TeerMatt,
All the above is from public sources, which I dug out via google news (date search) etc using authors/webwires of relatively known credibility, access to info., etc.
Lack of time prevented me from putting links to every sentence. Though, if I get some free time, I’ll update the post.
BTW my collation errs on the side of conservatism. I have not included reports of programs, which have had just 1-2 mentions in the media – eg reports of joint development of long range GPS/INS/GLONASS assisted gliding bombs, or various smart munitions..
All these are probably WIP, under low visibility programs and will be revealed at a time of maturity, the same manner in which the Shourya and Prahar were revealed. Each being a very viable, production ready system, and a complete surprise to most.
Also, systems, TDs are getting converted into operational equipment on their own right. Eg Rustom demonstrator for the penultimate Rustom MALE UAV was converted into R-1 for a Searcher replacement and is being progressed steadily. So, the number of platforms that may end up out coming of the above are substantial.
TeerHi Kb,
The DRDO revealed that it was working on an ARM sometime back. It was supposed to be after 2012. The other plan was for a lightweight ASM – something like the Penguin I suppose.
They also have huge plans for PGMs, but are very shy on publicity regarding the same (just check out the low key testing and production of Sudarshan). I guess they have learnt that silent development and then production allows for easier expectation management, as versus very public disclosures.
I also forgot to add the following to the above list.
The BMD program, missiles:
Phase 1 – almost ready, with AAD and PAD. Work underway on PDV missiles. System can intercept 3000 km class missiles. Deployment by 2014.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-delhi-could-have-anti-missile.html
Given the high degree of maturity achieved with both AAD and PAD, I presume the next series of tests will shift to the PDV series which will replace PAD. Production of PAD could commence anyhow, as it would be assisted by the huge infrastructure available for Prithvi class of missiles.
Phase 2 with AD-1 and AD-2 missiles for intercepting missiles with a range of upto 5000 km
TeerSu30 MKIs will be IAFs designated Nirbhay carriers.
There is so much going on in Indian missiles right now, that I have lost track.
AFAIK
In production
Agni-1, 2, 3
Prithvi-1,2, Dhanush
Akash
Shourya
K-15
Brahmos – Navy, Army (Block 1, Block 2, Block 2 advanced)
In advanced trials (basic design fixed, further trials/finetuning underway)
Agni2 Prime (to be held soon)
Prahar (recent trials held)
SLBM (per press reports, not certain)
Nag, Helina (latest trials held recently)
In advanced development (basic trials underway of key systems, overall airframe etc, some significant design work remaining)
LRSAM/MRSAM (motor trials already underway)
Astra (several trials over)
Development (trials yet to take place); ? indicates trial information not published.
SRSAM (?)
ARM (?)
Nirbhay (first flight in 2012)
Agni 5 (this year)
Akash 2 (due to be ready by 2012)
Ramjet AAM/ASM (AWST report on DRDL)
Brahmos-2 (just started)
http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416131564&o=int&prev=sub&p=32
20 km version of HELINA
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/04/indias-anti-tank-helina-to-spawn-longer.html
If you consider the news about Sudarshan (ordered already in basic version, now GPS/Glonass being added) and work on advanced PGMs…it does appear the DRDO is steadily covering the entire gamut of missiles and munitions.
Nothing stops a fighter version of SRSAM appearing and giving the IAF a local WVR missile either.
ASTRA will likely morph into a SLAMRAAM sort of system as well, since DRDO has already got ample C3I experience with Akash and its own Aslesha 3D radar which recently cleared IAF trials, with other derivatives underway.
TeerI doubt India will all of a sudden be making parts for non-Indian Typhoons. But as the typhoon is bound to be in service for quite a while, HAL may end up making replacement/spare parts for Typhoons around the world, 10-15 years from now.
It could also support (potential) Typhoons sold closer to home, like in the case of Su 30MKMs.
If HAL can make and also export spares for Jaguars and critical parts for Su30MKIs, which are used for maintenance and assembly of fighters, respectively…then it can even make parts and even complete assemblies for future Typhoons or Rafales. And it does do the former..
Besides which, the company is steadily reinventing itself. A decade back, even investing in a project like the FGFA let alone taking development rights would have been considered unthinkable. Today, its one of the several projects HAL is engaged in. With significant investments in avionics, and 2000 + local suppliers, the company will have more than just licensed assembly and build to print capabilities in the future.
TeerEagle1, I don’t understand what your point is, TBH, when you crib about LCC not being a scientific way to decide things. Both sets of manufacturers are being held to the same standard and will have to certify that they provide items at a certain rate. If one side fibs and then tries to hike rates later, it will end up shooting itself in the foot, both in terms of credibility and also by exposing itself to contractual failures.
In the past, some here were very confident that the Rafale would undercut the EF in terms of fly away costs by a huge margin citing data from Switzerland etc but that has not turned out to be the case. Then you put up a French report which said the EF consortium made drastic sacrifices. But did they really? The numbers put up by Swerve show that the difference in per unit prices, to begin with, was not that drastic anyhow. In the past, some raised the bribery bogey as well, when by all indications this competition has been run fairly across the board.
It really does not matter whether the LCC takes 40 years into account or 20 years, the basic methodology used for both will be similar. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the Rafale would be cheaper (say) over the first 20 years and then suddenly become more expensive while the EF becomes cheaper over the remaining 20, so much so it becomes the cheaper bid by far.
All said and done, the process has been rigorous and scientific. The IAF first evaluated the aircraft over 600 parameters to see which aircraft met its operational requirements and shortlisted the two aircraft which met its key criteria. Now, the MOD and IAF are looking through the costs data in a comprehensive fashion to see which is L1. This is as rigorous as it gets.
Cribbing about how its not scientific because its over 40 years etc is missing the point. Yes, if a meteor hits the earth or EF Gmbh production facilities or Dassault facilities, costs will change dramatically. There are multiple factors that can change the scheme. But all said and done, both sides have had ample opportunity to present their own case, their own numbers and their own calculations.
All said and done, if the time period was 10 years or 40 years, the points will remain the same. It all boils down to who wants this deal more intensely.
With all of Dassault’s advantages (including the operational record of the Mirage 2000), it really is their deal to lose, per my thinking (the Jaguar etc and Indias extensive cooperation with Britain don’t translate into the positive perception the Mirage gained in recent years thanks to the Kargil conflict). Just look at the glowing report on the Mirage I posted earlier (from a discussion here itself).
If Dassault loses the deal (if), it has to do with the fact that its rivals beat it fair and square, not that they were corrupt, or that the process was flawed or that costing was too complicated and unscientific and stuff like that.
So far, the MMRCA procurement group has managed to hold trials in a transparent fashion, hold off pressure of all sorts, and has figured out a costing method which is rigorous. It looks like an entirely reasonable approach to me.
TeerAeroflot/AirIndia are basically extension of professional air arms. just look at employees history and government management. infact Aeroflot has to deal with much more diverse fleet.
270% wage increase across the board will have big impact.
As if your statements were not bizarre enough already… I don’t track Aeroflot but the fact that you brought in Air India and say it is an extension of a professional air arm, is perhaps amongst the most silly things that I have read. Air India is run by the GOI, and not by the IAF which has an entirely different structure and leadership. In terms of objectives, training and even remuneration, they are starkly different. Let alone organization culture.
It does appear that you just google stuff up and make far out conclusions without any specific domain experience.
Teer5G fighter needs 5G salaries for Instructors/Airmen/Pilots/Commanders. (This is not MIG-21r)and better these salaries starts from very basic level when person enters service at age 16. because spending early life on low pay induces culture of corruption & lack of motivation for learning. As person gets older. Even if you increase the pay it wont matter.
you can pretty much figure out from Aeroflot/AirIndia current condition as these are end products of the system. Pay raise come before purchase of expensive equipment.
Your posts are so full of bizarre inferences and claims. What do Aeroflot or Air India have to do with the professional air arms of either nation which are run entirely differently and have a totally different culture or ethos. Air India BTW, is paid pretty heavily by Indian standards and has only managed to stagger from one crisis to another, whereas if you talk to the average fighter pilot, his reaction is “I fly fighters/XYZ and can you believe that they pay me for this job”. There are so many differences in terms of the comparisons that your statements just don’t make sense.
TeerSeparate datalinks are standard in western aircraft, whether Link 16, or Swedish or Finnish datalinks.
I am talking about the missile guidance datalink. AFAIK in Mirage/Rafale, a separate antenna and transmitter, plus associated hardware and not part of the radar itself. So you dont need to turn on the radar to guide the missile, as you said. In the AA-10 guidance scheme or even the AA-12, as I recall, the missile guidance transmitter is linked to the main radar aperture itself. The Bars for example has a 4Kw Peak TWT for the radar itself but a separate 1.2 Kw “illuminator” for SARH missiles (AA-10) which presumably also serves as the data transfer system for the AA-12 or R-77
The datalinks for information exchange are a different issue altogether. Both the Russians, West have many competing types. The IAF has standardized on a combination of Israeli hardware with some local software customization as its ODL program. Operational Data Link. Run very close to the chest without much publicity. The IAF planned to link its entire fleet together with ODL.
TeerThis is most important in attracting talent. It will make Russia apart from other large third world countries like China/India.
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20111108/168524798.html
Russian service members to earn almost as much as NATO counterparts
Cost of living in Russia will be higher than that in India or China. Plus, India has had an all volunteer force for a longer time and hence has worked out that system. Russia AFAIK has recently transitioned to something similar so it will take time. There is also the social factor, don’t know about Russia, but soldiering is a good career move and seen as very respectable throughout India, especially in areas which have not seen mass adoption of high margin service industries (and hence easy, lucrative jobs).
Teeri doubt that india can make itself AMCA suscesfully.
If specifications are kept reasonable and an iterative improvement over LCA, then yes, India can make it and in a reasonable timeframe. The entire investment in LCA – from testing to even making stuff like fuel tanks to integrating missiles without OEM help will all come in handy.
However, if the IAF asks for best-in-class figures cobbled together from specifications hawked to them by various OEMs, then India will face a challenge & will need to collaborate.
At any rate, DRDO bigwigs have noted that as far as AMCA is concerned, they are looking for possible partners. If these are chosen well in the beginning, and the program is well funded, it will have a decent chance of success.
The only two key areas where India is still looking for success in the LCA btw are a full MMR (A2G modes in particular but given LRDE has managed ISAR for its MPR, this is not unachievable) and of course, the engine. For the latter, there is the Snecma proposal though the heavy costs mean the Govt is yet to clear it.
TeerVs. J10s and J11s, I don’t think the Rafale would have an issue. It is small enough and has a good enough radar to use the Meteor at max ranges. I was thinking more of the J20, for which the Pakfa is the best bet. I’d think that neither MRCA candidate is made to handle a VLO fighter but the EF’s radar advantage can be offset (if needed) with MKI.
If what Euroradar said about their AESA radar is right, that it can detect a JSF at 50 odd km, then it can certainly detect the J-20 at significantly more distance. Given the disparity in the respective nations stealth experience etc.
Basically, the EF should be able to handle a VLO target. The Rafale radar, not really. Its basically a very capable set against say reduced RCS or even LO targets, but you go to the sub 1 mtr square level and its limitations are there, even with a 1000 module set.
TeerIt all depends on the missile guidance datalink system. The likes of Mica have separate guidance datalinks in the Mirage 2000 or Rafale airframe. The Russian radars, historically used target illuminators and missile update transmitters which were a part of the radar weapons system itself.
So you and Marko are right, that as long as the Mirage or Rafale gets data from elsewhere, it can always communicate that data back to the missile without using its radar.
Teer(new RCS/originalRCS)^0.25 * range with original RCS
Right! I reversed it, my mistake.
TeerWho might be very depressed each time they have to debrief an encounter with a M2000 :diablo:
During joint operations between Jaguars and Mirages, the Jaguars would shy away in front of the deadly capability of the Mirage-2000. The FBW FCS gave it a leap forward in terms of handling at low altitudes and G-bump reduction. Mirages could make aproaches towards the enemy which demanded intense maneuvers at low altitude.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=3486
The article was published at a time when the IAF was still operationalizing its earlier Su-30 Ks (teething troubles etc), but overall gives a good feel of the how much the Mirage 2000 operators like it.
Of course, expensive spares, teething troubles with the engine etc have occurred with the Mirage as well, but overall its regarded as Ok.
TeerThey aren’t my numbers. They are from an article in World Air Power Journal Volume 35. I’d tell you the author, but I’m sure you can already guess….
Whats the formulae for converting between RCS and ranges again? I had it written somewhere, but cannot find it.
Something like (3m2/5m2)^2 x range?
PeterG – great posts.
The RCS formula as said, is (originalRCS/new RCS)^0.25 * range with original RCS
Sign In
