r is available for this.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Feb 2011 19:56

Dileep wrote:For an ARH missile, only the datalink matters. the radar frequency/code doesn't matter. Of course, the datalink is critical, because it can be jammed.

But datalink for any BVR missile can be jammed provided you have the right resource to do it isnt it ? Isnt DataLink then a Achilles Heel of BVR missile ?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 15 Feb 2011 20:13

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 15 Feb 2011 20:15

^^Of course, but the ready antidote is to switch to passive mode and home on the jamming signal.

You don't need gigahertz bandwidth to pass guidance info. A single burst of less than 200 bits (not bytes) would easily do the trick. Jamming OTOH needs continuous emission, which can be homed on by the missile.

But don't let that miss the original point. There is NO relationship between the radar's RF and the missile. If you can get the datalink LRU, integration of it with the FCS is not much of a problem.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 21:10

IN is now on its way to have a considerable AF of its own - Mig29K (30), Tejas (19), Tejas2 (46) comes to nearly 100. it already has around 12 Jag-IM on call. and KA31 AEW helis more are being laid in. the fixed wing AEW will complete the circle. and brahmos equipped MKIs are coming.

yes sir by 2020 we shall be ready to kick some a$$

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 16 Feb 2011 00:32

Singha wrote:IN is now on its way to have a considerable AF of its own - Mig29K (30), Tejas (19), Tejas2 (46) comes to nearly 100. it already has around 12 Jag-IM on call. and KA31 AEW helis more are being laid in. the fixed wing AEW will complete the circle. and brahmos equipped MKIs are coming.

yes sir by 2020 we shall be ready to kick some a$$

Wasn't there some information about some numbers of MKI-maritime to be inducted. As with the Jag-IM, I thought these too were going to be under IAF.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 16 Feb 2011 01:16

Correction, the number of Mig-29K's ordered are 45 not 30. So the carrier based fighters coupled with land based fighters (Jag + Su-30) puts the fighter aircrafts numbers well over 120+. Then you have the transport + heli's, that's quite a potent force structure for a Navy in the world, let alone Asia!

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 16 Feb 2011 02:11

Tech Focus on LCA Technologies

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Feb 2011 03:51

Dileep wrote:You don't need gigahertz bandwidth to pass guidance info. A single burst of less than 200 bits (not bytes) would easily do the trick. Jamming OTOH needs continuous emission, which can be homed on by the missile..

Well, it would be possible for the jamming platform to send a equally short burst of 200bits of false guidance signal to mislead (if they knew the communication codes, protocols and data encryption and protection schemes)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Feb 2011 04:17

We should be safe since LCA may not participate in any international ops. If we do so, then can buy separate comm equipments just for those missions alone, and replace them back for our other ops.

I am thinking chances of eves-dropping is very very low unless some mole steals and sells them to other nations. Misleading is one aspect, but jamming the frequency is entirely a different game is my understanding. When I am quick enough to communicate, and shut off my systems, me think I am safe in la LPI mode. Where is the chance the other radar to track me down?

Not sure, say if a raptor detects LCA, and sends powerful high frequency bursts to damage its communication equipments? is that possible, have we protection against such attack?