Well if IAF says there is an urgent operational need & if HAL cant deliver they’ll do the upgrades with Russian engines in the BRD’s – HAL will scramble and get it done. 😉

The EJ200 or F-414 are temporary solution to meet operational and thrust needs of Tejas Mk2 , the Kaveri is the definitive variant that the IAF is waiting for.

The EJ-200 or F-414 do not come with any deep TOT and its like off the shelf imported stuff integrated with Tejas.

Incorrect.

As of last year itself, it was decided that the Kaveri would be delinked from the Tejas program. Only a section in the IAF/GTRE establishment felt it worth to give it another try.

Look at it logically, two squadrons of LSP – with the GE404 IN20, and 5-7 squadrons with one engine, the EJ or the GE makes logistical sense.

Not a production run of 7-9 squadrons with THREE different engines, one of which is still to be developed, yet alone mature, which would be a logistical nightmare.

Late last year, the MK2 specifications drawn up had no reference to the Kaveri whatsoever.

And the RFP for the new engine calls for deep TOT, which HAL will produce. Even the new Adours for the Hawks came with DS blades & TOT for the “hot section”, production of which is now commencing at HAL. The firms will however, take their pound of royalty payments & have ironclad agreements to prevent re-export of tech.

Overall, Air Chief Marshal Naik said that IAF was on track to achieve its total transformation by 2020-25, by which time IAF should be spending around USD 100 billion on aircraft, systems, infrastructure, sensors, UAVs, missiles, training and related modernization programmes.

As for the combat fleet, be observed: “The IAF of the future, post-2025, would consist of FGFA (Fith Generation Fighter Aircraft), SU 30 MKIs, MRCAs and Tejas/ MCA (indigenous Medium Combat Aircraft) with multi-role as well as significant swing role capability.”

“They would employ advanced technologies, sensors and precision weapons. The larger aircraft, i.e. FGFA and SU 30 would focus on Air Dominance and specialise in similar roles in long ranges over land and sea, while the MRCAs would don a variety of medium-range and tactical roles. These assets would be capable of all weather, day and night attack with adequate self-protection capability…these assets would be immensely capable and are not going to be confined to the strictly stereotyped roles. They would carry out a number of roles in the same mission.”

The Air Chief said that the state-of-he-art SU 30 MKI was set to become IAF‘s maintstay “shortly” and that was why “we have modified our basing plans so as to distribute our assets equitably.”

It may be noted that in the past, the ratio of IAF aircraft has been two in the west and one in the east. Indications are that from now on, this distribution will be 50:50.

IAF has already ordered an additional 40 SU 30 MKIs from Russia to take their total number to 230. The aircraft is being made in India by HAL under technology transfer, and the existing IAF fleet was under upgrades to Phase-III standards.

About the helicopters, the Air Chief said that while the IAF had recently issued the RfPs for 22 combat and 15 heavy lift helicopters, another RfP for utility helicopters in a joint tender with the Indian Army would be floated soon.

IAF has already signed a contract in 2008 with Russia for 80 new Mi 17 V5 helicopters last year to add to its existing fleet. Their delivery should complete in 2010.

A contract is also being awarded to Ukraine to upgrade IAF‘s 100-plus An 32 transport aircraft.

The indigenous Dhruv is also being acquired at a steady pace, said Air Chief Marshal Naik.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories325.htm

t may be noted that IAF had a sanctioned combat fleet strength of 39.5 squadrons. And as most of the old Soviet-vintage Mig series of aircraft are being phased out for the last few years, this strength is believed to have come down to around 30.

But for the rising number of SU 30 MKIs, which are also powerful, this depletion in strength would have been a blow to national security.

Air Chief Marshal Naik however assured that the downward trend had been arrested and that the Government was supporting the Indian Air Force fully.

He was sure, he said, that IAF would reach its optimum force levels by 2020-25.

IAF is set to have 45 squadrons by then.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories326.htm

IAF setting up secure network

The Indian Air Force is creating a robust and secure network system to link all its aircraft and other assets.

Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic that “all IAF sensors and assets will be plugged into this network, providing relevant data at different levels.”

“Primarily, he said, “it is the efficient integration of all our assets, along with intelligent exploitation of the capability so provided, that will enable us to compress our decision cycle and reduce our sensor-toshoter loop.

The Air Chief said that force multiplication is best possible with integration of all assets from aircraft, AWACS, and other airborne and ground assets for real time connectivity and deployment.

IAF is reported to have completed 100 of nearly 160 nodes in this regard.

It will be produced by TATAs which means that Pvt sector for the first time will have a chance to absorb tech which Govt sector has always failed to do.

Pshaw, thats just for public consumption. Many programs have benefited from a good peek under the hood of what was procured. Just nobody talks about it because it would rock the boat & nobody wants that – whether it be the suppliers or the users.

The tech for 80% of the missile components is to be transferred which means everything as even Agni series is only 80%-90% indigenous (IIRC the chips for Barak will be imported till SCI takes up the slack).

Practically nobody is fully “indigenous” when it comes to semiconductors. Just doesn’t make sense from either the costs or performance POV.

The foundry costs for truly modern process tech are of the order of a $ billion & above, not to mention the hassles of having operational costs being a perennial money sink with limited production runs for strategic purposes.

So focus on the sensible part, packaging & assembly of integrated electronics, with sub assemblies, either COTS or made to order, available via the number of manufacturers from US, Asia & Europe.

SCI is one of the several guys able to handle the end integration part in India.

As far as indigenisation goes, focus on the non commercial, integrated or discrete assemblies not available via the open market, and focus on their design & manufacture.

Ah, so the Kaveri is not dead yet? I thought it had become a technology program only, but if it is still to be final engine for LCA, well then there will be no LCA.

Oh man, not this again.

Last year itself, it was decided that the LCA MK2- the definitive production variant for series production (5-7 Sq, 100-140 airframes) would have a higher thrust engine acquired off the shelf, to be manufactured in India. Contenders – GE414, EJ200.

Also, the Kaveri would be delinked from the LCA and three variants would be available for manufacture:
– The baseline version as it exists today
– An industrial derivative of the baseline for naval ships, industrial apps etc
– A new higher thrust Kaveri with assistance from Snecma/Safran to modify the existing design

The new higher thrust Kaveri would STILL not be able to meet the IAF’s specs as the new specs called for an almost complete redesign to meet substantially more thrust et al. This engine would be available for future projects with dual engines, ie MCA et al.

—

This was known last year itself. Instead, the idiot Indian media is rehashing it again and again and again, and flogging a dead horse in order to extract every last bit of value from something which is no longer newsworthy.

A few facts before you start ranting again and again.

– The MRSAM extends the envelope of the BADGES from 30 km to 70 km.
– Being ARH equipped and capable of fire and forget, the MRSAM is safer versus the PLAAF which has similarly ranged Kh-31P ARMs.
– The MRSAM is a JV, with seeker assemblies & integration involving Indian companies, and design work on the overall system, propulsion & MC software involving DRDO & allied partners.
– The Akash still has an option of 4-5 more squadrons, check the numbers posted previously.
– The issue of corruption is a red herring, DRDO chose to extend the LRSAM project into an IAF variant.
– The MRSAM is better suited for AD against a variety of threats than the AAD which is a specialized heavy missile (and expensive to boot) meant for ABM work as its primary purpose.

Lastly, the SpyDer is confirmed. I invite you to read up on reports which clearly mention the deal is going through despite the Barak mess as FH Major et al clearly mentioned cancelling it would affect preparedness. You may also want to look at his interviews and those of PV Naik.

The SpyDer itself is not a “betrayal” either. It will be complemented by the DRDO-MBDA Shorads in development. Which will allow DRDO to leverage vane tech it utilized for its AAD program, among other things.

All in all, this is not such a huge deal as you are making out. You appear to have a fear driving you to believe that Indias contribution to the MRSAM will be minimal and that without the Akash being the only SAM, India is doomed etc. I can tell you such will not be the case. The 3 main things in Akash which need to be “protected” in terms of experience and which need to be built upon are:

C3I S/W: Continuing with the MRSAM, ABM program (latter far more complex)
Radars: Continuing with Rohini orders in mass production (30+ on order so Akash program aims met here in entirety), WLR (24- a Rajendra derivative) and further RESAR/MPR/ et al orders, not to mention the ABM program AESAs.
Missile technology: Ramjet has been mastered, datalinks have been developed & propulsion tech is going ahead with DRDLs dual pulse rocket motor for the LR/MRSAM.

All in all, LRSAM project is not grounds for panic nor is it harming national R&D capability in a manner in which you fear.

My apologies, but given that in most instances below you’re comparing paper systems for an operational aircraft versus at least tested systems for a paper aircraft I see little difference.

Incorrect, what I am pointing is out is that in the vast majority of avionics systems the MKI has systems operational which are either superior to the planned MiG-35 systems or even if we take the lower benchmark, on par. In the other remaining cases, there are other equivalents which will make up the marginal difference.

Surely LPI capabilities can also be added to that list?

They cant, since the Zhuk AE does not have true wide ranging LPI. (like the APG-77)

Granted the Bars has an excellent power output but if it can be detected at much greater ranges also the advantage is marginal at best. I am not experienced in the area of radar design, but I would nonetheless be happy to hear details of the specific advantages of the Bars given that while I am aware AESA hardly spells ‘silver bullet’ there is a reason why they’re in the pipeline to be replacing mechanically scanned arrays in most advanced air forces world wide.

IMO, there is a good reason many radar developers have chosen to retain existing system architectures and drive them to maturity while waiting for AESA tech to mature. The NIIP guys chose this approach as their PESA systems match what is available in AESA systems to a large degree in terms of key KPI and they are still maturing their AESA MMIC capability. However, AESA per se have a critical advantage in terms of MTBF & no single point of failure (the TWT) even in baseline designs.

IMO, just because the Zhuk AE is AESA does not mean it will have – for sure, an operational ie (in combat) advantage. That apart, the radar is a smaller aperture, less powerful system (in terms of overall performance).

While I cant go into details – the MKI is a frontline tactical asset – I will say this, there are only two MRCA contenders whose in service systems match/exceed the Bars- they are the Captor M & the APG-79.

And being detected is a given for high power systems for 4G non stealth fighters which prefer high SA as a tradeoff for detection.

I’m afraid I see little relation of the Avitronics suite to anything; certainly it is good that DRDO’s product is superior to a currently available alternative but if it’s still in development then I’d be slightly worried if it wasn’t superior to an older foreign alternative, especially one that is fielded locally. Also, while I do not doubt your claim on mere face value simply because it disagrees with mine, would you mind providing data to show that the DRDO system will ‘clearly be superior’?

You missed my point almost entirely. I was merely pointing out that the Avitronics suite is currently the most capable operational system available to the Russian export platform market, as evidenced by the Malaysian purchase who went to some pains to source their systems. The Russian MAWS is their first attempt on the type ie on a modern 4G+ fighter anyways, and at best, I’d wager it is equal to the Avitronics system. The DRDO system matches, rather exceeds the Avitronics system – ergo, the MKI is NOT behind the MiG-35 in this respect, which is what I was getting at. Since you so categorically stated that MKI avionics would be a downgrade for the MiG-35 which is what I was contesting.
Now as to how they were superior, the EADS system which the DRDO-EADS JV builds upon has more modes available for a range of laser guidance tech. Without going into operational points, basically, the EADS system was more mature and had more operational capability – India’s AF faces a variety of laser threats (in terms of detection & guidance) which meant that it could not compromise at all on the overall capability. To be fair though, SAAB were working on some of these capabilities and may have included them by now or may have a roadmap for the same. But as of early this year, the JV was ahead.

I swear, other than toying with it when we bought it, I’ve never once used the PIP feature on my telly!
But seriously, I appreciate this is an advantage, but surely splitting up the screen is not entirely a one-way street? If you have replaced some of the data on the screen with other data then it is certainly preferable in terms of customisability to switching the entire screen function, but would a well-enough designed MMI obviate at least part of this advantage? Not that SAMTEL/DRDO’s ones are inherently inferior to the ones on the MiG-35 in this regard – I’m sure they’re not, particularly given the interesting information you provided in the previous paragraph – but on the whole I am still a little dubious that the MMI is a step down as you imply and that selected digital upgrades to an originally analogue cockpit will be better in all respects to a cockpit redesigned from scratch for digital systems as much as practical.

My point is that how is the MiG-35 cockpit by necessity superior to that on the MKI, and how was it “redesigned from scratch” to meet Indian operational needs?
I would submit to you, that it was the MKI’s system which had this, since its operational display & symbology software is actually written by India (DARE, a DRDO lab) which draws upon experience from other western fighters in Indian inventory.
Now, at best consideration for the MiG-35, the MKI cockpit is not inferior to that on the MiG-35 which has been my point all along. Your contention was based on how it “looks” -my point is simple, the looks alone dont tell us that much. The software, the thinking that drives the arrangement is also important, and here the MKI is “already there” and is still evolving whereas the MiG has yet to arrive.
Secondly, the PIP is an advantage because it allows the pilot/WSO to see the actual related data within one screen itself. There are a variety of operational advantages to having to look at one screen and get the “overall picture” versus toggling pages on 3 discrete MFDs and making sense of whats going on.

Certainly the MiG-35 will not have quite as much sensor fusion as the Su-35, but steps such as the IRST have been taken to streamline the information flow where possible.

The IRST has always been there on the MiG-29! And the Flanker’s WCS always had a joint display for data from both systems. The key point is to integrate the RHAWS data on one screen, with the other data. That is what the R118 does on the MKI, now what is its equivalent on the MiG-35?

By all accounts the cockpit’s data presentation is in line with the 4++ generation fighters on the market today.

I’d really like to see more data on this. In my reckoning, unless sensor fusion is available – the MiG-35 is behind all the other MRCA contenders.

As for the Pastel (which I freely admit is a fairly old system that is not the most capable around – though it is also a fraction of the HADF pod’s size), the version offered to India would almost certainly use the Tarang Mk. II, which, while obviously not providing an advantage, hardly leaves it at a disadvantage either.

Fair enough, the Tarang MK2 has been superceded by the R118 system, but the point is it will have to be integrated into the MiG-35. At any rate, this is not an area where the MiG-35 can claim definite superiority, and that was all I was pointing to.

Very well, I accept the points. Yet much of the point behind the MiG-35 is its universal open avionics architecture that allows it to be customised as per requirements as well, so giving the advantage of a rolling upgrade path to the Su-30MKI while denying it to the MiG-35 (which, by the time it would enter production if it were selected – which by the way I doubt it will be – would likely have evolved in most areas under discussion anyway and be ready to offer the capabilities from delivery date as opposed to in a post-sale, post-construction upgrade programme with the additional costs and complexities this involves) seems a little dubious.

My point is that I am not “denying” an upgrade to the MiG-35 while selecting it for the MKI. All I am saying is that a statement on the lines of “a MKI avionics fit will be inferior to the MiG-35” is incorrect, because the MKI is well on that path already & has added several capabilities which place it on par, or ahead of the MiG-35.

RSK MiG is on record stating just how happy it would be to integrate whatever systems India likes. The Elettronica system has been offered because it is superior to current in-service options with the IAF, but it if turns out India have found something better I am quite positive Russia will respond.

IMO, the Elettronica system has been offered because it met RAC MiGs needs versus the IAF tender. Whether it is superior to what the IAF has is unknown. We simply know too little about the IAFs developing EW capability. What we do know from exercises etc and which is fairly positive, is itself a few years out of date.

That said it is far from certain that this will be the case. We cannot claim that Elettronica’s offering is superior to all other future competitors of course, and nor do I do so – but I do not see how it is fair to simply assume that it is inferior, and it will probably have lower risks than any upgrade programme.

Where did I say it was inferior – my entire point throughout this discussion has been to shirk away from absolutes that it is superior or must be so.

I’m sorry but I just don’t see how that’s the case at all. The electronic systems you have mentioned are apparently superior (though I would not object to greater detail in any of the examples you mentioned) but they are just as paper as the finalised MiG-35,

But they are NOT paper. The MC on the MKI is operational & capable of taking higher processing hardware than is known for the MiG-35. The Elta/Litening/Radar pods are operational. The ODL (Operational data link) project is already underway with the trials going on as we speak. The RWJ program data is also certain via the MiG-29 program.

or at most in service on a fraction of the MKI fleet.

Not a fraction – these capabilities will be rolled out for the fleet in being as it will be deployed across theaters, west and north east.

Furthermore the MiG-35 has been designed to be highly flexible platform that can accommodate further upgrades and weapons integration conveniently and quickly – most likely much more so than the MKI fleet.

Again, how can you claim that the upgrades & weapon integration will be simpler on the MiG35, since a) its not even been attempted yet, b) the MKI has an open arch as does the MiG-35 and c) the MKI has an express Indian MC set up, with rigs et al to allow for this capability, which the MiG-35 states it can offer but as of yet, it doesnt.

Obviously, if it were to be upgraded or ordered with the same systems as the MKI, then this would offer no advantage but we most certainly cannot claim this will be the case and use it as a basis to prove MKI superiority.

Again, this is not to point out MKI superiority per se, but certainly, it does point out that the MiG-35 is not superior per se as you stated earlier.

However, given the information you have provided – and I thank you for it – I would now wait before claiming superiority of either type in the overall avionics set.

Which is all I was getting at. Eg, for another thing, NIIP recently revealed that they were in discussions with the IAF for a dual phase Bars upgrade project, the first being an improvement to the basic radar itself which effectively doubles its overall performance, and the second, a replacement with an AESA. Given the current Bars itself is competitive against several in service AESAs and the planned Zhuk AE, imo, this just goes to show the growth potential a “heavy fighter” enjoys versus a more volume limited smaller one. A bit unfair perhaps, but even so..

As something of an argumentative ‘fallback position’, I would state once again that my primary support for the MiG-35 for the MMRCA is in the logistics area more than anything else.

That is a reasonable position, though I personally prefer the EF or the Rafale.