see article :
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1732050&C=europe

(But there is only one true IAF and it’s israeli :rolleyes: )

The Israeli AF is the IDF AF or the Heyl Ha Avir not the IAF. :rolleyes:

:p 😉

Now how does one deal with the Italians!

Ah understatement, with due apologies to BIO..

King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
The Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.
King Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm’s off.
The Black Knight: No it isn’t.
King Arthur: Then what’s that then.
The Black Knight: I’ve had worse

:D:D:D

AESA is something that has to find its way as it does offer distinctive advantages , look at the F-16 and F-18 fighters they have benefited greatly from this . AESA atleast if US modules and industry is used is not all that expensive to procure , a 1300-1400 module -79 costs about 2 million a pop with all the electronics and sub systems included and that is before the hundereds and thousands of Twin packs are on order for the -81 (something like 2000-3000 radar sets will be produced on order) . A-50 costs around 25 million now , with time if they can get costs down and bring up the no.s you could well pick up the F/A-50 for 25 million or so with the AESA and a Link-16 or IFDL etc .

AESA could be good for an export push, but to SLAMMER NoKos they dont need AESA, the APG-67 was enough.

Who knows, check that the real “gem” of the v9 is the pretty advanced HRSAR and the “in-situ” IMU unit in the radar set…that’s the kind of technology that allows pretty high resolutions (1 feet or better)…

Russkies are in the verge of improving SAR resolution of Zhuk till 1 meter, and this have been anounced several times…it’s not known if such “advances” are now flying (there are MiG-29SMT prototypes generally flying at Akhtubinsk + MiG-29M2 prototype), but I doubt that it entails a proper IMU (Inercial Measuring Unit) in the radar as 68(v)9.

BTW that old discussion, I have to correct Aurcov in one thing. NIIP’s published figures for N-011M are for LOCK-ON RANGE (ZAJVAT = SEIZURE, russian term for Single Target Tracking), scan/TWS range is higher, so usable range for R-77 too (R-77 don’t needs to be in Zakhvat mode, isn’t a SARH gomer).

NIIP is claiming to target “sub-metric” resolution for Irbis radar, using adaptive focused SAR technology…

Hmmm…you are correct of course, but in the “glamour role” of A2A, the Zhuk-M doesnt seem too bad at all, that coupled with the low RCS treatment on its airframe in which it is lugged around could give its aircraft a substantial advantage in situational awareness..th’ one may argue that with AEW etc all such things are moot (say Indo-Pak faceoff), but on an aircraft to aircraft level, this could be a plus for a MiG which the Russians provide with such goodies vs export controlled F-16s..
Of course we all know the flip side, many tons of PGMs, better spares support (but sanctions!) etc, this, that..

There was an article in an Indian newspaper about how the RSAF birds came in without any of the fancy RCS reductions of the USAF F-16s , thats only to be expected, I guess)..

SAR is of course an excellent thing to have, but I’ll bet me eyepatch that the high end resolution is also export controlled by the US, and bar NATO and Japan/ Korea/Israel rest will get somewhat downgraded features…not taking names, because it will get me flamed at the mere mention of such a possibility.

EW is another grey area- but given constant investments in this by the US, those who get the standard US full up gear have a good deal, but no source code. I wonder why the Israelis stuff their Sufas with their stuff- is it really better or just support for local industry, or more flexible?

Another nice thingie on 68(v)9 is that uses a combined (single LRU) data/signal processor using COTS technology, while most Russian sets are still running in federal arquitecture (separated RDP and DSP)…this will change with the “EKSV” (hope I’m naming it right) computer system for Irbis that entails two Solo-35 processor units (DSP and RDP, Solo-35.01 and Solo-35.02)…

Hmm…..sorry to get pedantic, but while the unified approach saves space & LRU volume, I still see advantages to the federated architecture..which can be pretty powerful if you work it out properly. In the other thread, I posted stats about an Indian MC cum Display processor running on several RISC chips each tasked with a different function as it were (and it can be seen that the tasks allocated to each Chip would not task it to its full capability by far), and by choosing a common architecture with growth potential, one can replace processors based on how much power is needed (computing power). They used a similar approach for the Bars RDP, with a couple of boards left spare..
Those are perfect examples of a well implemented federated architecture….so, by using perfectly capable RISC processors (or of course DSP ones depending on your function) & divvying up the functions, and coming up with optimized code, you can achieve excellent results. In aircraft like the Su-30 where space is not a constraint, I’d still go for federated architecture, I see no particular need why it is in anyway worse off than the combined DSP/RDP approach (bar space). If we look back, some of the key issues with the F-22 for instance were with its highly unified CIP and running different functions off a common whole, despite software division/ function splitting among banks of processors. In my view- if it aint broke, dont fix it! Connect these federated processors with proper databuses optimized for the data transfer like the Indians did and you have a good working system on your hands, rather than something that looks fancy in specs, uses the latest COTS stuff because you need to squeeze all the functions out of one unit, but you end up spending more and more time debugging it or having maint monkeys haul the radar off coz its modes crashed when they oughtnt have! Now for compact fighters, weight counts, space counts -far more so you go the extra mile for the advantages…I believe Harry posted about how the LCA MMR is getting a combined LRU(DSP/RDP) and I’d bet this played a role in their calculations. For a radar in a Sea Harrier, heck yeah, go for a unified processing unit…!!Space is paramount, and so is cooling..

iI’d say its overkill & only exists to prop up local industry. The present ROKAF can take the NoKo AF apart as if it didnt even exist. A slight touch of overclaim (the NoKos will try to avoid A2A and fly low for ground pounding) but not far off the mark at all IMO.
The biggest threat to SoKo is the # of artillery tubes directed at Seoul and of course, the 1-3 Nukes the NoKos claim to have.

Thats the selex vixen AESA.

So V9 is 30% more than V5, which puts it at 96 KM for 5 Sq Mtr

(from
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/apg68-v-9.htm)

The Defensa article is also in the ballpark then!

The Zhuk M indeed appears to be more powerful (tho’ with usual disclaimers about test conditions etc )!

Like I had said earlier, MiG29Ks with RCS reduction (~~1 Mtr class, 1.5 with weapons) and a more powerful radar (120-130 vs 5 Sq Mtr) + new IRST, with State of the art ECM will have a definite advantage, vs non RCS reduced F-16s (5 Sq Mtr class) with an APG-68 series (100-110 km ranged radar for a 5 Sq Mtr target) and downgraded ECM.

The IAF MiG-29s might be slated for the same upgrade (for avionics), presently being decided.

Hmmm…wonder which segment these Bells come into..

The 60 ton chopper could be a typo acc. to previous discussions, but the rest is spot on.

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=c8346908-dba2-4220-8c65-444096face08

Boom Time for HAL; Indian Prime Rides Multiple Rotary and UAV Programmes

Farnborough, UK: “The boom in India has meant the last two years have been very good for business,” says Ashok Baweja, chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). He’s not joking either. In March 2005 HAL had $4.5 billion worth of orders and was making 10 types of aircraft. It is developing multiple new projects in the rotary and UAV sectors including:

– a new Light Combat Helicopter (LCH)
– a 60 tonne multi-role helicopter
– a 10 tonne multi-role helicopter
– the ongoing development of the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH)
– naval, tactical and new concept unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The LCH was initiated around 10 months ago and will be an home-developed 6 ton, tandem seat, narrow fuselage, fixed undercarriage aircraft. The Indian Army has a stated requirement for 65 such aircraft. Baweja said there will be no link at all with South Africa’s Denel organisation, manufacturer of the Rooivalk.

Discussions with Russian companies over the development of a 60 ton helicopter, capable of lifting 20 tons, have been ongoing over the past three years. India has a requirement for 45 aircraft of this type, with the Russians needing a further 100. Baweja said that by basing the project within India, the usual difficulties associated with Russian partnerships could probably be circumnavigated.

As for the multi-role 10 ton helicopter, potential partners include Eurocopter, Sikorsky, AgustaWestland, Mil and Kazan. A decision on this partnership was expected in the next few months.

HAL has delivered 72 Dhruv helicopters to Indian forces with another 50 to be delivered by the end of this year and a further 40 next. Baweja says that the weaponisation programme is now under way and will include a 20 mm gun from French company GIAT, rockets from MBDA and a defensive aid suite from South Africa. Once the weaponisation of the Dhruv is established the technology will be transferred over to the new LCH.

Baweja describes HAL’s business relationship with Israeli companies Elbit and IAI is strong and growing for equipment including targeting systems, avionics and helmets. Elbit recently won trials to supply electro optical pods and a target seeker. These companies are also involved in HAL’s burgeoning push into UAV development. “We are doing very well with our Israeli partners,” he says. The tactical UAV will be developed primarily for the export market first, said Baweja.
– Andrew Drwiega