Nick_76ATFS crash, you seem to be confused between detect/ lock on/ track- dont worry, you arent the only one. Without going into details, some of the figures in this thread actually refer to the other and so on and so forth.
Such is life, with all the alphabet soup out there.
Second- the Russian habit of referring to “fighter size” targets is not at all unscientific, they do clarify what size their fighter sized target is. For this you need the aircraft manual, which martinez and aerospacetech gave examples from.
Next, “Perhaps you don’t remember India and other countries being disgruntled with the export version because it didn’t have Zaslon-M, so they were stuck with a fighter with less radar range than the F-14 with AWG-9.”
India never purchased the MiG-31, though I wish they had. Some three squadrons of MKI’zed MiG-31s able to go supersonic for substantial ranges and time…by george, the BVR game would be Indias in entirety. Though it would have added to the menagerie the IAF flies. 😀
Next-er, err…number crunching..right, okay..
The track range for a 16-sq m target is 120km, the track range for a 19-sq m target is 180km. You seem to be confusing the two. The range a target can be tracked is determined by the size so a larger target you can track farther away.
(3/16)^0.25*120 = track range for 3 square meters
(19/16)^0.25*120 = track range for 19 square meters, it should be 180 km per your example..it aint, its 125…so see there is discrepancy (substantial between the two sets of numbers)
They in all entirety are referring to different radar sets.
Next-est (gee I am reinventing English 😀 ), coming to comparing dissimilar ranges, well you really might…because it all depends on which missile you are carrying and which mode you engage in. For instance, an ARH equipped missile a/c can fire off its missiles in TWS, whereas a SARH equipped one, will have to lock on, paint its target in high energy ..radar range for similar fighters being same, (assumed), the latter is at a range disadvantage..not to mention being stuck to a SARH missile.
Cheers..
Nick_76Zare, nice post.
BTW if your figures are correct and the MiG-31 E has the SBI-16 then, your figures are for the SBI-16A or M, not SBI-16.
Because this is what Russian export brochures claim about the MiG-31 E, and this data is from last year.
The MiG-31E weapons control system is built around a phased array radar. It can simultaneously track up to 10 air targets and attack up to four. The surveillance, tracking and attack envelope is limited by ± 70 deg in
azimuth and +70…-60 deg in elevation. The radar can detect a target with a 19 sq.m radar cross section at 200 km.
The basic MiG-31E weapons mix includes four R-33E long-range missiles carried on a semi-recessed pylon under the fuselage, and R-
40TD-1 and R-60MK missiles under the wing. The aircraft also has one GSh-6-23M six-barrel gun with the 260-round ammunition allowance.
Nick_76Coming to “generations”- an additional caveat, all this indicates is that EADS is reaching their third stage in their own DRFM, not necessarily that its necessarily far superior to what Russia has or is working towards. While funding would indicate that this is reasonable, I’d still counsel caution. For instance, the US is in its 4th or 5th generation of fighter radar Tx/Rx modules, but the Europeans are in their 2nd or third, and I wouldnt say that the gap is massive. Leapfrogging is all too common. If a country like India, with penny pinching R&D programs can use COTS and own microelectronics to build DRFM based jammers which it is reasonably sure can jam most radars in its inventory (including modern ones), then Russia with its immense experience in radars, electromagnetics and EW, can surely do so as well. The systems will be perhaps heavier and bulkier than western ones- 50 kg as you said, but if the airframe can take it, whats the biggie.
Of course, when it comes to finicky techno obsessed customers like the IAF, the russians may be forced to integrate third party equipment..but surely for their own needs, their AF may well support local efforts which may not lag in performance, even if it lags in weight or volume.
Nick_76old ECM systems used the FML or frequency memory loop for deception jamming. Paul has it right, deception jamming is not equal to DRFM, but DRFM is the modern day concept replacing FML to produce all kinds of jamming in one unit. With them you also of a different kind of jamming Smart Noise Jamming or basically Coherent Noise Jamming. Both Coherent, non coherent & deception, noise jamming all can be done by DRFM alone. That is why you see modern day pods/systems are compact. Earlier noise jammers and deception jammers used to be two different piece of equipment.
For FML, jamming coherent radars was not possible. Thats why invention of DRFM is hailed as revolution in ECM history. Now you can almost instantenously store the enemy signal and play it back as it is or by modulating using all the possible DSP techniques. Software based ECM has come of age.
Nick jammers w/o DRFM, digital recievers, phased array transmitter antenna won’t be as effective the ones with them. As i said earlier radars that apply coherent signal processing require DRFM to generate appropriate jamming programs.
Back in the day of MKI equipment selection russia didn’t have a modern state of the art ECM pod.
TsNIRTI’s MSP-418K jamming pod which has a techniques generator built around DRFM is first DRFM based ECM system from Russia and together with a RWR and MAWS forms all digital “Kedr” integrated EW suite. It was first displayed in MAKs 2003.
MSP-418K where K stands for export version was purchased by Yemen for their Mig-29SMT. Let see if IAF chooses Kedr suite or MSP-418K for our Mig-29 upgrade. For Mig-29K programme instead of MSP-418K either some indian ECM system or Elta’s 8222 pod will be used.
MSP-418K Pod’s weight is 150kg and its dimensions are 230 x 225 x 3,800mm.
Elta’s EL/M 8222 Pod’s weight is 100 kg and its dimensions: low drag (19 cm. X 24 cm.) and (length: 2.40 meter).
TsNIRTI calls 418K lightweight while Elta calls 8222 lightweight and the difference is 50 kgs. No wonder why india went ahead with EL/M 8222.
Another sad thing about Russian ECM industry compared to the west: In MAKs-2003 when MSP-418K was revealed, same year in June EADS was ready with **3rd generation** DRFM. And AFAIK MSP-418K is the first pod using DRFM technology in Russia. West & Israel is far ahead in ECM technology compared to russia.
Succintly stated. And what I was trying to get at..
One caveat though:
With COTS items widely available, I think Russia can play catch up in EW- but at the cost of weight, which really doesnt matter too much to a Flanker class platform.
Also remember, that Russia has always been top notch in electromagnetics and systems development, its just that their microelectronics industry didnt keep pace with the west. Now, they can couple that to commercially available items and still make highly capable kit.
Eg, the Bars is much heavier than comparable slotted array radars from the west, but outperforms most in several respects. This is something which the IAF has consistently observed when it comes to Russian kit, that it may not be the most “fancy”, but it works and works well.
Nick_76Well, thats what you said before, and its clearly factually challenged.
I think you are being pedantic here…I am more concerned with whether Russia was able to build compact deception jammers able to handle multiple targets, be as it may- I should have been clearer but wasnt. In fact as you stated, anything apart from noise jamming is deception jamming ..
Any information with you on russian jammers would be great as well..
The context is whether Russia had equivalent items in any shape or form, to those which India procured from abroad- all the information I have at this stage indicates that they didnt. Even today, third party INS, HMD etc is being included in programs such as the 29K, and when it comes to the MiG-35, its EW is Italian..any customer wants single sourcing as much as possible, to avoid negotiations and pricing challenges..but I find it somewhat disturbing as a russo-phile that customers who can afford the pricey stuff keep getting offered third party items..
ANY form of jamming other than purely noise based jamming is deception jamming. For example, range and velocity gate pull-off techniques that have been around for many decades.
Yes, but the question is w/o DRFM / IFM how many targets can be handled and tracked in real time? Can a system without DRFM/IFM simultaneously detect, monitor and jam multiple diverse frequency threats , with sufficient accuracy and without having these particular frequencies preloaded?
Was India able to procure something as good as Elta 8222 from the Russians in the late 90s? Probably not. The small matter of the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc etc.
Probably not? In that case, where are the equivalent systems at the time- of course the SU collapse mattered, but there does appear to be a lag in terms of airborne EW.:confused:
More to the point, why is the MiG-35 being advertised with an Italian EW suite? If UAC was so confident of what KNIIRTI has, they wouldnt bother approaching Elettronica. If theres one thing about Russia, its that they want to keep it all inhouse as much as possible, and why wouldnt they..
Can you build a deception jammer without DRFM? Of course you can! What do you think all those 1970s ECM systems did – noise jamming alone?
I am aware you can build jammers w/ out digital memory – but again, how good are they and how many modes do they have, how effective is the techniques generator? With DRFM, the techniques generator can cycle through several permutations combinations, check, and then recycle. This in real time without having to first mount an ELINT mission, preprogram the ECM pod to be effective against predetermined frequencies, pulse widths and so on and so forth! In fact, almost every upgrade of any legacy jamming pod appears to include DRFM, a new techniques generator to exploit it..
Nick_76Nick 76, I’m not sure where you get your info from but Russia has had deception jammers for ever. I think you are confused about terminology here. DRFM does not equal deception jamming.
My question is simple- did Russia have deception jammers in the class of the Elta 8222 when the MKI was launched? I think not. And I have heard from the horses mouth that Elta 8222 class “compact deception jammers” were not available from Russia. Incidentally there are public reports stating how the Su-30 Ks EW system was not upto scratch, and when the MKI was launched, Russia was unable to come up with a suitable product, and hence the EW was thrown open for bidding.
DRFM does not “equal” deception jamming- but it is critical to lightweight compact deception jammers, and the most modern ones include wideband digital receivers, as well as IFM chipsets. One can make jammers without these items and achieve the same effect, but with a performance and weight penalty. It is the sum total of these advances in hardware that allow more compact pods to be realised with a range of capabilities.
Now, I dont doubt that the Russians figured out some way to record and even conduct deception jamming- heck, given their skills and persistence, I am pretty sure they could pull it off even with base level 80’s Russian tech.
After all, what is DRFM but memory. But the question is whether such jammers were as good as what was available on the worldwide market as of circa 96-2001, when many of the critical items on the MKI got decided.
Nick_76From…
DRDO Newsletter, May 2007
Defence Materials and Stores Research & Development Establishment (DMSRDE) Kanpur, has designed and
developed Lightweight Ceramic Faced Composite Armour Panels for Advanced Light Helicopter
(ALH) based on the requirement of RWR&DC Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (Helicopter
Division), Bangalore This provides protection to aircrews and critical parts of
helicopter against hits of bullets of 12.7mmAPI .
Composite laminates were made using kevlar fabric as reinforcement
and modified epoxy resin for matrix. Kevlar-epoxy composite
laminates of different thicknesses were prepared by
compression moulding process. Optimum fiber-to-resin
ratio was maintained at 75:25 by Wt per cent. Physicomechanical
properties of composite laminates were determined.
Kevlar-epoxy composite laminates were bonded with alumina ceramic
cylindrical pellets with the help of epoxy structural adhesive. Gaps between the
ceramic pellets were filled with modified epoxy resin. Armour panels were allowed to cure at room temperature for 48 h. Spall cover (i.e. kevlar fabric) was fixed over ceramic pellets. Armour test panels were
subjected to firing trials against 12.7 mm ammunition at Ordnance Factory, Varangaon, and found successful to provide
ballistic protection. The optimum aerial density and thickness of armour panels is 50 kg/m and 22.5 mm, respectively.
Prototype armour panels have been manufactured in association with M/s Taneja Aerospace andAviation Ltd, Bangalore.
The armour panels installation on theArmy versionALH has been completed with the approval ofArmy ProjectTeam (APT)
and RCMA (H), Bangalore. Carriage and flight trials were also conducted and found satisfactory. Flight test results and
armour panels are acceptable to the Army; and RCMA (H), Bangalore, has issued provisional clearance for composite
armour panels forALH..
Nick_76A shame, really! Were the airframes all banged up?
In related news, one IN SHar has been equipped with a Elta radar, Derby and datalink (A2A, A2G), all 14 will be upgraded by end of next year.
Nick_76Swerve,
Yes, please – we can discuss that on that in the IAF thread.
I beg to differ, senior IAF officials have spoken candidly of the status of a Russian 5th Gen i.e “on the drawing board” (which can only mean MiG), and the unsuitability of Sukhoi’s design (i.e. heavyweight F-22 class) for the IAF.
About a year ago, I read an article where the Indians were asking Sukhoi to scrap their design and start from scratch with the Indians and their requirements addressed, to which Sukhoi (rightly) gave the two finger salute.
As far as Sukhoi is concerned, the Indians need them more than they need the Indians.The revival of MiG’s 5th Gen. benefits both sides. The Russians get co-funding/co-development for a light-fighter replacement for the ’29 & complement to it’s heavier stablemate, not to mention excellent export potential. The Indians are involved from inception & will develop the advanced manufacturing & support structure associated with such a project (along with lucrative contracts for future customers)- it’s a no brainer.
As for the reporting of Indian committee’s minutes and ‘decisions’, if the MMRCA tender is anything to go by, it’s all hot air.
Otaku, you are being silly here. The IAF has given a categorical assurance that it is choosing the FGA, and yet you are stuck on believing what you choose to believe that it has chosen the MiG LFS and that “India needs Sukhoi more” or whatever..as if..the EF consortium also included a 5G JV offer to India. Without Indian money, the Sukhoi FGA will also not take off- if Su had the wherewithal, it would go it alone. Both sides need the other and will play nice. FYI, in the last presentation, as is evident, the Su side came up with a revised list of increased industrial participation from India, to meet the earlier criticism of it not being enough. If Su kept being parsimonious, India would have then walked out and chosen MiG. But Sukhoi are not fools either and know the advantages of the JV route.
The facts in the committees minutes and decisions – when it comes to depositions by R&D, and service personnel are absolutely accurate. By law, both have to state the absolute truth in response to any of the committees questions. The committee’s own decisions can be quixotic, they are generalists, politicians after all, but the people they call into give evidence are domain experts.
Nick_76They will certainly want to export such a thing… the question is will the Russian government give them permission to sell them? Various items have various limits on exportability. Otherwise I’d be calling up RUSARMS to get a Percheneg LMG and a VSS silenced sniper rifle and a few other bits and pieces. Some are restricted because of international arms agreements. Things like ATGMs and MANPADS sales are carefully monitored and controlled. Other things are not exported because it is not in Russias’ interests for others to have such weapons.
No doubt- the denial of MKI level tech to the PRC is a clear example. Whether Su-35 level tech will be allowed to go through by the Russian Govt will tell us..
So the Russians don’t have HUDs or MFDs… I would say it clearly has got those things. The partners that Sukhoi works with may not have such things ready to go to a level the indians want them but does that mean no Russian company at all has MFDs? That is interesting because I have seen MFDs in the SMT upgrades that are Russian (Russian avionica or something that works with MIG).
Garry, there were no MFD-55 level MFDs or HUDs or any of those items in Russia at the time when the MKI was developed. The MFDs you refer to had poorer resolution and lesser features, and they were productionized later (with commercially available Japanese LCDs).
Didn’t have one, or didn’t have one cleared for export?
Didnt have one. Period. The GOI asked the Russians if they had jamming eqpt of the level required- they looked around, and said no. Then India went shopping and had a competition between the 8222 and another jammer (probably French), choosing the former and standardizing on it for its AF.
Deception jamming requires DRFM, IFM- none of these subcomponents was available in Russia. Even today, customers prefer third party RWRs to what Russia seems to have developed- check the MiG-35’s SPJ for instance, or the MKMs- RWR. Theres a lag in Russia in this equipment. The same held true for all other items in the MKI that are non Russian. The local RWR was better than what the Russians had, the MC outperformed theirs, ditto for radar computers and display processors, there was no deception jammer, no display map generator, no video recording system for post flight debriefs, no health monitoring system….you know the list.
Wonder why they seem to think the Su-34 is so good without a modern deception jammer… or HUD or MFD, or even targetting pod.
Because they dont have an option! They’ll use other jamming methods and techniques to get around it, and they are skilled in high power jamming, including phased array jammers- but deception jamming is another thing entirely since it requires modern microelectronics which the Russians had to scratch develop and didnt have at the time India wanted the MKI. Incidentally, the previous MAKS showed a new lightweight pod- with DRFM, that should be capable of deception jamming. And the Su-34 has a HUD, MFD and SAPSAN capability. Its another thing entirely whether that HUD is equal to the best holographic displays, whether those MFDs are smart MFDs with PIP, resolution and other features, whether the SAPSAN is equal to the Litening Mk3 or Sniper XR..a vertically integrated industry which has seen substantial upheaval and financial problems will have issues vs competitive units..
Thats the point, finicky customers who want the best can often choose to bypass Russian systems that arent upto the mark and get best of class systems from western/other manufacturers. Even the MKM has a MSWS from SAAB not Russia.
I hate to say it but adding the Indians into PAK-FA now will probably just delay its service entry for half a decade. Unless the Indians want to fight the US then a large 5th gen fighter will be like gold plated dental floss.
Of course even if the US considers the PAK-FA to be a 5 minus gen plane rather than a full 5th gen plane the USN will be looking for something to replace the Sewer Whorenets as the primary navy fighter pretty quick… :diablo:
India needs the 5G fighter to offset the larger number of fighters a combined PLAAF and PAF can throw into the mix.
It also has huge numbers of legacy fighters which will need replacement in a decade and a halfs time- MiG-29’s, Jaguars, MiG-27s..the existing shortfalls alone can be met by the LCA, MKI, MRCA programs, but the future requires a 5G program..
Nick_76Garry wrote:The Su-30MKI had foreign parts because the parts offered… ie cleared for export by the Russians did not meet the needs of the Indians.
This is wrong! The fact is that Russia simply didnt have comparable items at the time, either internally or for export, both.
It has just developed a RLG INS that too with French help. At the time of the MKI, it didnt have a proper LDP cum CCD/FLIR as the Litening, or integrated processors of the ability to crunch sufficient numbers for the Bars, or other items such as display map generators, advanced modular RHAWS built with 1553B interface or MFDs and even HUDs. The Russians didnt have a modern deception jammer either, they just displayed one relatively recently. There are many other items in the MKI which were sourced from third countries because Russia itself didnt have these items.
Russia has but recently developed a Su967 comparable HUD which is being used for the MiG-29 K program, but it bears remarking that the INS is still French, the HMD is French, and the RWR/ Offensive jammer are Indian. Even the Mission computer used on the MiG-29 K is a generation behind those developed by India for its follow on aircraft projects.
In fact India would have preferred to source these items from russia itself, third party sourcing increases complexity, timelines and cost. But the russians didnt have comparable items.
Nick_76Ah, thanks, phew. I also think someone owes an apology to star49 for calling him a retard, but that’s just me. 🙂 If we can’t discuss things without getting down to insults we might as well all go back and live in the dark ages.
Actually he owes an apology to this entire forum for his execrable behaviour, first as h177 and now this latest moniker.
And you owe an apology for your hypocrisy- first for your own attacks and snide jabs against star/h177 which you so blithely ignore, and secondly for your dishonesty in conversation- pretending to be Bangla even.
Nick_76The LCA will not use SARH missiles. I believe the dual target track requirement dates from the time of the SARH Super 530D being contemplated. Modern ARH AAMs can be launched in TWS mode. The dual target track feature is however useful for focusing on two “high priority targets”, for which the radar will get frequent updates with the scanner positioned optimally for the same.
The MKI can engage two separate targets with a R-27, each.
It can engage 4 targets with R-77s.
Nick_76This acc. to Rakall & Harry.
120 km range against a small sized fighter target (design aim)
10 Target TWS, 2 target attack with ARH missiles
Currently to be fitted to LSP-3
Look down/ Look up TWS- A2A modes tested and verified
Currently testing STT
To be followed by DSTT (two target STT)
Hardware is fully ready.
A2G modes s/w being tested and need to be ported onto MMR- Eltas help will be taken for this
Nick_76Lol the motivation behind the J-11B and the MKI is so different.
In your eyes perhaps..
The MKI is a true partnership, a definite sharing of ideas between two countries. The J-11B on the other hand, is a cynical attempt to completely engineer the Russians out of the aircraft, so China could completely build the J-11B even if a new Sino-Russo split will occur. The MKI is done with Sukhoi’s blesssing and cooperation. The J-11B is not. Sukhoi offered the Su-27SM to China. China did not accept. The J-11B has no connection to any of Sukhoi’s templates for its future vision of the Flanker. It represents a true split in direction.
The MKI as it is in India, is not going to have significant commonality with other Su-30 derivatives beyond a point either. And as regards the J-11B, ask a Sukhoi official and you’ll realise…they know about it, they dont like it (they dont like India messing around & indigenizing the MKI either), but they’ll live with it…key customers after all.
The J-11B is born from the 1960s experience of the J-7, when the Soviet Union and China split, cutting the technology umbelical cord, forcing the Chinese to realize the need for self sufficiency in technology. Just about every major component in the J-11B is either Chinese designed, or coped from the Russian design so it can be manufactured indigenously. The J-11B is filed with technologies previously developed for the J-10, including radar, engine, FBW system, avionics, and airframe construction.
I dont think there is enought information on the J-11 to make the conclusions of the kind you are drawing.
The MKI, bar the engine and radar, is well on its way to becoming iteratively local as well.
I am aware of the J11’s local – HUD, MFDs, radar and engines. That doesnt translate into all the other critical hardware that goes into the aircraft- its entire hydraulics, actuators, basic design (bar some reduced RCS band aids) etc. All these are things that the PRC sensibly picked up from the Su-27SK license manufacture. The avionics are but a small part of the overall aircraft, even as they are essential to its warfighting capability.
If we see the MKI- pretty much the same, local kit being included- displays, avionics etc.
And if the Russians had been as open with a good radar (read Pits comments on N001V mode denial to the PRC) – say a Phased array, and engine technology, I doubt that the PRC would have reinvented the wheel there either. They too might have preferred a JV approach for these items.
I have a detailed list on the MKI including each & every component and subsystem, and what is going to be license manufactured, and what has local programs directed towards replacement- its not that hard to make out, given the amount of public GOI information that exists on the matter. Theres a pretty striking parallel with the PRCs J-11 in terms of overall intent over time.
The one difference is that – as you pointed out, the J-11 is going to be more “all Chinese” whereas the MKI will continue to have a strong JV element, in particular with its radar and engines. There is no engine program currently in the works to replace the AL-31FP, and the IAF would be more comfortable with an iterative improvement to the earlier radar, or a new JV to replace it with an AESA system.
Sign In
