Su-30: News and Discussion

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 12 Oct 2009 16:15

nrshah wrote:
Can you please enlighten us on what exactly (ofcourse with decent margin of error) this upgrade package is?
-Nitin

Nitin,
The Brahmos integration and the engine uprating are very logical for the MKI upgrade, since the few remained tech problems are solvable in 1-2 years. But I have a reliable detailed information only about the radar upgrade. It's from the last NIIP's chief article. So better, I'll quote from this from a my blog post:

- The air detection range will be more, than doubled!
- The number of tracked and engaged targets will be increased 1.5-2 times (from current 20 & 8 figures).
- The mapping performance in terms of target detection range and resolution will be doubled!
- The number of tracked ground targets will be doubled too.
- Some new operation modes will be added, particularly Meteo and Active Countermeasures modes.
- Interaction with other avionic systems (ECM, EO targeting) will be expanded.
- The range of weapon use will be extended.
- Formation mission capabilities will be enhanced.

After the completing this stage of upgrade, the next step will be equipping 'Bars' radar with AESA antenna. If so, it could be the first world AESA radar with additional gimbals mechanism. Even after AESA variant go for serial production, NIIP chiefs believe PESA radars will remain a low cost solution for many customers worldwide.
From this and this.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Oct 2009 17:30

why do you think Russia will have problems if we lets say transfer technology for SC blade for Kaveri after we understood it and assimilated it well during TOT and Mfg phase of AL-31FP engine.

I think the point GJ is trying to make is that ToT does not mean that one takes the original documents and distributes them within a legal framework.

It means that the technology is understood and the ability to replicate it exists prior to disseminating it.

Till this complete understanding happens it is rubbish. True. And, if I may add, if the understanding is incomplete (and therefore the user is unable to replicate it) then that "rubbish" will continue for eternity.

The key to getting ToT is not getting the technology, but to understand and replicate it in isolation - actually it should provide a growth path from there too.

BTW, Boeing has stated WRT F-18 MRCA, that they are willing to transfer technologies, but India is not ready to absorb some techs.
__________________________________________________________

The Indian problem, IMHO, is NOT technical - there are enough techy brains in India. India is pretty bad at PM. Just cannot string two things together it looks like. when they want they get it doen, but on a daily basis it is not important at all - more ToT is what India relies on.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 12 Oct 2009 18:15

Igorr wrote: Nitin,
The Brahmos integration and the engine uprating are very logical for the MKI upgrade, since the few remained tech problems are solvable in 1-2 years. But I have a reliable detailed information only about the radar upgrade. It's from the last NIIP's chief article. So better, I'll quote from this from a my blog post:

Thanks for that.

Do you think of any chance of MKI being upgraded with a new AESA radar (One that is being developed and revealed at MAKS 2009 for use with Pak FA/FGFA) instead of updating existing bars. I understand all this contracts and negotiation will take some time and we will see MKI upgrade being done only by 2012 at the earliest. By this time, radar would also have matured. Further it makes sense to use it on MKI before integrating it directly on PAK FA.

Also, i remember one article saying conformal weapons for MKI along with sensons all integrated in the skin to provide 360" awareness besides making them stealthy.

For, if there are no such major changes, it dont think it is good decision to just increase the increase the life of Airframe even when production line is still open and we have yet not inducted all them. Bars is still very potent and engine is also enough
Also, I dont think all the MKI will be Brahmos capable for it will result is shorter life of airframe due to enormous weight. Your views on this.

Also, I want to understand one important aspect of radar. As you mentioned that upgraded Bars will be able to engage twice as many targets as currently (8). Thus it will be able to engage 16 targets. But no of hard points is 12 only. How does it add value than?
Added later thru edit
Can radar of one MKI guide a missile fired from other? Else no reason for that no more than 12, i guess

-Nitin

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 12 Oct 2009 18:48

nitin, i think a enemy when painted by a SU radar wont know how many hard things are still on hard points

) so it still has value.. !!

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 12 Oct 2009 19:57

manjgu wrote:nitin, i think a enemy when painted by a SU radar wont know how many hard things are still on hard points ) so it still has value.. !!

It wont even know that its painted by SU radar. Could be any enemy radar.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 12 Oct 2009 20:01

nrshah wrote:Can radar of one MKI guide a missile fired from other? Else no reason for that no more than 12, i guess

-Nitin

SU 30 MKI can act as mini awacs so it should be capable of doing that.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 12 Oct 2009 21:06

nrshah wrote:Do you think of any chance of MKI being upgraded with a new AESA radar (One that is being developed and revealed at MAKS 2009 for use with Pak FA/FGFA) instead of updating existing bars. I understand all this contracts and negotiation will take some time and we will see MKI upgrade being done only by 2012 at the earliest. By this time, radar would also have matured. Further it makes sense to use it on MKI before integrating it directly on PAK FA.

As you could read the BARS program's chief is strongly against the AESA antenna implementing on this stage of Bars' upgrade. And I can understand why:
1) If only starting integration an AESA on current Bars it indeed means an additional AESA project for NIIP not significantly different in its tech characteristics from currently developed PAKFA's AESA radar . SInce they are occupied with AESA development for PAKFA/FGFA they hardly can allocate the needed resources for a parallel AESA project. So better they would just put the PAKFA radar and then a bulk part of 5th gen avionic on Su-30MKI for upgrade. But I'm less optimistic about its matureness. Were it mature enough till 2012 or sooner NIIP would just offer PAKFA's radar for MKI, why not... I think they fear, they will then be blamed for an immature product on the upgraded MKI, and thus even their AESA's image would be ruined. A PAKFA's radar bugs fixing on the servicing plane is a bad idea IMHO.
2) Instead they promote the DSP upgrade allowing reliable work without changing the major hardware.

Also, i remember one article saying conformal weapons for MKI along with sensors all integrated in the skin to provide 360" awareness besides making them stealthy.

I wonder how a conformal weapons could exist on MKI together with Brahmos. May be a semi-conformal like MiG-31 has? or it would be an exotic solution. What I really can expect on the upgraded MKIs is a totally new OLS, which is ready for Su fighters. It is even more potential then of MiG-35.

I dont think all the MKI will be Brahmos capable for it will result is shorter life of airframe due to enormous weight. Your views on this.

- Per Russian sources the sides are very assertive in their intention to adopt Brahmos on MKI. This question will be even discussed during the AK Antony's visit to Moscow (today's ARMS-TASS news). I am inclined to think it will be integrated till 2011-12.

Also, I want to understand one important aspect of radar. As you mentioned that upgraded Bars will be able to engage twice as many targets as currently (8). Thus it will be able to engage 16 targets. But no of hard points is 12 only. How does it add value than?

Was written by me (according to the article) literrally 'The number of tracked and engaged targets will be increased 1.5-2 times (from current 20 & 8 figures).' - So, obviously they mean the number of engaged targets will grow from 8 to 12 (1.5 times).

Can radar of one MKI guide a missile fired from other? Else no reason for that no more than 12, i guess

- According to my knowing the feature of Zaslon-M radar, develoed in 1995 was transferred then to Bars including 'the simultaneous attack regime of one target by the two airplanes'. Explain me what it could be if not a net-centric missiles direction, limited to 2 aircrafts. Also it can transfer the radar information for the ground AAD installations for directing AAMs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Oct 2009 21:18

What is a conformal weapon? Conformal weapons stations?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Oct 2009 21:40

Further what are fused sensors, or even sensor fused weapons?

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 12 Oct 2009 21:49

NRao wrote:What is a conformal weapon? Conformal weapons stations?

A conformal weapon placement I can guess, if understood the Nitin's question right. Like these:

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 12 Oct 2009 23:40

rajeshks wrote:Many years back when i was just out of college and started working for an IT company, i had a crazy idea. The guy sitting next to me was working for GE AE. I used to wonder if we have so many guys working on GE AE - IT dept why cant we steal engine technology related docs from their servers and give it to DRDO. Hmmm...

Please dont fire me.. I was Alice in Wonderland

This is exactly how Pakistan got the nuclear technology.

Our Indian mind works in a slightly different plane. Though I would not put it beyond an Indian ( baniya ) mind to steal the engine technology and SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, FOR BIG BIG BUCKS !!!!!

K

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 13 Oct 2009 04:48

SU 35BM is KNaapo upgrade,

IRKUT will have its own upgrade for su30mki

George J · Post by **George J** » 13 Oct 2009 08:23

nrshah wrote:..........Also, i remember one article saying conformal weapons for MKI along with sensons all integrated in the skin to provide 360" awareness besides making them stealthy................Also, I dont think all the MKI will be Brahmos capable for it will result is shorter life of airframe due to enormous weight.

I think you are mixing conformal weapons bays (as show in Igorr's Mig-31 pic) with the conformal sensor array (a.k.a Conformal Load-Bearing Antenna Structure (CLAS) which replaces separate aircraft structure and antennas such as blades, wires and dishes, with electromagnetic radiators embedded in the structure.) which NIIP has adopted for its AESA and shown in MAKS 2009 (pics on Igorr's blog- http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... ation.html ) When the IAF decides on the MLU we might know more about it.

I don't understand how you figured that we will lose airframe life by mating Brahmos with the MKI. Brahmos is not going to hang from the MKI at all times, so there will not be 2.5T load stressing the airframe. The airframe will be strengthened by OEMs (and thats why two MKI have gone to Russia) and its their job to flight qualify the payload. The OEM then warranties the MKI airframe for X,000 hours whatever that may be. They will also set guidelines about how often you can fly a given airframe with a live or training round and the IAF will adapt accordingly.

We seem to forget that MKI is after all a product and it has warranties and standard operating procedures. Everytime you change something substantial on the a/c other stuff has to be adjusted. That's why when we talk about MTOW being 38.8T its absolutely correct but its not supposed to do that every time it takes off.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Oct 2009 08:33

Ok with all the tamasha we have on Single Crystal Blade , The new AL-41F-1S which powers the Su-35 has 2T more thrust than the AL-31FP which powers the MKI.

To attain a higher thrust from virtually the same engine ( believe they have a new core ) ,do they use a better SC blade, better as in new materials which can withstand higher temperature , than lets say the one you will use for AL-31FP which has better material than say a plain jane AL-31F ?

George J · Post by **George J** » 13 Oct 2009 08:57

Austin wrote:...... The new AL-41F-1S which powers the Su-35 has 2T more thrust than the AL-31FP which powers the MKI........do they use a better SC blade, better as in new materials which can withstand higher temperature , than lets say the one you will use for AL-31FP which has better material than say a plain jane AL-31F ?

Monay you don't read my posts or what? Right on top of the page I have listed what Chepkin said about dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades on the AL-41.

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Oct 2009 10:00

Austin Al-31F and Al-31FP imo share the same core and hence the similar set of baldes .The specs from NPO-SATURN website do not indicate any major performance differences (thrust ) between the two engines.

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Oct 2009 10:08

Monay you don't read my posts or what? Right on top of the page I have listed what Chepkin said about dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades on the AL-41.

Edo,

dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades

, athellam verum gas!. Metal Matrix Composites are still in the star trek world. The reason why you have single crystal blades is becuase there are no grain boundaries for the blades to start coming apart. Now you are saying I put alloy/fiber in the metal , which right away introduces boudaries in the metal for it to start coming apart!.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Oct 2009 10:10

for PakFA is Tikhomirov working on a all-new lighter aesa radar (successor to bars) or will it retain the Bars back end and install a aesa front end ? seems to me the pakfa will have a smaller and flatter catfishish nose compared to su30's giant droopy nose. and with improved aesa tech the huge back end components can be reduced in size ?

if the weight comes down from 750kg to 400kg, could be a good thing imo.

on Su30 this will shift the CG further back. could be compensated by installing a rafael SAR or LDP
pod permanently on a chin pylon.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Oct 2009 10:33

vina wrote:
Monay you don't read my posts or what? Right on top of the page I have listed what Chepkin said about dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades on the AL-41.
Edo,
dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades
, athellam verum gas!. Metal Matrix Composites are still in the star trek world. The reason why you have single crystal blades is becuase there are no grain boundaries for the blades to start coming apart. Now you are saying I put alloy/fiber in the metal , which right away introduces boudaries in the metal for it to start coming apart!.

Ejactly I though he was talking star treck stuff , like a little Russian Vodka before the interview can do a lot good to your soul and mind

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 13 Oct 2009 12:10

George J wrote:I think you are mixing conformal weapons bays (as show in Igorr's Mig-31 pic) with the conformal sensor array (a.k.a Conformal Load-Bearing Antenna Structure (CLAS) which replaces separate aircraft structure and antennas such as blades, wires and dishes, with electromagnetic radiators embedded in the structure.) which NIIP has adopted for its AESA and shown in MAKS 2009 (pics on Igorr's blog- http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... ation.html ) When the IAF decides on the MLU we might know more about it.

Igorr wrote:A conformal weapon placement I can guess, if understood the Nitin's question right. Like these:

NRao wrote:What is a conformal weapon? Conformal weapons stations?

My bad. I did not put things in right way...

I was mentioning the updates as follows which was featured in Force magazine (Link is not available currently)

1.) Enhancing Defensive suit by integrating a radar/laser warning system and MAWS
2.) AESA radar
3.) active skin - AESA T/R modules to be mounted in wing sections to provide > 180 deg FoV
4.) Al-31FP engines to be uprated by 20% with operating life increased to 6k hrs
5.) Conformal weapons station between engine pods for stealth

A part of above was also mentioned here - http://www.defenceaviation.com/2009/07/ ... althy.html

-Nitin

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 13 Oct 2009 14:38

nrshah wrote: 1.) Enhancing Defensive suit by integrating a radar/laser warning system and MAWS
2.) AESA radar
3.) active skin - AESA T/R modules to be mounted in wing sections to provide > 180 deg FoV
4.) Al-31FP engines to be uprated by 20% with operating life increased to 6k hrs
5.) Conformal weapons station between engine pods for stealth

A part of above was also mentioned here - http://www.defenceaviation.com/2009/07/ ... althy.html

The citation from your link: "Please note that this article was edited because our reporter misinformed us on this news. Thanks to Dr. Pamela A. Menges founder of ARSI Space for helping us."

My commentary:
1) MAWS and LWS must be on MKI already. The lack of this till 2014 - is nonsnse IMHO. So, I expect they will start put it with some upgrade soon.
2) 'Active skin' will firstly be on FGFA in 2016-17. Then they will see if possible on MKI too. Otherwise I cannot understand how they could fulfill their obligations for accellerated FGFA development. (BTW India actively pressures for this)
3) The Radar will be upgraded as was described in the last NIIP's article. AESA - will come only in second step. New missiles, JDAM, cassette guided munition as was described here will be integrated.
4) Engine - 14.5 t 117S is probably on the next batch of MKI, if the price is reasonable. However, since India is going to make them by itself (starting from 2011-2012) it may be does not happen.
5) OLS-35 (will try put some new info about it in my blog soon)

6) Brahmos integration instead of conformal WS.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 13 Oct 2009 15:26

Igorr wrote:
My commentary:
1) MAWS and LWS must be on MKI already. The lack of this till 2014 - is nonsnse IMHO. So, I expect they will start put it with some upgrade soon.

.

Unfortunately MAWS & LWS are not on MKI already.. None of the already "operational" MKI's have MAWS and LWS.. they only have Tarang mk2 RWR...

R-118 system which includes MSWS is a more recent development which is finding its way into Mig27 (and probably Jag upgrades).. it will ultimately be retrofitted on Su30MKI and all IAF aircraft.. But none of the Su30MKI's seen flying so far have MAWS+LWS..

I am not sure if it is possible to go for R-118 instead of Tarang-mk2 for the Su30MKI's that HAL will be producing in future.. not sure if such "online upgradation" is possible.. Would be very sweet if that can be done, else they will (have to) wait till a MLU to incorporate MSWS included R-118 in place of Tarang mk2..

However Malaysian Su30's (MKM's) have the MAWS & LWS..

Igorr wrote:
6) Brahmos integration instead of conformal WS.

If indeed conformal WS as an option is available (and if proven very effective in RCS terms) - i think, a few maritime role dedicated sqds should get Brahmos integration.. and the others conformal WS..

though I am not not really super sure on how much the conformal WS can make a difference to MKI's RCS...

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 13 Oct 2009 16:15

rakall wrote: Unfortunately MAWS & LWS are not on MKI already.. None of the already "operational" MKI's have MAWS and LWS.. they only have Tarang mk2 RWR...

R-118 system which includes MSWS is a more recent development which is finding its way into Mig27 (and probably Jag upgrades).. it will ultimately be retrofitted on Su30MKI and all IAF aircraft.. But none of the Su30MKI's seen flying so far have MAWS+LWS..

MKI does not have MAWS? Does that mean that it has no way of knowing if an IR missile has been fired at it? AFAIK a RWR ("radar" warning reciever) is of little use here.

Also, pardon my ignorance, but you said that r-118 includes "MSWS". What is that?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Oct 2009 16:19

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 04#p619904

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 13 Oct 2009 16:40

rakall wrote:Unfortunately MAWS & LWS are not on MKI already.. None of the already "operational" MKI's have MAWS and LWS.. they only have Tarang mk2 RWR...

It's just what I meant. So, sorry about the inadequate language. MKI desperately needed MAWS and LWS already 'yesterday'... Thus, they are in the 1st degree of priority for installation during the upgrade.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Oct 2009 16:53

vina wrote:
Monay you don't read my posts or what? Right on top of the page I have listed what Chepkin said about dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades on the AL-41.
Edo,
dispersed alloy/fiber strengthened blades
, athellam verum gas!. Metal Matrix Composites are still in the star trek world. The reason why you have single crystal blades is becuase there are no grain boundaries for the blades to start coming apart. Now you are saying I put alloy/fiber in the metal , which right away introduces boudaries in the metal for it to start coming apart!.

It is not metal; it could be carbon fibre composites. One prominent example is GE90

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 13 Oct 2009 18:49

Igorr wrote:
rakall wrote:Unfortunately MAWS & LWS are not on MKI already.. None of the already "operational" MKI's have MAWS and LWS.. they only have Tarang mk2 RWR...
It's just what I meant. So, sorry about the inadequate language. MKI desperately needed MAWS and LWS already 'yesterday'... Thus, they are in the 1st degree of priority for installation during the upgrade.

there have been news of acquiring additional Sukhois -- no reason why they cant start with MAWS+LWS in them.. and retrofit in exisiting airframes..

Also the production is scheduled to proceed in blocks - right? If possible, the last block can also start with MAWS+LWS .

What about the additional 40ordered in 2007? Are they to be supplied by Russia or HAL? Any possibility of incorporating upgraded RWR in them?

Igorr -- is the Skin-AESA upgrade for MKI's a true thing? Still sounds fanatsy item -- how much is the additional weight penalty or power penalty?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 13 Oct 2009 21:04

How is production of MKI is going on in India. How many are now in service ? any latest news ? IAF now wants 50 more MKI means can we increase the production from the present level of 18 (?) or add one more production facilities.

We hear nothing about one production facility that is suppose to come up in Orissa.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 13 Oct 2009 21:40

LWS / MAWS is typically required when a fighter flies CAS profile to alert the pilot of RBS-70 type laser designator or ground launched short ranged missiles. IAF uses MiG21/27 & Jaguar for that role. Su-30 role is air dominance & long range strike where threat is from radar guided missiles rather than laser designated. The RWR suffices in alerting the pilot to a radar guided missile launch.

Secondly, MAWS doesnt work when the platform is flying at high speeds. The coverage bubble radius isnt large. So it provides timely warning only when the aircraft is flying slow, like slowing to drop munitions on a Sangar. Su-30 dont have these roles.

Hence HAL/IAF dropped the LWS / MAWS as a nice-to-have rather than must-have.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 14 Oct 2009 00:45

Narayana Rao wrote:How is production of MKI is going on in India. How many are now in service ? any latest news ?

As per several reports in the open source, like this one, India currently has 105 MKIs in service.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 14 Oct 2009 01:45

rakall wrote:What about the additional 40ordered in 2007? Are they to be supplied by Russia or HAL? Any possibility of incorporating upgraded RWR in them?

Igorr -- is the Skin-AESA upgrade for MKI's a true thing? Still sounds fanatsy item -- how much is the additional weight penalty or power penalty?

1) 40 MKIs were ordered in 2007 of the shelf from Russia, partly because the delivery rate of HAL isnt enough. Dont know if RWR were contracted with them, but there is no tech problem preventing it.
2) No sense for speaking about 'skin-aesa' for current upgrade since it's just not ready and needs airframe re-design.

tsarkar wrote:LWS / MAWS is typically required when a fighter flies CAS profile to alert the pilot of RBS-70 type laser designator or ground launched short ranged missiles. IAF uses MiG21/27 & Jaguar for that role. Su-30 role is air dominance & long range strike where threat is from radar guided missiles rather than laser designated. The RWR suffices in alerting the pilot to a radar guided missile launch.

Secondly, MAWS doesnt work when the platform is flying at high speeds. The coverage bubble radius isnt large. So it provides timely warning only when the aircraft is flying slow, like slowing to drop munitions on a Sangar. Su-30 dont have these roles.

Hence HAL/IAF dropped the LWS / MAWS as a nice-to-have rather than must-have.

LWS also detects the enemy's IRST work. It was no a problem in 1996, but now IRST becomes the standard equipment for a fighter. There was also a great progress in MAWS characteristics during last years, so better to have it. If I understand right IAF wants to be ready for any eventuality.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 14 Oct 2009 04:04

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ind ... #more-5852

Obvious areas for modernization would include the aircraft’s N011M Bars radar, now that Russian AESA designs are beginning to appear. Engine improvements underway for Russia’s SU-35 program would also be a logical candidate for any SU-30MKI upgrades. The most important modification, however, might be an upgraded datalink that could reduce the level of coalition fratricide observed in exercises like Red Flag 2008.

As far as I can recall, I thought that it was OUR chaps, who wrote a software code (indegineously) to make our birds compatible with the F-16's and the like up to a certain level for communication. However, the article above mentioned that upgrading the Datalink (presumably from Russia) would be a major upgrade. Isn't the datalink DESI?? or it only has desi codes but the rest is all Russian? or neither?? Any truth behind this article.. Can brfites and oldies help put this into perspective please. Many thanks!!

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 14 Oct 2009 14:24

http://www.armada.ch/07-6/02_Aircraft_S ... ection.pdf
Good document on Aircraft self protection.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 14 Oct 2009 15:05

tsarkar wrote:LWS / MAWS is typically required when a fighter flies CAS profile to alert the pilot of RBS-70 type laser designator or ground launched short ranged missiles. IAF uses MiG21/27 & Jaguar for that role. Su-30 role is air dominance & long range strike where threat is from radar guided missiles rather than laser designated. The RWR suffices in alerting the pilot to a radar guided missile launch.

Secondly, MAWS doesnt work when the platform is flying at high speeds. The coverage bubble radius isnt large. So it provides timely warning only when the aircraft is flying slow, like slowing to drop munitions on a Sangar. Su-30 dont have these roles.

Hence HAL/IAF dropped the LWS / MAWS as a nice-to-have rather than must-have.

thanks a lot.. that was really useful information...

I was wondering why MKI doesnt have MAWS+LWS.. spent the whole of last night looking at all available MKI pics for any hin of MAWS/LWS sensors.... Also the funny thing was - at AI09 the DARE people mentioned that they were designing the R-118system for Mig27, Jag, LCA.. but not for MKI..

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 14 Oct 2009 15:27

OLS-35 specs.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 14 Oct 2009 15:53

rakall wrote:R-118 system which includes MSWS is a more recent development which is finding its way into Mig27 (and probably Jag upgrades)

Rakall, something that I've always intended to ask (but never actually got to) since your excellent post during AI - the MAWS part of MSWS (as a part of R-118) is an active or an passive system? I mean is it based on supeh-dupeh multi-spectrum IIR sensor stuff or traditional RF based (maybe mm band) system?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 14 Oct 2009 16:56

maitya wrote:
rakall wrote:R-118 system which includes MSWS is a more recent development which is finding its way into Mig27 (and probably Jag upgrades)
Rakall, something that I've always intended to ask (but never actually got to) since your excellent post during AI - the MAWS part of MSWS (as a part of R-118) is an active or an passive system? I mean is it based on supeh-dupeh multi-spectrum IIR sensor stuff or traditional RF based (maybe mm band) system?

The first part of your question is easy to answer -- it is a passive system..

What I know is MAWS can be IR based, but never heard of IIR based MAWS.. However IR based MAWS suffer a lot from clutter & false alarm.. So UV based systems are preferred -- especially for helicopters, transport.. DARE has developed UV-based MAWs in joint-development (whatever that means) with EADS.. the system is based on MILDS AAR-60...

However what is important is that BEL has productionised this with the know-how from DARE and already supplied limited systems in 2008-9 (As per MOD Report 08-09 page61). MOD report (page 85) also states that 69systems are on order from BEL primarily for IA Cheetah's.. IAF & HAL have asked DARE to prove this on Mi-17's & LCH respectively.

There seems to be a thought process in DARE that UV-systems are not very effective in high-speed/high-manuevring aircraft (which also fits well with the reasoning that tsarkar has put up a couple of posts ago).... so to overcome the limitations of IR-based & UV-based systems -- it looks like they have identified the dual-color MAWS as a future path.. MOD report (page 86) states that such a system is being developed jointly with Israel.. the first platform to recieve this is likely to be the AEW&C system..

The way the DC MAWS system is supposed to work is that the the band in which IR-based maws operate (3-5micron) is split into two bands - on on either side of CO2 absorption spectrum... the peaks from clutter dominate in the lower-side of the band, where as peaks from missile plume dominate the upper-end of the band.. so that solves the problem of clutter & false alarm associated with the single color IR-based MAWS..

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 15 Oct 2009 08:04

X-Posting

IAF may use fighters in Gulf of Aden
This is the IAF flexing its muscles! I really like how IAF has been proactive ever since the induction of the Sukhois.

"If the swatch becomes any bigger, the navy may not be able to cover the entire area due to constraints of speed and vessels. This is when the IAF may be asked to offer help,” said Barbora, on the first-ever Indo-Oman air exercise, codenamed Eastern Bridge, from October 22-29.

He said, “We may not necessarily employ firepower... we can send fighters to carry out patrols (over pirate-infested waters). The Sukhoi-30 has great endurance.”

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 15 Oct 2009 15:39

scans courtesy vayu / nayak

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Oct 2009 06:41

Nikhil T wrote:X-Posting

IAF may use fighters in Gulf of Aden

First with Oman? After having such a long relationship with them? Hm.....

But, that would be great - to deploy MKIs in that region.

Looks like the elder politicos are waking up?