why would you put the Captor E before the RBE-2 AESA ?

Larger aperture size of the Typhoon translating to some 1400 TRMs iirc.

ok…

Can I put some more elements here ? Indeed, I thought that one of the main effort in e radars, where put in the software. The hardware is crazily flexible, but one has to use its potential… That’s the reason why I would favor more e radar whose makers have a long experience with this technology.
=> in the end, that part of the reasons which lead the french air force to have the PESA RBE2 in the first place, to develop and use the software needed for such a radar and then to just have to switch to AESA for better range, knowing all the software would be already in place and ready to use. => this matters as well in terms of operational/effectiveness use of such an array BTW

Agreed, its just that I think as far as capabilities go, in airborne systems both Selex and Thales are equivalent having done a lot of research into AESAs.

Loke good stuff – we seem to have a good MMRCA discussion going on in this thread!

What I recall from the Norway article is more or less what you said, the only nuance which may have been different was the article stated that SAABs claims for the AESA performance needed to be tempered versus the risk involved for a new developer..but lets not argue on this, each to his own.

That apart, I too am a bit curious about radar range. The IAF is unlikely to touch these aircraft till another decade & being western retrofit/mods may be a bit more expensive.

This is actually the reason why I was also saying we need a medium which acts the “heavy” for the MMRCA.

My take, based on what I have read so far is that the lead radar in the competition is probably the APG-79 (in terms of range, ausairpower estimates seem reasonable and place it as fairly capable), followed by the RBE-2 AESA & Captor M (if Captor E is developed it would move to the front w/ APG-79) and then the ES Raven, followed by the APG-80 and then the Zhuk AE. The Zhuk AE “claims” actually outrange the APG-80 statements (APG-80:100-120 km for 1 Sq Mtr) but lets see Phaza develop it first.

I put the Raven ahead of the APG-80 and others because its newer tech, giving it a lead (I presume) versus the APG-80 & Selex has better technology development in airborne AESA than Phaza. RBE-2 is ahead of both, because despite released images, I recall reading articles that said it is >1000 TRM, whereas Raven is 1000 TRM.

Of course, all this is based on best case estimates furnished by manufacturers and some extrapolations from whats appeared in the press so far, please correct anything you feel needs to be done.

Note – I am purely talking about range straight ahead, ignoring the advantages of the swashplate design (for simplicitys sake) and which design is more mature, fitted, ready etc.

I rather like the NSM – the reason why is because I think in any future conflict, the IAF’s greatest threat in doing counter air will be China’s ring of S-300 PMU-2/1’s backed by Flankers. A stealthy long range missile which can be carried by the six MMRCA squadrons will do wonders in that respect. Hopefully it isnt so expensive that I pay more taxes. 🙂

At the end of the day the discussion is academic, since the IAF will fight with whatever it gets, but its really interesting to dig into the details.

One thing I do think is that despite all the claims of advanced features in US AESAs- my question is how many of these will get released to India to begin with? Its all very well to have EW attack capability etc – but will it even come across..

That’s based on a reduction in numbers increasing unit cost, which will be because the development cost is spread across fewer units. It doesn’t mean the production cost or export unit price will go up. Consider the F-22 – unit cost is much higher than expected because of a reduction in numbers, mostly because design & development cost is spread across fewer units. The production cost is not greatly affected.

Hmmm..fair point, but even assuming that export unit cost is around 500K pounds lower, it still looks pricey.

What I am worried about is if the original nations which were to acquire this (EF partners, France, Sweden) slash their requirements or funding, then this could a) be very pricey as the manufacturers may not have a large production run b) capability delayed.

On the plus side, this is undoubtedly a game changer as far as capabilities go. The Swedish AF chief recently remarked that it was akin to a “laser beam” and quite frightful in the impact it would have on the battlefield.

At any rate, given ballooning costs of such systems worldwide, and even basic MRAAMs, I think India’s homegrown Astra program makes more and more sense, keep it viable and tack on capabilities even with boosters perhaps, like the R-172. May be a cheaper alternative to ramjet propulsion, even if not as flexible in terms of minimum both.

[B]Transfer of Technology (TOT)
Saab is willing and able to provide ToT, that exceeds the requirements, to the Indian Government
The level of ToT will enable India to manage all aspects of the life cycle including design
Access to all levels of technology
Saab is willing to enter a joint venture with Indian Aerospace Industry
with the aim to develop the next generation of fighters (MCA)

http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/the_future_is_gripen_ng/Gripen_NG_for_India.htm

Good- this is exactly what I was looking for. But SAAB has missed one key program here, the LCA MK2. If they actually went on record and stated they’d support that as well then that’d remove a key issue against the Gripen.

The Su 30s are going to be equipped with the Brahmos. The EU’s stand off weapons will have to be range reduced before being sold to India. There are comparable weapons in the American stable as well.

Only around a squadrons worth of airframes to be structurally modified to carry the Brahmos, I am afraid. A couple of these aircraft may be distributed per each squadron – there are going to be 11 MKI squadrons by 2015, so this approach would give more than 80% of the squadrons a couple of Brahmos shooters, if thats what they go after, or they could be pooled assets located in one central AFB, like Bareilly etc.

The above is inaccurate. Marut was an exception only, but throughout from the Gnats, to cold-war MiGs, to Su-30 MKI and PAK-FA now, HAL’s product portfolio has been one of licence-products only.

You merely demonstrate your awe inspiring grasp of the topic here, but never mind, its something we have well been used to so far..

It is inaccurate that a 70 year old public sector company with $2 billion (and rapidly growing) revenues does not have any descretion over it’s funds and decision making. It always has had. The defence ministry only decides which imported jet or helicopter or engine to licence produce. It only has to give approval for indigenous projects, which it did for the successful Dhruv and IJT.

Your lack of any real world knowledge bar the internet shows up strongly here. First, kindly educate yourself about how real companies work in the real world in the country that you live in, and are presumably a citizen of.

HAL belongs to the Ministry of Defence. That so called $ 2 Billion revenue that you are touting actually belongs to the MOD & associated stakeholders.
Most of it is accounting legerdemain as the amounts are just allocated from one line item in the GOI budget to another. Since, you see – even the IAF, IA, IN belong to the GOI. HALs actual spending is again determined by the GOI.

Second, HAL got basic freedom to pursue its own projects 1997 onwards. Thats right, in 1997, they got a certain level of autonomous capability to actually ask for & receive funds to set up a dedicated R&D capability…but I doubt you even knew that. Second, HAL asked for approval for a variety of projects in the 1980’s and 1970’s – all of which were shot down.

Let me show a torch on your claims – so that the forum knows what your statements are worth:

Future of Aviation Technology and Business in India
CGK Nair, February 2009
Former Chairman, HAL
Presently President, Society of Indian Aerospace Technologies, Bangalore -560075

“HAL did not succeed in getting approvals for its proposals for new R&D projects for advanced fighters, trainers and transport aircraft. There was no follow on after the first effort in supersonic attack aircraft, the HF-24 although HAL proposed a HF-25. An AJT could have been successfully developed by HAL after the Kiran MK2, but it was denied to HAL. Vested interests and the lack of long term planning made it sure that the requirements were met by imports at best, and by licensed production of aircraft. A long period followed where HAL expanded its production facilities for licensed manufacture of foreign military aircraft. While this gave some inputs in manufacturing technology, the design and development suffered and the skills eroded steadily”.

…I actually typed that out. Because, unlike you I have access to real sources.

Its clearly something which you will not even attempt to emulate. A shame, really.

HAL R&D put up a number of proposals from time to time to develop Light transport aircraft and 50-60 seater passenger aircraft in early 70’s but were firmly turned down by the GOI, as HAL was under the Ministry of Defence and HALs mandate did not include the design and development of civil transport aircraft

…

theres lots more…but why should I or anyone else keep spoon feeding you? Isnt it your responsibility to do some research? What a shocking thought.

It’s recent Ashoks, Mr. Baweja and Mr. Nayak have publicly espoused a policy of only entering JV’s to manufacture aircraft with foreign firms. Note that Baweja has never said that the FGFA will be designed in India; he only said that the workshare will be equally divided. By workshare, he means local assembly and manufacture only — NOT R&D and design.

ROTFLMAO – you’ve never been to a single HAL facility but, one would think that Baweja called you to his annexe and whispered the real deal to you.

In his most recent interview the HAL lead has said India will get its moneys worth from the FGFA, ..your credibility versus Bawejas – what a tough tough call.

Your credibility versus Ashok Nayaks – even tougher, whom do I believe. A man handpicked on the basis of professional competence to lead one of India’s leading organizations – or a telepath on the internet who “knows what they actually meant as compared to what they said”. Yup, hard.

If I believed in telepathy, that is.

Furthermore, I have several sources in front of me,each of which happens to mention that ONE OF HALS priority areas -according to itself – is to work with DRDO and local private industry to contribute to programs such as the FGFA..

I guess that just goes to show we really cant trust telepaths on the internet, can we?

The above is inaccurate. After unsuccessful attempts to get a new engine for Marut, there was no attempt to design a new fighter jet. The next attempt was only the then-called “LCA”, by setting up an incubator like ADA, which would be the designer, and HAL which would be the manufacturer. HAL was majorly upset that “LCA” was handed to an incubator like ADA, and not to itself. This was done because had it been given to HAL, they would’ve gone their usual route of inviting licence tenders, whereas a main aim was to build a technology base.

What a pile of nonsense….and you expect to be taken seriously.

Inaccurate it seems. Search the internet, since thats all you have access to, using google for something called the HF-73 and related projects.

What I wrote above should have already punctured your bombast. But continue…and I might actually post what Valluri et al said as well.

HAL was not upset when the LCA was given to ADA, ADA was created for the LCA, do you even understand, a bit relieved actually, because HAL seeing the funds allocated and expectations from the project asked for more..and the MOD took the ADA approach – cheap option.

I know researching things is clearly beyond your interest level in such a topic, besides feeding off info others provide you on the net, but do try & get some admission to a half decent library & brush up on what went on in the ’80’s.

“Build up a technology base” – gee, I guess it was that objective which led ADA to ask HAL to be its primary partner in the LCA and which objective HAL has achieved so far by developing most of the key mech. LRUs and structural components for the LCA, but you didnt know that either did you.

If you visit HAL anytime, which by all indications doesnt seem likely, you’ll be told that the LCA is a HAL product. Only goes to show their ownership in it..sorry to have hurt your faith in how bad they are!!

Arey, you may read here how NAL failed to “scour” funds, first from Myasischev, then from Taneja Aerospace. Finally it did “wriggle” some funds from an unlikely source to get the Saras going. This, from a small and relatively unknown entity; why couldn’t Big Brother HAL have done any of this in 7 decades ? It is also state-run like NAL.

Dear Abhimanyu, all this shows is how informed you are about matters related to India. I mean, each copy paste link you give just shows how unaware you are, despite your hubris to the contrary.

If you had even read your own link, it says:

“With no possibility of a private venture capital backing a maiden aircraft venture, the CSIR had to turn to the Technology Development Board (TDB) of the MoST for financial support. Says Vijaya Simha: “We decided to be a contractor for Saras and undertake job work.”

FYI, since you dont even know this basic thing…man, this is funny…NAL is a CSIR laboratory which actually belongs to the MoST.
http://www.sarkaritel.com/ministries/sci_technology/csir/index.htm

So all it did was GO back to its own parent organization and ask it for funds, and this is something great? It fails in generating funds from outside and runs back and gets funds ..!

In contrast, HAL is OWNED by the Ministry of Defence, Govt of India. So it can only be funded by that unit & what it raises via external accruals if it goes public.

And even THAT requires MOD approval. So basically, as usual you have NO clue of what you are talking about, and are making a virtue out of necessity when it comes to NAL or any other organization which you pick and choose.

And what of the beloved SARAS:

The article further says:

“Besides NAL, the prime agency responsible for design and development, system integration and project management, and HAL, the fabricator of some key systems and components,”

….

so basically, its again HAL which is the key fabricator….and the IAF chose HAL to make the SARAS..

Adding juvenile adjectives like “arre” this “arre” that doesnt help either…

Dr. Raj Mahindra resigned in protest from ADA along with Mr. Valluri, because the MoD had doubts over Dr. Raj’s citizenship status. That is an entirely different issue.

Wow – I guess in the ideal world you inhabit it never struck you that this was the excuse trotted out because Messr’s Valluri & Raj Mahindra lost a political battle with the then SA to RM,ie the head of the DRDO & some reason had to be found lest the MOD admit it did hard by a very useful person whom they shouldnt have let go.

So the MOD had doubts over his being furrin..did they? Gee, doesnt seem to have stopped the MOD from being ok with test pilots like Suranjan Das (who gave his life in the line of duty) having foreign spouses …or the umpteen DRDO/CSIR people who came back from the west..such as Satish Dhawan..

Your lack of knowledge again speaks for itself. Get a grip.

S.R. Valluri and Raj Mahindra of the ADA quit the project over differences with the then Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, Dr V.S. Arunachalam.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010102/edit.htm#7

SR Valluri – who btw is VERY open about what happened – had a tiff with VS Arunachalam over who should lead the LCA project. He played a high risk game & lost. He acknowledges this – I can even post what he said/says on the topic.

Once again, I doubt you even know what I am referring to..

All throughout Mr. Valluri and his “protege” Dr. Mahindra were of the opinion that HAL’s (defunct) design wing should’ve reported to DRDO. They were instead made heads of the ADA, precisely because HAL wouldn’t want that structure changed. What was true in 1984 was corroborated very recently by Mr. Baweja, when he said HAL — and not DRDO — would be the prime developers of aircraft.

Good God, do you even read the rubbish you write!! Dr Mahindra being the protege of Dr Valluri, do you know who is older? Do you even know who Raj Mahindra was?

How shameful. You yap and yap so much about the LCA and this and that, but you have no clue about your own nations aviation pioneers, what an absolute disgrace.

‘XSD’ represents Prof. Satish Dhawan, ex-NAL chairman, the father of India’s space programme as well as ardid supporter of indigenous civilian aircraft programmes. The second prototype will be VT-XRM, named after the late Dr.Raj Mahindra, widely acknowledged as the father of the LCA concept. He however, resigned in 1985 due to political reasons.

http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/acig_aero05_nal.htm

Dr Raj Mahindra was a protege of Dr Ghatage who designed the HF-24 Marut along with Dr Kurt Tank. He was widely regarded as one of the finest aviation engineers India has ever produced. That was the exact reason why he was tipped to lead the LCA.

The reason he was dropped & he didnt even press the issue but Valluri who saw it as a big mistake did, was because people raised the issue that he was too old for a long gestation project like the LCA and Dr VS Arunachalam of the DRDO supported this line of thought. Whereupon Valluri picked a fight with VSA & the whole thing blew up.

It is well documented that ADA’s creation in 1985 “riled” the HAL. It has always been uncomfortable with the NAL, the ADA and it’s Tejas. Even today, ADA has blamed the HAL for not utilizing funds, for not deputing enough test-pilots etc.

Oh sure – I guess this is one more example of telepathy. Because according to what the rest of the world can see, the recently retd head of DRDO, Natrajan went on record stating that ADAs relationship w/HAL was on track for the LCA & rubbished claims stating otherwise.

But you are quite right. Thats what he said. What he meant, as you imply, must have been the exact opposite. Because thats how it works, right?

Arey Mr.JCage, er… I mean Nick76,…er…Teer — or whatever pseudonym you’d like to get known by — it has been your trademark flaming, that has led you to get banned time and again from these fora.

Dear Abhimanyu, I am very happy that you seem to confuse me with a lot of people, but as I pointed out to your lovey dovey friends from across the border – I am none of these guys whom you love so much.

Though it does tickle me to some extent that you have to periodically come up with new assumptions about who I am!

And nor do I flame HAL and nor have I been banned from this or any other fora.

You on the other hand, apparently seem to be persona non grata on most other forums -dont blame me for the fact that what you write is comedy gold and that you have some vendattas going on with a bunch of people on other forums. Dont drag me into your cesspool either.

I cant help it and only you are responsible for the state of affairs that you land yourself in.

Besides, I criticize the procurement policies of IAF and HAL. I don’t criticize the border jawan or the pilot or sailor.

Dont dissemble.

You , in the past have accused enough senior IAF personnel and HAL people of being corrupt, of being this, that, just because they dont follow the rabid “we’ll make the last screw in India” fantasies that you spout on this forum.

And I daresay if you were to tell the common “border jawan” or the “pilot” or the “sailor” what you thought of their organizations…I daresay their reactions to you, would leave you a bit shaken.

The above is what Mr. Barbora has warned against. You’re “hawking” tinkering as major design achievements, which even PAC Kamra can claim vis-a-vis their Mirages and J-7s. A door and spare parts for Airbus are claimed to be great achievements. I think HAL needs to be told that Airbus is also just about as old as HAL itself.

HAL makes a range of avionics kit & has R&D units far beyond the PAC level. And I note, you consciously avoided HALs capabilities in the R&D arena & what it has done via upgrade programs & dedicated R&D units.

When was the last time PAC made any systems for its JF-17 (I’ve been asking that question & have not received a single answer) or even devised upgrades for PAF Mirages, J-7s on its own with its own design teams.

And as expected, as and when it suits you, a senior IAF guy is mysteriously ok and suddenly non corrupt. Till the other day, he and his kith and kin were all obviously idiots for not doing what you said, LOL.

HAL recently won a largeish deal to make wing systems – go check what those are, and no they arent doors either.

And second, comparing HAL & Airbus, you again demonstrate scintillating analysis – who are Airbus’s stakeholders and when was it started, with what mandate and with what access to technology and funding? Man, this is so delusional to be absolutely a farce. Next, you’ll be comparing EADS to HAL.. or Europe to India..what part of state funding and state driven responsibility dont you get..

There is nothing stopping the private firms from cutting corners. When state-run HAL does not hesitate to call a licence engagement like PAK-FA as a JV, then small and medium private firms will also not hesitate. Their “conscience” will be clear : armed forces get the best foreign-made-with-Indian-sticker equipment, and we get profits. Indigenization will be seen later.

And who are you to judge that they will cut corners?

Your own hero of the day Barbora mentioned at the conference that over 2500 private vendors keep the Indian Air Force flying by providing spares..funnily enough you dont seem to be toeing the line on what he said about privatization did you?

I wonder why…how surprising!

The above demonstrates that you are a “daisy in the woods”. No foreign partner will “shoot itself in the foot” by giving it’s low-cost Indian partner it’s core technology today, only to become it’s competitor tomorrow. An example is the Barak JV, in which the Indian and Israeli roles are clearly demarcated. Israel’s role is that of contributing the seeker and Not giving the seeker production technology to DRDO.

Gee kiddy, if I am a daisy in the woods, y’are just a naughty thought in your daddy’s eyes.

First, you have no clue of how the aerospace business works. If you did, you’d realize that every firm which transfers technology to its indian partners also signs several iron clad contracts on what and where that technology will be used in.

And second, while it gives the technology and makes a nice pile of money by transferring it, its inhouse R&D team is already working on improving it & keeping the lead versus whomever it sold the baseline tech to. Thats the way the real world works.

Third, please dont talk of the Barak or any extant programs…it just makes me laugh too hard given what you claim on copy pasting “internet newz articles” versus whats going on, I mean, please give it up already.

Similarly, a foreign firm will set up assembly and manufacture of some non-critical components in it’s Indian partner’s facilities, but not give it the technology to manufacture core components.

ROTFLMAO – I guess thats why Astra MW & HBL Nife are already manufacturing “core components” in India as part of offsets…you simply dont get whats happening in the A&D industry.

Samtel India has a 3 year tie-up with IIT Kanpur to research and develop OLEDs, which will replace current types of cockpit display systems in the future. All it’s other technologies have been acquired more by global acquisitions of sick units of Thales, than by any R&D. To obtain technology and IP, these firms inevitably have to turn to the academia.

Please dont make me laugh with your copy and paste. I think its high time this forum really realised how absolutely ridiculous you are. So you copy this, verbatim from Ajai Shukla’s article, but you deliberately avoid this part, which flat out contradicts your previous claims of high technology not being available to Indian partners, typical of how you approach any topic.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/11/offset-policy-inertia-curbs-thales.html

In fact, according to sources in India’s MoD, Thales is looking beyond the Indian fighter market, at manufacturing its entire global requirement of HMDs in Samtel Thales Avionics. It is even willing to transfer proprietary HMD technologies worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Samtel Thales Avionics, a JV in which it holds a mere 26%. But Thales wants South Block to clearly state that it will get offset credits for the entire volume of production of the JV.

Thats the thing with you Abhimanyu, you dont have a single honest bone in your entire discussion. Its all about making ridiculous claims and dodgy extrapolations to support fanciful conjenctures.

I doubt you even know or understand the dynamics of the FPD market..but you copy pasted this just right there.

“Engineering design” services are increasingly being outsourced by foreign firms to Indian companies like Taneja Aerospace, TCS, etc. These do not amount to any “innovation”, as it has increasingly become more and more a well documented task. It is a trained service only. Just as IC design was once a “preserve of a few”, but is today a widely sold service by many companies in developing nations, so is design of defence components etc.

ROTFLMAO….have you even worked a single day in your life in any of these companies that you talk about? Trained service it seems!

Do you even know what these guys do & dont? I mean, this is not even comedy, this is Monty Python at its finest…the latest brilliance is dismissing high end engineering design as “trained service”…

Then I’d sure like to know what is not trained service.

Gee, I learn something new everyday…I didnt know we had a Michaelangelo on the board, who without any training performs works of art…meanwhile, the PHds etc who work in TCS, Infy etc designing avionics architectures do low end work, because they are trained, and they provide a service, ergo they are trained service and ergo worthy of derision.. Brilliant, Brilliant!!

Serial production is the main purpose of the private firms.

Says who, you? When did you get to design anything in India?

Hmm…lets see who designed the scanner for the Aslesha and Bharani radars according to specs set by LRDE? Wait – System Controls.

Who developed the display unit for a Naval system for DRDO per DRDO specs- Alligator design..

Who made the high end DSP boards for DRDO EW systems, did all the design etc – Mistral..

The mean mean people….let me just call all of these useless jerks up and tell them because they are private they better know their place, the useless serf’s and better not do anything but serial production…

The actual competition is between DRDO and the foreign firms, on who will get the SME private companies to manufacture and market their products to the armed forces. It is an opportunity for DRDO to get as many private firms as possible to assemble /manufacture their products to the armed forces. Private firms can be “dextrous” for bribery all, so at least in this way DRDO products can find their way to the armed forces.

Ah I see. How wonderful, was this also part of the book which carries the secret meetings of the Illuminati, the secrets of the great beyond, and how the internationale controls the money trade in the world?

Frankly, of all the posts you have made so far, this plumbed new depths. Congratulations, you have firmly demonstrated there is no such thing as a rock bottom, because each post just goes lower and lower and lower…

I am fairly certain ‘full missile load”=4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM.

With the same load + tanks, wont the Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18EF and Viper have comparable ranges?

1300 km = 702 nm 4000 km =2160 nm 4072 km= 2200 nm
.

What is the ‘full missile load” mentioned in the advert above?

Also, is the entire presentation available ?

Question:

Answer:

Finally:

Regards,
Ashish

PS: Chorry. Couldn’t resist ….:D

ROTFL 😀