Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Apr 2015 06:40

Regarding the SFC, is the special Su-30 going to be rewired using fiber optics? to avoid electromagnetic interference

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Apr 2015 19:41

Thanks to Indranil for the composite drop tanks on LCA, the Russians have started producing multi band radars to counter stealth, antennas in the X band and VHF band are interspersed in the same radar

so in addition to the standard Bars radar, the drop tanks could be made VHF sensors with a radome in the front portion of the drop tank and all related electronics is housed inside, the signal output is then fused with the main radar. This avoids the problem of modifying the aircraft for embedding VHF antennas in the wings.

Ideally the wingtip stations are not obstructed by the airframe but it requires the smallish Astra seeker sized antenna plate than offered by a much more bulbous drop tank aperture

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Apr 2015 19:46

But would it not be too costly to drop?

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Apr 2015 19:47

its not meant for dropping, just housing and not worry about new aerodynamics

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Apr 2015 22:34

So a pod then? Like the growler.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 22 Apr 2015 23:19

yes, but for multi-band radar sensor fusion (it needs to scan the same area as the main radar) assuming you can fit a forward facing antenna plate in such a pod. Six panels of a cuboid are possible with a drop tank due to volume, 2 panels can be blanks one facing the wing upwards and the one facing the fuselage.

Growler here,

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 22 Apr 2015 23:50

There are podded sensors out there, but of course no one has tried putting in a VHF active array in there because of the sheer size required for the Surveillance system (how would you even do it?) . Of course you have also had attempts to put a bi-static components on an airborne platform and there is a modified aircraft in the US that flies around doing that for stealth testing but then again its not a fighter. Same applies to UHF sensors, there is a reason such surveillance sensors are best kept on E-2 like platforms. Also add to all this mess (space for a VHF/UHF system) the need for power. The Growler gets its power from a RAT.

The Next General Jammer that was proposed by Northrop was actually a step above the Raytheon design (but obviously more complex) in that it attempted to produce the array as a conformal aperture within the pod. Northrop did that in the sensor craft program, where they put conformal apertures within the aerodynamic structures. They achieved some "firsts" with that program but unfortunately most of the program is classified, but components of the SC/Quartz are expected to be flying on the RQ-180.

the Russians have started producing multi band radars to counter stealth, antennas in the X band and VHF band are interspersed in the same radar

??

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Apr 2015 02:35

Trying to find the article where there was a picture of the Russian ground radar, it was compact enough. Of all the issues its the placement of antennas that concerns and the number wouldn't be the same as that of a ground radar.

Even RAT produces drag that is countered by the engines.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Apr 2015 02:41

The russians just began fielding the NEBO M system, which is a multi band system that includes surveillance search and fire control radars (Not all in ONE radar). Each one of those radars perform a specific task. Its an integrated air defense system. Mounting an VHF or UHF surveillance radar onto a fighter is quite an absurd idea which hasn't been tried out for some pretty good reason. Trying to create a UHF or VHF fire control radar is something that I doubt anyone has ever tried to do let alone have systems in place that could be mounted on a pod for a fighter.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Apr 2015 03:06

Bummer, saw the picture of the radar in the middle in the first photo, that's probably UHF only. I believe the description given was the antenna rotates both mechanically as well as does AESA beam shaping.

basic question is Surveillance in multi-band enough? if the datalinked AAM can accept rough GPS coordinates based on that, is FCR needed? once at close range based on the stream of GPS coordinates AAM seeker can go active, only the surveillance radar system's cell size needs to be well within the AAM seeker's range

or once the multi-band radar signals are sensor fuzed, only the X-band AESA can be the FCR as it is targeting the 'electronic target' and not its primary return

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Apr 2015 04:36

btw, Synthetic Aperture Radar based pods are possible for VHF and UHF bands, not sure of its application in detecting LO targets. Online literature only mentions GMTI or Foliage penetration applications.

There is currently a passive pod called SIVA for radar emissions detection on Su-30.

if and when they manage the same for these lower frequency bands, the next problem will be adding emitters in those bands that are compact enough to complete the radar system.

below is the VHF antenna on aircraft for communication, UHF antennas are of the same size

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 23 Apr 2015 06:38

below is the VHF antenna on aircraft for communication, UHF antennas are of the same size

I think you need a decent book on radars, sensors and how all this works. Every aircraft that flies today has VHF and UHF bands for communication. A blade antenna for communication is not a sensor.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 23 Apr 2015 07:03

Airborne Synthetic Aperture Radar based pods for VHF and UHF bands are in use for GMTI and Foliage penetration applications. The frequencies in these bands may be different for LO targets. Communication antennas may not have the same power capacity as a radar emitter.

The Carabas...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2015 10:03

isnt the new E-2D also using UHF?

btw a great cutaway poster of the plane http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... Poster.pdf

Designing an all-new airframe to replace the E-2C was considered, but dropped for budgetary reasons. It is not just the challenge of designing an AEW platform to fit aboard the carrier that forces the navy to stick with the Hawkeye platform. Qualifying a new aircraft to take off, land and operate from a carrier is still a risky and costly business.

A new, carrier-based airframe requires "an expensive test programme" says Stan Zoubek, Northrop's engineering director for the E-2D. "There has to be quite a capability increase to justify that."

To enable the transformation of the Hawkeye platform to meet the modern threat within the confined area of the aircraft carrier, the E-2D introduces a suite of innovations into the radar, antenna, processors and the cockpit.

HYBRID APPROACH
The hybrid design approach for the E-2D radar perhaps typifies how Northrop matched the technology available at contract signing in 2002 and the needs of the mission.

Although mechanically scanned arrays are growing obsolete, technology does not yet exist for a UHF-band (300MHz to 1GHz) electronically scanned array (UESA) to fit within the size and weight limits aboard the Hawkeye airframe. At the time Northrop launched the programme, it was reported that a UESA system would require 27 transmit modules to achieve 360e_SDgr coverage.

Northrop has installed a combination of radar systems in a variable speed rotodome. There is a mechanically scanned L-3 Communications Randtron ADS-18 antenna that sweeps in 360e_SDgr for all radio frequency emissions. In addition, the 18-channel Lockheed Martin APY-9 electronically scanned array scans for airborne objects across an arc up to 90e_SDgr wide.

The rotodome is designed to spin at three different speeds, completing a full revolution either every 10s, 12s or 15s. The crew also has the option to stop the rotodome. This allows the radar to focus all the energy provided by the E-2D's twin 170kVa generators, which can each surge to 225kVa for up to 3h, into a targeted area. Concentrating the beam allows the radar to either find smaller targets closer-in, or pick up larger targets at far greater ranges.

It is this unique combination of mechanical and electronic scanning that allows the E-2D to more than double the range of the previous APS-145 radar on the E-2C. Neither Northrop nor navy officials disclose the range of the APY-9, but it is listed as beyond 300nm (555km) and appears only constrained by the distance to the horizon at the E-2D's mission altitude of 25,000ft.

Complementing the more capable transmitter, Northrop also added digital, low-noise receivers to improve the sensitivity of a more diverse set of radar targets. With more power, a more capable transmitter and digital receivers, the E-2D would need a far more capable back-end processor to filter through a huge increase in signal noise or clutter.

"As you increase the power, [radar] clutter goes up as much as targets," says Culmo, adding the overland mission is a particular challenge. "If you don't do something to cancel the clutter better, you get nothing from increasing the [radar system's] power."

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2015 10:07

for some reason the uhf apy9 is claimed as very potent at detecting low flying cruise and ASMs at long range against sea clutter.

something our IN might want to look at - best bet is invest in the EMB-145 family and change/add to the main antenna as needed .... it will be a medium cost nice solution to meet all the IN AEW needs flying from our west coast , TN and A&N islands.....a fleet of around 6 would provide way more potent cover than KA31 and a fleet of around 10 would be great.

will not be the first soln orphaned by the tfta iaf but saved from the streets by the IN and used well

having a sound 360' AWACS cover from the back will also aid the penetration and survivability of the Mig29K and NLCA fleet on strike missions and CAPs. the last thing they want is having one a/c turn back and make a 360' circle in radar active mode before rejoining the pack just to keep checking if they are being ambushed

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2015 10:12

The BARS do have L Band Antenna ( UHF ) but they use it for IFF purpose onleee.

There are Wings slat Mounted L band antenna on Su-35 that provides some long range scanning along with long range IFF but thats not as good as full fledge radar because it affect scan angles and the aperture and power availability is limited.

The best option is to have a dual band antenna ( X/L ) on a BARS size Aperture that are not limited by scan angles and power also can end up with decent aperture in countering LO targets

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 24 Apr 2015 09:43

Clearing up,

UHF Antenna Size:
From the looks of it the UHF transmitters (E26) on the E-2D are spaced closer than a ground based radar like the Russian Nebo radar. Don't know the size of wing slat mounted L band antenna on the Su-35.

Good info though 27 transmitters for 360 degree UESA and spacing between transmitters isn't an issue, the rotodome shows 8 sections of transmitters. There are a good number of pylons on the Su-30 for pods with transmitters to be mounted and frontal and aft can be covered well along with the Bars and rear facing radars, not 360 degrees much like the Embraer.

Power availability:
E-2 has higher power availability, Su-30MKI if ever they mount the Kaveri on the center-line for testing, maybe it can be doubled as a power generator in its own right.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2015 11:13

Singha,was as there any attempt to mount an AEW radar on an E-2 platform using a slab type radar instead of a rotating radome,as we/Swedes have developed for our AEW&C system using EMB aircraft?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2015 08:25

Philip wrote:Singha,was as there any attempt to mount an AEW radar on an E-2 platform using a slab type radar instead of a rotating radome,as we/Swedes have developed for our AEW&C system using EMB aircraft?

No. The radar is a hybrid (mechanical-ESA) developed for Northrop Grumman by Lockheed Martin.

Su-30MKI if ever they mount the Kaveri on the center-line for testing, maybe it can be doubled as a power generator in its own right.

Thats crazy. Lets all try to come up with some more fantasy while we are at it

I'd again recommend a decent book on the basic principles of how all this works. You cant take an E-2D radar, scale it down in size, take a range hit, give it low power and have it function on a fighter. Things do not work this way unfortunately. There is a reason why the radars on ALL fighters are in the X band and why you haven't started adding UHF or VHF AESA's onto fighters, let alone come up with the quite ridiculous option of mounting an ENGINE in the centerline, and using it to generate power for a radar sensor located in wing mounted pods. Just because they may do something for testing an engine, doesn't mean that it has combat value.

for some reason the uhf apy9 is claimed as very potent at detecting low flying cruise and ASMs at long range against sea clutter.

Because it was required to. The USN has a very powerful radar umbrella thanks to its ships..what is required is some high end detection against the harder to detect low flying cruise missile threat, in addition to low flying aircraft etc. Moreover, the E-2D is not just about the radar and its band. The passive ability of the aircraft, and the ability to (along with the Triton) act as a Pipeline node (quarterback) is far more significant. Majority of the time the E-2D's are deployed in passive mode..Blasting away RF is only going to give a fairly SOLID idea to the enemy of where the CVN is likely to be. Its not what the VAW boys do on a regular occasions..Just as the VAQ's don't always spread RF all over the place with their jammers.

The real purpose of the E-2's specs is NIFCCA -

Lockheed still maintains a very specialized capability when it comes to radar development but often chooses to compete only in the upper end of the programs (most complex and challenging requirements). Their radar focus is not as broad as Raytheon or Northrop, that regard it as one of their core businesses but lockheed (through Goodyear) did invent the first SAR (Synthetic aperture Radar).

Certifying a new platform would be financially very unwise. Even now. The Hawkeye demonstrated growth, and that was all the USN required from it. Beyond that, you will get a marginal capability improvement with significant cost increase. Not going to be worth it. They have done this back and forth with other aircraft as well (such as the C-130) and the modeling always shows that its financially wise to upgrade the existing design.

The BARS do have L Band Antenna ( UHF ) but they use it for IFF purpose onleee.

Most modern fighters cover the L band for IFF and other related tasks. While you have L band apertures embedded either in the wings or fuselage they are not a radar and won't function as such.

The best option is to have a dual band antenna ( X/L ) on a BARS size Aperture that are not limited by scan angles and power also can end up with decent aperture in countering LO targets

I haven't come across any study, or research claiming that to be the best option (or even if this is even possible) although I am always willing to study the matter if presented with such information. Against a coordinated LO attack/opponent, there is no substitute to cooperative targeting preferably with LO assets of your own.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Apr 2015 09:19

Austin wrote:The BARS do have L Band Antenna ( UHF ) but they use it for IFF purpose onleee.

Its an IFF transponder that can only function as an IFF transponder.

There are Wings slat Mounted L band antenna on Su-35 that provides some long range scanning along with long range IFF but thats not as good as full fledge radar because it affect scan angles and the aperture and power availability is limited.

Only PAK FA. AFAIK the plan to incorporate into the Su-30/35 never materialized.

Also, no scanning - its a passive system. IFF & ESM only. Its not akin to any radar. The F-22 & F-35 also employ the similar equipment (i.e. inside the leading edge/slat) for ESM & IFF.

The best option is to have a dual band antenna ( X/L ) on a BARS size Aperture that are not limited by scan angles and power also can end up with decent aperture in countering LO targets

You can not fit any practical L-band radar into a Bars sized aperture. Not while staying within the laws of physics.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Apr 2015 18:39

brar_w, you should take a look at the CARABAS radar from Saab in one of the posts above, it does mount couple of UHF/L band transmitters on a fighter sized plane, LRDE is also going to deploy their own FOPEN radar on a Dornier test bed soon. SAR from a layman's read is a cumulation of time lapsed snapshots of the radar return signal, conceptually the snapshots are the same as received on one linear array of T/R modules simultaneously. By adding more transmitters and thus enabling electronic beam forming of a phased array antenna, the UHF band signal can be focused on the same area as the BARS scan beam. The E2D has a SAR mode of UHF signal which is why it can reject sea clutter better to pickup low flying LO targets? SAR is used for terrain mapping ...

Regarding the endurance, the twin engined MKI got 10 hours which can be taken as a baseline and if we look in the context of Tibet, Afghanistan, A&N, mainland coastal defence or even SCS, its not a serious issue. In addition, on the Su-35 there is probably a CFT on the spine (Mig-29 already has it) which can be done for the MKI as well.

Even more crazy stuff is the MKI flies at 12km altitude and if only more power can extend it to the radar horizon, give me an APU that matches it. There is a reason it is called a mini-AWACS, cliche.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2015 19:01

brar_w, you should take a look at the CARABAS radar from Saab in one of the posts above, it does mount couple of UHF/L band transmitters on a fighter sized plane, LRDE is also going to deploy their own FOPEN radar on a Dornier test bed soon.

You may wish to look at the function of the radar, what it is designed to do and what its designed to perform.

There is a very good reason no one is doing it. Stealth has been there since the late 80s and everyone has upgraded their fighters since then. New fighters have emerged with the intention of combating both stealth striker bombers and stealth fighter. Aircraft like the Su-30, Su-35, Su-50, J-10, J-20, J-31 have all been designed post F-117. Why do you think all of these sport an X-Band radar? And why do NONE of these have plans to incorporate a UHF or VHF Radar in their aircraft for targeting stealth? Perhaps they need to work more with you

No one is going to do the fantasy you are suggesting. Even in 2030, you will not see a VHF or UHF radar either in a nose of a fighter or mounted on a pod (For A2A purposes). You will also not see a Kaveri mounted on an Su-30 in the centerline) and powering a pod radar mounted on the wing. There is little to talk about it as no one is taking this seriously and for some pretty good reason.

Try to search the space/performance/power comparisons of X band FCR vs UHF, L band or VHF radar. There is a reason why X band is the king for fighters and why this will stay true 10 years, 15 years or even 20 years from now.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/Wa ... es.en.html

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Apr 2015 20:16

Backtrack a little bit and give your rationale on why Russian Nebo system is an integrated function of three different radar bands, and then again nobody is replacing X-band.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2015 20:27

Backtrack a little bit and give your rationale on why Russian Nebo system is an integrated function of three different radar bands

Because this is how Integrated Air Defenses are designed - air defenses that need to protect a particular area against

- Cruise Missile threat
- Ballistic Missile threat (Russian/Soviet Hen House Series of radars Denestr, Dnestr/M, Dnepr, UHF Volga, VHF Daryal - Pechora Class and the more modern Nebo and Nebo M sensors among others)
- Space (BMD and/or SSA)
- Aircraft threat
- Stealth Aircraft threat
- Provide GB Situational Awareness to aerial assets

Multiple frequency sensors have been a part of integrated air defense efforts for a long time and you put up search, surveillance and fire control radars so that they serve the purpose you expect from them. Only difference is that with digitization you have moved away from a federated architecture to an integrated architecture. Even the west that does not really have the threat warranting huge IAD (Such as Russia or China) investments has similar IAD setups. The MEADS uses UHF and X band, while the entire US IAD system including THAAD radars, Patriot Radars, MEADS (Or MEADS alternative sensors), and future AA are linked up in a common picture and share targeting information (X, S, UHF,L etc).

and then again nobody is replacing X-band.

Precisely! Also in fighters no one is adding, or looking to add Surveillance radars in addition to the X Band radar. None have come up with this solution for targeting stealth aircraft and these aircraft have been openly known to exist since the 80's (probably earlier if you factor in that intelligence agencies know a lot more than open source). T
Why do you think this is? Air Forces around the world should be scrambling to add VHF and UHF podded air to air radars (if possible ) on their fighters or at least developing such systems for use in the 2020's and beyond. Why aren't they? Is there a possibility (even a slight one) that they may know a tad bit more than you or I when it comes to how these things will work, if it is even possible and how much tactical utility is actually gained through all this? Heck the PAKFA should have had this given it is a system that will be operational around 2020 ( be it in limited amounts) and follows nearly 15 years after the F-22A? Why doesn't it have VHF radar pods, or embedded capability? Bottom line is that the moment you go higher and higher from X band you exponentially increase size requirements (and associated power, cooling etc) and decrease performance given the constraints. So you cannot scale down a 200 meters by 20 meters VHF radar into a pod even if you are willing to take a "capability" HIT. For a given size that usually is the first requirement from a fighter (Be it in the nose or be it as a pod) the X band is still the number 1 choice when it comes to performance. Hence no radar designer in the world, or no aircraft procurer in the world are demanding VHF mounted surveillance radars to be mounted on fighters either in the nose or in as pods.

On the other hand the accuracy is limited, because a lower frequency requires antennas with very large physical size which determines angle accuracy and angle resolution.

In this frequency-band (8 to 12 GHz) the relationship between used wave length and size of the antenna is considerably better than in lower frequency-bands. The I/J- Band is a relatively popular radar band for military applications like airborne radars for performing the roles of interceptor, fighter, and attack of enemy fighters and of ground targets. A very small antenna size provides a good performance.

Your quote above regarding X band not disappearing also explains your earlier question on why an Air to Air missile can't be just launched based on cues from a surveilance radar and expected to find and target aircraft on its own. For a successful intercept, especially at the near kinematic ranges of your weapon you need the best "quality" information when it comes to the target...So much so that advances in targeting, sensors and the precise sharing of that information (data links) has actually resulted in range and envelope improvements of SAM's (PAC-3, Aim-120C7 and D are such examples ) without any additional fuel, motor or aerodynamic enhancements. This is the precise reason why stealth fighters are being produced by Russia, US and China in addition to India, South Korea, Turkey and japan. Stealth breaks kill chains, and disrupts the targeting pipeline through which SAM's get much of their performance.

Do try to dig up the US Army studies when coming up with Missile Defense radars (later studies from MDA point to the same), target discrimination, the quality of the radar track and percission was required and they actually shifted the largest deployable mobile radar (AN/TPY-2) from an L band preliminary design to an X-Band design. Same applies to fighters and the same is the reason why the S400 and the IAD setup in general won't shed the X band radar be it in Russia, or the West (MEADS) despite of having Active radars in the UHF or VHF domain. Range resolution difference from shifting from X to S band alone is something like 200-500%.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 26 Apr 2015 08:52

IADS has been there since before and it was more about radar coverage but the new systems are about countering stealth as well with lower frequency bands otherwise for surveillance there are other higher bands too, and these guys have just arrived with materialized systems now even if the threat is known since long. while I don't disagree with US being proactive about these new radar developments, let me know how exactly they plan to jam a UHF or a VHF radar?

The diameter of the Hawkeye's rotodome is 7.2m, so the UHF antenna is bounded by that and if we look at the cutaway diagram posted above the transmitters are even smaller, its not physically impossible to mount a small set of them on capable fighters. The problem with airborne SAR is the antenna motion relative to the aircraft can break its calibration and the further out on the wings these are placed the greater the wing flex is. A rotodome by comparison is rigid. so, looking at a slightly different geometry of about three transmitters in a surfboard shaped pod and two such pods in something as similar to the CARABAS radar's antenna placement closer to the fuselage. Even if it means a capability hit, a squadron can make up a set of nodes with 120 degree coverage versus having just two Hawkeyes from a Carrier.

yes, a typical setup is the surveillance radars do the cueing and the finer tracking radars take over, which is what the Hawkeye does too, so how is it helping the kill chain against LO targets? and then why are you loathe about having UHF surveillance pods in addition to the Bars FCR on the MKI?

from your perspective, nobody is asking them for a fighter configuration, when they have Hawkeyes or JSTARS etc., but sans these aircraft and if you do not have optimal locations for your ground radars when you are behind a mountain range, or just the plain old enemy, the horizon limitation over sea, some could be asking.

Bottom line the only variable introduced was the UHF pod on a fighter aircraft to be used in an 'AWACS' configuration, technically if its an issue I am all ears. No requirement exists or will ever exist cannot be a generic answer.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Apr 2015 09:35

Replied in the International thread!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&p=1834078#p1834078

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 06 May 2015 06:56

The most irritating issue, one that lasted more than five years, has been the low reliability of the Su-30MKI jet fighters. Fifty of these Russian designed aircraft were built in Russia and the rest of the 272 aircraft order are being assembled locally. Deliveries should be complete by 2019 and at the moment India is not keen on ordering any more. Most of the problems are related to engines and Russia says it has narrowed most of the problems down to difficulties related to ball bearings. The engines are also assembled in India, using Russian and Indian made parts. Russia has devised several fixes for the engine problem but the readiness (for combat) rate of the Su-30MKI is still about 55 percent (compared to 70 percent or higher for most other modern aircraft).

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 06 May 2015 08:22

The source is not the best.
There is no question of the IAF stopping at 272 aircraft.
With the way our Migs are going we will need multiple production lines, to:-

1) Initially keep the Sq strength where it is now.
2) Up it to 42 in the 2020's

The MKI is a great aircraft, It will be impossible to get anything comparable @ the cost of a MKI.
That is not including all the other peripherals that go into keeping the platforms at 50-80 % operational readiness.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 08:51

the idea of a big centerline radar pod has already been demoed in the M400 pod which probably the PLANAF has purchased
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/m400.htm

given that hawkeye is the only fixed wing game in town for organic naval AEW and our Vikky and Vikrant cannot operate it, any form of radar pod that gives 120-150' side looking coverage from the Mig29K would be a useful capability. it can deploy much farther and faster than a KA31.

the additional power could be generated by podded ram air generators which are already in use on the Growler I think.
its a kind of jamming pod but with a ram air turbine in front, same concept could be used in the SLAR pod for Mig29K.

we need some of the Mig29K converted into growler config , and carting the SLAR pod also to function as the eyes and ears of the fleet
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/i ... ems_lg.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 08:53

^^ HALE drones are also ideal for the long loiter AEW role but with their massive wingspans , flimsy fuselages and lack of power I dont know if any can ever launched from a ski jump on a carrier.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 May 2015 09:12

the only advantage for the POD would be its ability to cover a much larger FOV. Everything else would be pretty similar to the radar at the front..I don't think whether the Russians make a RAT pod, but i haven't seen any. You will also run into problems with integrating a Radar along with a HiRaT system. The Gallium Nitride elements on the Next Generation Jammer have that issue to overcome and Raytheon seems to be doing a good job for now, but I wouldnt underestimate the complexities of integrating a RADAR into a HiRAT pod. You would still have to restrict yourselves to a similar radar to the FCS upfront with possible better side coverage.

The Helo is still the best way, and if you want longer loiter, higher altitude and faster platform you would have to develop the V-22 which has been proposed for such a solution before. That will also not be cheap to design and develop especially if the USMC does not partner up. The UK could definitly use it but they can't afford much so they are also relying on the helo option. Brazil may do it as they'll likely need something given they are planning on buying a bunch of Sea Gripens.

These pods also aren't SMALL..so not sure what payload/range equation you'll get launching from the SKI especially when you factor in TOS. This is the size of a raytheon next generation pod along with the integrated HiRAT

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 06 May 2015 09:40

For whatever its worth

Algerian Flanker fleet has 75% availability.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1291253.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2015 09:58

Thats what the DM said by the end of year we would have 70 % availability once spares and servicibility improves , Also Algeria operates a smaller fleet just about 36 aircraft compared to IAF ~200 MKI so its much easier for them to maintain high availability with small numbers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 10:00

the RATs could be moved out to 2 under the wings, piping the electricity to the dedicated radar pod centerline. that would shrink it some.

but I agree the Mig29K is not exactly the best platform it. the big bad CH53K about to enter IOC with the USMC looks like it would have the range, payload and room to make a far more powerful AEW soln than the KA31. next biggest naval heli is Merlin and I think the RAF has plans around this.

osprey is not going to fit on indian carriers and too costly and unique, though the ch53k/merlin might at some cost to air wing size.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 May 2015 10:13

the RATs could be moved out to 2 under the wings, piping the electricity to the dedicated radar pod centerline. that would shrink it some.

OUCH!! Thats all I'd say on that

. Not an easy thing, nor very practical with questionable utility compared to a HELO or a V22. My 2 cents

the big bad CH53K about to enter IOC with the USMC looks like it would have the range, payload and room to make a far more powerful AEW soln than the KA31. next biggest naval heli is Merlin and I think the RAF has plans around this.

Yeah the brits actually are offered a fairly unique AESA solution by Lockheed. They are using Israeli radars, but earlier plans were to mount 2 AN/APG-81 (F-35) radars into the mount but that would have blown their budget.

The system devised by Lockheed Martin for Crowsnest consists of four Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Elta ELM-2052 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, two fitted into each pod. The pods are mounted on either side of the helicopter on the Merlin’s two weapon pylons. Also inside the pod is an identification, friend or foe interrogator. Avionics racks to support the two-man mission console would be added in the cabin.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockhee ... elicopters

Modern system YES, but nothing compared to a V22. The limiting factor is altitude, speed and loiter. The USMC doesn't really have a need for a high end V22 AEW since its a mission where they intend on receiving support but they could team up with a bunch of nations that may also need something similar but probably not anytime soon.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2015 10:32

interesting, seems feasible for IN to also get a few Merlins to amortize the cost of integration
even on NH90 it might be feasible and permit this thing to fly off DDG/FFG unlike the Merlin.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 May 2015 08:51

Angola To Receive Upgraded Sukhoi Combat Aircraft

Angola is set to be become the third operator of the Sukhoi Su-30 series twin-seat fighter jets in Africa, following Algeria and Uganda. Six former Indian air force Su-30K (mod) aircraft are due for delivery in the second half of this year. Originally destined for the Belarus air force, they have undergone a major overhaul and repair program at the Aircraft Repair Plant no. 558 in Baranovichi, Belarus, arranged by Sukhoi. This repair plant is seeking business from other Su-30 operators and was an exhibitor at the recent LIMA airshow in Malaysia, which received 18 Su-30MKMs.

The African continent is considered a potentially big market for the big Sukhoi jetfighters, mostly used ones, which are going to be withdrawn from service in other parts of the world and thus become available cheaply. Few potential customers in the region can afford brand-new airplanes of that size and complexity, but the vast expanse of the continent and ambitions of some local leaders generate an interest. Irkut hopes that the Angolan Su-30K (mod.) will serve as a good example of how used Su-27/30 series aircraft can get a new lease on life through cost-effective modernization.

Back in the days of war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, a handful of Su-27 single-seat fighters took part in combat operations; these were bought on the secondary market and flown largely by foreign pilots. Then Uganda received six Su-30MK2s new from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur factory in 2011. Oil-rich Algeria operates more than 40 Su-30MKA multirole fighters, delivered new from Irkut in two batches. The latter “A” in the suffix refers to customized Algerian version, which is broadly similar to Indian air force’s Su-30MKI.

Angola signed for its 12 (some sources say 18) ex-Indian Su-30K (mod.) aircraft in October 2013, part of a larger, $1 billion (U.S.) deal with Russia. Being a poor country, Angola can afford to pay only in small quantities over time, hence the slow execution of the contract. Under a 1996 contract, India bought a quantity of Su-30Ks from Russia, with shipments from the Irkutsk factory taking place from 1997 to 1999. The Indian air force operated them till the middle of 2011. Meanwhile, a major deal was struck between Moscow and New Delhi for the Su-30MKI; a total of 274 such aircraft were eventually delivered from Russia or assembled locally at HAL’s Nasik facility. India returned all of the earlier Su-30Ks to the manufacturer with their residual value deducted from the bill for newly produced Su-30MKIs.

The Indian air force flew its Su-30Ks extensively, especially after the news came of their return to the manufacturer. Airframes going back to Russia had between 1,000 and 1,500 flying hours, with some showing signs of overstress after extensive flying with high g-loads.

Having inspected these aircraft, the manufacturer arranged the overhaul deal with Belarus. In addition to beefing up the airframe to ensure a meaningful residual lifetime, the Irkut-controlled Russian Avionics company added some“technical insertions” from the Su-30KN and developed other “added value” programs for the ex-Indian aircraft.These include replacement of some analog instruments with MFI-68 multifunction 6- by 8-inch displays. The airplane’s targeting capability is improved by an additional module in the N-001 radar, referred to as the bypass channel. This add-on has its own data-processing capability through the use of a modern onboard computer belonging to the Baget series. It allows for introduction of additional working modes, including simultaneous firing at two airborne targets with guided missiles; digital mapping; and “ground surface observation” modes. The Su-30K (mod.) can also carry an expanded range of air-to-air and air-to-surface guided munitions, turning an air superiority fighter into a multirole aircraft.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 15:47

http://salute.co.in/enhancing-firepower/

DRDO's Tamilmani notes Sep/Oct'14:

The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), presently in the design phase, is a single-seat, twin-engine fifthgeneration, stealth multirole fighter being developed for the IAF, for both long and short-range missions and for both air-to-air and strike missions. AMCA will incorporate net-centric warfare, vehicle management (including weapons), data fusion, decision aids, integrated modular avionics, internally carried weapons, AESA radar, IR search-and-track, supersonic persistence, high-speed weapon release and thrust vectoring.

The IAF has immensely benefitted from the vide range of Electronic Warfare Systems developed by DRDO that include among others, Radar warning Receivers and Jammers for the Mig series and Sukhoi aircraft; High Accuracy Direction Finding system (HADF) and the modular “Siva” pod capable of supersonic carriage for the Su-30 MKIs that provides cue to Anti radiation missiles used by the Su-30 MKI for suppression of enemy Air Defence; advanced Radar Warning Receiver R118 that fuses data from different sensors and present unified data on a multi-function display.

Other systems include the MAWS project for transport, helicopter and fighter fleets, laser warning systems, a DIRCM (Directed Infra Red Countermeasures) intended to protect aircraft from infrared guided weapons, Divya Drishti that can fingerprint and track multiple airborne targets for mission analysis purposes. The COIN A and COIN B SIGINT stations are already delivered to the Indian AirForce. Apart from flying platforms and EW systems, DRDO has also developed advanced weapons for the IAF. Astra, a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), is designed to engage both short-range targets (20 km) and longrange targets (about 80 km) using alternative propulsion modes and has completed all its tests. Astra is capable of Mach 4 speeds, altitudes around 20 km and 40 g turns and take care of even manoeuvring target.

BrahMos, a short range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarines, ships, aircraft or land. The BrahMos-A is a modified air-launched variant of the missile for IAF’s Su-30MKI as a standoff weapon.

Interesting part is about R118. So if it sensor fuses data from the radar & RWR and puts it on a single display!, it would be a big step up from the federated cockpits on our other aircraft and nifty "jugaad" in not changing the base mission processing avionics themselves but moving it to the RWR processing.
Eagle Eye (not mentioned in article above) is the program to modify the R118 for the Su-30 MKI and its now in production at BEL.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 16:07

The R118 apparently sensor fuses data from MAWS, LWS - radar is not mentioned but there is contradictory data on that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BSU8JfneOUY/U ... MSWS-1.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RthVajx4okI/U ... MSWS-2.jpg

The MAWS from EADS originally was meant only for transports etc. A fighter variant is available via Alpha Design Tech but unlikely to be ordered. A separate program with the Israelis is underway for a more advanced fighter ready dual color MAWS.

http://i.imgur.com/X7mEGH0.jpg

Also, the R118 has been improved further, with enhanced capabilities & the Eagle Eye interface board is in production for Su-30 MKI.

For external EW
Per DARE, there is very little space in the Su-30 MKI for any drop ins, so either entire kit has to be replaced & weight issues managed, or external pods are the way to go.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 18:19

Hopefully, we will get here one day. Make our own complete Su-30 MKI upgrade in every sense.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-am ... 1701606283

In many ways our Su-30 MKIs are going on the same trajectory as Israels. Our local aerospace industry and avionics capability has grown by leaps and bounds thanks to the LCA. While dalals and assorted shills for imports will try to derail it , the effort will only accelerate with the Mk2.