Ankush, we face a dilemma. We all know that there are pics of lot of Pakistani engineers in China. On the other hand you can also say that they get training form the other side. But there were engineers involved. What they did is well known at inner circles of a certain forum and that has been posted here before. It suprises me that we keep returning to the same old circles where some people wants to express that someone is not involved and the other side is saying that they were… Even if they were not… We can conclude that they are very much busy now. Let us compare it with Brahmos. We know it is Yakhunt. We know the company that produces these and the company in India that teamed up. Yet we see it now advertised as… Surely not to defame any side or to start a flame. We should skip the usual national pride behind the products. The fact is that like Brahmos the JF17 is a huge step forward. Even for the west. How they got there… Nobody is in the position to clear it up so let us enjoy the products and not spoil our joy to be here and get topics locked or “not for flamers” added…

Insig, your comparison is wrong, as Yakhont is not Brahmos. Nor is it advertised as anything it is not. The Brahmos website carries a series of transparent details.

Of the missile itself, India developed the Nav attack system for the Brahmos which has an Indian INS-GPS system & OBC, & other indian firms are involved in its airframe manufacture, such as Godrej Ltd.

Of the entire weapons system, the naval launchers are built by L&T, the ground based segment is designed and developed by a consortium of DRDO, ECIL, Bharat Electronics, L&T and Datapatterns and manufactured in India – this includes the Command posts, the Missile TEL’s.

Of the designation segment for OTH targeting, the Indian Navy has a contract out with the LRDE, DRDO for radar development, integration & BEL India for manufacture. The first series of those systems cleared trials, they are the SV-2000, the next series have cleared trials recently and are to go into production, namely the XV-2004 series which offer both SAR/ISAR capability for identification.

So the Brahmos weapon system is definitely not the Yakhont by far. The Russian Yakhont system will utilize an entirely different series of systems, developed by local companies throughout the value chain.

I never said that all PAF F-16s canopys’ are ‘have glass’ versions.

Whats the point of having one or two PAF F-16s as Have Glass & the rest not, it’d be more straightforward to standardize. If that were the case, then it should be relatively straightforward to have recent pics of most PAF F-16s with similar canopies.

How this could be a photographic artifact is beyond me though. It doesn’t get any more clear than this.

What gtg posted could be an example of photographic artifact because it seems to be a little lighter. But even then there are pictures of twin seaters where only the front is tinted.

My point is that a lot of pics show canopies with weird tints depending on the conditions etc. So I dont read much into them unless I can corraborate with separate pics or have a text about the same.

GTG’s comment falls in the same line as well.

And secondly, the US is very careful with RCS relevant technologies – I presume the same would apply to exports to India as well in recent days. For instance, the US asked Japan for a lot of money merely to talk about JSF specific tech – the presumption being that even discussing detailed tech specs of the JSF was worth that much.

Ante you have been doing the same all through this thread and also in all the other threads.

You can not deny you have been posting pro US news for the MMRCA etc threads..

And let me get this right, when it suites you, you are allowed to denigrate anyone you want but woe betide anyone who goes against your rather sheltered world view?

Well said.

Santhanam is the one who proved the PRC-Pak nuke nexus while working as part of RAW, served over a decade in the DRDO shepherding our nuclear plans, has BARC has his parent organization, and people on the net, with not even a fraction of his accomplishments are to judge him.

To be a whistleblower in India, requires solid guts and big brass goolies, and one has to be so well accomplished that even the establishment is afraid to take you on. Santhanam fits all these criteria.

So you are saying the block 60 has a bigger RCS that the C/D in American Service ?
Boeing has talked about the F/A 18 E/Fs low RCS with regards to the MRCA. Yes radar blockers may be removed but I believe the RCS would still be pretty low.

It all depends on what the UAE negotiated, remember that unlike Pak, they actually put up a substantial portion of the upfront R&D costs, and get a slice on every Block 60 sold. Having said that, I have yet to come across any source that mentions any Have series RCS reduction program (as carried out on USAF F-16s) applied to the Block 60. With those large CFTs, and umpteen extra antennae & a heavily loaded profile, I would gladly wager that the RCS of the F-16 Block 60 is nowhere lesser than 3-5 Sq Mtrs.

Boeing’s current pitch in India revolves around the AESA and avionics. They dont dwell on the low RCS. Given US ITAR issues, the EF, Rafale, MiG and Gripen are likely to come with more LO features as available.

What an awesome pic

It’s not like the MiG-29K is stuck with the Zhuk-ME for the rest of its operational life – once the Zhuk-AE has matured an upgrade is a definite possibility. Look at the SHAR and the IAF MiGs!

The initial Zhuk AE systems are effectively new TRMs running on the ME backend. With improvements in TRM tech (smaller X band units from Mikran), Phaza may well be offer a relatively inexpensive AESA upg as an option to the Indian Navy, with a decent performance boost even if not equal to an all new AESA.

You read my word again…

“You may not understand but future lies in AESA not Mech. Most of the air forces and all the new IAF fighters are projected to have AESA.”

Are these Mig-29, Mirage-2000, SHAR new?

I read your word (s) – but they are not accurate. Which is the fact that the IAF does not differentiate between new aircraft and old aircraft when fitting them out – upgrades are receiving the best technology available to the IAF & that which it can afford & which meets the needs at the point of time, the upgrade is conceived.

Nothing more, nothing less. This new fighter old fighter business is inaccurate, I am afraid.

The “new” Sukhoi 30 MKIs are getting PESA N011M radars with another PESA upgrade thereafter, with AESA only due as a MLU around 2015-2020 when the system is available from the PAK-FA development.

What matters is PERFORMANCE – and vis a vis the peers the IAF will face, the Chinese and Pakistanis, the RDY-2 and N010ME/Zhuk ME are quite sufficient.

The KLJ radar in the other thread for the JF-17 is quoted at around 100 km for a 5 Sq Mtr target. The Zhuk per published literature is 20% more powerful in terms of range & if the more candid admission in a scientific journal presented at the Aero India seminar is taken- its actually 50% more in terms of range! The RDY-2 is similar. Even assuming 120 Km for the KLJ and the higher estimate for the Zhuk, latter wins.

So where is the need for an AESA is essential @ 2013 coming from?
The N001 radar on their Flankers can track a 5 SqMtr target at around 130 Km in SNP mode (TWS) – so again, nothing spectacular in comparison. The new MSA on the J-11 assuming logically its a development of their current tech on the JF-17, should offer a 50% increment in terms of increment from 60mm class dish to the 1 mtr class dish (taking the Zhuk ME to MSE ratio)- thats around 150-170 km- again, similar ranges & not wholly spectacular increases. Indian MiG-29Ks with RCS reduction (see pics & official statements) should logically continue to have the detection edge versus a much larger airfame (RCS >10 Sq Mtr) with combat load, treated or untreated.

Either ways your belief that an AESA is absolutely essential doesnt quite cut it.

The MiG-29Ks are more likely to face PAF J-10s, F-16s, JF-17s against all of which they’ll be perfectly capable if handled well and skillfully – while their primary targets are Harpoon/Exocet carriers – their prime mission after all is fleet air defence. That means taking out AShm platforms before they can launch.

Why they went for LCA with an AESA upgrade. Because IAF clearly mentioned that they will choose a future fighter not less than AESA. For the same reason, DRDO upgrading LCA’s engine to meet IAF’s ASR. So its clear that they want AESA on board new fighters. Mig-29K is a new fighter for IN.

You are clearly mixing up things here. The LCA is receiving an AESA upgrade because its development was sanctioned in Nov2008, when was the MiG-29K deal signed, please tell me? The AESA for the LCA also contributes to local development & capability. In contrast, if AESA was so essential, why did the IAF not insist for an AESA for even the 40 LCA MK1 (and btw, the total MiG-29K purchased will be only 45 airframes!!). So clearly AESA is “good to have” but not “Essential” as you are implying.

Second, about the engine, again irrelevant. The IAF is insisting on a new engine because they, as the user added so much stuff to the LCA, OBOGS, new internal EW suite, heavier weapons, that the aircraft has gained 1T extra MTOW, so it needs more thrust to compensate. Otherwise they’d stick with the Ge404 IN20, and not ask for Ge414 or the EJ200 just because they are the latest technology so “essential”.

Remember, operational needs drive purchases, not vice versa.

The IAF is getting Phalcons with ranges >300 km in terms of tracking small fighter sized targets and local AEW&C able to do the same at around 300 km to boot.

Whatever you have said is correct. But it is told that Zhuk-ME can detect airborne targets with a five square meter Radar Cross Section at ranges of 120 kilometers. Now a days no modern fighter aircraft has a RCS of five square meter. Here is an estimation……… from F-16.net,

# MIG-29A (RCS = 5 m2):
# F/A-18C (RCS = 3 m2):
# F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2):
# JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2):
# Su-47 (RCS = 0.3 m2):
# Rafale (RCS = 0.1~0.2 m2):
# F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2):
# MIG-42 (RCS = 0.1 m2):
# EF2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2):
# F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2):
# F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2)

Now just imagine how far it will be able to track a modern fighter!

First, a lot of these numbers are speculation – no source estimates given, but lets assume they are accurate. That apart, the 120 km number is the lower end of the estimate. Kanaschenko is on record at a seminar saying the 150 km figure. Second, look at India’s neighbourhood to see what the typical target is – and you’ll see with weapons and a combat fuel load, a RCS of less than 3 Sq Mtr is practically impossible. In fact, a non treated F-16 with weapons (Have series RCS reduction programs are export controlled) will be typically 5 Sq Mtr at the minimum.

Tracking figures for the Zhuk series are around 80% of the detection range, and lock on a bit lower. Perfectly fine for engaging with a ~100 km range RVV-AE missile, where again 100 km is the RMax and not the NEZ.

A ‘mature’ that no one wants? Recently how many country opted for Mig-29? Mig-29 was not IN’s primary choice, it cannot be.

What do you mean “cannot be” – arent you letting your desire speak. “Recently how many country” have anywhere near India’s logistics infrastructure for the MiG-29, its experience with the type, or even its operating budget. Many countries have ditched the MiG-29 because it is expensive to fly – India fly’s its Flankers at the rate of 300 hrs a year, and no country bought Su-30 MKIs bar recently when Malaysia and Algeria picked up a handful, so does that mean the aircraft was not good?

That is not the reason for opting a MS radar. New AESA/PESA also has a wide angle coverage and capable of higher resolution images at longer ranges than MS. I am not going into other advantages of AE/PESA.

How many new AESA/PESA have wide angle coverage equal to the Zhuk and other MSA? The Irbis is in development, the swashplate ES-1000 whatever for the Gripen NG, likewise, and the rest are claims of developmental systems which were not even available when the Zhuk was fielded and ready! The average top of the line AESA can scan at 60 deg +/- and its lucky if it delivers both in elevation & azimuth!! In contrast, MSAs like the Captor, the Zhuk etc routinely provide more. Its simple, the gimbal allows the lightweight antenna to swivel sideways, try doing that with heavy PESA/AESA arrays and you have developmental challenges which require time and a lot of money, reason why Irbis-E is being developed now, while the Bars can provide +/-70 in azimuth and +/- 40 in elevation. And what higher resolution at longer ranges is critical? Is it as critical as wide scan volumes when you have limited airframes available for air surveillance! Once you detect the target you can always seek better ways to determine what you saw, as compared to not being aware the target is there at all. Case in point, the DRDO’s ISAR/SAR XV-2004 is again a MSA. The SV-2000 its predecessor had excellent range, again why did the Navy not insist on an AESA! Weight matters and well designed MSA can do the job with good range, and resolution.

A few kg heavier weight does not add any extra burden to the radar or the aircraft. I think you will choose a heavier AESA over lighter MSA sacrificing some kgs if available.

“Some kgs”?? The Bars-29 is 400 kg plus, whereas the Zhuk comes in around half the weight at 220 kg. That 180 kg plus difference is equal to the weight of a full missile + pylon, not to mention the costs of modifying the airframe to take the extra weight upfront, which means more kgs in weight!! All these are HUGE issues for naval fighters, with substantial weight concerns. Why else is the ADA is asking for consultancy for the NLCA, whereas they could have just stuck to navalizing the LCA MK2, …clearly, weight matters.

NIIR Phazotron is a dead horse now! There is no point riding on it. I did not say that Mig-29K is bad or impotent, just wanted to clarify following two…

If NIIR Phazatron is a dead horse, then why does the IAF have 120+ Kopyos in service and was actively evaluating Kopyo/Zhuk derivatives for the LCA? If NIIR Phaza is a dead horse, why is the Russian Govt pumping money into them to tide them over temporary financial troubles and why did the IAF choose the Zhuk ME over other radars for the MiG-29 upg?

1. Zhuk-ME is not a good radar for an aircraft entering service in 2013.

Not borne out by any fact. The Zhuk ME is a creditable, mature system offering good performance. In fact the only system superior to it, as a MSA is the Captor-M, taking its claims as true.

2. Mig-29K was not IN’s primary choice but modified to meet IN reqs.

Again, incorrect. See Ankushs posts.
Besides at the time Rafale was evaluated it had the RBE-2 with a range < than the MSA RDY-2, so again your points dont hold.

Why need an upgrade if ME is so good? We are going to have Mig-29 operational onboard Vikram by 2013, so where it will stand by 2015? Only after 2 years of induction? If Vikram was in service by 2008, I had no problem.

You may not understand but future lies in AESA not Mech. Most of the air forces and all the new IAF fighters are projected to have AESA.

Too busy to visit the forum by far, but what you have written in response to 21Ankush is wrong.

The IAF’s 60 odd MiG-29s are receiving the Zhuk ME. Not the Zhuk AE, not the Elta 2052 or any Selex radar.

The 50 odd IAF Mirage 2000s are receiving the RDY-2, again a MSA. Again, not an AESA.

The LCA MMR is a MSA, both the interim 2032, and the fixed one. The AESA is only planned for the MK2 around 2014-15.

The DARIN3 Jags are going to get a MSA from all thats been reported so far & most likely the Elta 2032.

The LUSH Upgrade for the Shar was again the ELTA 2032.

First research about the radars in question. The Zhuk ME is a very creditable system with a range of at least 120-130 km (public, ergo understated) for a fighter sized target. It has a wide range of modes, both Air to Air and Air to Surface, including high resolution SA mapping. It compares very well to its peer, the RDY-2 which boasts similar performance.

Fact is the IAF would prefer a mature system which gives it an operational advantage over its peers, in a reasonable cost and within a reasonable timeframe. The same issues were considered by the Indian Navy as well.

For the Navy especially, a slotted array radar makes more sense for scan angle considerations as they need wide area volume surveillance and have limited number of Ka-31s.

A MSA is also lighter – the antenna array with its gimbal mechanism still comes in lighter than a Tx/Rx array with dedicated cooling, liquid cooling in most cases. Every bit of weight counts for a Naval fighter which has to minimize its take off weight so as to maximize the bring back weight.

The IAF/IN are not alone either – the Captor on the EF is also a MSA and offers excellent performance despite being a MSA. Contrary to what you perceive, just having an AESA does not necessarily confer operational advantages in every case.