Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2014 15:37

does anyone know how this miraculous feat is performed by the hawkeye with barely 4 operator consoles and surely not much power to drive the radar as well.

wiki:
The Hawkeye 2000 version can track more than 2,000 targets simultaneously (while at the same time, detecting 20,000 simultaneously) to a range greater than 400 mi (640 km) and simultaneously guide 40–100 air to air intercepts or air to surface engagements.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Jan 2014 15:48

The Hawkeye 2000 version can track more than 2,000 targets simultaneously (while at the same time, detecting 20,000 simultaneously) to a range greater than 400 mi (640 km) and simultaneously guide 40–100 air to air intercepts or air to surface engagements.

Random brochure vomit. Surely, no one actually tested the Hawkeye tracking 2000 targets at any distance (leave alone 400 mi) or even put up 20000 targets for it to detect simultaneously and then guide the 40 to 100 intercepts ! Just the logistics of putting up 20000 targets to detect is mind boggling.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jan 2014 15:59

thought so.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2014 16:31

You cant display the 2000 targets either. At best, it refers to internal tracking, ie the system can theoretically do this, but will display only the xx/ chosen either automatically or by operator intervention/ that can be fit onto the screen.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 17 Jan 2014 16:42

Actually may not be so. Bear with me while I put out my hunch.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... t#p1569803

Karan M:

F2, T2,E, A chain - Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess - chain

If you actually end up lighting up 20000 blips, of some half wavelength suitably shaped chaff particles, on the screen you will get a gigantic green disco light. Not much good for a radar operator staring at a screen. He ain’t going to dance. Not so for the computer though.

The normal stages that one expects is the detect-cluster-extract-track.

Also notice in the post linked above the Track comes before Targeting.

So there is every possibility that there are other methods where the tracking is actually before a blip of interest is declared a target. Notice also upon declaration as a target the engage is still not in the picture (remember the F-16 that targeted a policeman with a hand held radar). Basically out of the 20000 blips the computer registers it is going to track all. Then notice changes in the overall picture. Kind of like those astronomers of yore who kept staring at photographic plates to observe a moving object before they got their name on that object. Then the Computer does some dance and identifies clusters of blips moving in an unusual fashion. For example a model missing her step and ending up on the lap of one of the people on L&M dhaga, then getting up and stepping back onto the catwalk again but slipping again to the utter pleasure of the L&M fans. Only this mis-stepping comes up every few kms against the backdrop of a mountainous terrain. Now that the model is identified as trash material, the resident lafanga declares a target of interest and decides whether he needs to engage or not.

Now why this needs to be done is because what you get to engage is a function of what you target which in turn is a function of what you track…..etc. and then off course you do that with some cool chip that is made not in India, yet.

This seems to be called Track Before Detect that uses some strange filter that is not shaped like a cone and is not made of paper, but still does filtering and does that for multiple closely spaced weak targets.

http://wwwhome.math.utwente.nl/~boersy/ ... tt_tbd.pdf

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2014 16:50

TBD is a software function which is being implemented in the latest Phalcon variant that Israel has put on a business jet. However, conventional TWS follows detection (usually, Velocity Search ie determine there are targets at a certain bearing, moving so fast) and then comes RWS (range while search) and TWS ranges are quite similar and TWS can be done automatically by the system on predefined parameters (highest velocity approaching targets, nearest targets etc) or manually selected by operator.

BTW, Phalcon system as advertised in 1996, had 11 OWS (same as IAF Phalcons btw) and 500 target TWS. So the 60-100 stuff is just out of date stuff which is probably derived from the Chilean Phalcon specs. The IAF basically judging by reports seems to have picked up the "gold standard" Phalcon kit which was being advertised for 767 fitment, including a full SIGINT suite. Their customization included Thales IFF (incidentally Thales IFF gear is also on the MiG-29 Upg) and Russian datalink suites. The latter mean that we intended these to work with Su-30 MKIs from day one (they come prefitted with Russian Polyot datalinks). Within themselves, per memory, 4 groups of 4 Flankers each can share targeting data. The ODL will be a further step up and share more data plus will be higher bandwidth.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2014 16:58

Another example of max targets tracked vs display constraints is the Blue Vixen radar. Theoretically, it could track some 20 odd targets, but displayed only a few of those (most relevant) based on display/MMI rationale.
N001 radar (Su-27 family) is a very interesting case in that this FCR did not have conventional search modes. It, like Zaslon (another NIIP radar) automatically moved into TWS. Only later were more conventional modes like VS introduced, extending the "range" of the radar.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 17 Jan 2014 18:17

Ah good old "Radar" discussion

... Dilipji where art thou (it has been loooooooooong time now)?

KaranM, couple of points I think we shouldn't get confused with - Tracking on conventional PD set is more or less a software function, as a "hardware tracking" (used to be called "pure" tracking?) required switching the set to a monopulse mode - which would mean no Scanning and only 1 target tracking (called STT - and is also retained in most modern radar).

However using the RCs a "virtual" tracking can be implemented without these entire monopulse mode switching - but the target gate (usually time-sliced scan/detect data) would be required to be created and analyzed and eventually predicted (using good stuff like Kalman Filter etc.) to "establish a track".
All of these takes time (thus range gets reduced) - so normally the tracking range is a fraction of the scan-range which in itself is a fraction of the detection-range.

Now, the relevant point to this discussion, the number of targets that a conventional PD set can "track" is more-or-less a function of the RC computing power strength - the antenna, receiver efficiency and transmit power etc doesn't really influence the number of tracks (actually practically they do, but that's another long-winded discussion point).

On the other hand, an AESA doesn't have all such restrictions - theoretically (and BIG theoretically aspect) each of the TR module is a mini-PD-set and thus can be go into a monopulse mode without worrying what the next TR module is doing. So, again big theoretically, the number of target tracked would be limited by the number of TR modules on the antenna face.
Practically nothing of that sort happens - but it does give people an opportunity to print glossy brochures with a max Target Track very close to the number of TR modules (not sure who they try to fool anyways). As an AESA would have already segmented the entire TR set and would have tasked TR modules of sub-section of that segmented space into specific tasks (e.g. Ground Target Mapping, pure ranging etc etc.)
But this above feature also gives a very big advantage to an AESA set - i.e. the Track ranges are very very close to the detection and scan ranges.
Of course there are other limitations about actually displaying and prioritizing etc that needs to happen on the tracked targets, which have also been pointed out.

Betw pls note the angular-displacement vector of a S band set will not be as sharp as that of an X-band set (AESA or non-AESA), so more time (less range) would be required to actually "firm up" a track.

Sorry couldn't resist this post (for old times’ sake) - now, back to Kaveri evangelism!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2014 19:53

h good old "Radar" discussion ... Dilipji where art thou (it has been loooooooooong time now)?

KaranM, couple of points I think we shouldn't get confused with - Tracking on conventional PD set is more or less a software function, as a "hardware tracking" (used to be called "pure" tracking?) required switching the set to a monopulse mode - which would mean no Scanning and only 1 target tracking (called STT - and is also retained in most modern radar).

However using the RCs a "virtual" tracking can be implemented without these entire monopulse mode switching - but the target gate (usually time-sliced scan/detect data) would be required to be created and analyzed and eventually predicted (using good stuff like Kalman Filter etc.) to "establish a track".
All of these takes time (thus range gets reduced) - so normally the tracking range is a fraction of the scan-range which in itself is a fraction of the detection-range.

Yes, STT is high precision tracking.. it was of particular use with earlier radars which had a CW illuminator to guide the SARH missiles. Bars can handle two targets in this mode. However, in acquisition with RVV-AEs, manual or automatic, it can acquire upto 4 targets while retaining search of the airspace.

The can't scan but is locked onto one target stuff was a limitation only of the N019 radar, in its original iteration, because it had a datalink to back it up and retain situational awareness for the pilot. Plus it was cheaper. When the pilot shifted to "zakhvat" (iirc engagement mode), all other targets would disappear from the screen.

N001 on the other hand, which was developed for the SU's premier fighter, the Su-27 (and also the Zaslon) both did not have this limitation as they had better processing.

Ultimately, if you think about it, this lock on & cant scan a wide volume, stuff is more a relic of the SARH technology which requires constant illumination & hence for a mech scanned radar to "lose" the target, scan another area, revisit, reacquire, repaint - that has a high chance of reducing the Pk.

Now, its more a relic than anything else.

Coming to range & mode dependency, it depends on radar design, but a rough thumbrule is that RWS/TWS range is 70-80% of the typical VS range. SARH engagement range (highest grade tracking, with STT) - 60-70%. Typically, each of the modes is usually associated with a specific PRF - eg usually VS with high PRF, RWS & TWS with MPRF (better for look down vs clutter)..modern radars can automatically shift gears per target characteristics..Blue Vixen for instance was supposed to be highly automated (thanks to SHar cockpit limitations)

With SARHs becoming more or less obsolete, you can pick & choose targets that you want to engage in TWS mode and have the radar "bug" them for ARH launches (or have the fire control radar do it for you, based on predecided filters - highest closing speed, range or a combination of the two). RDY2 has 8 targets TWS, 4 engage (with Micas). N011M has 16 TWS (each RC does 8 targets) & 4 engage (with R77).

Now, the relevant point to this discussion, the number of targets that a conventional PD set can "track" is more-or-less a function of the RC computing power strength - the antenna, receiver efficiency and transmit power etc doesn't really influence the number of tracks (actually practically they do, but that's another long-winded discussion point).

Well, the average radar's target detection, and then acquisition capability (some sources use the term interchangeably, but I differentiate it based on the fact that acquisition ultimately gets enough data to build a file with bearing/azimuth, height and range - plus of course the velocity vector, and hey the Russians use this term in this context), does depend on the dwell time & other correlated factors such as the radars overall efficiency (receiver sensitivity, antenna gain, power output).

The Irbis's quoted 350-400 km range (for a 3 sq mtr target) for instance is only within a drastically reduced volume - basically saturating the volume with its high Pav dual TWTs (though of course I wouldnt put it past the Russians to have created a mode, wherein the Irbis data processor divides the "sky" into zones and then uses the slow scan to build up an ASP of the entire area).

n the other hand, an AESA doesn't have all such restrictions - theoretically (and BIG theoretically aspect) each of the TR module is a mini-PD-set and thus can be go into a monopulse mode without worrying what the next TR module is doing. So, again big theoretically, the number of target tracked would be limited by the number of TR modules on the antenna face.
Practically nothing of that sort happens - but it does give people an opportunity to print glossy brochures with a max Target Track very close to the number of TR modules (not sure who they try to fool anyways). As an AESA would have already segmented the entire TR set and would have tasked TR modules of sub-section of that segmented space into specific tasks (e.g. Ground Target Mapping, pure ranging etc etc.)
But this above feature also gives a very big advantage to an AESA set - i.e. the Track ranges are very very close to the detection and scan ranges.
Of course there are other limitations about actually displaying and prioritizing etc that needs to happen on the tracked targets, which have also been pointed out.

AESA radars (current gen) all have their modules operating in synch - the each Tx/Rx module operates independently stuff is still theoretical as you say (NVM, it would reduce power output by a huge amount). AESA's big advantages are its relative low losses in the Tx/Rx chain (as versus conventional sets) and their high reliability. And of course the incredible beamsteering - I mean, within those elevation/azimuth limits, the beam can be steered instantaneously (in millisec) versus having to move the entire antenna & that means much better refresh rate for the TWS files & in turn, true multi target capability with ARH.

Coming to tracked targets, current FCRs dont claim anything insane. APG-82 (v1) has 40 targets TWS f.e., same as RBE-2, a PESA. APG-77 reportedly has 100 TWS (again, this is internal track file maint., displayed may be around 20-30 etc).

Interestingly if my memory serves me correctly those crazy numbers for the E2D are for a PESA.

Betw pls note the angular-displacement vector of a S band set will not be as sharp as that of an X-band set (AESA or non-AESA), so more time (less range) would be required to actually "firm up" a track.

True, but it all depends on the accuracy required. I mean, if all you want to is vector fighters to the area with their own FCR, as versus guide missiles whose antenna have limited look angles and very short battery lives..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2014 20:38

BTW, theres a burning discussion going on from ages ago in dark corners of the interwebz around the exact mode vs range specifics of the different radars. Folks note the Russian radar mode vs ranges appear uncannily similar to that (say) on the AWG-9 (f.e.). Other snippets arrive from time to time, eg, when the Russians implemented the VS mode in the N001(V) - their upgraded Su-27's - they got a 20-30% range increase (but had to improve the receiver hardware as well, plus the tracking processor).. Whereas newer accounts of radars like the F-15s APG-63 show more of an emphasis on multimode performance over raw range but albeit detection & track ranges very similar (limited to the amount of time required to build up a track file), and Russian PESAs should be similar etc etc - the debate goes on.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Jan 2014 22:44

@RajitO ^^^:Thanks for the thoughtful illumination of the landscape.

My reasoning was along different lines: I was wondering if the A10s might be weighed against Apaches which suffer from all the battlefield issues that the A10s do save for two: speed and greater survivability. To your point about air superiority as a precondition, it applies to both.

From a resource perspective, I don't think they would be that much more expensive than more T90s or Arjuns and can get to targets much faster. They would also cost a lot less than the Apaches.

All this is driven not by the desire to pickup second hand stuff cheap. Rather, to figure out (I guess this is best discussed in the tank thread) whether the IA might be more effective in blunt and destroy mode (and armed accordingly) versus strike formations that aim at cutting TSP in half etc.

I realize as I write this is getting OT here. Maybe if you have the time, you could elaborate on that thesis. The foregoing is sum total of my knowledge on the subjects.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Jan 2014 10:14

Air Force may buy jet trainers from abroad after HAL misses multiple deadlines

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Jan 2014 02:15

Defence ministry sets up body to boost aircraft industry

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 18th Jan 14

The ministry of defence (MoD) has finally responded to longstanding calls for the government to centrally coordinate the building of India’s capability to design and manufacture civil and military aircraft. In a potentially path breaking move the ministry has constituted an inter-ministerial National Aeronautics Coordination Group. The Secretary (Defence Production) will chair the NACG.

Indian entities with aerospace expertise --- including the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO); public sector companies like Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); private sector companies; non-MoD establishments like the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) which falls under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR); and academic institutions like Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) --- have traditionally functioned in their silos. The NACG will now bring together their capabilities to create the eco-system essential for an aerospace industry.

To this end, the MoD has given the NACG a specific charter: “To recommend national policy on aerospace and a comprehensive plan of action for suitable augmentation of indigenous capability in the field of aeronautics by 31-3-2014 (March 31, 2014).”

The NACG will also “review and monitor the implementation of action plan after its approval by government.”

Functioning under the chairpersonship of the Secretary (Defence Production), the NACG will include the secretaries of the departments of civil aviation, and science and technology; the scientific advisor to the defence minister (i.e. the DRDO chief); the chiefs of HAL and NAL; and representatives of the armed forces and the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC). Industry associations would be invited when necessary. HAL’s design chief will be the ex-officio member secretary.

To complement the NACG in the technical field the MoD constituted another body last month --- the Design & Development Management Board (DDMB). With the HAL chief at its head, the DDMB will include the deputy chief of air staff, the directors of NAL and three key DRDO establishments, and the R&D chief of Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL).

The DDMB has been directed to “suggest measures for strengthening of design & development in the aerospace field so as to promote self-reliance in critical areas of defence preparedness for the nation.”

It has also been charged with ensuring that overlapping capabilities are not created, while “synergizing the core competency” within various aerospace establishments. The DDMB will also “identify collaborative initiatives for development projects of national interest”, identify and bridge technology gaps and suggest measures for attracting and retaining high-quality manpower.

The DDMB, which will function directly under the MoD, is expected to meet every quarter.

Says noted aerospace expert, Pushpinder Singh, who publishes the reputed Vayu magazine: “This is a major breakthrough towards developing Indian aircraft. Several R&D and manufacturing entities have learned the ropes while developing the Tejas and helicopters like the Dhruv. There is a need to coordinate and harness all that knowledge and the NACG would need to take the lead.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2014 08:25

Indian Air Force to upgrade Russian choppers to ferry VVIPs

With the government scrapping the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal following allegations of corruption, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is readying its fleet to ferry VVIPs during their campaign trail for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Russia-made military transport Mi-17 V-5 helicopters will be used to ferry the prime minister and other VVIPs, defence ministry sources said.

As part of the deal, the government was supposed to procure 12 AW101 helicopters from Anglo-Italian defence giant AgustaWestland. IAF officials said the cancellation of the deal was a big setback as the proposal to replace the ageing fleet of VVIP choppers (Mi-8s) was taken 14 years ago. The three-decade-old Mi-8 helicopters used by the IAF will be phased out by next month.

Sources told dna that the defence ministry has no immediate plans to hunt for new choppers while global tenders to procure helicopters will take several years.

“We are looking at the possibility of upgrading the Mi-17 V-5 fleet because the IAF is not getting AW101. The Special Protection Group (SPG), the elite force which handles the prime minister’s security, will be consulted to overview the upgrade as per their specification,” an IAF officer said.

Another officer said Mi-8 was considered unsafe for flying above 2000 mt and that it also does not fulfil the stringent security requirement prescribed by the SPG. “The Mi-8s do not have adequate space to accommodate safety equipment recommended by the SPG. But in Mi-17 V5, we will install self-protection anti-missile suites and medical evacuation systems along with all weather and night-flying capabilities,” the officer said.

In 2004, the SPG played a major role in framing technical specifications for helicopters purchases, which ultimately allowed AW101 in the race.

India ordered 80 Mi-17 V5 helicopters from Russia in 2008 for Rs7,700 crore, which were expected to be delivered by the end of 2014. Subsequently, a follow-on clause was invoked to buy 59 more choppers for Rs5,500 crore.

The Mi-17 V5 – a medium-lift helicopter -- has operated in various terrains, including the Siachen Glacier, and has proven its mettle in UN missions too. It can carry over 5 tonnes of load. The IAF claims that Mi-17 V5 is equipped with state-of-the-art avionics and navigation systems like on-board weather radar and autopilot. It also has advanced night-vision equipment and a glass cockpit.

“The Mi-17 V5 is the most upgraded transport helicopter with the IAF. But it needs be customised for VVIP transport. The process to convert these choppers to meet the immediate requirement to ferry VVIPs will begin soon,” an IAF officer said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2014 08:35

Came across two configuration in VIP role for Mi-17

Mi-17 VIP
Russian President Helicopter

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 Jan 2014 13:21

It seems that Italians have refused to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2000 crores in Agusta scam. So they get to keep both the money and the choppers.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jan 2014 14:58

Austin wrote:Indian Air Force to upgrade Russian choppers to ferry VVIPs

With the government scrapping the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal following allegations of corruption, the Indian Air Force (IAF) is readying its fleet to ferry VVIPs during their campaign trail for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Russia-made military transport Mi-17 V-5 helicopters will be used to ferry the prime minister and other VVIPs, defence ministry sources said.

As part of the deal, the government was supposed to procure 12 AW101 helicopters from Anglo-Italian defence giant AgustaWestland. IAF officials said the cancellation of the deal was a big setback as the proposal to replace the ageing fleet of VVIP choppers (Mi-8s) was taken 14 years ago. The three-decade-old Mi-8 helicopters used by the IAF will be phased out by next month.

Sources told dna that the defence ministry has no immediate plans to hunt for new choppers while global tenders to procure helicopters will take several years.

“We are looking at the possibility of upgrading the Mi-17 V-5 fleet because the IAF is not getting AW101. The Special Protection Group (SPG), the elite force which handles the prime minister’s security, will be consulted to overview the upgrade as per their specification,” an IAF officer said.

Another officer said Mi-8 was considered unsafe for flying above 2000 mt and that it also does not fulfil the stringent security requirement prescribed by the SPG. “The Mi-8s do not have adequate space to accommodate safety equipment recommended by the SPG. But in Mi-17 V5, we will install self-protection anti-missile suites and medical evacuation systems along with all weather and night-flying capabilities,” the officer said.

In 2004, the SPG played a major role in framing technical specifications for helicopters purchases, which ultimately allowed AW101 in the race.

India ordered 80 Mi-17 V5 helicopters from Russia in 2008 for Rs7,700 crore, which were expected to be delivered by the end of 2014. Subsequently, a follow-on clause was invoked to buy 59 more choppers for Rs5,500 crore.

The Mi-17 V5 – a medium-lift helicopter -- has operated in various terrains, including the Siachen Glacier, and has proven its mettle in UN missions too. It can carry over 5 tonnes of load. The IAF claims that Mi-17 V5 is equipped with state-of-the-art avionics and navigation systems like on-board weather radar and autopilot. It also has advanced night-vision equipment and a glass cockpit.

“The Mi-17 V5 is the most upgraded transport helicopter with the IAF. But it needs be customised for VVIP transport. The process to convert these choppers to meet the immediate requirement to ferry VVIPs will begin soon,” an IAF officer said.

WT... so the IAF loses 12 choppers of its precious Mi-17 fleet for these stupid requirements.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2014 15:09

^^ These will also carry the most precious soul of this country

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jan 2014 15:17

I mean this is just ridiculous how the whole thing went around.. first ask for overspecced, too expensive choppers on all sorts of dubious grounds.. then when that gets cut, take away precious choppers of IAF and try to upg them..

stupid is what it is. buy extra Mi-17s if need be, dont task existing IAF assets is what I would say.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2014 15:40

Since Elections are coming and GOI officials entitled to travel via VIP Sqad of IAF would go up , they might just use the existing new IAF Mi-17 for the role through some quick makeshift VIP Conversion although I doubt one can do that on the go as these are custom built for IAF needs.

Likely in the long term post election if the powers that be decide we dont need another VIP Chopper Bidding and Mi-17 is good enough then they would likely order new ones custom built for VIP role from OEM.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jan 2014 23:00

vic wrote:It seems that Italians have refused to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2000 crores in Agusta scam. So they get to keep both the money and the choppers.

The 2K Crore would have already been paid to Madam as part of the "Process". I thought IAF was to retain the 3 birds delivered?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 22 Jan 2014 23:03

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:Russia-made military transport Mi-17 V-5 helicopters will be used to ferry the prime minister and other VVIPs, defence ministry sources said.
......
India ordered 80 Mi-17 V5 helicopters from Russia in 2008 for Rs7,700 crore, which were expected to be delivered by the end of 2014. Subsequently, a follow-on clause was invoked to buy 59 more choppers for Rs5,500 crore.
WT... so the IAF loses 12 choppers of its precious Mi-17 fleet for these stupid requirements.

Me thinks, IAF would buy couple more dozens of Mi-17 V5s. Also IA seems to be interested in these birds too for SF operations. More the merrier.

I think IA/IAF should be made to buy 3 Druvs for each videshi Maal purchased!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jan 2014 23:51

Just goes to show how non-essential those gold plated AW-101 were.

In Dec 2012, we inked a deal for 71 Mi-17V-5s for 1.3 billion. Even if we say that the outfitting into VVIP configurations doubles the price, the price ratio is 1:3!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2014 06:12

Absolutely.A long time ago I showed how the prices we were paying was over and above what the US had agreed upon until O'Bomber bombed the deal saying it was too expensive! Two air shows ago,the VIP/VVIP configs for MI-17s were displayed at BLR.I think I may have a cd of the same somewhere.I was v. impressed with the luxurious interiors,no way inferior to any western helo.,looked like Italians had designed it.The MI-17 being the most widely used medium helo in the IAF and the world,with even NATO/western forces using it in large number in Afghanistan,etc.,will be easy to maintain.The neccessary bells and whistles for self defence,commns,etc.,can be added on just as they are on the AW-101s.

No idea if this was posted earlier:
http://indrus.in/economics/2013/08/29/i ... 28907.html
Indo-Russian military aviation projects on schedule: HAL executive
August 29, 2013 Boris Egorov, RIR
Work on the FGFA, multi-role transport aircraft and the upgrading of India’s Su-30 aircrafts are all going as per schedule, a senior HAL executive tells RIR at MAKS-2013.

Joint military aviation projects between India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Russian companies are running on schedule, a senior HAL executive told RIR at the MAKS-2013 international air and space show.

“The FGFA (fifth generation fighter aircraft) is on the right track and on schedule,” R. P. Chakraborty, Deputy General Manager (IMM) at HAL said on Wednesday.
When asked about the delays in the project, Chakraborty said they were on account of the design documentation in the contract, an issue that has already been resolved. The contract to develop a sketch and technical project of the fighter was completed in April 2013.
“A team of Indians is already in Russia and a Russian team is already in the design centre to go ahead with the work on the design,” Chakraborty said.
The fifth generation fighter aircraft is being jointly developed by HAL and Russia’s Sukhoi. FGFA is a derivative project from the PAK FA (T-50 is the prototype) being developed for use by the Indian Air Force.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jan 2014 09:30

Didn't see this posted anywhere else..

Deal with MBDA to be signed for 384 ASRAAM missiles for the IAF Jaguar fleet. Python V was rejected thanks to its higher weight, and consequent modifications that would've been required for the Jaguars to carry it.

IAF to sign missile deal with MBDA shortly for ASRAAM

January 20, 2014: The Indian Air Force is expected to shortly close a deal with European missile company MBDA for 384 ASRAAM imaging infrared homing air-to-air missile as the new close combat missile for the Jaguar, replacing the now obsolete Matra Magic R550. After announcing its requirement in 2009, the ASRAAM was chosen by the IAF last year in a two-horse race against the Rafael Advanced Systems Python-5 of Israel, the latter separately selected as the secondary close combat heat seeking missile for the LCA Tejas.

The ASRAAM was demonstrated to the IAF at an RAF facility, UK in 2011 in the intended over-wing pylon configuration. The ASRAAM has a proven ability to be launched upwards to significant altitude and crucial for the Jaguar fighter bomber, since its mission profile largely necessitates flying at low altitudes. MBDA is understood to have won the competition also because it became apparent that integrating the Python-5, a heavier missile, would have required modifications that the IAF was not prepared to commit time for. A contract for the ASRAAM is expected to be signed within this financial year.

Seems to confirm that the Python-V will be the CCM of choice for the LCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jan 2014 09:36

Saras PT1IN prototype beings ground trials

Five years grounded Saras revs up again

January 13, 2014: The Indian Air Force's premier testing facility, the Aircraft & Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) has begun ground trials of the PT1N modified and souped-up first prototype. Top sources inform SP's that the Pt1N will be put through an extensive series of ground handling, turning and taxi trials, including static systems trials before it is cleared for a first flight.

The IAF has already appointed a pilot crew for the flight, likely to take place in February. The platform has remained on ground since the crash of the second prototype in March 2009, killing all three test personnel on board. As earlier reported by SP's, the modifications to the first prototype include changes to the rear fuselage, increased area rudder, modified stub wings, new engine nacelles and a crucial autopilot. A third prototype, incorporating full weight optimisation and an expanded ratio of composites in the build, is slated for a first flight later this year, after the PT1N clocks at least 25 flights. According to sources associated with the modification of the Saras, the aircraft had grave problems that have since been addressed. Even the ground trials could have commenced earlier, but for NAL's insistence that all simulated tests be corroborated on station before the platform was handed over to the ASTE for operational-level ground and flight testing.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Jan 2014 10:53

So the short range AAM is IAF aresanal are going to be

1) R-60 still in some Mig-27, Mig-21

2) R-73E and R-73-F, for Mig 21 Bison, Mig 29, Su-30 MKI, LCA and hopefully R-74 at a later date for T-50

3) ASRAAM for Jaguars ( same Hughes Seeker as AIM 9X)

4) MICA IIR For M-2000 and possibly Rafael.

5) Python V for LCA and Spyder SAM

6) Python IV on SHAR- we have an inventory of more than 100, have these missiles been intergrated in any other platform

7) Mantra Magic II on Jag and M 2000 while being upgraded

Stingers for Apache?

If we buy some AIM-9X's and get the Chinese to sell PL-9 we can all the worlds type of short range AAM

Not to forget the different types of long range missiles AAM (derby, R-77, R-27 variants, R-23 hopefully retired, Super 530, MICA, plans for Metoer and K-100?), and then Air to surface munitions.

We seem to love variety over numbers, hopefully we have retired the other short range AAM. Forget Ineroperability with other aircforces, we cant have that within our different sqaudrons.

srin · Post by **srin** » 23 Jan 2014 10:59

Aditya_V wrote:So the short range AAM is IAF aresanal are going to be

1) R-60 still in some Mig-27, Mig-21

2) R-73E and R-73-F, for Mig 21 Bison, Mig 29, Su-30 MKI, LCA and hopefully R-74 at a later date for T-50

3) ASRAAM for Jaguars ( same Hughes Seeker as AIM 9X)

4) MICA IIR For M-2000 and possibly Rafael.

5) Python V for LCA and Spyder SAM

6) Python IV on SHAR- we have an inventory of more than 100, have these missiles been intergrated in any other platform

7) Mantra Magic II on Jag and M 2000 while being upgraded

Stingers for Apache?

If we buy some AIM-9X's and get the Chinese to sell PL-9 we can all the worlds type of short range AAM

Not to forget the different types of long range missiles, air to surface ordinance.

We seem to love variety over numbers

You forgot Mistral for the Dhruv WSI

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 23 Jan 2014 11:22

Aditya_V wrote:So the short range AAM is IAF aresanal are going to be

1) R-60 still in some Mig-27, Mig-21

2) R-73E and R-73-F, for Mig 21 Bison, Mig 29, Su-30 MKI, LCA and hopefully R-74 at a later date for T-50

3) ASRAAM for Jaguars ( same Hughes Seeker as AIM 9X)

4) MICA IIR For M-2000 and possibly Rafael.

5) Python V for LCA and Spyder SAM

6) Python IV on SHAR- we have an inventory of more than 100, have these missiles been intergrated in any other platform

7) Mantra Magic II on Jag and M 2000 while being upgraded

Stingers for Apache?

If we buy some AIM-9X's and get the Chinese to sell PL-9 we can all the worlds type of short range AAM

Not to forget the different types of long range missiles AAM (derby, R-77, R-27 variants, R-23 hopefully retired, Super 530, MICA, plans for Metoer and K-100?), and then Air to surface munitions.

We seem to love variety over numbers, hopefully we have retired the other short range AAM. Forget Ineroperability with other aircforces, we cant have that within our different sqaudrons.

We love "Unity in diversity"

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jan 2014 11:57

Aditya, I think Sea Harrier also has Python 5.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... %2B039.jpg

Hard to make out via the image alone:
http://www.fanoos.com/ia/israel_weapons ... python.jpg

Having said that, Flight notes its PythonV.

http://www.spsshownews.com/exclusive/?i ... India-2013

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Jan 2014 13:01

Karan, there is confusion there on whether it is Python IV or V, SIpri database says sale of 100 Python IV's in 2007, [urlhttp://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php][/url]

Nevertheless, in 2002 I remember there furore in forum about R-73's costing USD 145K a pop, dunno what people will have to say for ASRAAM costing USD 1.2 million a pop.

Man when we buy western systems, many forum members say we can get Abram for 5 million, C-17 for 220 million, by the time we buy theem witth spares and infrastructure they cost double as much.

Though the utility of the C-17 buy cannot be doughted with the IL-476 still years away.

But still buying peiecemeal 384 missiles for 135 aircraft, I bet we would alteast double that for Jaguar fleet.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jan 2014 13:09

So if we love such diversity,what's the harm in operating in the future just two med. sized aircraft,MIG-29s (more) and Rafales (less)-a cost-effective solution to capability and numbers, apart from LCAs and Sukhois for the light and heavy mix,with stealth aircraft later on as a bonus? The IN too has the largest inventory of anti-ship missiles in the world.Styx,Uran,Klub,Harpoon,Exocet (on Scorpenes),KH-31s/59 (ARMs),and BMos! The services policy seems to be safety in numbers.Can't see why the IA then is lukewarm about Arjun.

PS:IL-476 is back in production.100+ planned for Russian civil.mil use."Where there's a will (to save moolah),there's a way".

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jan 2014 13:13

So no tests of ASRAAM in "Indian" conditions in India to match their performance against Indian GSQRs?

Also was ASRAAM L-1? It seems it benefitted by tender tailoring like in Pilatus, Agusta?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jan 2014 13:19

well ASRAAM is newer in tech than R73E but 384 missiles for 120 aircraft seems low..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Jan 2014 14:25

Wonder why they are buying so many types of SRAAM , why not just standardise on Python-5 and R-73

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 23 Jan 2014 15:07

I dont think Python 5 can be intergrated with Jags, Mirage and Rafale. But this piecemeal buying of 384 missiles, when you know that the 112 KG MBDA MICA IIR or 105 KG Python 5 require structural modification and hence MBDA ASRAAM is required.

Is there no way the M-2000, RAFALE can fire MBDA ASRAAM but only FIRE MBDA MICA? Surely the SRAAM for the M-2000, Jag's and possible Rafale can be standarised.

Only Tejas we can fit the entire fleet wide list of AAM.

Any idea whats our Inventory of R-73 and how many are R-73E's and newer R-73M and if there are plans for R-74.

Are the Python 5 for Spder AAD the same as for the AAm fleet.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 23 Jan 2014 15:52

The need for so many different types of missiles is another side-effect of having so many different kinds of aircraft, from so many different countries and different roles in the IAF.

If defense planners 30 years ago had the foresight to structure the IAF around 2 or 3 platforms, India would not be in the position of having to purchase multiple missiles that do the same job for each different aircraft because of the aircraft's limitations and peculiarities.

Future acquisition of Rafale (French), FGFA (Russian) and AMCA programs appear to be leading us down the same path; where Russian A2A missiles won't be compatible with the Rafale and French munitions like AASM won't be compatible with the FGFA etc.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jan 2014 16:12

Many of the missiles you've listed will be retired. The R-60 and Magic-II for instance since they will run out of service lives. And there is no Python-IV on the SHar. It carries Magic-II CCM missiles as of now.

ASRAAM, MICA-IR, Python V and R-73E. These are the close combat missiles that the IAF will field in the near future. the ASRAAM choice was in part due to the flight profile of the Jaguar which requires teh CCM to fly off the rail, and fly upwards (as mentioned in that report), to take on a fighter that is trying to swoop down on it. Once the fighter is engaged and inevitably has to maneuver to escape, the Jag scoots.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 23 Jan 2014 16:16

The main Astra in the quiver is forgotten.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 23 Jan 2014 16:25

Imagine an IAF with Stealthy Tejas, MCA, XCA (Extreme combat aircraft)

and UCAV's.