it appears that for the RFPs for the 100 new self-defence Air to Air missiles for the Jaguar fleet, the AIM-9X will be the frontline candidate, although the article mentions the AIM-9M.

The article below is likely regarding modifications to the Jaguar fleet for the CBU 105 munitions that the IAF is buying from the US..the article was posted on BRF and it doesn’t specifically mention the IAF, but there are no other major operators of the Jaguar left, now that the RAF has withdrawn it from service. maybe we may see other weapons also sourced from the US on the IAF’s Jags.

link

PARIS, June 17, 2009 /PRNewswire/ —

Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has started integrating its Munitions Control Unit on the Jaguar fighter aircraft.

The MCU is a plug-and-play system that enables integration of modern weapons on legacy aircraft with minimal modifications to aircraft wiring and no changes to the flight and stores management software.

“Once MCU is integrated on an aircraft, aircrews can employ the Joint Standoff Weapon, Maverick missile, Paveway precision-guided munition and AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile using the aircraft’s existing weapon management system,” said Harry Schulte, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Air Warfare Systems. “Warfighters can have this capability for a fraction of what it costs to integrate one weapon by traditional means.”

Raytheon began integrating MCU on the Jaguar in the second quarter of 2009 and plans to finish the work in less than 24 months. MCU is currently integrated on the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

When Vixen 500E was first announced, Selex press releases stated that its architecture was scalable, & that radars with different size arrays (750 & 1000 elements were mentioned by Selex at the time, & called 750E & 1000E) could be offered, tailored to aircraft. This is not a new idea: Galileo Avionica (i.e. Selex) has done it for years with the Grifo radar, offering antennae tailored for a variety of aircraft. Other things are also tailored to the aircraft model, e.g. power output. Vixen is being offered to much the same market, & is similarly described as a family of radars. It’s therefore logical to expect a wide range of radar powers & array sizes in the original design brief.

The 850E was shown at LAAD, Rio de Janeiro, in April. Photographs have been posted here. I’d not heard of it before that, but I’d speculate that it’s just the right size for a particular aircrafts nose. I don’t know which one, but from the pictures, one can see that the 850E array is wider than it’s high – maybe F-16 retrofit? It must be the biggest market out there.

The swash-plate design has been public for a couple of years. It’s proposed as an option for a CAPTOR-based AESA for Typhoon. As Selex has a majority stake in CAPTOR, it’s logical to adapt it (mostly, scaling down) for Vixen. Work could have been going on since before it was announced as an option for Typhoon.

In other words, I don’t think the 1000E is a hasty lash-up: it’s been in the background all along, & the swash-plate version is an option that’s probably been worked on for two years, maybe more. I would expect SAAB to have been offered both swash-plate & fixed array versions – after all, they’re not an OTS customer: they’re providing input to the final version, from their (Ericsson) in-house radar people.

There is a new name for the Selex AESA that Saab is offering with its Gripen IN and Gripen BR..I can’t recall it, but it was mentioned in last week’s AW&ST and it wasn’t the Vixen 1000E.

I do see sense in the fact that the MCA will be tailored completely to IAF specifications and requirements, being the launch customer, and hence is of greatest relevance to the IAF..

however, to suggest that the PAK-FA will not fit into IAF operational doctrines as of now, or that India should leave the PAK-FA program is wrong. if you look at how the Su-30MKI procurement and induction into IAF service went about, you’d see that before the Su-27 was proposed to the IAF in the early 90s, there was very little to no operational doctrine that involved the use of a twin-seat, heavy fighter in the class of the Su-27. Even during its flight evaluations, the fact was that the Su-27 was considered backward in many respects, which had to be addressed before it would be considered for induction- that basically meant it did not meet IAF requirements, which led to an IAF specific Su-30MKI variant with Indian components that were being developed for the LCA. we may see the opposite on the PAK-FA and MCA where components developed for the PAK-FA will be used on the MCA.

that is what the FGFA will be for the PAK-FA. the PAK-FA will be the Su-30MK type variant- i.e. generic. the FGFA will be the IAF specific variant. now for the PAK-FA, IAF requirements mean avionics that are completely of its own choice, weapons of its own choice, all of which could be indigenous or western sourced, and a twin seater to make it possible to use the PAK-FA in multi-role operations as well as to improve the odds of survival in hostile and dense EW and SAM environments.

now, the RuAF doesn’t believe that it needs a WSO or a second pilot for its fighters, whereas the IAF holds the opposite view, especially after its experience with the Su-30MKI..exploiting that platform to its max. potential requires more than just 1 pilot, however good the MMI may be. human endurance and fatigue will be limiting factors that will curtail the best exploitation of the capabilities that the Su-30MKI or PAK-FA can offer. but since the basic design of the PAK-FA is almost over and a prototype will roll out soon, there is only so much design work that HAL can share now. so, its not the PAK-FA, but the FGFA which becomes a very India-specific fighter, and there will be ample scope for HAL and other Indian companies to get workshare on that. the details of that are currently still being worked, as is the aspect of funding. but, ALL technical details of the fighter, including source codes will be shared in this partnership, which is far from what we can say of the JSF partnerships. that alone makes it worth it for India to work on the PAK-FA and to use experience gained from that project on the MCA. and there will be cross-pollination, of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

I think the point was their treatment as tragedies. While 9/11 is constantly being mentioned as such a tragedy and monumental loss of life, the fact remains that there are tragedies of at least equal magnitude where human lives were lost that people barely noticed or are unlikely to regularly remember.

there have been great disasters that you won’t remember as well..do you even hear or know of the Latur earthquake that affected India or the Gujarat earthquake that killed more than 20,000 in India ? no- heck the guys quoting natural disasters in posts above, don’t mention it.

does that mean you don’t give a damn about those who’ve died in natural disasters or that those whose death happened in natural disasters that are fresh in your memory are somehow more tragic ? I don’t think so.

whereas, everyone will recall those 200 odd people who died tragically in the Bombay terrorist attacks, because those were precisely that- terrorist attacks, orchestrated by Islamic terrorists to spread terror. there is a BIG difference between the two, when one is something that no human can be held responsible for, whereas the other is due to the acts of a set of humans. they are morally responsible for murdering those many people, whereas in the former, whom can you hold responsible for an earthquake ?

no one is saying that one death is more tragic than the other- simply that when someone is murdered by terrorists, whose actions can be and should be prevented, as compared to dying due to a natural disaster that nobody could prevent, there is a difference.

This article mentions something that should indicate what factors are most likely to lead to any contender among the MRCA candidates being chosen..

However, while the Russian aircraft was also considered for the contract, the IAF has placed it below the Airbus in the crucial flight evaluations that decide the procurement. IAF says that the Airbus scored way above the Russian aircraft and has given it as its preference for the contract.

so while a lot of the MiG-35’s proponents keep harping on its supposed commonality with the MiG-29K and MiG-29UPG, and the benefits of using the maintenance/training and other facilities already set up for the latter two aircraft, that will only be a secondary factor, if it is a factor at all.

the Airbus A-330 MRTT is a lot more expensive than the IL-78 MKI, and yet its the one most likely to win the order for refuellers/transports. if the IAF ranks any of the MRCA contenders higher than the MiG-35 in flight evaluations, then most likely, the MiG-35 will not win simply based on its lower upfront acquisition and maintenance set up costs. through life maintenance costs on the Fulcrum are not that great. those will definitely be higher than that for fighters like the Gripen IN, F-16IN, etc.

How is the the target designated in that configuration? Was LGB designation provided by ground troups in Kashmir or were they provided by the Mirage 2000 on the wing pylon on the other side?

I’ve read only 2 seaters were used with LGB and single seaters were used with dumb bombs?

Nic

they used the ATLIS LDP..the two seater that carried the LGBs most likely carried the ATLIS pod as well. you can see that this shot

I thought it was the MI 28.

it is the Mi-28N Night Hunter. thats another piece of bad reporting.