TeerI said what I had to say , the Mig-35 offers the best bang for the buck and comes with the advantage of IAF operating an older variant for ~ 2 decades experience so precious hardly matched by small tactical electronic/weapons initial advantage that some may offer.
The IAF operated the Spitfire earlier, so surely that “experience” should outweight the “small tactical electronics/weapon initial advantage” offered by other fighters! 😉
I repeat Weapons/Electronics/Radar/EW are dynamic and constantly evolving , a block upgrade in software bring in new capability , so even though Mig-35 might initially not offer ( and I am presuming here as Mig has yet to open its card ) all the capability of F-18 or Rafale it will eventually catch up with them with Soft Upgrades , Weapons Upgrades and Open Architecture which allows easy integration of any system specially the DRDO developed weapons , sensors and EW stuff.
Austin, I’d LOVE to believe this, but my friend, where is the evidence of this development from the Russian side? None so far. None at all, of any advanced ability being fielded. Heck, even for the EW, they went to Elettronica & got an Italian (but very capable though) system off the shelf.
It comes with no Political Strings attached and India is free to customize it in the way she wants , it offers the best weapons commonality , the maximum of in existing fleet and with Source available and OA Framework weapons like Astra BVR can be integrated besides others that we develop.
Same case with the EF & Rafale.
With Indian Navy deciding to opt for Mig-29K for near to medium term as its fleet defence and strike fighter and IAF upgrading its Mig-29 fleet into multirole platform , Mig-35 represents the best bet for IAF Fleet Rationalisation plan , bottom line Cost Effective yet very Capable Multirole Platform.
I havent’ got any evidence anywhere yet of the IAF MiG-29 Upg going multirole & plans of that nature, IMHO, it will be purely AS focused.
Here is something interesting on the SuperBug , slightly older but nevertheless interesting
There is nothing super about this Hornet
Peter Criss is a retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia’s most experienced fighter/strike pilots.
Peter Criss didnt know at the time that the RAAF was getting half its Hornets rewired for the Growler variant, did he?
And all that bit about airframe – its relative to the earlier Hornet, and with JHMCS + Aim-9x the Hornet should be respectable in WVR, and with its EW, AESA & the AMRAAM C7, ok in BVR. Where it will really rock will be in strike, and if we buy a few Growlers, even better.
Its worth the investment.
(Though my heart still beats Rafale!!)
But never mind – we can agree on one thing though – the MiG-35 IS a good bird, at least on paper, and even if it is not the best & it is purchased, the IAF will put it to good use.
Lets see how it turns out & hope for the best!!
TeerThe above included arguments are totally invalid. Just because Indian politicians decided to buy four Hercs and some patrol aircraft it does not make USA a more or a less relaible supplier than they already are. And that they are less politically reliable than others is beyond any doubt, hopefully. These factors need to be counted in..
Read the context – the point is the decision has already been made to include the US into India’s defence procurement, otherwise was India sleeping or did it by accident hand a whopping billion $ plus to Boeing for just a handful aircraft? And that too with options on equal numbers?
Your line of thinking is wrong. The delivery schedule of MRCA project is currently projected for first deliveries in 2014 and beyond.. Demanding something that is fully ready today means buying obsolete. Even Boeing stated that if a contract with India was signed today, they would require 36 months+ to deliver first aircraft.
No I disagree – some degree of customization is inevitable, but the point is that the “ready” aircraft today will be mature by 2012-2014 and ready for service ASAP.
Obsolete is a relative term – the avionics of the mighty F-22A are “obsolete” versus the JSF’s newer integrated systems in some respects, but does that diminish the overall combat value?
The point is by the time the MRCA gets into service, India should have a frontline fighter (apart from the MKI, ready to “rock and roll”), if we buy the MiG-35, it is we who will have to fix it, and overcome all the teething troubles.
I’d rather we bought a French fixed Rafale or US/UAE fixed Viper or USN/RAAF fixed F/A-18 E/F or Euro fixed Typhoon…
From my memory, KAB500S/KAB1500S feature dual GPS/GLONASS guidance. Their use has little to do with the aircraft itself, every fighter with standard MIL databus will be able to handle the weapon in short time.
Flex, is it even in series production? Thats the issue. Russia no doubt has a wide variety of stuff in development, but from all indications, they are not really bothered with getting it out ASAP but lining it up with PAK-FA timeframes or so it appears.
Exactly what lack of sophistication do you have in mind? India is buying a strike platform in the first place. They can stuff the platform with whatever they want. Even with outsourced Israeli/French/American/British stuff.
I mentioned it earlier. Stuff like geolocation, integrated MMI with IEWS like on the Typhoon, electro-optics linked to the core WCS like in the combo of the HTS (improved) with Sniper ATP..etc.
Problem is all the off the shelf solutions cost a bomb to procure separately and then integration costs time.
For instance, we are doing it for the MKI, but its time consuming and another thing, the Flanker has the advantage of size allowing it to take last moment additions to its avionics & so on and so forth. I doubt the MiG35 will be so lenient.
For that matter, choosing an aircraft with good flying characteristics/maintenance requirements is more important than bickering about flops rates of the avionics computers, these things can be addressed later.
Sorry – disagree, Please look into the costs required to retrofit a truly modern avionics architecture into any airframe, its horrendous. Only the upgrade hype has actually swamped this piece of info. Good flying characteristics – again, what use is TVC etc to me, when I’d rather want a decent flying platform with high reliability and service rates?
Remember – the original MRCA – what did it aim at? The Mirage 2000 V- even though the IAF’s MiG-29s could fly rings around the Mirage, when well handled and were definitely more potent aerodynamic platforms.
Funny claim.. the only weapon used on Tejas has been R-73 by now. BTW, commonality with Su-30MKI weapons is not important anymore?
Funny indeed, please research more, the LCA has a dedicated SMS with individual weapons controllers that allow it to integrate Russian, Western and Indian munitions, for instance the R-73E was integrated by India without Russian involvement. Thats my point, that if Russian weapon integration/commonality is to be sought for cost amortization, one way or the other, the Tejas fleet is there.
As I said before, India will only buy well if they buy today’s paper specs that will be ready by the time of the deliveries, be it from any producer or origin. A criminal waste of money would be having deliveries in 2014-2022 of a fighter that was ready developed 2006-2008.
My point is that the MiG-35s paper specs dont EXCEED the existing specs of current fighters which are already in service and will see further upgrades by that time!
Which India can leverage!
Or
India can buy a fighter which achieves, by 2012, what other fighters achieved almost 5-8 years back itself. I mean, look at the specs of the Zhuk AE and the existing MSA Captor …
The experience was not that bad. Most of the financial probems were related to sinking dollar to which the deals were bonded to. Before Russians attempted to revise the prices, India has actually earned/saved a sh!tload of money. There is a good reason why many co-projects continue.
No doubt but there were serious issues which took time to rectify – again, let me reiterate. No Russia bashing here, my point is very simple – you depend only on one supplier whether it be US or Russia, and you are beholden to that supplier in entirety. Its too risky.
Sounds strange from someone supporting a purchase of US hardware, now technical specs aside, buying US stuff is politically a much more hazardous move than buying European or Russian.
My point Flex is, pragmatically speaking, the decision has already been made that buying US is no big deal.
Lets see – a GOI which is willing to sink in ~$ 100 B over decades into a nuclear industry which will be dependent on US fuel largesse (and India cant even test) & do you think that a few fighters matter?
My point is that since the decision has been made for better or worse, go with the best deal.
My favourite btw, is the Rafale. Then the EF, and if it MUST be American, then the Hornet.
TeerSo far there is no confirmation of the above report being true.
Sanjay Badri Maharaj writes:
I would like you to read this first from a defense journalist accredited to one of the daily papers:
“Dear sanjay,
each day for two hours including me, reporters from the newspapers mentioned below sit in MOD spokesman’s office…but I have never seen this Hemant Rout.
If the spokesman does not want to say anything then he simply says so. He does not lie. I have not seen/heard him lie even once.
Now your question how soon we get info abt the success of test…they issue a statement for the media after which we all sit around Sitanshu Kar and he responds to our qs. I asked him abt this report of failure he just shrugged it off as nonsense.
Then I asked my source in DRDO and he said the test was successful. So…”
There is an issue of credibility at present – again I don’t what to malign Mr. Rout unfairly but this is the feedback I obtained when investigating the veracity of the report.
Kind of interesting – ExpressBuzz did not think fit to carry Rout’s report in its E-Paper for either 20th May or 21st May.
The only two newspapers to “carry this” are an unknown sakaal times, and the verbatim report appeared in Expressbuzz and was not repeated thereafter.
This is a SFC- Army test, and any failure would have been widely reported.
TeerLook if that is the point of your argument then US has arm twisted and sanctioned us dime a dozen times there is history to go by , they have a long past of imposing sanctions , neither US is willing to give any strong guarantees legally and politically that MMRCA wont come under sanction.
If they can do that , atleast we can be sure defence system purchased will be usable and available without any restrictions
A single reliable vendor is better than an unreliable sanction happy vendor
So, buy European!
And if the US is so unbelievably unreliable, then why did we buy P81 from them, Firefinder radars, the Jalashawa, the C-130 and now they are frontrunner for the heavy lift choppers (Chinook) & other programs.
You cant have it both ways!
All that Ding Dong can come in with Softupgrade if indeed Mig-35 cannot do it for now something that I am not aware of though they do have GLONASS guided weapons and other standoff weapons , as i have mentioned Weapons and Electronics are dynamic in development , what is latest and greatest today will be old technology in 6 years time.
NCW is quite common and Mig-35 will sure have it , there is nothing to loose sleep about , most available aircraft will have NCW capability to varying degree.
What all that ding dong and where is the magic evidence?
There is no evidence to say these capabilities are even in development with the MiG team or being fielded tomorrow or 5 years from now or ever!
And what IS NCW,…? Is it just datalinking A2A targets or more? If more, which Russian developer is doing it for the MiG-35.
The GLONASS guided weapons are also vapourware for now. Where are they in wide service and mass production? How many targets can be attacked with how many bombs in a single pass?
The RD-33WASP is quite state of art powerplant , though it might not compare with the EJ200 10:1 T/W ratio compared to 8:1 it offers but it neither should do that , Typhoon will cost a bomb and we have capable platform in MKI.
State of art in what respect? Given the RD-33 operational history in the IAF! I would rather wait for the MiG-29K Upg to show existing problems have been rectified first before terming it “state of the art” .
No aircraft on offer has 3D TVC tech that Mig-35 has and it might be possible to retrofit later on other 29 series fighter , this is advantage of commonality at its best.
And why do we need 3D TVC when we are looking for a strike platform in the main? What will this 3D TVC contribute to the MiG-35s lack of avionics maturity and sophistication.
If you add US here that makes it 4 , so far we have operated Zero US aircraft and zero experience in maintaining and using it.
How is it 4, when all other western aircraft namely the Mirage & Jaguar will begin retirals in the 2020 timeframe, barely 6-8 years after the MRCAs come in.
Its only 3 suppliers left. And what is this 3 business since BAe standards are not the same as Mirages and vice versa and we have operated both types happily.
Nothing on personal front there , but we don’t need another substantial technology lead aircraft , as we have the MKI with substantial technology and growth path to upgrade.
What we need is a cost-effective fighter with good broad capability which can work well with Tejas and MKI , has as much commonality with Weapons , Logistics and Maintenance as possible to reduce the over operating cost.
The MiG-35 will have no commonality with the Tejas bar weaponry which the latter can source from western aircraft as well.
And who says we dont need another technology lead aircraft, for $ 10 billion we better get the best bang for our buck, not a hand me down based on paper specs.
We learn from past mistakes which ofcourse is not all Russian fault may be we simply over looked it and make the contract as foolproof as possible based on past experience.
But if we dont learn and commit the same mistakes again there is nothing in the world anything can do about it.
So where is the evidence of having learnt from the T-90 deal, from the Smerch deal, from the Gorshkov deal, from the midway cost escalation in the MKI deal?
The solution is NOT to go park more money in a haphazard manner!
Not Needed , Not Required , Criminal Waste of Tax Payers Money
We have MKI to match up to those.
It would be an even bigger criminal waste of money to spend it on a paper airplane existing only on brochures!
The rest of the post is still “hope” – and BringitOn said it again.
NO , they are NOT , the Mig-35 offers only a UNDER DEVELOPMENT AESA , testing and cert. of which will be done only if IAF picks the fighter. NO WHERE DO I SEE JDAM , SDB type of Set up , the AESA is not nearly half as effective as the SENSOR – WEAPON COMBO !! The JDAM , SDB , JSOW , JAASM , LGB , JHMCS/9X , APG_79 , IRST , FLIR combo outclasses the -35’s suite anyday in effectivness !! And i wont even go into what the USN is trying to acheive with Data links , and other forms of communication of Vital sensor data !! Those things require serious DOLLARS to achieve and dont come just like that !!! As i said again READ THE ROADMAP again , what they plan to do with the SH , spend DOLLARS upgrade it , make it better as an NC platform !!! THEY ARE SPENDING MONEY , GETTING THINGS DONE , AND PLANNING TO DO MORE THINGS , not just talking a good game !!
Because that is exactly the crux of the arguement of the Euro canards and F-series fighters versus the MiG.
Weapons? Oh, they have R-77XX in development, when will it come? Someday. R-73XX likewise. HMD? Oh sameway. MMI- it has glass screens. Advanced datalinking? No- it will one day have something “Fast”. Radar? In development. Maintenance figures? How do we know that, unfair- its in development! Engine MTBF- XXX hours, claimed. Claimed? Hey, thats unfair, its a new engine….etc etc etc…
What about the prior evidence of the Russians reneging on TOT and price agreements? The US is worse, what about the Europeans? Criminal waste of money.
Everything about the MiG-35 at this point of time, is one big circle of hope. Its just setting up the MiG-35 to be the winner on the basis of hope and everything else sucks.
I disagree. Mere hope doesnt win wars, effective weapons do.
Teer19 squadrons in service , Block II in service , LPI AESA in service , IRST – Contracted for allready , Aim-120 D is up and ready , JHMCS / 9 X IN service ,RCS Reduction done, NC Capability Being Demonstrated , JASSM,JSOW,SLAM-ER,Harpoon,HARM,Maverick – CLEARED , Total Package of GPS/INS Guided US munitions including future SDB II update (Moving target) not to mention the up and comming programs such as LOCAAS and what not !! AN/ALR-67(V)3 is operational and allready is up and running in OIF , AN/ALE-55 comming very soon (by year end?)
Add to that USN’s strong committment and plans for the Block III !!
ROADMAP
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/13/212600/ultra-hornet.html
Agreed ! Only thing is that the APG-79 does not have “full” LPI like the APG-77 afaik. It may certainly have LPI “features” – extremely fast scan, low sidelobes, no waveform change from TWS to lock etc.
TeerAustin,
Enough evidence has already been presented about the reality, which is that Russia has already armtwisted India in cases where the Indian side was in a single vendor situation and the contract was not secure enough.
Does this mean Russia is not a reliable partner, hardly – but it also means that overreliance has its limitations.
So, it still doesnt provide any fact to counter the basic point that a single vendor situation is best avoided. The exact reason why India always maintained two parallel streams of acquisitions.
And, no its not 4 sources but 3 – west, India and Russia, if my proposal is followed, as Bring It On correctly noted.
Accusing me of bias is pointless- the reality wont change, that the EF, Rafale, F-16IN, F/A-18 E/F have a substantial technology lead over the “will be developed MiG-35” in terms of several INTEGRATED avionics systems which the MiG is yet to demonstrate but are already operational on its rivals.
It is UFO level technology for the MiG because as the term says “unidentified”- bring me evidence of the MiG able to geolocate targets, able to designate multiple GPS guided bombs on the basis of datalinked SAR data, and I will change my mind. So far its only “MiG-29 is good or MiG-35” will be..!
No evidence of any of the advanced network enabled systems that are now increasingly taken for granted in any competent AF.
Lastly, about the airframe and engine being good enough – you are kidding right? In the airframe, propulsion department the MiG is clearly reaching its design limits, and is behind the Typhoon and Rafale. In terms of powerplant tech, it brings nothing new to the table in growth potential versus the F/A-18 E/Fs and F-16IN’s systems. In terms of airframe versus these two, it is competitive and only with TVC will it be better in WVR (for BVR it simply does not have the long legs which the MKI can utilize to combine the two).
All in all, it is yesterdays aircraft dressed up with good marketing for todays job, with most of the systems only existing on paper and for India to fall into the trap of buying a paper product.
And yes, India HAS renegotiated for the T-90 (they failed – which is why we are not getting TOT for some systems and are replacing with our own), Smerch (we ended up buying only the systems not the tech), MiG-21 Bison (we ended up accepting revised Russian terms not to transfer TOT midway through the program because we did not have a choice), Brahmos (which is why we developed the TEL & other systems inhouse because the Russians did not wish to part with the tech at reasonable cost) and many other systems. Its a fact of life that Russia safeguards its interests, and so should we.
There is no betrayal in taking a second supplier for the AF. We will continue to cooperate with Russia in many strategic programs, despite the niggles because they are the only game in the house and recompense them substantially.
This is not such a case. Other options exist & are in fact, better for the IAFs needs.
In earlier days, we used to accept all these conditions because we paid in barter or “imaginary” money to be adjusted against the Russia -India trade, now we pay in cold hard cash and they expect the same. It makes little sense to buy second rate equipment at first rate prices. This is not even a JV like the FGFA where we have a significant say in the overall product for our investment. Here it is mostly buying an imaginary fighter for a possible induction with real money!
Real money that can be spent on real products, such as the EF, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F etc.
Sorry, but have to say your point has not been made and indeed time will tell about the MiG-35!
TeerCain,
Missed the datalink part – what I mean is this, if the Russian high bandwidth datalink is really available already, why arent we going with their solution for the IAF’s ODL (Operational Datalink) project which is already underway? Can assure you it is not Russian!
So here’s the thing- an airborne datalink is one thing, but what about the integration with the WCS for advanced datasharing? The F/A-18 E/F can or is slated to, in a confirmed manner, share SAR images, fixed with positional data & the next batch of F/A-18 E/Fs roll in & JDAM the place away. Can the MiG-35 do this? Havent heard of it.
Similarly – geolocation, F/A-18 E/Fs can locate emitters, datalink the coordinates and attack the target – can the MiG-35 do this? No data so far.
Passive strike- the Gripen, the original JAS-39 could actually use its radar as a passive receiver & 3 of them could triangulate a target & attack, by sharing plots from each radar and make a coherent track. Nothing like this mentioned for the MiG.
…..
It just goes on and on. My point is these features come as standard on some of the MRCA candidates. Each has some unique features which the other doesnt, but they have a very high baseline in terms of overall sensors. The MiG-35 doesnt, and we will have to spend massive elbow grease from DRDO (DARE) to implement these.
Some of these things are already in development for our current gen aircraft & sensors.
They can be implemented on the MiG-35 but it wont be cheap and it will take time as well. Why bother when you can get these off the shelf from day 1 and you can implement the effort on the LCA MK2, the AEW & C and finally the MCA etc.
TeerSo are you saying that a 50+ million dollar aircraft should be more oriented for strike missions….good joke, for me the “strike” title was something made up because some airplanes don’t have a good physical performance, yes they want something with strike capability, but is more like a fighter high performance with secundary strike role, because it will be costly
Regarding the “magic” of AESA, people again are falling into the marketing crap, whithout even considering physical limitations, a bit help, LPI is a big fat marketing joke
Electronics are complicated , and really nobody could confirm how different are their performance, the media is biased, i mean on one article the unexistent F-18 IRST was put in better place than the 35’s IRST…a cassegrain antenna could perform better than AESA one..yeah people would laugh about it, but most likely are just kids that had never changed a single PLC board in their whole life
Is a bit funny,that i pointed out 2 threads ago the possible space/nose /IRST issues for the US models, the thing was lost in middle of indian politic rants, that nobody cares, and nationalistic activism…
Anyway , proceed with your funny thread
I read that 3 times and my head still hurts from trying to make sense of what you wrote.
Sorry, giving up.
Reading it the 4th time, you are still confused about what I said versus what you think I said –
– For $50 M, if I get a plane “good” at A2A and very good at strike, able to handle all predicted enemy opposition, with abilities fielded today, not mythical tomorrow. Good enough for me.
– You have apparently no idea of the context vis a vis the discussion under AESA going on. Nobody mentioned LPI as a MRCA decider. The APG-80, 63 etc dont have LPI – if they do, I havent seen it. Pure full scale LPI is a power restricted mode (with a shortfall in range) used on stealth fighters – APG77 and 81. Havent read about it for the 81, but its logical that it has it, otherwise what stealth?
LPI is ANYTHING but a joke – its giving EW designers the world over a big challenge. If you dont know about this, I’d advise you to have a chat with actual professionals in the field and you’d wake up.
-Nobody knows about the IRST performance (yet) of the F/A-18 E/F, the $4M contract for further development was given just recently. My thoughts, very possible it may out perform the MiG-35’s NIPP system- the US has long had access to the best of class IIR detector technology & they’ll leverage it to the hilt. However, the put it in a fuel tank solution remains clunky, and the overall system will suffer from fatigue issues & hence limited flight hours for sure. A band aid of a solution at best.
The F-16 IR system in the nose – could be used for A2A but always appeared to be NAVFLIR from what I could make out. Glad to be corrected.
Kindly read what others say, and dont assume things about them being biased or media etc.
TeerYes, the SABR/RACR are limited by the demands of retrofitting into older F-16s, but they’re much newer designs than the APG-80. The relationship between them depends on the degree to which the APG-80 has been upgraded to keep it current.
The APG-63(v)2 uses old, heavy, power-hungry T/R modules, of the class which European manufacturers decided weren’t cost-effective. Too expensive, too demanding of the aircraft (weight, power) to be worthwhile – and it’s only been fitted to 18 aircraft, which shows how good the USAF thinks it is.
Swerve,
There have been no huge breakthroughs in process tech to make the SABR (IMO) somehow the equivalent of an APG-80 & compensate for the power differential from iirc lower power engines. I’d wager that’s only going to come from the next gen AESAs ie GaN and what not. Where the improvements really come in handy IMO is miniaturization & vis a vis heat generated, allowing for better heat management without having to put in a brand new (and expensive, power hungry by itself) ECS which has to cool the pilot and other avionics as well.
The RACR…that seems interesting. Its basically, from what I can gather, a scaled down APG-79. And NG tout the cost effectiveness of the SABR (they should, since it reuses the MSA exciter/PA/other LRUs) whereas Raytheon point to LCC of the RACR (implies that the acquisition costs will be higher). Now given the power available via the earlier F-16s is going to be the same & they dont intend to put in new electrical systems, I’d wager it is the RACR which comes closer to the APG-80 performance (but doesnt get there) whereas the SABR will lag by far.
Even so, a 25-50% improvement on the baseline MSA performance is respectable by itself which should be possible. The APG-80 gets almost a 100% improvement (aided no doubt, by the power available from the higher thrust engine).
TeerSwerve,
Thats a bit pedantic. Of course I meant the AESA APG on the F-16 viz the discussion & that entire news article! The MSA V9 also referred to the APG-68 V9! The F-16 Specific MSA that is.
Of course there are other AESA APG’s its the general acronym utilized after all, and each of these differ in power ratings and what not. Generally speaking, of the AESA’s, I’d rate the APG-63V4/3 the highest**, followed by the APG-77 then the 81 with the 79 more or less tied, followed by the APG-80. The SABR/RACR appear to be retrofit programs and limited by the existing backend/power limitations.
I dont have much info about the V2 (63 )
** range wise, not LPI etc
TeerThe ACES jammer is version 2 of the one mentioned here:
Publication Title Jane’s Avionics
Publication date Dec 28, 2006
The AN/ALQ-187 is an internally housed, fully automatic jammer system integrated with radar warning and flare/chaff systems for tactical aircraft self-protection. The only fully integrated jammer on the F-16, it is also readily adaptable to installation in the F-4, F-18, A-7 and Mirage 2000 aircraft. The system detects and defends against surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and air-to-air interceptor weapon systems. It can interface with the AN/ALE-39 or AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispensers and the AN/ALR-66, AN/ALR-69 or AN/ALR-74 radar warning receivers. The fully software programmable system automatically detects single and multiple-threat radars of the same or different technologies and selects the most effective of 13 Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) techniques to counter pulse, Pulse Doppler (PD) or Continuous Wave (CW) ground-based, shipborne or airborne emitters. ECM techniques include Range Gate Pull Off (RGPO), Range on False Targets, Inverse Gain, Velocity Gate Pull-Off (VGPO), Doppler False Target, Swept Spot Noise and False Scan/False Lobe. The system is flight line reprogrammable, allowing immediate incorporation of the latest intelligence threat data and ECM techniques. Advanced power management ensures maximum jamming effectiveness. The AN/ALQ-187 jammer also forms part of the Raytheon Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites (ASPIS) system.
And more details here of the newer version with DRFM (version 2 could be a slightly more advanced derivative or the same system itself- eg see date):
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jrew/jrew1268.html
Publication date
May 27, 2008
Type
Airborne 6.5 to 18 GHz band detector-jammer.
The AN/ALQ-187 is an internally mounted, fully automatic, radar detector-jammer that operates in the 6.5 to 18 GHz frequency band and can be integrated with an onboard radar warning receiver and countermeasures dispensing system to create a defensive aids suite. ALQ-187 comprises a system control processor, a forward transmitter/repeater, an aft transmitter, a cockpit control/indicator and reception and transmission antenna arrays. System options are a data recorder and an integrated control/indicator for applications where a stand-alone unit is not required. Of these various subsystems, the forward transmitter/repeater receives, amplifies, modulates and transmits radio frequency signals in the forward hemisphere while the cockpit control/indicator unit displays system ‘go/no-go’ status, system faults, threat environment data and transmitter status. The system’s transmit and receive antenna arrays both cover the full 6.5 to 18 GHz frequency range. Functionally, this software programmable system automatically detects radar threats and selects an appropriate response according to whether the threat is a ground-based, shipboard or airborne continuous wave, pulse or pulse-Doppler emitter. ALQ-187 is flight line reprogrammable and makes use of power management techniques to ensure maximum jamming effectiveness. As applied to the Greek Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suite (ASPIS) II programme, ALQ-187 is understood to have incorporated a Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology insert.
TeerCain,
I have not seen any official description of the exact breakup of the capabilities of the F-16IN EW suite yet, but it can be accepted that an integrated EWS suite will generally be equivalent if not the better of an off the shelf system which does not appear to have any unique advantages ie exceptionally high ERP, unique modes etc.
The IEWS Falcon Edge had the ability (claimed) to jam earlier SA-10’s- I guess it should work against even the PMU-2’s given their close lineage, but might struggle against the new S-400s since they come with brand new radars.
For the F-16 IN is the ACES:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/lockheed-martin-selects-raytheon-for-f-16-protection-suite_100154000.html
http://frontierindia.net/lockheed-martin-selects-raytheon-for-f-16-protection-suite
So digital RWR, integrated DRFM equipped jammer and a towed decoy.
The http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/f16in/index.html page does mention a towed decoy.
I would generally think it is equal to at least the Falcon Edge, its being fielded several years later, and would make use of newer COTS items & technologies developed.
LWS is not such a big deal – at the ranges at which a Laser ranger would be tactically used, the F-16 is in deep sh*t anyways if it hasnt detected whats been going on. It might be of some issue versus the RBS-70, but I doubt the RBS-70 is going to be able to down a fighter on the deck, at 0.5-06 M.
Coming to aerodynamics & the like – again, I am more interested in the strike capabilities , not A2A. It does not have to be the uber A2A combatant – thats the MKIs job. And with AESA, JMHCS/AIM-9X, AMRAAM & a decent EW suite with towed decoys, it should do fine versus whatever the PAF and PLAAF can field.
Lastly, radar range – you have specs on this very forum from AWST, but if you wish for something from the horse’s mouth (assuming the journo actually did get it from the pilot):
A roller coaster ride on a fighter jet (F-16IN Super Viper)
The Indian Express ^ | Feb 09, 2009 | Manu PubbyPosted on Monday, February 09, 2009 5:09:43 PM by sukhoi-30mki
A roller coaster ride on a fighter jet
Manu Pubby
Posted: Feb 09, 2009 at 1621 hrs IST
Bangalore: When Manu Pubby boarded the Super Viper, a fighter aircraft, the next 45 minutes turned out to be “like all the roller coaster rides at Appu Ghar rolled into one mega ride but without the safety harness”
Express’ correspondent’s first hand experience follows:
After years of ‘flying’ the F16 on computer simulator games and completing numerous ‘missions’ to take down enemy fighters and bomb nuclear facilities, I thought I would have an idea of how things were going to be in my first actual ride in a fighter aircraft.
However, as soon as the F 16 IN ‘Super Viper’, an aircraft designed to meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for an ongoing acquisition plan, rolled down the runway, I knew that nothing could have prepared me for the next 45 minutes of flying in the lethal fighter around the city of Bangalore.
The moment the Super Viper picked up speed, the sheer power of the 32,000 pounds of thrust in the machine pinned me down in the seat. It was like starting off on a fast roller coaster ride but in this case the acceleration just went on increasing as we thundered down the runway.
Before the flight, as I settled into the co-pilot’s seat, I was instructed not to touch any of the controls or switches inside the cockpit. They needn’t have bothered. All I could manage as the Lockheed Martin test pilot Paul ‘Bear’ Randall pulled up the nose for take-off was to clench on to the side rails of the canopy and clench my teeth hard as the gravitational or G force pushed me deeper into the seat. The take-off, I later realised, is the most exhilarating part of flying in a fighter plane. Unlike the gentle ‘leaving the ground behind’ in a commercial liner, the Super Viper just ripped apart from the runway as if it was never meant to be on the ground in the first place.
‘Bear’ Randall, who has flown numerous combat missions and taken part in the first Gulf War, had warned me before the flight that he would pull off a stunt at take-off to make the fighter look good for spectators.
As soon as the fighter left the ground, he pulled it into an exhilarating right turn and zoomed vertically into the sky. On the ground, each one of us experiences a force of gravity that is measured as one g. However, when you accelerate very rapidly, the force of gravity on the body excruciatingly multiplies.
So, the force of gravity on the body increased five times, or 5 g, as we pulled into the vertical climb, pinning me down into the seat and forcing me to tense every muscle I could muster. The G suit that we were wearing, a special equipment that pumps air pressure into the lower part of the body so that the blood flow to the brain doesn’t stop due to the excessive gravitational force, prevented a black-out.
The ability to tolerate the G force, and pilots do experience as much as 9 g when they pull off extreme maneuvers, is one of the reasons why the pilot inside the machine still matters so much. The amount of technology on the ‘Super Viper’ makes it an ‘easy’ machine to fly but it is the ability of the pilot inside the cockpit that takes it to its extreme.
When we levelled off at around 6,000 feet, ‘Bear’ Randall asked me how it felt. Being a journalist, I am not often out of words but all I could tell him at the moment was that it was unbelievable. It was, of course, like nothing I had experienced before. It was like all the roller coaster rides at Appu Ghar rolled into one mega ride but without the safety harness.
But the Super Viper can do much more than a roller coaster. As we pulled above the cloud cover at 10,000 feet, I was given a feel of the real characteristics of a fighter aircraft. The amount of data that the pilot receives through various sensors onto the three display screens on the aircraft is mind-boggling.
From the altitude, speed, wind direction and other navigational information to the number of other aircraft in the air, potential ground targets in the area and the picture of the ground beneath, the list of data just goes on. Flying the aircraft is just one part of the job, the real test is sifting through the streams of unending data that comes up on the screen and directing the fighter to its mission.
Perhaps the most important from the survival point of view is situational awareness, or the knowledge of enemy fighters or missile systems in the vicinity. Here is where the new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, that is required by the Indian Air Force for its new fighters, proves its worth.
Unlike a traditional radar that is on board most fighters and all Indian aircraft, the AESA is a revolutionary new technology that increases the range to detect aircraft by more than 50 per cent. In a typical war scenario, for example, an Indian F 16 ‘Super Viper’ would detect a Pakistani F 16 in the air at a distance of over 200 km because of the AESA radar.
However, the Pakistani jet, fitted with a traditional radar, would be unaware of the presence of an enemy aircraft upto a point when the distance between the two comes down to 100 km, giving the Indian pilot many more options to deal with him and even fire off a missile. Of course, the extra bit of thrust — 32,000 pounds against the 29,000 pounds that the Pakistani version has — would also make a difference if the two got into closer combat.
In the air, as we flew on the outskirts of Bangalore, the screen in front of me picked up targets at incredible distances, which, as someone described, were even beyond tactical significance — beyond the range of any of the missiles that can be fitted on board fighters.
At over 10,000 feet, sitting in a glass bubble roaring at speeds of over 600 km/hr, the ground looks incredibly wonderful. As ‘Bear’ pulled into some tight turns to show me the maneuverability of the fighter, we were almost upside down over miles of green fields.
The swagger, I realised, that fighter pilots usually have must come from this very feeling that the world is at their feet and mercy when they are inside the ultimate flying machine — a fighter aircraft.
While we have been concerned about the depleting squadron strength of the IAF, the new generation of fighter, which will hopefully be inducted soon, demonstrates that the lack of numbers can be bridged over by the multi- tasking ability of newer machines.
As we flew over the countryside, ‘Bear’ showed me the ground targeting capabilities of the fighter. We picked up houses and buildings that were much beyond visual range on the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). We locked on to a moving target — I think it was a vehicle — and ‘mapped out’ the terrain beneath us.
At the same time, the air-to-air mode of the aircraft was also on. So, at a single point in time, the new multi-role fighters will be able to track ground targets, shoot off a missile at an enemy aircraft and even take pictures of the ground beneath them, giving the IAF a cutting edge over the other air forces in the region.
I must admit I got a bit woozy as Bear took the fighter into a series of tighter turns to show me around the countryside. Roller Coaster rides don’t usually make me sick but the sudden accelerations and turns on the Super Viper left me a bit dazed. With a heavy heart, because I really wanted to experience some clever maneuvers inside the fighter, I had to tell him to go a bit easy!
The most exciting part during the flight was, of course, when I lay hands on the controls. After levelling off at a good height, ‘Bear’ let me take on the control stick for a little while. Here is where all the years of flying the computer simulator helped. A gentle flick of the control stick, and the fighter turned like a Ferrari at full throttle.
Incredibly, the control stick of the fighter was as soft and easy to handle as the power steering in my car. It required about the same amount of energy but was a bit more sensitive. The tricky part, which got me a bit light- headed, was pulling into a turn. That is when the g force kicks in.
After 45 minutes of an incredible flight, Bear pulled the fighter down in a slow descent as we lined over the Yelahanka airbase where preparations for the Aero India show were on in full earnest.
What surprised me was how incredibly gentle the touchdown was as the aircraft kissed the tarmac. I was bracing myself for a big whack but the fighter just slipped in gentler than any commercial airliner I had flown in.
As the fighter rolled to a stop at the tarmac, I realised that driving around in my car would never be as much fun again. The simulators, though they were the most ‘realistic’ that were available, didn’t even get close to the thrill of flying in a real fighter aircraft.
This actually matches some estimates I read somewhere, of the range of the latest MSA V9 radar being around ~100 km for a 5 Sq Mtr (non treated Viper like the PAF ones) whereas the AESA APG comes to around double that.
Quite sufficient for me, thanks very much and = to what the MiG-35 “claims” it will achieve “one day”.
TeerAustin,
Replying to nested quotes is downright tiresome, so I will just make my points briefly:
1. It is not a question of “what can be” to imagine a case of supplier side armtwisting and russian issues if we were to rely on a single vendor. Its reality, whether it is the Gorshkov case, or the T-90, Smerch or even the IGLA-S, Russia has renegotiated treaties to suit its national interest (I dont blame them). With 80% of your fighter fleet in one hand, that is begging for trouble.
Second, the spares issue was NOT the problem for the MiG-21 at the time, it was purely a design flaw problem, according to senior IAF engineering crew, the Russian attitude was anything but helpful (MiG)- that has been occuring even now on some projects (customer complaints = denial, and renegotiation of contracts). Again, relying only on Russia for all fighters bar the LCA, and be prepared to taken to the cleaners.
Third, the flame tube and other issues demonstrate the advantages of vendor diversification. Right now MiG is in huge trouble, it simply does not have the ability to sustain a long product lifecycle without Indian assistance viz the MiG-35. Again, launch customer, jittery OEM – whats the point of this? Where are the costs being saved?
Basically, your arguement does not address the single vendor issue at all. It relies on “hope” that all is well with that particular vendor and that vendor will not armtwist us- based on current record itself, that idea is not supported. Whether it be the T-90 deal or the Smerch or many others, single vendor deals with Russia have been very very problematic (the only exception being the MKI, because of Irkuts history with the MiG27 and Fedorov being in charge, who took charge).
2. Costs saved in so called commonality are very hard to quantify. There is very little in common with the MiG-35 and the older MiGs. Almost the entire avionics is different, with no certain MTBF, or even guaranteed performance bar paper figures. No fixed timeline either. What we did for the MiG-29 was replicate everything back in India, and at the end of the day it was still investment which we were forced to make, even though it aids in indigenization. But a lot of this will be redone back at HAL via the TOT part for the MRCA, so one way or the other the same capabilities will come in via the MRCA contract itself for ANY fighter we choose, so no biggie.
3. The stuff on the F-16/F-18 “is” UFO like vis a vis the MiG-35 basic fit. There is NO evidence of any advanced capability like geolocation, real time SAR datalinking etc being implemented on the MiG-35. These are but basic items. I am not even talking of using the antenna array as ESM or things like that. The APG’s on the US fighters are tested and proven – the MiG Zhuk is yet to even achieve basic opeval status with the full config, see the difference? Its not merely a question of software – but hardware as well! Second, it is NIIP which is the proven ESA house in Russia, not Phazatron. Phaz is but including raid assessment on its MSA Zhuk ME NOW for the IAF Upg MiG-29. That in itself shows where they are versus their fancy airshow figures. Even the Euro fighters have fairly advanced mission avionics and EW suites, and they are definitely better than that on the MiG. Compare Spectra & its overall noted capabilities versus what we know for Russian systems so far, just adding a split Italian system will not compensate! And the MiG lacks the space and avionics volume a Flanker can provide. No mention/evidence of towed decoys either, or full scale sensor fusion, as available on ALL the other competitors. India will have to introduce ALL these and we dont have time.
Our priority should be to work on the LCAMK2 and the MCA not finesse the MiG-35 when resources also need to be allocated for the FGFA/PAKFA. HALs braggadacio apart, they know it, we know it – they will have to approach DRDO for a lot of the avionics and structural work, and there is no infinite pool of people sitting and waiting for these things to arrive. We simply havent built up that kind of excess slack.
4. As far as capability goes, its my contention, based on an indepth comparison that this MiG-35 offers next to no advantage over the equally in development Gripen, and is in fact behind the other contenders. The only so called advantage it has is again politics that Russia does not sanction us, and the US does, and that Russia will give us more TOT (assumed) versus the US. In the first case, thats the same advantage which France can give us as well, and as regards the second – who would believe TOT is in anyways useful apart from the spares capability, that we can service our own jets to the maximum extent? We dont need AESA Tx/Rx from NG or Raytheon- we have our own programs, and if we were to ever get that tech from the US, rest assured it would be a gen behind current state of the art. Its no coincidence that even in our strategic programs all the oooh ah about TOT apart, all those modules are being made in India, and retrofitted into an overall architecture made by us, based on some proven design from an experienced OEM. We know what they will not provide and we compensate. Anyways, the typical AESAs have such a huge MTBF, that we are unlikely to even replace the full array anytime (again operational data from the USAF)- we can live without some of the TOT for the radar etc. and concentrate on the actual spares for the powerplant and high volume consumables and stock any holdouts.
5. Weapons, weapons, weapons – frankly, Russia (And Europe) have to a large extent not focused on fielding a large array of proven, mass produced systems available at low cost, or integrated them into battle ready systems in recent times, comparable to the US. When you field a HTS with HARM coupled to imagery via Sniper/Pantera, it is a system proven in conflict, proven after hundreds (some say thousands) of ARM mission failures in conflicts. It is this kind of battle ready system we coopt via US tech.
Overall, these are my points. As a fellow taxpayer, I consider the sops put out in every idiot politicians name from the Gandhi dynasty as a bigger waste of money than spending money on a top class fighter which may be asked to perform in a decisive conflict, with barely any ramp up time.
Given the way things are going we need highly advanced strike capability ASAP. Wars may be glamourous in the air (and we all look at that) but it is strike which is the penultimate decider. Fighters like the Block 60 and Hornet may not be as wow! as the EF or Rafale, but in A2G they are absolutely lethal. Even the EF and Rafale can be equally decisive provided we can afford them.
Finally – the reason why I go for the Hornet above the Viper are –
– Its new and its production line will be viable for many years churning out fleet upgrades and spares. Contrast to the issues Poland and some Scandinavian (iirc) countries have had in spares.
– Viper offset in Poland and elsewhere was not a big issue
– The SH is a bigger bombtruck with a more powerful radar. The APG-79 is not a space limited design as the APG-80 appears to be.
– Twin engines gives it better BD survivability versus the Vipers single engine, not to mention bird strikes (compare to how we lost Shreya Shukla post Kargil!)
– Its naval heritage gives it a heavier, more rugged structure designed for high stress, impact carrier operations, will suit it for Indian use and high tempo ops at wartime.
All in all, these are my salient points.
I know you will not agree with them & to avoid you the pain of another lengthy reply, lets agree to disagree on this issue.
Ante Climax,
I seriously see no point in continuing this bizarre side track. You have a reply to your PM.
Teerthere must be space issues for them to even consider placing the IRST in the centerline fuel tank ! which pilot would then be able to jettison the fuel tank to engage in a turning dogfight, if ever required ? to think of such a ridiculous placement of the IRST indicates that the nose doesn’t really have any more space left, which is strange because the Hornet and Super Hornet have large volume in the nose..
Good point.
The nose I presume is used up by the APG-79 – its a heavy, powerful unit, and is probably liquid cooled as well.
So the 17Lb volume BIO stated – is it already used up, or perhaps in a central avionics bay or located in areas which are meant only for upgrading existing core F/A-18E/F avionics…
TeerI am not surprised. If we are to believe “forum rumours”, the main reason that we don’t jump immediately in the Rafale wagon once more, is the upgrade cost (plus missiles prices and spares). We ‘ve been Dassault client since 1974 and this is the first time that we don’t just order the “new toy” with direct procurement. Because it’s not that we aren’t satisfied by the aircrafts themselves. We are. But this thing with costs, is getting out of hand. We bought some new M2000-5, upgraded a few M2000 to -5 and we still have 20 in a limbo, not knowing whether to upgrade or not , because of the $$$ required.
Your story is similar with the difference that you could put non-french items for the upgrade and they don’t let you… So we ‘re back to square 1, that you find the upgrade cost too high.
According to the rumours, this has pissed HAF and doesn’t want the Rafale. True or not i don’t know, but when in 2 countries you hear similar stories…
Aspis,
Brother- we are not alone!
The brotherhood of the happy yet pissed off (at upgrade issues & cost) Mirage customers continues!
We should have someone from Taiwan tell us about their latest troubles with the French Govt over their Mica’s and Mirage troubles.
I believe their issues are even worse than the ones we discussed
Seriously – Dassault seems to be shooting itself in the foot over the entire issue?
Sign In
