KramerIndia and France to hold joint air exercise, Garuda IV
Su-30MKI and Rafale fighters may face off this time ?
NEW DELHI: Six Indian Sukhoi-30MKI fighters, two IL-76 heavy-lift aircraft and a IL-78 mid-air refueller will be leaving for France for a joint air combat exercise with the French Air Force next month.
The exercise, Garuda-IV, will be held at the Istres airbase in France from June 14 to 25. “The exercise will help to further enhance interoperability between the Indian and French air forces since pilots as well as the ground crew will get to see each other’s operational, technical and administrative practices from close quarters,” said an officer.
The exercise comes at a time when India and France are all set now to ink the around Rs 10,000 crore deal to upgrade the 56 Mirage-2000 fighter jets in IAF’s combat fleet. The first four to six Mirages will be upgraded in France, with the rest 50 or so being upgraded in India by Hindustan Aeronautics under transfer of technology.
Under the upgrade, the entire airframe will be stripped down to be re-wired and re-equipped with new avionics, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites and of course weapon systems to extend and enhance the operational life of the multi-role fighters by around 20 years.
KramerFrankly we don’t know what caused the deal to not go forward..Maybe it was more to do with the refusal to sell the Blue Vixen radar on the SHar FA2 than the AMRAAM. What was the logic of refusing to sell those radars when in a couple of years they’d be bending over backwards trying to sell Typhoons instead with its more modern Captor and now an AESA ? India could’ve approached the US separately for AMRAAMs if the UK had approved selling Blue Vixen but not its AMRAAMs..as it stood, using any other BVRAAM other than the AMRAAM would cost money for integration and testing so if the IN wasn’t going to get AMRAAM from UK or US, then all they would care for would be the airframe which they could upgrade themselves with the Elta 2032 and Derby.
The original plan was also that the Viraat would retire by 2012 or so and by then the Vikramaditya would come in..so, the SHar FA2 would’ve only been used for a few years and then retired so maybe that short period when they’d need SHars meant that they lost interest in purchasing spare airframes.
they may not have expected to have such long delays on the Gorshkov, which would necessitate the Viraat staying on in sevice for a few more years. so they felt that as the MiG-29K would anyway come in around 2010, instead of buying SHar FA2s, modifying them with the Elta 2032 and then keeping them in service for 3-4 years, it was better simply not to buy them without the on-board radar.
KramerSalutations,
any reasons to why the HAL models opted for a completely different paint scheme, was it simply just to differentiate the build location?second, somewhere I read, the HAL built model has slightly different modifications and has better ability to launch other types of weapons, is this true?
and finally, why do Russian aircraft still tend to use the black anti glare strips. They seemed common on US aircraft until the 1990s. the Pak-fa does not feature them either.
Basically HAL builds Su-30MKI Phase 3 fighters. These are more capable than Phase 2 or Phase 1 (which have been upgraded to Phase 3 now).
Irkut page on delivery of Phase 3 Su-30MKIs
The first phase aircraft were mostly intended for fighting aerial targets.
At the second phase, the fighter was upgraded to apply the Kh-31A missile and simultaneous attack of four aerial targets by guided air-to-air missiles. Besides, additional radar modes were introduced including the digital map mode and application of a long range TV-guided missile Kh-59M.
The third phase Su-30MKI fully implements all navigation and combat modes according to contract commitments. The fighter is capable of employment of the whole nomenclature of aerial weapons, including simultaneous attack of up to 4 targets by guided missiles into front and rear hemispheres, corrected aerial bombs 500 and 1500 kg with designation from laser designation pos. all aerial weapons can be applied with designation from the radar. The third phase aircraft ensures simultaneous operation on a surface target with retention of air space search and attack of an aerial target as well as group action mode. Su-30MKI radar, the N-011 designed by NIIP named after Tikhomirov, is equipped with an antenna with phased array and ensures simultaneous tracking of up to 15 targets and attack of up to 4 targets, in the free space and against earth background, as well as surface mapping with high, medium and low resolution.
Further more, according to contract requirements, the third phase Su-30MKI implements all navigation and combat employment modes including launch of weapons in the supermaneuverability mode. Su-30MKI supermaneuverability is ensured due to outstanding aerodynamics and application of the AL-31FP engine with TVC developed by Saturn Corporation. Unique aerodynamics and TVC considerably improve safety of flight in all modes, prevent spin stalling and provide a critical advantage in the close combat. The first TVC engine in the world under series production, the AL-31FP complies with international standards for fighter engines and has no equivalent in Russia in terms of its life time performance (MTBO – 1000h, assigned life – 2000h, nozzle MTBO – 500h).
what they don’t mention is that on Phase 3, the Russian radar computer C101 was replaced by an Indian radar computer.
KramerThat’s the 20Sqn Lightnings insignia, not 24Sqn.
My mistake- you’re right. its not the No.24 Hunting Hawks insignia..thats from No.20 Lightnings..
KramerIt may have something to do with the batches in which they were produced..
SB001 to SB018 are Su-30MK and K which are now retired due to the extensive flogging of their airframes to train the first few batches of instructors and pilots on the MKI. They looked totally different with a light blue and slightly darker blue camo scheme (IMO, the most attractive of all Su-30 camo schemes). All these jets belonged to No.24 Hunting Hawks squadron.
Su-30MKIs start from SB019 onwards.
SB026 which you have in the second pic was a Su-30MKI Phase-1 jet. It was produced in Russia by Irkut and part of the direct supply batch. This particular jet belonged to No.20 Lightnings squadron which was the first Su-30MKI squadron
SB042 in the first pic is a Su-30MKI Phase 3 jet and belongs to No.30 Rhinos squadron.
SB115 is a HAL built Su-30MKI Phase 3 jet and strangely enough from the insignia on its tail its a No.24 Hunting Hawks Su-30MKI..which indicates that No.24 at some stage handed over some of its Su-30MKIs to No.30 Rhinos or to No.31 Lions squadron so they could be stood up and later on took delivery of brand new Su-30MKIs as they rolled off the assembly line.
when the Su-30MKI first entered the IAF, they didn’t have any black anti-glare paint on the canopy frames as you can see from the pics on this page. This was introduced later on starting from (based on what’s been seen) SB023 and SB024. regarding the different colours of the radome, again it appears that the later builds and HAL built MKIs have the darker radome as compared to the initial batches that arrived in SKD form from Irkut.
KramerKramer: One of the Sri Lankan MiG-23UBs was overhauled here at Prague, Czech Republic by LOM – Letecke opravny Malesice (Aircraft overhaul factory Malesice). My friend worked there …
Thanks for that information Jake. Do you happen to know its Serial Number ?
KramerSo what other improvements outside of Derby and the EL/M-2032 radar are being implemented. Any photos of the new cockpit layout?
Other new weapons? Any IR AAM to replace the Magic II?
it wasn’t supposed to be a deep upgrade- which is why it was called a “Limited Upgrade of Sea Harrier” (LUSH). The cockpit wasn’t modified by changing the analog dials and instruments to MFDs. The major additions were a digital cockpit voice recorder and ACMI recorder..I’m guessing that it meant that the existing radar display of the Blue Fox radar was still in use even though the radar was changed..I may be wrong here though.
you can see the LUSH SHar here as well during the ceremony for the induction of the MiG-29K.
Regarding replacing Magic-IIs, I don’t think they did anything for that..the obvious choice would’ve been Python Vs as they’re quite similar to the Derby, but my guess is that they felt that the existing stocks of Magic-IIs would last till the SHar itself retired. I know that for the Mirage-2000 and Jaguar fleets, they’re actively looking for replacements, so it could be that the IN has its own stockpiles that may have a different shelf life end date
KramerQuadbike,
Source that says MiG-35 cleared the trials? Makes sense, but a source would clear things up.
Re. FBW on the LCA.
Stop the rubbish – nowhere does it say that an unstable design required a DFBW. Analog ones will do just fine. IIRC, even the vaunted “electric jet”, the F-16, which was unstable, had analog FBW in the early models – till the blk-40s iirc.
So no, D(igital)FBW is not mandatory for relaxed stability design. IIRC, the Mirage 2000 also has a relaxed stabiity design and uses FBW; the very same that was offered for the LCA, which the ADA did not want!
its useless to argue with him. He makes up his mind and after that any amount of reasoning or logic doesn’t work. Anyway a minor correction- the digi-ana hybrid offered by Dassault was similar to that on the Rafale. The Mirage-2000 had analog computer based FBW with no digital computers being around at the time it was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
IOWs, the IAF was content to get something hybrid, which makes sense since many of the current top notch a/c s started out with a hybrid.
This was a decision where the tech guys overruled the IAF; a stoopid decision that has contributed greatly to the LCA becoming almost a tech demonstrator instead of a quicker operational MiG-21 replacement.
USS.
No doubt that going ahead with Dassault as the consultant and partner instead of MMCS (later on LM) and BAe meant that delays occurred as there was no hand-holding of the kind that we could’ve expected with Dassault.
The reason was Dassault wanted a partnership, not just consultancy on an as-required basis. Dassault would’ve stood to gain as well as they could’ve marketed the LCA as a small, light fighter with them standing to gain work-share on avionics, royalties, etc.. It didn’t impinge on the Rafale’s market and
from the IAF’s point of view, it meant a mature fighter maker was going to be around to solve any major technical issues that could take ADA and HAL much longer to solve on their own.
unfortunately, technocrats won over, the US was selected and we’ve been regretting that decision to date. Only benefit is that India has now mastered the all-digital FBW technology (somewhat more complicated than the digi-ana hybrid) which will stand it in good stead for future aircraft programs like the AMCA.
But Dassault does have a way of turning off people too..I remember being told that they were interested in buying Autolay (the composite layup optimization tool that ADA developed in-house for the LCA) for integrating into CATIA. But the way they went about it irked some top guys at ADA and Kota Harinarayana was against giving it up to them totally..later on Dassault and ADA couldn’t come to a settlement during consultations and Dassault dropped the idea of using Autolay in CATIA and then went ahead and developed their own tool, FiberSim.
Kramergetting personal, ok if you want to let your emotions out fair enough.
If you and Kramer work for the DRDO then fine you have me at a disadvantage, if that is what you mean by working in the “Domain”.
Otherwise i agree that it is difficult to get all the issues here. A lot more gets posted on sites like BR but I do not see how if you are an Indian Citizen living in Mumbai, Kolkata or Chennai how you would know more about the DRDO projects than anyone else in the world unless you actually worked in the defense sector or had family members work in the sector.
you don’t have to be a DRDO employee to know that in many areas they are doing work in areas that no private sector company in India has done any work in. I’m not a DRDO employee and yet I know that whenever my company has required skilled guys in the aerospace domain they basically poach HAL, ADA and NAL guys. I know several of them all of whom are very competent in their domain areas and bring in experience that is very much lacking. What that makes me realise is that while the private sector’s pay packets are larger, it doesn’t necessarily mean that its employees are smarter to justify that larger pay packet.
And also, my own manager once said that its a pain to deal with the Govt. because payments are miserly, they don’t necessarily come on time, we have to do a lot of chasing around, etc..all of which turns off the private sector who would rather do engineering work for foreign engineering firms where these problems don’t exist.
For instance, if L&T was asked to develop India’s ABM shield, with the kind of funding that DRDO has done it for, no manager, however patriotic, will be able to find that his bottomline is being covered. And even then, L&T has among the best engineering talent in India but not necessarily the right domain knowledge or experience.
Can you imagine what would’ve happened to a private sector company if it tried to develop an Akash system with all its C3I, radars, missiles, etc. ? That too when you don’t even know for sure if the customer will eventually even buy any because they are enamoured of some system whose brochure is slick and well designed ? Do they have the kind of tie-ups with research institutions, labs whose sole job is to build products without being concerned about the profits, the customer, etc. ? Do they have any experience in doing any of that ?
Just for eg. take the HUD for the LCA that CSIO developed on its own at a time when no firm in India had ever done anything in this field. They didn’t go tie up with Thales or Elbit to develop a HUD that has a better FoV, better contrast and better symbology discrimination than the Elbit HUD on the MKI..what approach did a private firm like Samtel take ? They basically took Thales technology and developed it further. Don’t kid yourself that Samtel has anywhere near the R&D capabilities of DRDO labs..Now the CSIO HUD is in use and the Samtel displays have been tested on the MKI. yet, people look at the Kaiser (US) HUD on the Gripen and go “ooh aah” because its frameless and has a very large FoV. Its an imported system on that aircraft. If we did the same we’d be paying a far higher price for a small improvement in performance. And its not like CSIO cannot develop a frameless HUD on their own in the future as a further development, its just a question of priorities.
Just take a look at the automotive sector which is so privatised..what revolutionary design or technology have you seen them develop that is on par with the latest in Western automotive technology ? We still find that its the Western firms that sell high end cars and SUVs in India. What stops M&M from developing on its own, a sedan like the Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic ? Nothing- there is a huge market and yet they haven’t been able to bring any such sedan without tying up with Renault or some other firm..
yet, when it comes to military technology, the DRDO products are on par with or only slightly behind (in most cases, otherwise the Services won’t touch them and in some cases, rightly so) what the best of the West or Russia is. If the private sector had to do it, they would simply go scouting for a Western partner to get the technology from, and then set up a manufacturing unit in India..its because of this fact that foreign companies and the CII are asking that the cap on FDI be raised from 29% to 50%- so that its more lucrative for foreign firms to transfer technology to the private sector in India for them to then build on it..
the fact is, as Teer has pointed out, the private sector in India still doesn’t invest anywhere near the required funds in R&D. They prefer to simply tie-up and absorb technology.
Kramerthere’s absolutely no doubt that the production F-35 looks much much better than the unimpressive design that won the competition against the uglier Boeing frog entry. That Boeing design was possibly the fugliest fighter ever to enter any modern day fighter competition with a serious likelihood of entering service..
the same is true of the F-22 as well- the prototype YF-22 was not a very good looking fighter and changes like moving the cockpit further ahead made a big difference to its over all looks..
Nevertheless, neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are comparable to the PAK-FA when it comes to looks. Its a no-contest.
KramerFrom what I understand, and if they are the same contracts this is to do with the EULA and the requirements by the US to provide it information and in effect sovereignty over any equipment purchased and used by the Indian Armed forces.
Why did the Indian Navy sign the contracts for these when it knows such conditions are embedded in the main contract? Why did it not put a get out clause in the agreements? If it hasnt the person who agreed to the contract needs to be removed. If it has why is it not being used?
If knowing you have a potential issue and you sign the contract and do not have any mitigation in place then put up with it and dont crib.
why would you want the Indian Government to sign the deal if it makes your armed forced impotent? Having to ask the US permission to use the ships you paid good money for, telling them where they are where they are going how they are to be used etc ? What genius of a defense minister signs on that contract?
Its better to go for less capable items which are going to be delivered more reliably with less strings and greater freedom of use. No good having the most advanced anything in the world if you have to keep asking permission each time you wanted to use it.
And once we do get the weapons will we be able to use them against the threats faced by India, no. Why? Because those are your suppliers ally or economic partner.
check and check mate.
Paid extensive amounts for equipment you can not use, clever move.
Oh yes sir you can have our guns but if you want bullets for them you will have to tell us where you intend to use them.
Also look at what’s happening with Taiwan and its arms purchase, what if China decides to turn the thumbscrews on the US to stop delivery of Aim 120s ?
If you act like a subversive and you will get treated as such.
I agree that its not useful to have weapons that require yearly inspections or have guidelines on their usage. But the political decision was made some years ago to start buying defence equipment from the US- this was not a procurement blunder on the part of the IN as you’re implying.
Whether the politicians thought that the US would waive off EUMA and CISMOA type agreements or whether it was because of the much closer ties with the Bush Administration, we don’t know, but there was a conscious decision to get closer to the US through arms purchases. It wasn’t by coincidence that the Attack Helicopter contest was re-tendered to allow the AH-64D and AH-1Z to participate again.
The Indian Navy on the other hand is not the responsible party for this issue- they don’t decide whether the GoI will sign agreements with the US or not. They look for direction on this procurement and do things as per the MoD, GoI and MoF directive. If they get the green signal from these 3 quarters, they will go ahead and purchase the best available option and in this case the American option if no other better or capable options are available. It is the task of the political class to sort out issues relating to agreements being signed and so on. If you ask the personal opinion of IN, IAF and IA guys, they’ll all talk about how the US is notoriously unreliable as a supplier. But they cannot overlook political directives and if that meant that they get good quality weapons quickly (FMS route) then they happily accepted it. But it now seems that the IA’s experience with BFSR indicates that its not all quite nice and sundry through the FMS route either.
Maybe they’ll just sign the agreements for the P-8I and be done with it. And hopefully then say goodbye to the US for all other important weapons sales.
BTW, this isn’t India specific..the UK also has had procurement issues with the US, for instance the F-35 access to technology issues. Eventually it was resolved to both parties’ satisfaction, but I didn’t hear anyone saying that the guys in UK who committed billions of $ in development money as well as the future of the RN’s carrier wing to the F-35B without getting iron-clad guarantees on technology access ought to have been fired or taken to task for having done so in the first place..
Does the UK have to sign these EUMA and CISMOA type agreements that allow US inspectors to come and inspect those arms it sells to the UK ? I know that they’re really close allies and all that and the US bureaucracy pushes through files related to Japan, Australia and UK in record times compared to other nations, but what’s the flip side to letting Uncle Sam sleep with you whenever he wishes?
KramerSo they are happy that they managed to fire 3 missiles in 5 months? hmm what happens when there is a war? Or is this another bit of poor reporting by the news paper.
man I’ve never read such rubbish before ! these are user tests..do you understand what tests mean ?! If they’re successful they’ve validated some guidelines, manuals, methods and procedures. If there is a war it will be a totally different situation in terms of the intensity..
what do you expect ? a hundred user tests within 2 weeks ? will that make you happy or will you still criticize them ?! :rolleyes: totally absurd !
some Indians think that just because they’re now living in the UK they can sit on a perch and ridicule everything that other Indians do. :rolleyes:
Also if the target ballistic missile in a anti-ballistic missile test goes off course because of fuel leakage should that really be a show stopper?
Unless the missile heads of a civilian area surely it would have been good to test the ABM system, or was there something else a foot?
:rolleyes:
KramerWhat India plans and what the DRDO delivers are at 180degrees from each other.
Will have to see what the re-structuring does apart from create more management roles that eat up budgets but do not add to the value.
Be more specific than just these generic criticisms..its quite tiring to see tirade after tirade when you have no specific areas to criticize except LCA and Arjun both of which are anyway entering service..others have already pointed out many areas (especially strategic) where DRDO labs have done a stellar job in areas where no other country would be able to help India out..
Kramermust be causing acute embarassment to Admiral (retd.) Arun Prakash..such a distinguished service career that the Admiral had and this relative of his nearly succeeded in tarnishing it all.
KramerSo is the current p8i better than anything on the market?
It is poor management or purchasing. Why are their no mitigations in place, specially when the indian defense ministry has had bad experience in the past. This is not the first time India fallen victim. Past lessons were not learnt or ignored in exchange for backdoor payments with the cover of itar. These are not small purchases and it seems more than amaturish if the artical is to be believed.
:rolleyes: its ok to criticize if you understand the issue..but you either don’t want to understand the issues behind ITAR and this logjam or are unable to..the IN would’ve specified US equipment that was first of all offered, and considered available because the GoI was expected to sign the EUMA and CISMOA agreements. How on earth would they know that the GoI would drag its feet on this issue later on ?
Sign In
