LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

[Bala Vignesh]

Japan has its own AAM???

[Singha]

from my understanding the derby is the shortest range of all 'modern' AAMs

even Astra1 outranges it.

not only have they handsomely monetized this missile with fairly mediocre specs but made money hand over fist selling us the same into 25 Spyder batteries!!

the amraam C7 of paf outranges it, not to speak the D model(which fortunately the TSP hasnt laid its grubby paws on yet). and carlo kopp claims missile range and kinematic performance is more worth having than just a detection range advantage of radar (he uses that to bash the hornet)

soon it will be time to fork over another few billion to get the derby ER to match the C7 and whatever LRAAM the paf manages to get whether the aim120D or the PLx from cheen. this will happen after the derby vanilla deliveries are completed. lifafa articles will be seeded bashing the astra and playing up the C7 advantages over the derby and the urgent need to match this ...

[Singha]

Japan has its own AAM???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAM-4 - operational since 1999

The improved AAM-4B was the world's first air-to-air missile with an AESA radar seeker.[1] The AAM-4B entered production in 2010 for service on the F-15J and F-2,[2]

they also have a AAM5B for IR seeker short range work range around 30k max.

they are working with MBDA for a adaptation of meteor with japani seeker and control module..this for JSF purchase and their own FX LO fighters internal bays.

[nirav]

but long term if we are serious on Tejas mk1 and 2, Amca we need to integrate and use Astra on the whole fleet whatever be the cost or expense.

else the argument will be Astra is costly and not VFM vs imports because it could not get a bulk production run with M2k/rafale/tejas/Mig29k/Mig29upg all using foreign aam!!

its chicken egg argument like JSF unit cost. unless we build 1000s costs will never come down and nor the specialized local SMEs for the parts needed.

having a local radar guided AAM is a big deal...hardly 6 countries have it - cheen, rus, france, usa, israel, japan. and the agat radar seeker can no doubt be 'cloned' in future to equip active SAMs and ABMs.

Once MMR or its latest iteration starts coming online and getting installed, we could expect seamless integration of the Astra on the LCA fleet.

There's a possibility of IAF pushing for Astra on Mk1A.. IAF would have good operational experience of the Astra by the time Mk1A enters production..

One hopes that Astra integration with Mk1A radar is a well defined clause in the contract with the radar vendor.

[tsarkar]

^^
Risk & delay magnifies significantly if you use under-devlopment system for under-development platform.

For platform under development, one should use proven systems, so that systems doesn't delay the platform. Eg Proven Derby system does not delay under development Tejas platform

For system under development, one should use proven platform, so that platform doesn't delay the system. Eg Proven Su-30 platform does not delay under development Astra missile.

My understanding is the present Astra Mk1 isnt the full spec one. There will be a Mk2 follow on. Mk1 has ~ 40 km range.

Astra also has a Russian seeker that I speculate can use the existing datalink on Su-30 used for cueing R-77.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2009/10/a ... e-its.html

The Astra, built by the Defence R&D Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad, will allow IAF pilots to hit enemy aircraft up to 44 km away, at altitudes up to 20,000 meters. Improving on that will be the Astra Mk II, with a longer range of 80 km.

Similarly, Tejas will move from Mk1 (2032 radar) to Mk1A (open RFP, strong possibility of 2052) to Mk2 (possibly Uttam)

Unless Tejas, Radar & Astra are fully mature, integration will not be meaningful because changes to one will magnify impact on the other.

Astra should go next to MiG-29K/UPG to replace R-77/R-27, Mirage 2000 & Rafale to complement/replace MICA, thereafter Tejas and thereafter FGFA

[tsarkar]

Published missile ranges are relative.

AMRAAM and R-77 max ranges are against opposing bomber targets, that have huge RCS and fly steady

Indian & Israeli missile ranges are against opposing fighters that have lesser RCS and maneuver, so more end game energy is required.

Check out Russian assessment of AMRAAM envelope here. R-77 envelope too is similar

[MaverickV]

Can any of the senior BRFites shed light on what is the approx range of Astra? Some reporters mention 44 kms whereas in some tests, DRDO guys mentioned the missile went beyond 65 kms. The difference in range reported is huge.

[Karan M]

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/201 ... ar2016.pdf

The missile has been designed to engage high-speed
targets at short range, up to 20 km in tail chase
mode and long range, up to 80 km in head-on chase mode, according to the DRDO.
At sea level, it has a range of up to 20 km but has
a range of 44 km if launched from an altitude of
8,000 metres and 80 km when fired
from an altitude of 15,000 metres.
Except for failure in one test, the miss
ile has completed all tests successfully.
1

[Yagnasri]

Wiki chacha has some information. How far it is true is not know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(missile)

[JTull]

IndiaTodayFLASH (@IndiaTodayFLASH) tweeted at 9:07 PM on Wed, Feb 08, 2017:

Govt Sources: CCS meet chaired by PM Narendra Modi clears proposal to ramp up the production of indigenously built LCA Tejas fighters

(https://twitter.com/IndiaTodayFLASH/sta ... 64352?s=03)

Finally...Hope it comes out what made GOI wait for more than a year to clear the proposal....

CCS approval could mean everything or nothing. It could be that the land has been acquired, environmental clearance received, future annual capital commitment for the facility and the aircraft secured. Or, it could only be that the capital expenditure for facility (incl land acquisition costs) have been approved. In any case it is progress.

[tsarkar]

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/npc/201 ... ar2016.pdf

The missile has been designed to engage high-speed
targets at short range, up to 20 km in tail chase
mode and long range, up to 80 km in head-on chase mode, according to the DRDO.
At sea level, it has a range of up to 20 km but has
a range of 44 km if launched from an altitude of
8,000 metres and 80 km when fired
from an altitude of 15,000 metres.
Except for failure in one test, the miss
ile has completed all tests successfully.
1

Karan, the DRDO link quotes a Business Standard article, that reports the design specification not achieved in the real world, like Tejas design specification of empty weight 5500 kg that could not be achieved.

In 99% R&D projects in the world, actually achieved performance specifications fall short of design specifications.

Here is Dr S Christopher's verbatim quote on Astra Mk1 actual performance specifications

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 682035.cms

"The Astra missile, with a range from 44 to 60km, is coming up very well. I am confident it will be able to meet the revised project completion date of December 2016," said DRDO chief Dr S Christopher, talking to TOI on Thursday.

"After the Akash surface-to-air missile, Astra is the next advanced tactical missile to be made fully indigenously. We are also planning to integrate the missile with the Tejas light combat aircraft. The Astra-II will have a range of 100-km," he added.

There would've been no need of Mk2 going 100 km if Mk1 went 80 km.

Whatever has been achieved is still very respectable, hence IAF inducting Mk1 to replace R-77. From my earlier quote of Bars radar actual performance specifications

http://hal-india.com/Avionics%20Divisio ... bad/M__122

RLSU RADAR Primary sensor for Su-30 to detect and track Airborne, Ground and Sea targets. Passive Phased Array Radar

Tracks upto 16 fighters in an area of 50 km X 50 km, locks 4 & targets 2 fighters at a time

If locking and tracking happens at 50 km range, then a 44 km to 60 km range stated by Dr Christopher is adequate.

And AMRAAM C7 or R-XX or PL-XX or any missile in the world today does not do it any better in real life

[brar_w]

Check out Russian assessment of AMRAAM envelope here. R-77 envelope too is similar

Which AMRAAM? The A/B is different from C/D.

[tsarkar]

^^ I was half expecting that response from brar_w / NRao on AMRAAM and Philip / Austin on R-77

I'm sure Bars and APG-XX detect further and R-77 and AMRAAM fly further but real life radar & missile performance is in the ranges published by HAL.

I intend no disrespect to any system, manufacturer, publication or any poster and rest my case with the quoted HAL publication and Dr. Christopher's quote.

[brar_w]

I'm not second guessing you or the good folks you have quoted but only trying to figure out what your graph is actually showing. That is a genuine question as to which AMRAAM the Russians were modeling since the C offers a range extension (it has a longer rocket motor and has had it since Lot 12 production) over the A/B that are no longer in production. I guess if we had a date on the chart we could come to a better conclusion. While the C7 and D have focused on kinematic gains via trajectory optimization the B to C bump (post Lot 12 C) saw hardware changes focusing on increasing the motor and reducing drag.

[Gyan]

Let's not forget that DRDO seems to be working on Ramjet motors which might be for Astra-3, which will have range equivalent to Meteor and Amraam-D. Also AC before being fired gave series of interviews about 300km range AAMs being developed by DRDO.

[fanne]

Russia bungled up big time on r77 and put iaf on lots of disadvantage. We are still paying for that.

[Bala Vignesh]

Russia bungled up big time on r77 and put iaf on lots of disadvantage. We are still paying for that.

Could you explain this, please?? I thought the R77 was the top of the line product in their AAM portfolio..

[Karan M]

Tsarkar, have to disagree with you. The Astra went through redesign and those figures are fairly ok and achievable. In fact, they are virtually similar, to a late 90's R-77 envelope.

The quote you cite is for the specific/ target altitude combo which falls right in the middle as versus an unrealistic max range figure frequently quoted on MRMs. Hence the 40km.

Next, the Bars range figures are again deliberately, sanitized underestimates, HALs public literature on RLSU at AI stating xxx km for instance contradicting its own info reased earlier, let alone actual details from NIIP which too were later quickly downsized and reduced to MiG-29 class performance, as soon as Russia itself started procuring Bars variants. I wont get further into specifics since the Bars is in IAF service.

The HAL quote also needs to be seen in context, which is they refer to tracking high speed, manoueuvering targets in TWS mode (Bars ESA scan limits to be precise, mixed with beam dwell time, plus the TWT power, and finally, the processing) and the ability of system to handle that.

Its far more likely though, that a single MKI would not have to take on an entire squadron. Hence the rapid refresh of the beam in a limited volume wont be needed. The operating method would be to use the Bars in "slow" Velocity Search mode from a fighter in a pack acting as the controller, switching to RWS for a quick scan and datalinking that info to specific fighters which would go to "slower" long range TWS only for acquiring weapons grade info at long range and then switching off the radar till they can deploy the weapon at max missile Pk, which is right around the 40-50km range.

So interestingly enough, there your figures are right in the ballpark.

[Viv S]

Could you explain this, please?? I thought the R77 was the top of the line product in their AAM portfolio..

Same old story.

CAG. Report 2008-09







CAG Report - 2011

[fanne]

BV,
Look at what missile RUAF used in the recent ME crisis, particularly against Erodogan's air force. You will get an idea. I wont comment any further on the topic.

[shiv]

Russia bungled up big time on r77 and put iaf on lots of disadvantage. We are still paying for that.

Interestingly we self flagellate when Ecuadorean pilots do harakiri in Dhruv. But I bet my testimonials that the Russkis, like the Brits will blame the user for not storing them properly. QED

[Zynda]

For whatever reason, Roosland officially inducted R-77-1 missile in to service onlee recently. I think for the original R-77, IAF & PLAAF were the major customers. It is quite possible that our feedbacks from R-77 experiences were used to improve the missile's performance & reliability issues. Anyways, it seems like IAF wants to move away from R-77 for good.

[Karan M]

For whatever reason, Roosland officially inducted R-77-1 missile in to service onlee recently. I think for the original R-77, IAF & PLAAF were the major customers. It is quite possible that our feedbacks from R-77 experiences were used to improve the missile's performance & reliability issues. Anyways, it seems like IAF wants to move away from R-77 for good.

Our upgraded MiG-29s come with R-77s per all Russian reports.

BTW, the R-77's pathetic reliability (at least for some stocks per the CAG report) is why I have been so insistent that the IAF procure the Astra Mk1 in depth.

The Astra Mk-1 envelope is the same as the old R-77s (which may not be attractive to the IAF seeing even "lighter missiles" like the Derby-ER offering similar range performance or the latest AMRAAMs) but it is still much better than not having active BVRAAMs to begin with.

The IAF is getting Rafale with 60km class Mica BVR. (And 100km-150km Meteor)
The RVV-AE with upgraded MiG-29s will be 80km.

A few hundred Astra BVRAAMs in the 80km class won't break the bank!

Then standardize on the pulse motor equipped Astra Mk2 with a range of 100km+ (as versus the MK1, whose effective range in the most usual scenarios combat aircraft face, is 20km to 44km). The MK2 will aim to improve it by some 50%.

Astra despite having a variant of same seeker as R-77 series has much better other electronic features and inhouse software for constant upgrades.

[Karan M]

BTW, a few notes without getting into specifics. A certain 800W radar (Pav), with a 650 mm dia antenna, made by a firm with less experience than NIIP reported 5. sq mtr ranges of the order of 75km. The Bars (Mk1 version) has a 30% larger dia antenna. Do the area calculations for the radar range eqtn. All things being equal, the dia of the radar is the most crucial aspect. The TWT Pav is 1.2KW (MK1). Take the 50% more Pav, and then do the rough calculations and come to conclusions about ranges and so forth.

[Austin]

Russia bungled up big time on r77 and put iaf on lots of disadvantage. We are still paying for that.

Interestingly we self flagellate when Ecuadorean pilots do harakiri in Dhruv. But I bet my testimonials that the Russkis, like the Brits will blame the user for not storing them properly. QED

Offically the crash of 4 Dhruv pointed on pilot error , non maintenance by Ecuador authorities

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... t-4395242/

[Kartik]

I-Derby ER

Jun 15, 2015

Noam Eshel Paris

RAFAEL is unveiling a new, extended range version of its Beyond Visual Range (BVR) active radar-guided air-to-air missile – the I-Derby ER. It is an evolutionary version of the Derby BVR missile unveiled earlier this year at Aero India. The Derby entered service in the mid-1990s and is fielded with six customers worldwide.

The latest variant is equipped with a new seeker that employs an advanced solid-state Software Defined Radar (SDR), based on combat proven technology derived from the Tamir missile, the interceptor used in RAFAEL’s Iron Dome system.

The new seeker is lighter and more compact than its predecessor, thus clearing valuable space which has been used by the missile designers to increase the propulsion system by adding a second mode (kick), accelerating the missile at the terminal phase of the flight. This new addition increases the range of the I-Derby ER beyond 100 km., significantly more than its current “short/medium” range capability.

This “second kick” greatly improves the missile’s performance. “This phase is not serial, but operates independently of the primary rocket propulsion as it is activated at any time during the fight, by the flight control system.” Yaniv explains. The second pulse would likely kick in when the missile is closing on its target, accelerating it and increasing its kinematic envelope, thus increasing its “no escape zone”.

The use of SDR technology means the missile seeker can be reprogrammed with software upgrades including new waveforms, duty cycles and processing techniques, addressing new threats, countermeasures and techniques that may evolve through its lifespan of 20-30 years.

Another advantage of the I-Derby ER is its ability to lock onto targets before and after launch, enabling the aircraft to engage targets at all ranges.

Currently completing development, I-Derby ER will soon be available for delivery for new orders, or replacement of existing stocks. “We already have several customers seeking long-range intercept capabilities, some are looking at I-Derby ER as the most suitable and affordable solution for their requirements,” says RAFAEL.

A major advantage of the I-Derby ER is that it uses the same missile envelope. Unlike the AAIM-120D or Meteor, I-Derby ER will be compatible with aircraft currently cleared to carry Derby. RAFAEL claims it will be able to deliver 80% of the Meteor’s performance at a third of its cost. It is also superior to the AIM-120C7 and more affordable, the company claims. Already cleared on F-16 (Block 52), F-5E, Kfir and Sea Harrier, I-Derby ER integration tests are currently under way on the Indian Tejas LCA.

The I-Derby ER makes the most sense from the POV of getting the Tejas Mk1 a long range BVR capability as soon as possible. Derby BVRAAM integration is already done and test firing has been carried out with guided firings to be done before FOC. I-Derby ER being compatible with the aircraft that are currently cleared to carry Derby means that its integration and testing shouldn't be a major headache.

And since Rafael was going to move on to I-Derby ER as the standard production model, it is inevitable that the Tejas will be carrying it, not the earlier short-medium range Derby variant developed in the 1990s.

Astra Mk1 integration will likely be carried out later, but it will be done.

[shiv]

BTW, a few notes without getting into specifics. A certain 800W radar (Pav), with a 650 mm dia antenna, made by a firm with less experience than NIIP reported 5. sq mtr ranges of the order of 75km. The Bars (Mk1 version) has a 30% larger dia antenna. Do the area calculations for the radar range eqtn. All things being equal, the dia of the radar is the most crucial aspect. The TWT Pav is 1.2KW (MK1). Take the 50% more Pav, and then do the rough calculations and come to conclusions about ranges and so forth.

For me this post is..I'm the pink thing there..

[A Deshmukh]

Russia bungled up big time on r77 and put iaf on lots of disadvantage. We are still paying for that.

Interestingly we self flagellate when Ecuadorean pilots do harakiri in Dhruv. But I bet my testimonials that the Russkis, like the Brits will blame the user for not storing them properly. QED

Ecuador will not buy anymore Dhruvs. Likewise, we should stop buying r77s.

[tsarkar]

^^ No new R-77 were purchased. IAF procured R-27 from Ukraine in 2012 delivered 2013 in the interim.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... -air-force

Recent IAF Su-30 photos show R-27 and no R-77

In the long term, IAF is pushing Astra to arm Su-30, which is also why we saw ASTE Su-30 armed with Astra in Air Force Day parade.

[naruto]

By Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd)
View: Navy's rejection of Tejas is a lesson, failure of DRDO
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.

By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

[Karan M]

Its very likely IAF MiG-29 upg will come with R-77

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z80ETyIKo_E/V ... %2BMiG.jpg

[Karan M]

Shivji, my apologies - i have learned a heck of a lot from your posts on deterrence. you have forgotten more than the likes of me can read. Since the Bars is in service, I couldn't be very specific and that's the problem. i will post later on this topic if i get some more time.
ps: are you cybersurg on youtube?

[tsarkar]

Its very likely IAF MiG-29 upg will come with R-77 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z80ETyIKo_E/V ... %2BMiG.jpg

That's a photo from Russia of initial aircraft sent for upgrade.

MiG-29UPG is nearly completed at 11 BRD - with 90% indigenization

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mig-29-c ... ge-1465234

No missiles were purchased along with the upgrade, unlike Mirage 2000 MICA purchase.

Both Su-30 and MiG-29 can carry R-77 until stocks last, but no new purchases have been made.

BTW - instead of engaging RAC MiG for maintenance of IN MiGs, they could easily use the hard-earned expertise of 11 BRD at Nashik. Sad inter-service apathy & disinterest.

[Karan M]

Yes, I was thinking why put R-77s on the aircraft unless you wish to test them. Similarly, we saw X-35s on the MiG-29 UPG etc.
Plus fomin et al have constantly maintained new R77 capability but that by itself is not conclusive.

I hope if we do buy R-77s from Russia for these upgrades they are sufficiently tested, reliability type variants or the newer R-77-SD, which though may again be new and untested. Perhaps they were compatibility tests, as you say, for earlier stocks in India some of which hopefully are not in such a mess as the first few batches (CAG report above mentions a specific lot). I guess we will have to wait for an amount of time before the situation becomes clearer. Reports noted Parrikar was in talks with Russia to fix the missiles. I suspect the earlier missiles will have to be remanufactured heavily, even propellant may have expired.

I agree it would be great to have IN MiG-29Ks maintained by 11BRD. Cost effective & in-house expertise.

[jamwal]

3rd productuction line for LCA cleared by CCS
http://idrw.org/ccs-clears-3rd-producti ... -lca-tejas

Any idea about it's size and capacity ?

[JayS]

suppose to take total capacity to 16/yr. 8/yr from existing line and 8/yr from this new one.

[ranjan.rao]

By Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd)
View: Navy's rejection of Tejas is a lesson, failure of DRDO
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

The peremptory rejection of the shipborne variant of the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.

By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.

While the respectable good general may have right intentions, i find the article full of rhetoric, there is hardly any mention of what failed and the fact that mk2 was the one meant for Navy. Although he mentions that

"lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. "

1. With all due respect to the honorable Admiral/CNS, more details are expected for making such a sweeping statement
2. To me his other points e.g. change in threat scenario esp with the purported rapid rise in chinese naval aviation capabilities are more important in choice of aircraft/carrier type rather than the drawbacks of chinese

[nirav]

Iirc the requirement for another fighter jet type for the navy was always there and wasn't contingent on status of LCA navy.

Now that the navy has floated the RFP, the narrative has been changed to it being done cause of 'failure' of LCA navy.

Will have to dig up old reports which clearly mention IN interest in another fighter.

[ranjan.rao]

interest in another fighter and change of narratives may still be fine..
but this salvo of brahmos coming from an ex-CNS is not good, he is privy to every bit of info that we are not aware of ...

[A Deshmukh]

LCA Mk1 was never suitable for Navy. the plan for always for Mk2.