Teer@Teer:
The aerostat surveillance platform is very controversial in the US. Last report shows a low reliability and so far an inaptitude to provide a 24hr coverage as claimed (by far). This, in Washington, a low ground coastal city.What about the experience of the Indian armed force? Can you direct us toward a link that you know could be interesting to read in regard of the above. I am particularly skeptical regarding the mountainous terrain where I guess those aerostat would be deployed. But I might be wrong from tip to toes.
Maybe we would need also a thread dedicated to those platforms.
Hi Tomcat, the aerostat radars the IAF has are huge AESA radars hoisted up on US made aerostats.
The IAF operates 2 aerostats. One was damaged by high winds and had to be repaired.
Recent reports note more were ordered and may be operational (around 4).
That apart, IAF really likes them because they have huge surveillance capability. One report I read, noted they can replace multiple radars because they can actually achieve the whole radar range as LOS issues are fixed by putting them so high. The public ranges mentioned are 400 km+ radius.
Having said that, their key issues are mobility and maintenance. They are not exactly as maintenance free (the aerostats if not the radars) as claimed.
Stuck in one area makes them as vulnerable as the older HPRs that are usually in fixed locations.
IAFs not just using them in one geographical areas. For mountainous areas, IAF is deploying LLTRs and light weight radars for gap filling. In short, more are likely to be ordered and inducted as overall experience is that despite challenges they are very powerful capable systems.
TeerPresent versus future plus technological capability. DRDO’s ERJ-145 are lightweight gap fillers in IAF parlance (though with 300 km+ radar ranges one may well argue the precision of that definition). Two are earmarked for the IAF, one to remain as a testbed for CABS (though that may change). The A330 likewise has 2 initials plus more planned (some 6). In the meantime, IAF is seeking to round off its large AWACS fleet by 2 more Phalcons. This + the ERJ-145s will allow it to field round the clock coverage in 2 sectors. More ERJ-145s are also likely in the short term.
Claims it doesn’t mesh are just wrong. It may take upto 3 AWACS/AEW to maintain a single patrol around the clock. One on station, one en route (if the deployment area is far from the hinterland) and one in service. The IAF currently has only 3 Phalcons. With the additional 2 Phalcons & 2 AEW&C (more likely), the IAF’s round the clock coverage ability rises dramatically.
The IAF has a large Il-76 fleet and will be upgrading them all for better serviceability as well.The Phalcons & the A330 based AWACS are high power systems which will be useful against even LO/VLO targets to a large extent (L Band on the Phalcon plus a range of passive sensors) & give the IAF breathing room against the emergence of these systems in the area. The S-Band AEW&C is particularly useful against Pakistan and conventional threats if they are not emitting, though if they are emitting, it too carries passive sensors. OTOH it has dramatically lower operating costs as well.
Additional details:
The DRDO has also re-launched its more ambitious mid-size AWACS programme. It is seeking six suitably modified aircraft like the Airbus A330 or Boeing B-767 that can carry a large antenna dome of about 10-metre diameter, enabling radar coverage of up to 400 km. After a prototype is developed in Phase I, there will be an evaluation by a National Review Committee, followed by production of additional AWACS in Phase II.
The IAF’s long-term plan includes five large AWACS and 15 medium/small AEW&C aircraft plus a string of 30 fixed aerostats along the border by 2020. These ISR assets will be able to support air operations anywhere in the region.
http://www.sps-aviation.com/story_issue.asp?Article=1525
Also DRDO released its TRM details for the A330 based AWACS. They will be GaN, L Band modules.
And
Aero India 2015: India gains indigenous AEW&C capability
India’s AEW&C capability is about to be boosted by the advent of new Embraer EMB-145I aircraft.
Currently still undergoing trials with DRDO, the first of three indigenously developed AEW&C systems is planned to be delivered to the Indian air force in June, it has emerged. All three systems should be delivered by December, DRDO officials told MT. The EMB-145I aircraft that are part of the system are being modified under auspices of DRDO’s Centre for AirBorne Systems (CABS) which acts as the systems integrator. India’s domestic aerospace industry’s role is mostly limited to providing special mission equipment but is in general not involved during integration, with the exception of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) that has been selected as the engineering and life support agency for the aircraft’s mission systems. In addition to AEW&C, the Embraer based system is also designed to perform battle management, ELINT, COMINT and airspace management. Fitted with additional fuel tanks and IFR capabilty, the aircraft has an endurance of up to 5 hours. Despite the addition of special mission equipment, the aircraft retains good hot and high performance.
Manufactured by Hyderabad based Astra Microwave Systems, the aircraft’s S-band AESA radar is capable of detecting low RCS targets at long ranges with CABS personnel present during Aero India demonstrating data that showed correlated tracks involving radar, ESM and IFF input at up to 350 kilometers. The same officials indicated that the primary surveillance radar would be both S and L-band, however this appears not to correlate with Astra Microwave Systems’ information. BEL was said to be manufacturing the aircraft’s VHF/UHF SATCOM system while CABS, DRDO developed the IFF Mk XII (S) system. A total of five VHF, UHF radius are fitted. Also fitted is a Ku-band datalink that has shown to be capable of distributing data to other aircraft including Su-30MKI and MiG-21UPG fighters during trials. A C-band datalink is used for air-ground transmissions. The elaborate RWR-ESM-SPS suite has been developed by DRDO’s Defence Avionics Research establishment (DARE). The self protection element consists of a missile approach warning system (MAWS) and a counter measure dispensing system (CMDS). With regard to the radar warning receivers, a high probability of intercept across the operational RF spectrum is guaranteed through wideband multi-bit digital receivers, according to information provided by DARE . The ESM’s narrowband multi-bit digital receiver is also reported to be highly sensitive.
Equipped with five operator workstations, MT was told that the system has already demonstrated to be able to track up to 50 targets within a 300 kilometer radius. Theoretically, this system should be able to cope with a maximum of 500 targets. Each system also includes a ground station. An additional order for three systems to complement the larger Il-76 based AEW&C aircraft that were converted by IAI was said to be likely. This would also result in a total of six ground exploitation stations which would be distributed over the country, acting as an interface for the country’s Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS). The aircraft’s graphical user interface is almost identical to that of what the Indian military continues to call the Phalcon, hereby limiting training efforts needed to progress from one system to another. IAI ELTA officials pointed out that technically the Phalcon designation is incorrect as this was only used for the initial conformal AEW upgrade of Chile’s Boeing 707 aircraft.
Six EMB145I AEW&C aircraft would be capable of covering most of India’s airspace. However, this would mean all six would need to be airborne which is highly unlikely considering planned maintenance, training etc. Asked about how the new aircraft would complement “Phalcon”, MT was told that the Israeli system with its greater size and power arrangements would be used for detecting threats at longer ranges due to its radar being more powerful. Noteworthy, a mock up of an A330 based AEW&C system was on display at CABS’ indoor exbibition booth during Aero India. This was said to be a preliminary study. However, with India also committed to buying A330 MRTT aircraft, there would be good reason for the IAF to indeed opt for the Airbus aircraft and have it fitted with indigenous equipment. This modern platform could then replace the current long range Il-76 based AEW&C capability.
http://www.miltechmag.com/2015/02/aero-india-2015-india-gains-indigenous.html
TeerPer the Chief of Air Staff, IAF has ordered 8 Akash squadrons of which two are in service and remaining by year end
However 16 Akash squadrons have been ordered above the eight original orders and IAF is now working with DRDO and BEL to finalize Akash Mk2 as well!
Huge success for DRDO and local partners plus continued SAM development.
LRSAM is in final trials for the Navy, with resultant spinoff for MRSAM of which IAF has 9 squadrons on order.
TeerRegarding plans for additional Il-76/Phalcon AEW birds, how does this mesh with production & service plans for both DRDO’s existing ERJ 145-based AEW platform and the recently tendered A330-based program? Do additional Phalcons mean backtracking on the plan to put the smaller ERJ 145 AEW into production/service? Alternatively, does it mean the A330 program will be kicked further down the road? Or is everything going ahead and IAF to end up with 20+ AEW birds?
Present versus future plus technological capability. DRDO’s ERJ-145 are lightweight gap fillers in IAF parlance (though with 300 km+ radar ranges one may well argue the precision of that definition). Two are earmarked for the IAF, one to remain as a testbed for CABS (though that may change). The A330 likewise has 2 initials plus more planned (some 6). In the meantime, IAF is seeking to round off its large AWACS fleet by 2 more Phalcons. This + the ERJ-145s will allow it to field round the clock coverage in 2 sectors. More ERJ-145s are also likely in the short term.
Claims it doesn’t mesh are just wrong. It may take upto 3 AWACS/AEW to maintain a single patrol around the clock. One on station, one en route (if the deployment area is far from the hinterland) and one in service. The IAF currently has only 3 Phalcons. With the additional 2 Phalcons & 2 AEW&C (more likely), the IAF’s round the clock coverage ability rises dramatically.
The IAF has a large Il-76 fleet and will be upgrading them all for better serviceability as well.
The Phalcons & the A330 based AWACS are high power systems which will be useful against even LO/VLO targets to a large extent (L Band on the Phalcon plus a range of passive sensors) & give the IAF breathing room against the emergence of these systems in the area. The S-Band AEW&C is particularly useful against Pakistan and conventional threats if they are not emitting, though if they are emitting, it too carries passive sensors. OTOH it has dramatically lower operating costs as well.
TeerSometimes I wonder if the western establishments have gone fricking insane.
They attacked Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and reduced it to a murderous cesspool with hundreds of thousands dead and presumably many times that number crippled. And left that mess and ran off. Got what out of it? Zilch. Their own people hurt. Of course veterans, dump ’em and forget ’em. In the meantime, goodie old shoes AlQ gets a breather. And all sorts of new groups prop up.
Then Libya, again predictable, overthrow a dictator and all. Again reduce the country to a smoking pile of nothing, destroy the lives of the people and they now run to Europe. Oh noes, refugees crowding our pristine shores in Europe.
Afghanistan. Half a$$ed intervention with no focus as bulk of public attention is on Iraq. After a decade of blundering around and trying to buy off the very groups who sponsor terror (cough, cough), kill one old dude, declare mission done and skedaddle.
Now Syria. Create and engender a full blown civil war. In the process engendering a genocide of the native Yazidi people (collateral damage folks) and creating a new monster ISIL and what not. And then getting upset when Russia intervenes to stabilize the situation. Of course get upset when Russia does this, so payback in Ukraine.
TeerMeet another type of S-duck, 100% LOS (ironically ℅ DRDO):
Unfortunately unsuitable for >M1, but here’s one that is:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=226708&d=1395935907
That’s the IUSAV duct not AMCA
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8141/7604844598_bba33bcbc4_b.jpg
This appears to be a testbed for the AMCA
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pa5V6Q5OsbA/T-9GaEk21YI/AAAAAAAAQoA/sVxqHALhbrA/s1600/AMCA_INTAKE+2.jpg
TeerLet’s be fair though- 90% of those Indian criticisms are defense journalists being stupid. That is not a quality unique to India, far from it.
The weird thing here is that report at least tries to appear as a legitimate source- and that laughably incorrect and ignorant quip about the T-50s S-ducts really brings into question the research methodology and competence of the authors as a whole.
Yep!
That report is just one huge bunch of speculation, from stuff like “AMCA does not have IRST so it can’t carry LGBs”.. err what if it doesn’t self designate?
They have just tried to do some stuff trying to figure out what ADAs slide show, with limited insight into what ADA has done and why.
TeerMaybe when India can build a jet trainer (or even just a radome) without external assistance we can begin to take such criticism of others seriously. :rolleyes:
How does India come into the picture when two amateur analysts who have little clue of whats being done even in India make erroneous assumptions about the FGFA?
Did you even read the report? Whats really interesting are the slides, that they got from ADA, the rest is just their speculation on top of it. Neither is really an expert or ex scientist or any such thing.
PS: India does make radomes – of many kinds – the LCA radome is hitting a time constraint plain and simple. There are frequency selective radomes in proto development for the AMCA, which are a generation ahead of whatever is on the LCA.
TeerDon’t worry, many of us have seen worst. It’s not about India or HAL.
If this stuff can happen in Israel for example.
http://gizmodo.com/5811413/ballsy-thieves-steal-eight-gigantic-jet-engines-from-israeli-air-force-base
But rejected mat. should be accounted and ctrled. This is the basis. And 180+ items, if I am correct, seems a lot. Do we know what kind of position this guy had in the company?
And thx Teer for the update.
Rejected items, even excess items are all accounted and controlled. But every now and then some stuff like this will occur.
I am more concerned though about Su-30 serviceability, the jump to 70% from 55% puts a lot of airframes back into play, around two squadrons worth. Given MMRCA turned out to be a limited jump that counts for a lot.
TeerAny news regarding our MKI blade collector?
I wonder if the ever-ready press in India will inquire on that. I have the feeling that a fascinating story could be lost otherwise*.
*Comment devoid of any irony.
Nothing as salacious as the initial reports would have anyone believe and the folks like Medo seeking to pin all the blame on HAL etc.
There is stuff at HAL, OFB etc which is rejected, i.e. does not meet QA standards or is excess to requirements. This is usual in manufacturing any items.
These items are made of expensive alloys which fetch a good price in the outside market. Everynow and then, some guy gets it into his head to try and make some stuff off the side. He is caught and usually sentenced. The fact the guy was caught just shows the amount of monitoring that goes on with DPSUs and their personnel. The paper trail, the audit process etc are irritating and criticized but do serve a purpose.
As far as Su-30 and HAL are concerned, the lack of support from Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi for Irkuts product or so it seems, has meant the MMRCA deal support for Rafale from IAF. They wanted a backup to the Su-30 at a time when things were not clearly resolved.
IAF made a huge ruckus about getting TOT and ROH facilities set up on time. Sukhoi was years late (and this per official Indian audit reports) which is how the whole, OEM has to guarantee TOT within x months stuff started which became an issue for the MMRCA.
Anyways, Sukhoi seems to have got things back on track for the MKi and serviceability is on the mend to 70% and above. Hopefully the experience will come into play for the T-50/PAK-FA. Meanwhile, IN MiG-29s are facing a lot of issues but which are to be resolved.
TeerIs there a figure for total flight hours flown by Su-30MKI available? There are a total of 6 losses of Flanker types in the IAF? That’s more than USAF F-22 losses. It also does not compare well with the 3 Eurocanard types either.
One can work out the Flanker utilization by its flight crew, these are used very heavily, far more so than USAF F-22s and ECs in a sense because the Flankers are both Air Superiority and Strike platforms for the IAF and are doing most of the heavy lifting.
Su30 pilots fly anywhere between 180-330 hours a year. 180 hours is the squadron average fixed by Govt of India for its fighter fleet, all the way back to its MiG-29 fleet. At the time of Cope India (the first), US pilots noted the Su-30 guys were pulling over 300 hours a year (this was in part because the Su’s were so new a platform, the tactical doctrine was being rewritten). At the time of Cope India 2 KKD, USAF pilots noted the average was around 200 hrs a year which ties in with both GOI mandate, IAF policy and overall utilization. The higher numbers (300+) are usually the very senior guys or designated squadron officers who train the new assignees and hence end up pulling more hours.
Moose – USAF F-16 pilot who flew in Cope India2
Quote:Moose69
As for the F-15’s, they were under certain rules just as we were so I am not surprised at what happened.The Su-30 can perform very well, especially with an experienced pilot who knows his airplane. Their squadron commander was an outstanding pilot whom we all respect deeply. If the Su-30 ever gets into WVR without being spotted (you can see the guy a looong way off), then you are going to have your hands full.
Quote:Moose69
I am sure that they are impressed with the USAF F-16s but whether or not we were there to sell them Vipers is way above my pay-grade. As for the MKIs, they only did BFM for a few days and then split. The MKI is the pride of their fleet and the SU-30ks are eventually going away. There were only a couple of pilots that flew against them and from what I am told it handled nicely. I am not sure of what I can talk about in that area.
Quote:Moose69
The Mirages are great in BFM because they are hard to see. Their delta wings give them a good instant turn capabililty too. I would say that in a BVR arena it is essential to have the aircraft on your radar if you want to do anything…In the dogfight arena…..if you don’t have visual on the aircraft then you have already lost.
I don’t think I can get into details about radars but the Mirage seemed like a pretty nice jet in all arenas.
As for flying hours, one of the Flanker pilots told me openly that he gets about 200 hours a year in the front seat…Their higher ranking dudes fly in the back seat and act as Mission Commanders.
I would feel comfortable against the MKI only in BVR…the thing has thrust vectoring for crying out loud
Having flow in mixed formations now with all of their jets i would say that they are very capable and probably the best air force in Asia. Some of their planes are old but the skill of the IAF pilots make them hold their own. I do think that the Viper holds up very well with most of them, however, because we are downright hard to see and our maneuverability is awesome. Getting slow with some of these jets is not advised[/quote]
TeerSending a team of engineers and technicians to participate in a program in a different country doesn’t do much to develop infrastructure for a home grown program in your own country. All it does is allows your nation to be a participant in the process and provide inputs and perhaps to manage the program since you provide the funds. The next “joint” program with China will require that you do the same, with precious little in terms of systems coming from Pakistan or developing the aerospace eco-system beyond Chinese assisted and directed assembly lines..
Exactly. License production of any fighter or aircraft program means you send a bunch of people over to the developer to familiarize themselves with the tech, learn the basics, get hands on courses etc. It doesn’t mean you develop the items yourself unless you have a program to do so locally. Pretty much everything in the JF-17 is sourced from China or from a few European suppliers here and there. If Pakistan had a significant contribution we’d have known it by now with similar products even available for PAF’s upgrades. Even ROSE for the Mirages was completely French sourced. I did a quick scan of the latest Janes and no mention of any significant Pakistani programs in avionics, EW or radar tech either. What they do have is mostly stuff for commercial level UAVs (leveraged for military use) and some basic stuff being worked on for the PAF etc. There is no integrated program evident at present to either develop these systems in specific or make derivatives for the future. Its transfer of technology and assembly locally. A start for sure, but has limited gains over the long term as the basic IP remains with the vendor.
TeerBlack Archer with regards to K-8 & JF-17 development & how Pakistan was involved “You know nothing Jon Snow”.
A design team of 30 PAF engineers was part of the K-8 project from inception.
My uncle & about 90 odd PAF engineering & design personnel weren’t shuttling between Chengdu & Pakistan from 2000-2009 for shytes & giggles.
We wanted an aircraft over whose design & development we had control. The PAF not only specified but took active part in the design process from day one. We didn’t send that large contingent semi resident at Chengdu for S&G.
Being cost conscious did not mean skimping on tech levels when it came to systems.
.
Sending a bunch of engineers etc and personnel to familiarize themselves with the program doesnt really amount to much. By those standards the number of personnel many AFs, services send over for training to host nations would amount to them claiming that they did the heavy lifting for the original programs.
All the claims of “they weren;t there for S&G apart”, I am yet to see a comprehensive set of items on the aircraft that Pakistan owns.
Was it the mission avionics system including the displays, nav-attack guidance, mission computing and weapons guidance system. Can Pakistan design and develop all these on its own including the software.
Or the hydraulics? Or the aerodynamics? Or the flight control system? Or the airframe? Getting TOT and making it in Pakistan is a step up, but lets be clear here about who did what.
TeerInteresting how every other other operator with the T-90 (and there are quite a few) does not have the same issues that India seems to have with every other piece of equipment it operates.
Perhaps because they don’t operate equipment as intensively as India does and nor do they have an open audit system that tracks these issues in detail & then details them openly.
So, what is the number of serviceable aircraft in the Russian AF today? In Algerian AF? India reports these numbers.
Fact is that Russia has really dropped the ball in the past decade in terms of serviceability & maintainability of its platforms and that’s where its reputation as a reliable supplier is taking a big hammering. I have lost count of the number of soldiers, officers whom I have talked to who “want western” purely because they are fed up of the hassles that come with buying Russian and then seeing even huge fleets of equipment (which should have lent economy of scale as versus say, the Arjun) being held up because of Russian firms inability to guarantee proper spares support.
Sukhoi has been at least acknowledging the issues (though it didn’t do much till last year to address them). UAZ, and MiG, less said the better.
IAF officers actually admit there would be no need of the MMRCA if dealing with Russian hassles & fixing them hadn’t made them so wary of single sourcing.
You are wrong on a number of points btw. The ammo length issue is a moot point, since T-90 (and T-72) loaders can be adjusted (easily, and have been done so many times on the T-72B3) to accommodate Svinets-1/2 rounds…
Hardly a moot point since this is the typical hand waving we see on the internet. XYZ can be adjusted easily etc etc without it having been done on real world operational tanks. Pray tell, if it was so easy, why wasn’t it on offer for all the new Indian tanks including the recent 267 modernized T-90s India was offered? Export restrictions from an establishment which can offer yet to be developed fighters, works on N-subs etc. Or simply, that the stuff isn’t there and isn’t proven to work in service & won’t go through extended trials. Heck, the Russian AC on the T-90 packed up in Indian trials.
Fact is the “best round” Russia currently offers for external supply, which is in series production, is not Svinets, but the obsolescent Mango. Which India is reluctantly buying since relying on Refleks alone for tank combat is too expensive and because our great DF blacklisted IMI.
which by penetration do better than anything the Arjun fires in any case.
The Mango the T-90 fires is actually worse off than the latest Arjun round, which BTW is only the second round ever developed for the Arjun because there was no guarantee the tank would ever be ordered and hence there was no point in developing more ammo. The Israeli rounds are better but IMI hassles mean we can’t get them. Ditto with Rheinmetall so we are stuck with the Mango.
The problems with ammo are local production, hence why India just bought 66,000 Mango rounds (outdated by Russian standards but thats another story). If there is any Russian “fault” when it comes to rounds, it has to do with export restrictions. Or asinine Indian Mod procurement that did not chose to go for the modified autloader. Or the 2A46M5 gun.
LOL, suddenly whenever something is not available, the Russians have export restrictions. They can provide assistance for a nuclear submarine, sell fighters with 1500km radius and super secret ammo is quarantined? Just think things through and you’ll realize how ridiculous that line of argumentation is. Facts – all the things you cite are not in standard production or proven clearly. The Indian MOD procurement arm was asinine to get gypped by the UAZ guys repeatedly, but they are learning and hence avoiding vaporware. Even Russian ACs on their tanks dont work. The Thermal Imagers imported from France, the Thales Catherine jury rigged into the T-90 sights didn’t work & here we are talking of super rounds, and modified autoloaders. The facts are simple and understand this please, Russia clearly has huge issues in mass production of items which the Soviet Union didn’t have. Its a harsh truth and which India is forced to acknowledge, your getting upset at these aspects doesn’t detract from the reality. Latest news is that even air to air munitions from Russia are now “off” and the Israelis are making inroads since their stuff works consistently. When India released a RFP for the MMRCA, one of the points made was “all spares should be new and not refurbished”, the issue India faced with Tunguska imports.
This is the reason why India is now “hybridizing” its gear. Because it must. No Army in the world or AF likes to mess with what works, in the case of Russian gear, its invariably missing “one item” or “two” which turns out to be either unreliable or is simply not available. With the T-90, it was the sights & the ammo, later more issues have cropped up. We are fixing those, but it takes time.
Russia needs to seriously get its coordination together. Its various arms firms seemingly operate like individual empires, with no central control. For all the talk of Tsar Putin, the actual Tsars are those who run these enclaves. TOT agreements are signed with Rosoboronexport, and several years into the plan, ROE informs India – sorry no gun, factory didn’t agree. Sorry no armor, factory didn’t agree. The same pattern recurs again and again, and again. MiG-21 Bison upgrade was originally with TOT from Sokol (in turn from Phaza, RA etc). After deal was done, India was informed, nope, not happening. Due to requirements it went ahead nonetheless. But these issues leave a mark.
See the current Indian generation is no longer caught up in the heydays of the Indo-Soviet relationship. They have been inducted in the 90’s and their experience with Russian equipment is usually, works, is rugged but where are the spares. Or this is missing, that’s missing. And what we are seeing is a slow & steady erosion of the footpring Russia once enjoyed in the Indian military mindset. Programs like Brahmos are a good way forward, trust and verify on both sides. However, even there, Russia started being protectionist, so the Israelis etc stepped in. There would be no MRSAM or LRSAM programs if Almaz Antei had its act together but it didn’t.
The sights are proven in service and in trials with a dozen countries.
Not as they are integrated with the T-90. The Catherine was not meant for the kind of installation that was done & it can’t take the heat. The overall FCS plus stabilization on the T-90 is actually not as sophisticated on the Arjun but that’s ok since the tank was meant to be “good enough” not “best in class” stuff, which was the exact point the IA believed in, that expensive tanks like the Arjun with overengineered western subsystems would be too expensive to deploy en masse. However, its the thermals which routinely pack up in heat.
India is now putting in new Commanders Panoramics Sights in the T-90 as a backup (with TI) sourced from DRDO which is probably using Israeli detectors. The sights themselves may be replaced as funding becomes available. The current priority is to upgrade the T-72 and BMP-2 fleet, with TISAS and TFCS sourced from Israel and being made in India as a JV with an Indian firm, Alpha Design Tech. The original plan was to use the 1G46/Catherine combo as on the T-90 for logistics commonality, but after the issues with the former, India took an Elop solution. (http://internetnewsforyou.biz/2015/02/20/alpha-design-technologies-signs-export-orders-for-us-80-mnrs-500-00-crs-with-elbit-elop-israel/).
Is India replacing the Sosna-U? I don’t see any program to do that, unless you mean fitting a panoramic sight. T-90S does not have that, being an older model. T-90MS of course has been trialed with it years ago.
India is putting in a thermal panoramic sight for the T-90 as a priority because its a backup to the main sight.
AC issues are real, no denying it.
The AC is an issue because the electronics pack up in the heat.
The T series tank has literally no space inside for anything to be fit without the stuff overheating or the crew getting affected by the amount of extra heat the extra electronics dump into the interior. Its a mess. You can’t just put an AC, you have to add an APU. The challenges just keep piling up. The Israelis claimed they could fix the issue, even they gave up. The IA is now trying out every Indian vendor, only guys not roped in are the Americans. That’d be some funny stuff right there.
Your Armata quip is nonsensical. The tank is a leap from not just T-90, but all those “modern Western MBTs” that are 1970s and 1980s designs at most (although, like the T-90, with good modernization projects to date).
Its not nonsensical, its just that you are being defensive & are unable to acknowledge the reality. Those modern western MBTs in the 1970s and 1980s already implemented many of the measures Armata claims to introduce (including crew protection measures by various differing means) & hence don’t need to move to a radically new design. The Armata itself has glaring flaws when looking at it today, but to be fair its just a prototype and the actual tank will (hopefully) be much smaller and much more integrated.
The T-90/T-72 are turret poppers if penetrated from a majority of scenarios. Sitting on a carousel of combustible ammo, putting exposed rounds (with CCC ammo) all over the various tank compartments is a disaster, no tw ways about it. Only + is the small silhouette and heavy frontal armor profiles to prevent penetration, but once it occurs, that’s it.
The T-90MS brings the T-90 up to the “modern” standard just fine.
Not really, how many are in service, pray tell? Its just a prototype, tech demo at this point. Put a few in extended trials, make a few hundred, deploy them for a long period and then see what happens. PS the compromises it makes by reducing the ammo, moving some to the bustle etc – all count in battle where extended deployments are the norm.
And yes, the T-90 is a modernized T-72. The Indian examples are not up to date T-90s either. It is very telling that India can’t make something to replace it.
India has actually proven that it can make something to replace it. Its only that it can’t afford to do so en-masse and its Generals would rather take what they have and spend it across multiple heads. You should thank Soviet Union for that, they learnt about application of mass and how reasonable quantity has a quality of its own, as versus spending on fewer numbers of gilt edged equipment which cause funding issues elsewhere.
The same western versus soviet debate has churned on in multiple Indian services. Indian AF officers split amongst the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 streams of thought, and at the end of the day neither was acquired. In the Armoured Corps, the T-72 won the battle, because the Vickers MBT from the UK was far behind, and hence the dominance of that school of thought which favors medium MBTs over heavies like the Arjun.
Instead you have a vehicle that is barely in service, has severe limitations in firepower (no GLATGM, no Ainet-like fused system, rifled-gun)
Errr.. The Challenger has a rifled gun, it can outshoot anything Russia has today. The Arjun can too, if it gets modern ammo to match which is now being worked on since the tank was finally ordered.
with a **** poor armor layout (the turret angles are grotesque) to just list a few issues.
Ah, the internet, where folks can suddenly become experts on everything from armor and suddenly make awesome declarations of what is good and what is not. I recall a bunch of amateurs on some other forum gleefully making estimates about Arjun interiors with low rez pics and then stating it was not sufficiently armored. Before making such pronouncements, only if they had gone and asked some folks from 43 Cav or those who were in trials about how the armor layout is & what the f@rts that folks make about “armor angles” etc on the net are all worth when considering deployment considerations & how the IA employs its equipment.
FYI, the Arjun armor package is the strongest on any Indian tank, even stronger than that on the T-90. Its disadvantage which comes is that its composite armor and can’t be field replaced like ERA is. The IA wanted ERA precisely because of that reason as that’s a strong point on the T-90.
The weight and engine choice are hardly strong points either.
Get a 4 man crew, and weight will increase. Engine choice is dictated by export politics of the then NATO alliance, which couldn’t and wouldn’t export the 1500 hp standard MTU powerpack. Sort of moot though given the current powerpack works & works well in our fine desert conditions and is reliable.
BTW, in extended deployment Arjun crews routinely perform better than those in the T-90s/T-72s. Simple, the tank is more spacious and was modeled on the Leo2. The issue assumes significance in the context of NBC warfare where crews operate fully buttoned up.
Oops, I responded. Well, you be assured I won’t go offtopic anymore with armor. The Arjun program certainly does not need me to point out what a flop it is.
If the Arjun is a flop, wonder what that makes the successful T-90, which can’t still shoot straight & after decades of success & introducing such world beaters like the T-90MS (cough, cough) the Russians couldn’t even fix the freaking thermal sights. This years after induction (http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ws171110Defence.asp) and here we are, several years later and IA is still running around for ECS (http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140310/DEFREG03/303100026/Indian-Army-Upgrade-T-90-Tanks-Domestic-Help) and even that has gone nowhere, because every vendor took one look at the T-90s basic design, its cramped interiors and put their hands up. Tanks designed for cold Europe ops with heaters installed, have issues in heat in the Thar. Good going IA.
I know I know. All Russian bribes.
Corruption is a given in arms procurement.
The issue is not that Russians bribe. The issue is that even after getting bribes, their kit doesn;t work and is unreliable. That;s a problem.
Plus the complete inability to accept the issues and fix them, thats a bigger challenge.
TeerMiG-29 Upgrade progress.
Seems to have picked up from issues earlier. 11 airframes out of some 69 are available in the short term
The first two Mig-29 fighters of the Indian air force, which have been completely overhauled with Russian assistance to the level of the Mig-29UPG, are already carrying out flights, while another two are being prepared for flight, reported RIA Novosti citing Mig head Sergei Korotkov.
“As of today the Indians have already assembled five aircraft themselves. Two of which are already flying. Therefore, according to the timetables that have been envisaged, we are already moving”, said the corporation’s head, observing that the first six airplanes had been supplied by the Russian Federation.
Seems to be working well & without the huge number of teething issues faced by the Indian Navy MiG-29Ks.
Speaking at the LIMA show on March 19, ATSC CEO Mohd Fadzar Suhada said the upgrade program was launched in conjunction with Russia’s RSK MiG, the original equipment manufacturer, and talks with the Malaysian Air Force have been positive.
“We launched the MiG upgrade program six months ago,” he said. “It is similar to the MiG-29UPG [upgrade] being undertaken by India and is therefore a proven blueprint. It is not an interim solution until MRCA comes along. It is a medium- to long-term solution for Malaysia’s fighter requirement.”
Sign In
