Plans are concurrently underway for a 350-km range Astra Mark-3 as well, said the sources.
350 km A2A missile

Plans are concurrently underway for a 350-km range Astra Mark-3 as well, said the sources.
The Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet is a missile propulsion system that includes a thrust modulated ducted rocket with a reduced smoke nozzle-less missile booster.[2] The thrust modulation in the system is achieved using a hot gas flow controller.[2] The system utilises a solid fuelled air-breathing ramjet engine.[1][3][4] As of 2017, the missile system has a range of about 120 kilometres at an altitude of 8 kilometres, with a speed of 2.3-2.5 Mach. This kind of a propulsion system drastically enhances the range and the speed of a missile since it does not require an oxidiser.
Karan M wrote:Its a quadruplex redundant FBW computer. Of course it will be larger than a simplified single channel FCS, in effect its 4 redundant FBW channels in one LRU. You can see the 4 discrete physical computers when you look at it from the side. Each is a FBW control system in its own right. The computers share data at 2MBPS with 512 parameters shared. The same FCS software runs at the same in all 4 channels, so 4 channel redundancy is achieved with the defective channel dropped. Having said that, technology advances and so there is a plan to make a DFCC Mk2 which is likely to be fielded on Mk1A with newer processors and will likely be more compact than this unit. However, the focus is always on reliability as versus using the latest processors etc. The DFCC has to run for at least 1000 hours considering MTBF and has achieved 5235 hours in tests.
Indranil wrote:SP 23 and 24 to take to the air shortly. Others to follow in quick succession. They were taking some steps so that the availability and maintainability of the aircrafts increase significantly. That's the hold up. Not the production rate.
Meanwhile the SPJ pod is getting ready for manufacturing. 8 prototypes to be built first.
Karan M wrote:Its a quadruplex redundant FBW computer. Of course it will be larger than a simplified single channel FCS, in effect its 4 redundant FBW channels in one LRU. You can see the 4 discrete physical computers when you look at it from the side. Each is a FBW control system in its own right. The computers share data at 2MBPS with 512 parameters shared. The same FCS software runs at the same in all 4 channels, so 4 channel redundancy is achieved with the defective channel dropped. Having said that, technology advances and so there is a plan to make a DFCC Mk2 which is likely to be fielded on Mk1A with newer processors and will likely be more compact than this unit. However, the focus is always on reliability as versus using the latest processors etc. The DFCC has to run for at least 1000 hours considering MTBF and has achieved 5235 hours in tests.
basant wrote:Astra air combat missile to be soon tested from Tejas fighterIndia’s first indigenous air-to-air missile Astra will soon be tested from the first home-grown fighter Tejas, in yet another major step towards making the weapon the mainstay of the country’s combat fleet against hostile jets in the years ahead. The integration of the Astra beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), which flies over four times the speed of sound at Mach 4.5, on the Tejas and the “initial ground trials” are virtually complete now. “The flight trials of the indigenous missile on the indigenous fighter will begin within the next few months,” said a source on Thursday.
...
DRDO also plans to begin testing the Mark-2 version of Astra, with a range of 160-km, in the first half of next year. Plans are concurrently underway for a 350-km range Astra Mark-3 as well, said the sources.
JTull wrote: There are rumours of PAF getting access to Turkish AMRAAM C-7 stocks.
basant wrote:Can PAF F-16s launch AIM-120C7s without software upgrade from the US? Does that mean US provided software upgrade to Turkey instead of upgrading itself?
nam wrote:Once Astra MK2/ SFDR starts flying, PAF will lobby US for C7. Till then US has the excuse of "maintaining strategic balance"
I am pretty sure they will put C7 as a requirement for any Afghan deal. Chances are they might get it.
Paks know PL-15 or 20 or 200 is nowhere near Aim120. China has no access to Western BVR, which India has. So IAF would have put lessons from Mica, Derby in to Astra. Chinese have no such privilege.
JTull wrote:But no SPJs!
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/1330730384292683783?s=20 ---> An aircraft with very low RCS, equipped with ELTA 2052 AESA, Astra Mk. 1 BVRAAM, ASRAAM and showing features like HMDS, UEWS, ECM, ECCM, etc will be enoughly advanced to rule the sky.
https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 90720?s=20 ---> No doubt. And also SDRs with secure datalinks.
JTull wrote:But no SPJs!
Roop wrote:Your basic point, however, is very valid -- the lack of SPJ capability is IMO the most serious operational weakness in the Tejas Mk1. The aircraft simply cannot venture into even contested (let alone hostile) airspace unescorted.
Neela wrote:Karan M wrote:Its a quadruplex redundant FBW computer. Of course it will be larger than a simplified single channel FCS, in effect its 4 redundant FBW channels in one LRU. You can see the 4 discrete physical computers when you look at it from the side. Each is a FBW control system in its own right. The computers share data at 2MBPS with 512 parameters shared. The same FCS software runs at the same in all 4 channels, so 4 channel redundancy is achieved with the defective channel dropped. Having said that, technology advances and so there is a plan to make a DFCC Mk2 which is likely to be fielded on Mk1A with newer processors and will likely be more compact than this unit. However, the focus is always on reliability as versus using the latest processors etc. The DFCC has to run for at least 1000 hours considering MTBF and has achieved 5235 hours in tests.
I always imagined that the Quad FBW system to be 4 independent systems housed in different parts of the fuselage.
Any reason why damage to entire unit isnt a concern ...if it happens, then we are looking at a stone in the air.
rajsunder wrote:Neela wrote:
I always imagined that the Quad FBW system to be 4 independent systems housed in different parts of the fuselage.
Any reason why damage to entire unit isnt a concern ...if it happens, then we are looking at a stone in the air.
I used to think that since it is a quad redundant FBW system, there would be four different computers placed at four different places on the fighter jet, to allow for loss due to a stray hit during war.
JayS wrote:There is a mention of a lesson that ADA got from BAE for testing of the Quad FBW in the book The Tejas Story. ADA was struggling when BAE told them they never test conditions like 3 channels out of 4 gone, because if the airceaft is damaged to that extent then you are anyway gonna bail out, so why waste time in testing for designing and testing the system for such conditions at all..?
Similarly I'd imagine, If the FCS computer, which is buried inside, is hit, you are probably gonna bail out anyway. So no point in designing separate LRUs. You have to draw lines while designing systems. A lot of these lessons come from experience, you observe in so many yrs such condition never encountered, then you drop it as a requirement.
The aim of bringing fly-by-wire to the F-15 was threefold. Reliability, redundancy, and performance. “From a reliability perspective, you have two flight control computers, and each has two channels, plus quadruple inputs to each of the flight control surfaces. A quad-redundant flight control system from the flight control computers to the stabilators provides very high levels of reliability.
Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 19776?s=20 ---> Pre-flight check being performed on a HAL Tejas by an IAF pilot. This pre-flight procedure is used by almost all militaries across the world before starting the engine on the aircraft.
chola wrote:^^^ Don't be surprised if the signing be delayed a bit. Budget might need to be rebalanced after emergency orders of 21 MiG-29s and kits for 12 SU-30s from Russ.
Yagnasri wrote:Looks like the 83 LCA Mk1A deal will be signed by this month end itself.
chola wrote:^^^ Don't be surprised if the signing be delayed a bit. Budget might need to be rebalanced after emergency orders of 21 MiG-29s and kits for 12 SU-30s from Russ.
nachiket wrote:chola wrote:^^^ Don't be surprised if the signing be delayed a bit. Budget might need to be rebalanced after emergency orders of 21 MiG-29s and kits for 12 SU-30s from Russ.
Those orders have not been signed yet, although acquisition has been cleared.
Yagnasri wrote:Looks like the 83 LCA Mk1A deal will be signed by this month end itself.
Return to “Military Issues Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests