21AnkushI never found the “low RCS” explanation very satisfiying, i also think the use of the “golden glass” is to decrease the shinning levels or reflections over the pilot eyes, the direct light from the sun can be troublesome for pilots.
I understand most people believe the golden coating is for low RCS, and i don’t have a real source to counter this “well known fact”…but i have read so many tales about the stealth thing…
here is an article on the coating on the canopy development to reduce the RCS
KOLKATA: India could soon be the third country in the world, after the US and France, to have a stealth bomber fighter aircraft in its armoury.
The Kolkata-based Indian Association for Cultivation of Science (IACS) has developed a technology to convert ordinary light combat aircraft into stealth jets that would go undetected on radar. The first stage of the experiment, which commenced in 1999, has been successfully concluded. The defence ministry has approved the technology and has given the go-ahead for “full-scale production” to begin. It is expected to start in about six months’ time.
According to IACS scientists associated with the project, the technology uses a special material to construct a shield on the plexi-glass canopies. It is the glass cover of the cockpit that usually betrays the presence of an aircraft as it reflects the laser beam that is emitted to catch them on the radar. The shield will cover the cockpit and deflect the laser beam on the shield in all directions.
“This will make sure the aircraft remains undetected on the radar. We are not sure if the same technology is used in France and the US. It has been developed in our own way and using our own techniques. If it works out well, this would be a big step for defence technology in India,” said a scientist.
Defence officials said the advanced combat aircraft made in the US and France have a similar shield on the plexi-glass canopies. “This shield gives the canopies a golden tinge. This special layer scatters the laser beams emitted from a radar site either on the ground or in the air (AWACS). We’ve been trying to develop this technology for some time. The shield developed by IACS will boost our indigenisation efforts,” an official said.
During the exercises at Kalaikunda where US F-16s took part, IAF officials got a closer look at the gold-tinted canopies. They also got a chance to test the technique by using ground-based radar. Interestingly, the F-16s from Singapore did not have the shield as the technology has not been transferred.
The defence authorities were so impressed with the new technology that they decided to fast-track the process and start full-scale production of the canopy following a test at Jodhpur recently.
“They had the option of going for a pilot project initially but they chose to skip it,” said an IACS official. Fighter jets like Jaguars, MiGs, Mirages and Sukhois will now be fitted with this special canopy to enhance their stealth capabilities
21AnkushApparently, the MiG-35 has been sighted over Bangalore by a BRF member. hopefully should get some pics of the fighter, although I’m sure that its not different from what we saw at MAKS 2009.
21AnkushIAF may induct more Akash squadrons for the NE ? I like this Air Marshal Barbora..a very straight talking guy based on past statements as well, and one who would likely be a good ACM as well. He had been consistently applying pressure to have Su-30MKIs based in the NE and it paid dividends finally.
IAF Slams Chinese Protest to PM’s Arunachal Visit
New Delhi | Oct 14, 2009The Air Force today said it does not “fear” the Chinese military and that the neighbour should not have any problem with upgrading of airstrips in the North-East.
IAF vice chief Air Marshal P K Barbora said when India does not object to China’s military activities in Tibet, the latter too “should have nothing” against Indians developing their military capabilities in the North-East.
“Early this year, President Pratibha Patil, who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, visited Arunachal Pradesh. China had no objections then. Why should they protest when the Prime Minister visits the frontier state now?” Barbora said at a press conference.
He said Chinese reactions to the Prime Minister’s visit to the border state should be “read between the lines,” as democratic elections were taking place in the state.
“IAF does not fear. We (India) have not said anything against their military activities in Tibet. They (China) should have nothing when we build defence capabilities in our areas (in the North-East),” he said.
The IAF vice chief was replying to questions if the Air Force feared adverse Chinese reaction to it upgrading six Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs) in Arunachal Pradesh for operating heavier transport aircraft.
Pointing out that China claims Arunachal Pradesh to be a disputed territory but India does not accept it, Barbora said the IAF mandate was to improve the ALGs, helipads and also the IAF air bases in the border state.
The plan to improve Air Force infrastructure in the states bordering China was taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the IAF reopened the Daulat Beg Oldi landing strip in Ladakh region last year.
“We are upgrading airbases and reopening airstrips in South India too, which traditionally has had lesser number of Air Force infrastructure for long,” he added.
“IAF responsibility is also to ferry civilians in inaccessible areas of Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh and tourists visiting those areas, apart from transporting army troops and paramilitary personnel for deployment,” he said.
He also said that the IAF was acquiring more ‘Akash’ medium range Surface-to-Air missile squadrons for deployment in the North-East, apart from the Sukhois it would base at Tezpur and other air bases there.“We have two squadrons of Akash at present. We are asking for more squadrons for the North-East to upgrade our air defence capabilities. It is a good missile and we have also asked for some improvements in it,” Barbora said.
However, he clarified, IAF’s infrastructure and capabilities plan was not adversary-specific, but capability-specific.
21Ankush>>>There has been a flurry of reports in Indian media of Chinese incursions along the border — shrugged off by both governments — and Delhi this month protested against a Chinese embassy policy of issuing different visas to residents of disputed Kashmir.
I think the Indian media is hardly reliable. We heard several items that were unrealistic and I have been watchin the media and the way they tell it sound a bit nationalistic and sensational. That is my opinion. An IAF chief telling political things is a bit out of context if you ask me.
yeah ? just look across the border into your country. heck, talking about Armymen talking politics, your political govt. has almost always been run by Army chiefs, so why don’t you keep your pompous pronouncements about “out of context” to yourself ? or have you forgotten Pakistan’s history of military dictatorships ?
21AnkushIts simple PN got a package deal for frigates and helicopters. Would Russian company give easy payment terms to PN, better then the Chinese would, most unlikely. Then the political isssues, I could see “boycott Russian weapons”, if Russia sold (again) to Pakistan.
so a package deal that includes an anti-submarine helicopter that even the country selling it is not inducting and its instead going for Russian Ka-28s ? sounds like one lame ass helicopter that PN is getting just because its part of a package that China is funding by easy credits.
21AnkushFrance, Russia . . . .
thanks. other countries that operate PESA radar fighters.
21AnkushAt the end of the day it would depend on IAF’s operational requirements, but do those requirements have to be met through a totally new design, i.e. MCA? How about a derivative of PAK-FA? I know we are only speculating for the time being, as we dont even know what MCA might be like or what it would incorporate…it might turn out to be closer to PAK-FA than I think. On another note, I think any fighter aircraft rolling off production line in 2030 or so should be a stealthy design and not LO.
IAF’s operational requirements are to be able to sustain a two-front battle- so numbers are important. at the same time, it will never be able to match the kind of numbers the PLAAF has, so a qualitative edge is important as well. the MRCA is required right now because of numbers shortfall, as well as the need to have a fighter that can be operated for another 25-30 years with required upgrades. However, even the IAF will realise that when the Chinese J-XX comes into service in numbers, stealth will become a reality to face in the sub-continent and the MRCA will likely be at a disadvantage against it because it will lack stealth. just having the stealthy PAK-FA may not suffice for all the types of roles that are required to be carried out by tactical fighters in the IAF. a medium weight tactical stealth fighter will be able to take over roles that are performed by MRCA fighters and other types like the Mirage, MiG-29UPG, Jag DARIN III and MiG-29K and be able to operate over enemy airspace far more independently and confidently than non-stealthy MRCAs, which by then will likely be relegated to more defensive roles. and the MCA will be a stealth optimised design, not just LO like the current 4th generation fighters, which is why I said that internal weapons bay will need to be designed after identifying which type to carry. and there was a wind tunnel model of the MCA shown at Aero-India 2009. even the IAF ACM when asked about the future of the Kaveri engine said that they have suggested that a JV be set up to develop it further for possible use on a future combat aircraft.
see here
and this is what was said by M. Natarajan
February 15, 2009 – The DRDO displayed a wind tunnel model of its Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) twin engine fighter concept at Aero India 2009.
The 19-20 ton category fighter will feature stealth including an internal weapon bay.Speaking at Aero India 2009, M. Natarajan, DRDO chief and scientific adviser to the defense minister said, “Even though we don’t have a project as yet, we have started conceptual work on our own for the Medium Combat Aircraft. I will not call it Fifth Generation Aircraft but it is very close provided we are able to incorporate more stealth features.”
“It is possible to have an MCA with a twin engine, with less weight and improved electronics. It will also have an inbuilt weapon load for stealth reasons. It is doable and it is a challenge.”
The project was initiated to capitalize on the knowledge and expertise gained from the work put into the LCA project. The Air Force has shown interest in the project.
“I am happy to say some very preliminary discussions have started with the Air Force. They are showing considerable interest and this is linked to the kind of developments we could demonstrate in avionics, electronic warfare and our own radar development technology particularly for the AWE&C,” he added.
As for the number of different types, dont you think its a few too many for any modern AF in 2030?
Its upto the IAF to decide how many types it can sustain and maintain. I won’t comment on what other air forces are doing and the possible reasons for them trying to standardise on just a few types. most are driven by funding, but considering the threats facing India, funding for the IAF to be able to sustain its fleet, even if its diverse will not be an issue. as it is, these days most fighters are so costly that one-to-one replacement of types to even standardise on one particular type is a very costly exercise. look at what the RAF has done- retired the Sea Harrier well before its time for cost savings, and that meant a naval force with no real air-defence cover if they ventured far from shore. they don’t really face any major operational threats, so its ok- the IN will never allow that to happen to its Sea Harrier fleet. they retired the Jags well before they were due to be retired because of funding issues. they lost some capabilities that the Jaguar force provided better and much more economically than the Tornado force, but it had to be done for cost saving. yet, the Typhoon numbers are also being cut while F-35’s are being preserved. and even they will have a 3 fighter type force till 2025, including Tornados, Typhoons and F-35s.
Do you need MCA for that? How about keeping that base through working on LCA MK.2/3, PAK-FA, and UCAV (through a JV). As for UCAV I think Saab have recently made an entry into this field, and almost all major aerospace companies in west are working on such projects. Anyone who wins the present MMRCA contest could be approached for a very lucrative JV (if poss).
while the Tejas’ newer Mk.s could be developed every 5-8 years to keep it abreast of technology, that alone will not be the same as a new aircraft program. the legacy design of the Tejas will have its own limitations to how much it can be upgraded, and without complete alteration, stealth will be impossible to incorporate. IMO, a MCA program will be able to generate much, much more work and develop a competent industry as compared to only working on upgrading existing fighters.
UCAV would do the very same thing. Just like not every country has gone from MSA radars to PESA to AESA gardually, some have gone from MSA straight to AESA. SAAB are currently developing NG and they are already working on UCAV…though I must admit that there may be links with the korean 5th gen type fighter. But from an aviation industry pov, wouldn’t it be better to put you full resources into a UCAV type right now and field one in 2040 instead of working on a 5th gen to field it in 2025/30 and then starting on the next gen. I know work on UCAV could be carried out simultaneously, but would there be enough resources?
talking in a literal sense about radars, some countries would’ve jumped, but the IAF and IN will at some period simultaneously operate MSA (MiG-29UPG, Mirage-2000-5, Jag DARIN-III, LCA Mk.1, MiG-29K), PESA (Su-30MKI Phase 3) and AESA (MRCA and LCA Mk.2) and all because of platform suitability for either type of radar at the time it was available to purchase or for upgrades. how many air-forces in the world will do that ?
you have to make the best of what you have and be practical- as in, the MiG-29UPG upgrade went in for the MSA Zhuk-ME (for cost, time schedule and platform reasons), even though all the MiG-29UPGs will be fully into service around the time the MRCA enters service, and for the MRCA, AESA is nearly mandatory. it doesn’t mean that MSA fighters are useless or don’t serve a purpose. ditto on the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade which if the IAF insists on an AESA, will become costly as the IAF will need to pay for integration of an AESA on a Mirage-2000-5, whereas making do with the RDY-2 which comes ready-made, saves time, cost and as it is even with the upgrade, the M2k-5 will serve only another 15 odd years and can adequately take on pretty much anything in the PAF’s or PLAAF’s current inventory.
so what may work for other air forces (consolidation to one-two types at the expense of numbers and in some cases, capability) may not be the formula that the IAF will adopt. the IAF faces a different threat perspective, and it will evolve its philosophies based on the relative state in the neighbourhood. the day all of PAF and PLAAF become 4th-5th gen fighters (unlikely to happen as JF-17s and F-16 Block 50s will likely serve as long as manned fighters serve in the PAF), the IAF will withdraw its 3rd gen fighters like the MiG-29UPG and Mirages.
as for UCAVs, the IAF doesn’t seem to stated what its goals are in this field- once they do, maybe DRDO and the GoI can make a decision on the future of the combat fighter program- manned or unmanned ?
21AnkushMy friends here explain that Z9 is worser then KA28… In what? Well. There are advantages and disadvantages to a double rotor. Maybe it is a way to master this technology by China. Like they are busy with Jxx and yet intrested in naval Flankers. The fact that they wanted to have 2 planes shows that it is certain policy that makes China grow extremely fast. The South African were only asked to deliver a few parts so exporting Z9 while buying Russian has probably different logic then Ankush writes.
I didn’t say that the Harbin Z9 was worse than the Ka-28, although I’m not sure it actually isn’t either. I’m just confused as to why the PLAN needs the imported Ka-28 when they have the anti-submarine variant of the Harbin Z-9, itself a copy of the Eurocopter Dolphin, which the PN has only very recently inducted. surely if the Chinese sourced F-22 frigate of the PN can accommodate the Z-9, then there is no real issue of space, unless the Ka-28 is meant for some other platform..if not, then it probably means that the PLAN feels that the Z-9 doesn’t match up to the PLAN’s needs, while the PN is happy with it, and so China requires the Ka-28 to “learn” (ahem) and master the technology. anyway, even Munir is simply speculating as to why the PLAN is importing anti-submarine Ka-28s (and Munir, your statement on the South Africans makes no sense) so until some Chinese poster with more knowledge on this matter gives an answer, this matter is not clear.
21Ankush21Ankush, what I am trying to understand is the exact nature of benefits MCA programme would bring to Indian Aviation industry?
I assume India would get the ToT for many key technologies in PAK-FA…I mean it would be rather stupid to share 50% (???) of the development costs ($8 billion???) and not get the know how for any key techs especially when Russia needs a funding partner to develop this fighter for its own force. Anyway PAK-FA is suppose to make its first flight next year and enter enter service in 2017 or so. But knowing how such projects normally evolve and delays associated with them, I cant really see PAK-FA in operational service before 2020s. This is PAK-FA we are talking about. As for MCA, I dont think even the ASRs are out yet. And if not, I cant imagine it to enter service before 2025 or so, even if PAK-FA derived avionics are used for this. And by this time a western UCAV would only be round the corner.
So what is MCA suppose to do for Indian aviation Industry? No doubt it would do what LCA has done for Indian aviation industry. But then India would always be playing the catch up game. So why not do away with MCA and use PAK-FA & its derivative to meet Indian needs? This would allow India to concentrate on a UCAV in a JV with Russia or West, and they should be able to field a UCAV by 2030 or so. Wouldn’t this be a better approach for Indian aviation industry in the long run?
first of all, its a question of whether or not the primary customer, the IAF, has a requirement for a medium-weight stealth fighter to complement the PAK-FA, and to provide the IN with a possible stealth naval fighter as well, in the class of the MiG-29K. I personally don’t believe that a manned fighter can be totally done away with by UCAVs or that a large PAK-FA can fulfill all the tactical roles required to be carried out by the IAF. this is especially true for the sub-continent where fighters inducted in the 2000s are likely to be in service till 2030 and there are no major UCAV projects on-going. the IAF orbat by 2025 will be consisting
PAK-FA (a few squadrons)
Su-30MKI MLU (15 squadrons)
MRCA (12 squadrons)
LCA Mk.1 and Mk.2 (5-6 squadrons)
Jaguar DARIN III with service life remaining (2-3 squadrons)
Mirage-2000-5 (close to retirement with possibly 5 years of service left)
MiG-29UPGs (close to retirement, with possibly 5 years of service left)
Pretty much all the rest would’ve been retired, or be very close to retirement. the Jaguar DARIN III may last that long only because they have service life remaining as quite a few were built pretty recently. as the Mirages, Fulcrums and Jaguars retire, they can be replaced by the MRCA or by a new MCA. the neighbourhood will have JF-17s, J-10A/Bs, F-16 Block 50, J-11, J-11Bs, JH-7s and the J-XX fighters. this assumes that PAF will not be supplied with the F-35, but there is no certainty of that happening. so, if PAF can get F-35s in the mid to late 2020s (a distinct possibility as production for the partner nations tapers down) and the J-XX, they will have 2 classes of stealth fighters so, IMO, there is an operational need for a medium-weight stealth fighter in the IAF to provide the IAF with a large number of low observable fighters.
the IAF has also asked ADA to look into a MCA study and in the past, there has been work done on stealth and low-observable technologies by the Electromagnetics group of the Aerospace Electronics and Systems Division of the DRDO, so there is a some interest within the IAF in the MCA. studies have been done, and we know that they have wind-tunnel models of an MCA configuration, so work has been done on this..
for the Indian aviation industry, the benefits would be
1) a new fighter program that makes sure that the knowledge and technologies gained through the LCA program, the supplier base within India, all of that is not eroded and India’s aerospace industry has enough work to attract and retain the engineering and scientific talent within India
2) access to key technologies on the PAK-FA will do nothing to progress the Indian aerospace sector unless they can apply it somewhere and actually cut their teeth on it- its not until you try to develop and productionise a particular component that you can really understand the technology associated with it. ToT can never do that- you’ll never know what thought went into the product, what issues/problems were faced and how they could be tackled. and without that, you cannot move to the next generation because the industry is not static and state-of-the-art changes every 5-10 years
3) hopefully, it will lead to a public-private sector that can come up with a Regional jet, or an A-320 class aircraft with skills, people drawn from the fighter programs
At the same time, I’m not a moron who says that India should pull out of the PAK-FA and only develop the MCA, because realistically speaking, based on Russia’s previous generations of fighters, the PAK-FA will surely provide the IAF with its bleeding edge fighter. the MCA if its too ambitious and doesn’t deliver on time, will leave the IAF high and dry, waiting for a 5th gen fighter, and then anyway will require an off-the-shelf purchase of the PAK-FA or F-35, which will do nothing for the aerospace industry in India except generate Licence manufacturing jobs.
21AnkushSpot on. If MCA is meant to keep the team together so that India does not lose the talent (the way i happened between marut and LCA), then this could be more effectively achieved through concentrating on LCA MK.2 and UCAV. A recent article implied that Indian FGFA would be largely similar to the Russian one, albeit with modifications. I might be wrong on this but it appears that Indian FGFA might end up as another MKI though with more Indian input than SU-30 MKI. If so, would that give Indian desginers enough expertise to design/build/test a 5th gen fighter completely on their own or would they still be dependent on foreign consultancies and JVs to achieve this task? If its the later, then by the time IAF is fielding MCA, western nations would be fielding UCAV, and India would probably have to join another FGFA type project so they could field a UCAV.
All in all, Indian aviation industry seems to be standing on crossroads. It could keep following the cycle, i.e. 4th to 5th and to 6th gen etc. Although it is getting more & more experience, it would keep playing the catch up game for a long time. The other alternative is to miss one step (as Austin suggested) and take the tisk, i.e. go to UCAV. Another possibility is to start working on MCA & UCAV simultaneously.
I’m not sure I agree over here- there are at least 2 nations (and possibly Russia with MiG as well) that are interested in a program for another 5th generation manned fighter (Brazil and South Korea). all of the current 5th generation projects are expensive, heavy, large twin engine fighters, apart from the US with its F-35- the Russians with a F-22 class PAK-FA and the Chinese with their J-XX (don’t know what class it falls under, but my guess is that its likely to be a heavy large fighter too) and what is missing is a single 5th generation fighter of the medium weight category available to those who don’t want the F-35. since the F-22 is banned from export at least as of now, that leaves the PAK-FA and the J-XX as the only available manned options out till the time someone comes up with a cheaper 4.5 or 5th generation option. Not all nations require an uber-air dominance fighter, and that is borne out by the huge numbers of F-35 that are to be built. That argument alone leaves a huge market open for 1 or 2 nations and their industries to collaborate on a medium-class stealth optimised multi-role fighter.
I for one am not optimistic that India can build a MCA on its own to compete with the F-35 because it lags behind in any experience with stealth, the required 5th generation engine, radar and optronics technology and sales experience. It’ll also cost a huge amount of money- so, it has to collaborate with someone who either has the know-how (Russia, or MiG in particular) or the engineering, program management and sales skills and Saab comes to my mind foremost as a sincere partner, Dassault can have its own agenda (seen on the LCA) and I’ll discount any US firm because they cannot share any meaningful tech. Russians may be doubtful because they may have their own internal program to build a complement to the PAK-FA.
and both partners will need to fund it. where DRDO labs and institutions do have suitable expertise is in CFD codes, digital FBW (although they may aim for FBL for the MCA), advanced structures, avionics, software, mission computers, etc.
and the MCA will have to extensively use foreign weapons, since the only notable air-launched program in India right now is the Astra, and being a first effort in a BVR weapon, it’ll certainly be behind the state-of-the-art Meteor that will be in service by the time the Astra is ready. There are no other air-to-ground weapons are being developed as of now (like for eg. the SDB or JDAM), so for internal carriage, they’ll need to identify some current weapons and design it around them and Russian is probably better because they will be more amenable to export sales than the notoriously fickle US who may sabotage sales to prevent competition with the F-35.
This is one area where India has really not put in any meaningful effort- a singular lack of any major PGM, LGB or stand-off weapon in the class of the SCALP. Sudarshan was supposed to be an air to ground weapon, but there is hardly any news of it. so anyway, the MCA will need to be an international effort in terms of suppliers for various components, parts and weapons. having Saab on the program as the one responsible for supplier management and integration would fit in with what their strengths are as seen on the Gripen. for instance, India doesn’t build an IRST sensor, so it needs to be sourced externally. who would be the options ? EU with the PIRATE, Saab with IR-OTIS, Russians with the OLS and the US with whatever system they have developed. US can be ticked off, because for sure they won’t share any technology or will embargo sales to nations that they don’t like. Saab will need to work on the IR-OTIS further to develop it for a 5th gen fighter platform, but they can do it. Russia could be tapped, if they are willing to share technology developed for the PAK-FA on the MCA. this is just an example, but there are plenty of such systems that need to be developed for a 5th gen fighter and India cannot possibly develop them all on its own without really delaying the in-service dates for the MCA. COTS technologies suitably modified for the MCA will have to be adopted in a big way.
21AnkushAgreed. Latest is that Egypt might be interested in acquiring more F-16 units…and there may yet be even more countries…, and I would say that they would remain in service for at least another 30 odd years. As for the upgrades, one only has to look at Israeli companies who are providing/offering upgrades for Mig-21/F-4 etc., and I think this would become a lucrative business as long as the exporter does not raise any objections when the time comes (this issue should be dealt with right at the beggining). OTOH, full ToT & if India gets its own production line should take care of spares issues.
I agree. take the case of the Jaguar in the IAF- India plans on supporting its Jaguar fleet till 2030 or thereabouts ! the new build twin-seaters have 6000 hours service life as compared to 3000 hours on the single seater. That means that the 17 DARIN-II twin seaters that were inducted recently in the night-attack role can easily last another 30 years, unless the IAF really flogs them and they’ll definitely require another major upgrade in the 2020 time period for the surviving airframes.
and apart from Oman, there isn’t any other note-worthy Jaguar operator, so if the IAF and HAL can support that fleet with their own upgrades (such as DARIN II and DARIN III), supporting a fleet of F-16s or F-18 with indigenous upgrades shouldn’t be a problem, as long as the OEM doesn’t raise a stink. BAe allows the IAF to incorporate its own changes to the Jags and I’m not sure if they get a royalty fee or not apart from the licencing fee.
21AnkushRussia Starts Ka-28 ASW Deliveries to China
MOSCOW — Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise, JSC, part of the industrial holding managed by Russian Helicopters, has produced the first shipment of the anti-submarine Ka-28 for The Republic of China Navy. The helicopters were ordered by Rosoboronexport. The first three of nine helicopters are completing tests.
“The first shipment of the Ka-28 to China is a small but confident step in the broadening cooperation with our Chinese partners. Today and in the future the Russian helicopter industry is ready to provide any modern rotorcraft for navy and army forces of most countries, including our partners in China,” CEO Russian Helicopters Andrei Shibitov stated.
Sergey Mikrukov, Managing Director, Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise, adds: “There is a stable upward trend in global demand for Russian helicopters. Our Enterprise is ready to satisfy the needs of our partners in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and on other markets both in midsize (Ka-28, Ka-32) and light (Ka-226T) helicopters.”
The Ka-28 is the export variant of the Ka-27 ASW helicopter. It is fitted with high-altitude TV3-117VMAR turboshaft engines with increased nominal and cruise performance. In the search role it is equipped with radio sonobuoys, and in the search and attack role – with anti-sub bombs and torpedoes (including the high-speed homing APR-2E Orlan).
The Chinese Navy already acquired eight Ka-28s in 1998 (five ASW and three search & rescue) equipped with the cutting-edge Izumrud search system. The ASW Ka-28s were based on two Sovremenny class destroyers purchased from Russia, and Luhai class destroyers. The helicopters also assisted in targeting the on-board supersonic anti-ship SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles.
By 2000 the Kumertau Enterprise has built 33 Ka-28 helicopters for customers from China, India, Vietnam, Syria, Yugoslavia, and Cuba.
Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise is a dedicated coaxial helicopter manufacturer. Builds all Ka-27 and Ka-31 types for the Russian Navy, the civil Ka-32A11BC, and new Ka-226 and Ka-226T. Jointly with Kamov the Enterprise is constantly modernising the serial Ka-226 helicopter and the Ka-27 and Ka-32 families.
Russian Helicopters, JSC is an affiliated company of UIC Oboronprom. It is the managing body of the following helicopter industry enterprises: Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant, Kamov, Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant, Kazan Helicopters, Rostvertol, Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company, Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise, Vpered Moscow Machine-Building Plant, Stupino Machine Production Plant, Reductor-PM and Helicopter Service Company (VSK).
UIC Oboronprom, JSC is a multi-profile industrial and investment group established in 2002. Its main tasks include helicopter engineering (Russian Helicopters managing company), engine-building (United Engine Industry Corporation managing company), air defense systems and complex electronic systems (Defense Systems holding company), and other machine-building activities. The companies of the group reported revenues of over 100 billion roubles in 2008.
why does China need to buy Russian Ka-28s for Anti-submarine warfare, when it only just recently sold Harbin Z-9 helicopters to the Pakistan Navy for anti-submarine warfare roles ? :confused: are they not buying it themselves ?
21Ankushunfortunately the topic is turned into Pakistan-India topic. About the canopy’s. It depends on the price you pay, the need for these canopy’s… Cause there a multiple types and I do not think PAF invests in a canopy that absorbs nuclear flash… And the coloured versions have some disadvatages. If it was that important then the MKI (cause that is clearly the top end fighter) would have 2 times more treated canopies…
absorbs nuclear flash ? what on earth are you talking about ? the treated canopies are to reduce the RCS of the cockpit instruments that are a big source of the RCS. BTW, there were no Russian fighters with those tinted canopies till the MiG-29K that has recently been shown for the Indian Navy. I’d expect that if it was meant to reduce the RCS, then we’ll see something of that kind for the MKI when it goes for its MLU.
21AnkushI am not sure what is the reason they don’t have it on all PAF F-16s. We can only guess. Could it be that they are used sparingly and for normal tarining missions non-treated canopies are used. Does USA or other F-16 operators have it on every machine they fly? I can at least vouch for USAF where it is not on every single viper.
Secondly you are clearly shifting the goal post here. First you said something like treated canopy is not cleared for export to PAF. If that was the case you wouldn’t have it on a single PAF F-16 and even if Pakistan had done something secretive they wouldn’t be publishing its photo so openly.
As far as g2g’s post is concerned i would rather hear what he has to say. I have posted yet another pic with half tint on two seater. I have other pictures if you are interested. Interestingly on the embargoed PAF machines that are being used by Navy for aggresor training. 😉
My 2 cents and last post on this subjective, i’ll let others make up their mind.
I was actually surprised to see that F-16 with the tinted canopy, because I’ve never seen any other F-16 in PAF service with that kind of canopy. It couldn’t be something about it being used sparingly, because it can’t be that they replace the canopy for some missions and not for others. If it reduces the RCS, it does it for any given F-16 at any given time. as in, it doesn’t matter if its done on 1 or all- so, could this particular example be one that was previously an embargoed F-16 and then released to the PAF ?
21Ankush21Ankush, Unless one has specific inside knowledge, I think one should refrain from making authoritative statements such as because there is none. I hope you would see as to why this should be the case.
no I don’t see how it can be the case. not a single paper, not a single news item, not one source ? what is the reason for such secrecy if Pakistan has developed one single item on the JF-17 ? will China be so ashamed that it’ll cancel the project if Pakistan reveals that we developed the HUD on the JF-17, or we developed the radome, or we developed the EW equipment, or the radios, or the MFD ? I find it impossible to believe that there wouldn’t be any knowledge of any one item that Pakistan would’ve developed and not felt that it would be worth letting everyone else know about.
Regarding the assembly, let me clarify something. According to the current plans, it would be assembly from semi-knocked down kits, then completely knocked down kits, then raw materials (wherever they can and depending on ToT) and so on. In other words it would be a Phase Wise Programme. How much they stick to these plans would depend on how much technology they could absorb (its a first for PAC) and the number being inducted annualy, i.e. how quickly PAF want JF-17.
same as the MKI. progress from SKDs to CKDs to finally assembling the fighter from raw materials either sourced from the host country or within.
which is why its more economical to source the 40+50 MKIs from Russia directly-there is a certain number that HAL can build according to the assembly line it has (13-15 MKI fighters per year)and to exceed that number per year would mean added capabilities and added cost per unit. it makes sense to utilise Irkut facilities that would be much quieter because all MKM and MKA orders are almost fulfilled, so that the IAF can get the MKIs into service quickly.
Sign In
