They will probably use some Israeli EW components like on Su-30MKI and other platforms, but the main motivation for India’s customisations is domestic substitution so as to increase industrial expertise and strategic autonomy, also simply to reduce the cost of the aircraft and improve balance of payments.

Its not just financial hedging but actual performance and strategic reasons as well. Russian avionics items are often larger and heavier, and this impacts overall weight budgeting. If you take the latest western radar and a Russian set, chances are that the Russian set is larger, bulkier and with many custom made ASICS/Chipsets that are uniquely Russian. On the other hand, it may be more strongly built (though MTBF/MTTR issues are different), often more resistant to EMI/EMC issues and will not lack in performance. Take a look at the Bars, the RC1/RC2 were supplied by India, developed by LRDE, because the data processors on existing Russian sets at the time, were using local chips (as versus industry standard ones) and were hence able to support a TWS of only 10 targets. The RC1/RC2 combo took that to 16 and also enabled several other functions. So the Bars may be 650 odd kg, heavier and larger than 99% of the radars out there but it will have respectable performance.

Similarly, all the systems on the MKI that were sourced from third parties were because the Russians didnt have an equivalent in those segments at that time. MFDs, RLG-INS, Video Display Units/SSD Video/Map Generators, light weight EW suites with high ERP (the MKI was so full of gear already that this was the only option)..

Today, if you compare the MiG-29K/35 avionics architecture system, as versus what the IAF has specified for the LCA MK2 & is getting via the Rafale – the same repeats. Both have variants of Integrated Modular Architecture, sensor fusion etc. The current LCA MK1, thanks to IAF req. uses many integrated systems which use the latest processors. The 29K/35 is still running on 486 class chips in its mission compute and has a federated system. It gets the job done, and is a risk averse leverage of existing tech.

Thing is Russia too wants autonomy so it balances its development with significant usage of local systems which may end up in a bulkier system, but the overall platform takes that into account. A Sukhoi designer once told me that it was generally given that the local systems may be on the heavier side, but it was ok, since Russia was not exactly lacking in the propulsion side. And that to save development costs, they would leverage existing tech as much as possible and focus on the 1-2 key upgrade areas which deliver maximum impact. It made for a good understanding of how, all said and done, the Flanker family kept ticking along.

Coming to Indian requirements, since India has invested heavily in tactical systems over the past decade, plus procured extensively from outside, has several tech development deals.. all this has meant electronics systems have ramped up in terms of capability locally. They utilize the latest processors (IAF wants this), custom local ASICS/SoCs and seek to replicate whatever is available on the outside. In terms of performance they match up well to whatever is available from western OEMs. Some of it is codevelopment as well.

The MiG-29 Upg for instance uses a new AESA EW suite developing a modular ESM suite developed for the LCA plus the AESA jammers from Italy’s Elettronica. Thats better than what was available from Russia for a platform like the MiG-29. However, Russian jammers may still be used for the Sukhoi – that platform has the space/power/capability to take large wingtip mounted jammers.

Now that HAL comment is clearly referring to the prototype & the initial Russian procurement plan. Note that the IAF/HAL were brought on board several years back, so thats their baseline against which they would have specified improvements. Will that baseline be the one Russia will still induct? Can’t say. They may ask for something better after a while taking into account how the platform has evolved.

Having said that, Russian avionics systems have improved by leaps and bounds over the 90’s, and now the PAKFA too will have an IMA system, a RLG-INS and other systems which used to be hitherto in western fighters. So to save costs/have commonality, some of the OTS/third party equipment may just be replaced with Russian stuff. Having said that the IAF would still want local EW/ESM systems on board because they allow for local maintenance and upgrade, as versus relying on an external vendor. But given that the PAKFA is basically a stealth airframe, it becomes that much harder to fit stuff in, unless its planned from the very start, which ties in which the HAL person said. NIIP is reportedly in talks with LRDE (DRDO’s radar specialist which developed the RC1/RC2 made at HAL) to codevelop some parts of the FGFA radar. HAL alone definitely can’t do it, they are still more of a production house than one with significant R&D within.

Again, it depends on prioritization – LRDE has something like a dozen AESA designs in progress at present/entering trials/etc. They already have their hands full. On the other hand, they also have the experience now to contribute far more than they did in the 90’s. Though at the end of the day, it is airborne radar tech where Russia is still far ahead (LRDE has only some 2-3 designs there and is working on its first inhouse AESA FCR), so they will look forward to working with NIIP (and pick up a few tricks in the process).

Similarly, DARE is planning an IMA for the Super 30 upgrade, based on the LCA. It could be used for the FGFA…What the IAF will ask for though (apart from involvement/access/codevelopment of EW/radar/mission software) is also codevelopment or local mission computing/access to weapons controls, to integrate local weaponry. For instance, the LCA has a weapons/pylons/interface which can work with all three -western/russian/indian weapons. This may make a requirement which is “better” but irrelevant for local Russian needs (they dont need it), but essential for Indian needs.
The whole thing though, is that the IAF will have to strike a balance between desire of localization and cost. If a third party thingmajig ofers a marginal improvement in capability, and the few kgs it saves in weight, does not translate to a significant jump in aircraft performance, and instead adds to development costs…why do it?

As regards composites/weight savings these allow HAL to contribute/build up on what tech it does have, so thats actually an area where India may contribute. Again, could simply be the IAF wants a higher percentage of composites, whereas the Russian side is ok with the current design as it is, preferring to focus elsewhere. The IAF often seeks to get its jets with as many bells and whistles to begin with, because it has limited numbers of them (facing larger numbers of PAF+PLAAF), and this also allows it to stagger MLU/Upgrades far into the future. Problem with MLUs is that they take aircraft off of the flightline (which to an AF makes them useless) and can come with teething issues too if too drastic. Best to have as many of them in the beginning, resolve them, and ramp up fast. The Russian AF is not so challenged. It has some 350 odd Flankers in service, some 250 MiG-29s, 100 odd MiG-31s, plus some 300-350 Su-24s, some 200 Su-25s. With the Su-35, Su-30SM, Su-34 all entering service, Flanker upgrades all in progress, they can afford to wait or not procure all the bells and whistles, until and unless they see a reason too. IIRC even the S-3XX system is getting recapitalized, with many S-400 systems to enter service. Given all this, their priorities may simply be different, their overall combat power will hardly suffer.

Seeker evaluation trials for Nag carried out in Rajasthan – The Hindu

Let’s hope the RCI seeker passes trial. In last year’s trials the seeker containing focal plane array (FPA) from Sofradir had less than 100% target dissemination capabilities at high temperature and humidity typical of Indian desert conditions.
According to Ajai Shukla’s report last year, the improved seeker was supposed to have a higher resolution FPA from Sofradir as the indigenous FPA technology was not mature enough, but it seems the latest rounds of tests are being carried out using an indigenous FPA.

The seeker is indian -optics, gimbal assembly, image processing. The FPA is imported.

The radome news is sort of disappointing in that the CSIR team has managed to develop radomes for all sorts of missiles, the Jaguar (with the 2032 radar) and others including pretty large ones. Its also true that the CSIR team is pretty small and its likely a redesigned rsdome won’t be available in time for the first tranche of series production aircraft or the FOC trials where BVR capability will be tested and radar performance will be critical in the BVR arena. But by the time the second tranche comes around or the MK2 they should have a local one available..there are a couple of pvt firms which msnufacture radomes as well.

MMRCA cancellation wont happen…at worst, they might kick it over for the decision to be taken post elections in 2014.

I find it extremely irritating and outrageoous that the MOD is not providing regular updates on this event to the public. As with all things national security, the current Govt is abysmal and has its priorities totally out of whack. The MOD should be moving anything and everything to get the job done to save these people, just dont see that effort from their side, or its not being communicated to the public. A dismal independence day indeed.

No, it uses the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. RC-1 [HAL] and RC-2 mission computer. Some minor stuff from India was also sourced for the Fulcrums.

Excellent posts! Minor details if i may add.

RC-1 and RC-2 are Radar Computers for the Bars.
Also, the MKI also uses the Sigma-95 RLG INS (Net reports of Totem are false), and it does not use the Russian L-150 RWR but the Tarang 2, being replaced in newer variants with Eagle Eye (R118 RWR derivative). Also, its quite possible that the MKI too can field the SAP-518 pods or will field them, since there are reports of Russian pods having been acquired by the IAF and of Super-30 Upgrade fielding wingtip jammers.

Actually, there are only minor differences between the two types, for instance replacing a certain LRU with an equivalent one from another country will cause effort in terms of writing maintenance manuals, but it should still be equivalent in terms of overall functional performance. Can understand your point though about the RMAF not liking to do everything, being a smaller air arm, as versus getting readymade kit from the OEM (as is usually the case).

The same reason you didn’t see M2K integrated with the weapons from other vendors, because by locking in acceptable conditions you create a captive market.

That’s not quite true.

Indian Mirage 2000’s currently have Litening LDPs and Paveway2 (US) LGB and Griffin LGB (Israel) capability, were also integrated with 250 kg bombs (iirc of Spanish origin) originally acquired for the HAL Ajeet
They carry Israeli Dash HMDS, and also fire the Crystal Maze (India specific variant of the Popeye).

Funny thing is these will have to be reintegrated into the upgraded Mirages – Phase 1 is std Mirage 2000-5 Upg, and the items are part of Phase 2 (HAL website), with a HAL Mission Computer also part of the phase 2 upgrade. There is no point in India integrating its own MC, unless it wants operational control over additional weapons/sensors integration.

The Rafale team would be sensible to integrate Kh-31 capability, after all the brouhaha about the Rafale having been dropped from the competition since it did not have an ARM etc. That apparently came from the MOD side and was then resolved (the aircraft remained in the MMRCA and won it). Presumably this was the deal struck.

The IAF is also slated to get a new local ARM and the redesigned Astra – both should go on the Mirage 2000 and presumably the Rafale as well. There’s also the Sudarshan LGB, a MK2 of which is in process, and a Brimstone style PGM being developed for the IAF. These weapons will clearly be implemented fleet wide.

The Su-30 MKI program provides a good example of how much operational autonomy the IAF expects. The weapons, avionics and local software rigs now mean several systems have been locally integrated. These include a new HADF (High Accuracy Direction Finding pod) to cue the Kh-31s (Russian std Su-30 MKIs use the less sensitive onboard Pastel RWR and don’t carry a dedicated pod for SEAD). They also have long range SAR pods…
The IAF will want to integrate many such third party/local items onto the Rafale as well. Thats a given & would have been clearly penciled into the MMRCA contract.

Nice to see common sense applied here.

Common sense or your perception of what common sense means, as versus what the facts reveal?
Lets see, in the 1970’s, HAL tried to make a HF-24 follow on. The IAF sabotaged that effort, by releasing ambitious specs, also rubbishing HAL ability to deliver within timelines etc etc – ultimately, import of the Jaguar, assorted MiGs (MiG-23 and MiG-27) and a lost decade and a half in Indian aerospace, till the LCA was launched. Which program was so hobbled by the crippled infrastructure (which was allowed to rot away after the Marut), that it continues to suffer from building up experience in many areas, taking valuable time and money (and the IAFs rtd community dismiss that as reinventing the wheel). At the end of the day, it was the IAF which was caught thoroughly unprepared when its steady supply of cheap MiGs ran out (the Soviet Union collapsed) and the MiGs are now increasingly hard to maintain. HAL itself was so scarred by the HF-24 experience, that when the LCA was launched, it did a Monty Python & the Holy Grail (“run away, run away”), giving over responsibility to a newly formed ADA and allowing DRDO to take the onerous job of delivering on the program. Thereafter, HAL’s leaders too twiddled their thumbs from time to time (its not our problem).

The Air Force went to such an extent to disown the LCA, that when the aircraft flew despite targeted sanctions – a huge achievement by any means, the IAF’s then CAS was reluctant to attend its first flight. Apparently, his “advisors” told him not to attend the flight. This is the depth to which some at AHQ level had sunk – ego above all and always play a political game.

The then LCA head, a distinguished former IAF combat pilot himself, was so put out, that he told the then CAS, this aircraft is being developed for your AF, not the PAF. Thereafter, this man was not even given a promotion, the IAF perception was that developing a combat aircraft was childs play and he had a cushy life at Bangalore. The R&D establishment (to which this man did not belong, as he was IAF) actually asked for, and got him his promotion. Have things changed? To some extent, but this sort of egotistical BS, remains. Take a look at the IAF IOC-1 for the LCA. It was a hard journey and the then IAF CAS, took the opportunity to again take a few jibes at the program at a public event.

No national service does this to its own programs. In contrast, when the RAF Chief visited India and so did his German counterpart, they were very measured & sensible about the EF program. Did not sugercoat the problems with the aircraft program but did not engage in such unseemly petty behaviour either.

Like it or not, there is a huge disconnect between what the IAF thinks it can get away with, both in terms of behaviour and procurement, as versus what it should be doing. The Navy has multiple directorates – tasked with design, weapons integration etc which “own” naval programs and work with local shipyards, labs to get things done. The IAF has little in way of these. It has a BRD (Base Repair Depot) structure, which though it has done a yeoman job in reverse engineering russian spares, has little in way of R&D capability. AHQ deputes people to projects in labs on ad hoc basis, they are then (if lucky) absorbed into those labs. But what if they aren’t? That expeirence is lost. A SDI (software development lab) does limited work for weapons/sensors integration, ASTE does flight testing – that’s it.

Net, net – some in the IAF are yet to get to the level of having a coherent understanding of indian industrial capability or play a coherent role in shepherding it, both for their own use and national aims. These folks behave in a very ad hoc manner and end up at loggerheads with local industry, because they simply don’t get the point that they are not merely customers at a buffet choosing between multiple restaurants, but that they have to be intertwined with local industry. Some understanding has percolated in that EW programs are now (mostly) locally sourced, radars likewise, but in terms of platforms etc, they remain muddled.

An ex IAF gent who was speaking about the issue at a think tank, mentioned that after the Indian economy grew stronger, the IAF has developed what he referred to as a candy shop attitude. They think they can get into a shop and just buy anything and everything. As the GOI released funds for them to do exactly that.
What they still haven’t understood is that each time they do something like this – and if a couple of procurements end up disasters (see the Agusta Westland corruption case), then the entire spigot will dry up. Besides which, they intervene in the worst possible manner in subjects that are outside their area of competence.

A few months back, the IAF tried to foist an ex IAF man as the head of HAL. With no experience of running a production firm, how could it have worked, it would not have eased things up because now even HAL has a leadership pipeline. Ultimately, to cool things down, the GOI put an ex head of the stated owned oil firm as HALs head. It remains to be seen what his impact will be. Mark 1 up for IAF ambition hurting their own interests.

A couple of years back, the R&D folks made a categorical case for more funds. The IAFs then chief (who btw is now linked to several dodgy issues like the chopper deal) did his best to sabotage the funding allocation. He succeeded. Today, with strategic needs rising, guess which tactical programs have to wait for better funding, when limited funds have to be shared by multiple programs? Typical case of IAF meddling hurting its own interests.

In short, the IAF is yet to understand that it needs to nurture (like the Navy) and not play a political game (like what it thinks is ok). Their attitude (or that of some in the IAF) ends up hurting their own and national interests. If not for some good luck & some proper support, even programs like the ALH, LCA etc could have been abandoned thanks to tepid IAF support/disinterest. They woke up to their responsibilities way too slowly, and much of the damage is already done.

With regards to this particular case, going by past history of such “imports”, it seems pretty similar to previous games re: change the specs after using x specs to prevent HAL from getting the contract, import etc.
If they had stuck to the Super Tucano, then that would have been even better. All this legerdemain just hurts their own credibility.

Basically, they need to start taking a bigger role in products and platforms developed for their own use. This one case is merely a symptom of a deeper malaise.