Fair comment. My apologies if I came across as criticising this individual without justification. My criticism wasn’t levelled at him in particular – it was levelled at the culture of irresponsibilty and lack of accountability that seems to pervade Indian defence projects. Things don’t get done on time, do they? The reason for this is usually (but not always) that people didn’t do things on time yet there seems to be no reaction when that happens.

Please don’t go by what the media says.

Indian defence projects don’t suffer from irresponsibility and lack of accountability, they suffer from red tape. India is a developing country, and hence you have to understand a basic fact, spending money, in an environment where corruption is often a topic of debate, and the guns versus butter arguement is used all the time – means each and every decision ends up being scrutinized by many agencies and decision making gets complicated with many stakeholders, each with their own interests.

The second is scope creep. This is another severe challenge which adds to time and cost delays as requirements get changed midway during a program, again and again, when original requirements were very demanding to begin with…this is because imports from world class suppliers are available OTS. Look at the Tejas itself. In its MK1 version it can easily replace the bulk of the MiG fleet and do a better job, but the IAF wants the latest technology and performance that is beyond what its adversaries will field even in the coming days. This is why items like an internal EW suite etc are being added, when the aircraft could do with an external pod itself (for which it has a dedicated pylon).

Third is India actually began its arms industry in the 1980s in any significant way. Before that, it was all about build to others designs and processes, with TOT occurring over decades and minimal R&D if any. What India has done via programs like the Tejas, is develop the entire ecosystem – which for example UK based companies developed all the way from the 1930’s itself and kept modernizing…over two decades. These, by their very nature, by insisting on local development & production are very challenging. Foreign assistance is limited to select audit and consultancy – more like a checking mechanism to make sure time is not being wasted. So a program like Tejas has a huge challenge for ADA and HAL because they depend on suppliers from local vendors who are doing things for the first time and need to be handheld. CEMILAC/DGQA will not clear items until they meet stringent safety criteria and of course, IAF will not accept unless they meet operational requirements. And the LCA challenge, is everything has to be compact and light weight, and consume as less power as possible, while getting the job done. While this has paid huge dividends for Indian aerospace in terms of building up world class competence in avionics, structures, test equipment and of course, experienced people, it means delays are a given for such a program. Eg for DARIN Jaguars – India is procuring a French Autopilot. But for LCA – that is a NAL job done locally. Over time, this can be leveraged for other programs, but the designer has to bear the brunt of any challenges at the subsystem level. But thats the point of the LCA, to develop local industry. Not just import and integrate.

These are the real challenges. Not 1-2 people in a program deliberately or via incompetence causing delays and not being held accountable. People who don’t perform are sidelined. But the actual challenges are the above mentioned

The amount of effort (and delays) would have been far more manageable if India had started its journey earlier, kept at it, and Indian systems of today were the 2nd or 3rd in the series. But they are not, they are the first and hence all the lessons are rolled into one.

This is not to say everything is hunky dory otherwise. It’s not – but by far the real reasons are ignored by the lay press.

Coming to cost & time delays – for all these issues, the local programs invariably provide more bang for the buck. Google up Akash orders f.e., all delays apart, the program has landed multibillion deals for 8 squadrons for the AF, and a similar number for the Army. In contrast, almost all the “imported quick inductions” we aimed for, eg Scorpene, Vikramaditya (Carrier) or this or that have been hit by massive cost escalations and delays. India is slowly realizing that for all the talk of cheap licensed manufacture, available quickly – its often neither cheap, nor available quickly and nor is it operationally positive to have a lot of control still in the vendors hands.

This is the reason it is now starting to support its local programs, instead of treating them like the poor cousin come to sponge off the richer (funded procurement of imports) relatives. And that is paying dividends. But red tapism remains in allocating funds and making a rigid procurement structure agree to quick decisions. That is a significant cause of delay and will remain so.

K, sorry, I promise I will learn to multiquote one of these days

You can do it the same as bolding. Instead of b and /b in blocks, just put [quote] and the same with a / in front.
Thats how I do it, I don’t use the forums auto quote feature since its hard for even me to follow.

Ok, let’s just condense my argument here. We are talking about, post penetration effect, and comparing carousel and the Arjun’s hull storage. In my opinion, the crew safety result is similar. Why? The Arjun’s ammo is well packed, and will give the crew time to evacuate assuming a fire breaks out. No argument there. The Carousel on the other hand is placed away from the crew section, and the crew generally has time to evacuate before it goes up and the tank completely blows the eff up. See examples in Georgia, many Georgian tanks were hit (by various means, not sure about APFSDS, but certainly HEAT, artillery, and aviation), crew got out, later the tank blew into smithereens (in some cases). So I don’t think there is much to choose from there between the two storage layouts. What is important, IMO, is location. From what I have seen, the Arjun’s hull ammo presents a larger profile from the front, than the carousel ammunition. Let’s just say for the sake of the discussion, the T-90 and Arjun are identical. And penetration happens, from, like you mentioned, a KE round. I think the hull ammo compartment is a bigger target than the low, flat, carousel. And if an APFSDS round succesfully penetrates and hits that box, it will do no better than carousel. Call me a skeptic, but I have no reason to believe that ammo compartment actually protects against a HEAT stream or a KE penetration. If those shells light up, the effect will NOT be contained inside each cell. The same is the case from the side. I did not bring up the Arjun’s weak side (they might as well not be armored, just check out weld lines, it is very very thin on most of the turret) to say “Indians are stupid and messed up on side armor!” but it was just clearly not part of the design philosophy. I don’t know why, but the side armor layout is a big problem. Both from the front, where the Arjun turning it’s turret only slightly exposes the full length of the turret, or an enemy tank shooting slightly off the frontal arc; and from the sides, where basically the entire turret is one big weak spot. On the T-90, the war the armor array is laid out, frontal arc coverage is much more comprehensive in terms of angling, and from the side the already much smaller turret is at least partially protected by the front armor array. Now back to the ammunition- the Arjun’s hull box would be supremely vulnerable from the sides, there is basically nothing protecting it. The carousel at least has the big road wheels in the way, and either way it is a smaller profile target. Carousel only, the T-90s layout was proven to be very safe, if we look at T-72 experience in Chechnya. When it comes to AP ammunition (regarding the turrets popping as you mentioned in ODS, I have also read about that) there is nothing to suggest those US tankers hit the carousel. More likely they hit fighting compartment ammo, the effect can be disastrous. In any case, Arjun has never been in the trial of fire as extensively as the T-72, so its a difficult comparison. So yes, to summarize, I firmly believe T-90 ammo layout IF ONLY carousel ammunition is taken is safer. The downside is of course less total ammunition than the Arjun would carry. The ability of OPFOR tansk to actually penetrate the T-90 from the front in terms of India’s theater of operations is dubious though, so they could carry the full load without too much worry.

The Arjun’s turret armour is based on IA GSQR and based on what they perceive their engagements have gone as. Adding more armour is not a massive task by any means, as matter of fact, I well anticipate that going forward, the Army will be more reasonable about adding armour if the Arjuns are based in the desert and don’t have to strike across the Punjab, use bridges etc. Basically, the IA set certain specifications for the designers to follow. The Arjun MK2 will field even more armour in the form of ERA packages, and IMI is assisting with redesigning the turret for weight reduction and improving production (they will act as an audit agency & will even assist in speeding up production without minimizing quality). Now coming to the box arguement, reason I don’t buy that is because IMO, the carousel & hull ammo on the Arjun are both at equal risk. If the hull gets targeted – both are at risk. Where – as I said – my issue is – is with all those exposed rounds next to each other in the carousel. Sections with armour in between would have been a better bet IMHO, though it would have complicated autoloader movement, but given Russian expertise in hydraulics and mechanical systems, its not at all beyond them. Only a weight, and size penalty would have to be paid. But with todays FCS, a slightly lower tank wont escape any attack.

Coming to why KE versus HEAT – IMO, based on talks with guys who do this seriously etc, the former tend to be a greater threat in terms of spall and actually continuing on into the turret. HEAT rounds, only the latest, and that too from the flanks, have a chance of penetrating on into the turret. In a tank versus tank engagement, its APFSDS which is the primary threat.

Soyuz made a very valid point that if penetration occurs, the crew may as well be dead – but I’d say it depends, because in the T series, the crew are very tightly packed. In a tank with a larger internal volume, there is still space and depending on projectile entry, some of the crew may actually escape.

Basically, its all about the passive protection within.

I believe it assures a level of protection to the ammunition hat is better than non armored rounds, and helps when fires break out. I categorically refuse the notion that it would protect against ammo detonation once the box has been penetrated. I would need some conclusive proof that the box can 1.) protect against HEAT stream or KE penetrator 2.) post penetration it would contain each shells explosion.

There is little point in putting the rounds in metal containers for just protecting them from fires! The entire design is meant to add additional armour to protect against the penetrating rounds as you mentioned in 1, and 2 that its meant to contain the rounds explosion! Its your prerogative to “categorically refuse” etc – but on my side, I have discussed the topic with the guys who designed for this, tested for this, and furthermore, I have seen the actual thickness of the casing in which each round is. Its thick steel. As matter of fact, only when the case covers are put over each round – does it appear closely packed. If you see the actual ammo containerization, the space allocated for the volume to encase the round becomes very apparent. The only difference between the hull & turret storage is that in the turret, the same scheme extends back towards the bustle with blow off panels, clearly designed with weakened points to vent all the rounds. Whereas in the hull, each round is individually cased.

Damn, that’s pretty scary to hear. Is it really true that some defense minister didn’t want AC on tanks because it made the troops softer?

TBH thats a myth. The actual reason is more commonplace. Basically before the NBC threat, tanks did not operate buttoned up all the time. With the hatches open, some ventilation was available. Also, the commander could sight. Another thing was that the engine derates significantly in heat, and when the AC is operated, it saps engine power. There is no APU on the Indian T-72M1s to assist. End result is that AC was thought unecessary. However, when we mobilized during peak of summer in 2001, it qucicly became apparent that there were problems. Now with T-90 another issue, is that TI becomes unstable at high temperatures. So for both T-90 and T-72, IA is looking out for APU and AC/ or microcooling systems for electronics and crew.

Well, i respectfully disagree. I think his posts are much more realistic than the wishful thinking that is often reported by defense industries on their products. It’s not even that he is some kind of genius, he is just well read on the subject, and lacks national biases.

Being well read is not enough unfortunately because weapons systems programs by their very nature have released data often conflicting with the actual details. Hence, if one goes by almost half of the stuff in books, or even the web, on specific topics, it is often junk. What one needs to be truly authoritative (ie. the likes of Zaloga on US armor or Richard Og.) is access to certain people who work on specific programs, or one needs to come from the industry himself to have gained significant knowledge on the topic. (eg some designers do post on the net). AFAIK, he has neither. Now, I don’t know how he fares wrt rest of the world, but when it comes to India, he really knows little about Indian systems or whats on or not on the Arjun. Googling his name & seeing some of his statements showed the same. Plus, he appears to be fairly underinformed about how tech development in parallel industries has benefited programs like the Arjun. Thats the issue, not with him in specific, though he does tend to be over the top abrasive in some discussions. Now take that bit about side armour. He says, “we figured the side armor of Arjun out by looking at interior and exterior pics” – I mean, is he serious? I have seen the Arjun interior, and depth perception in low rez pics is completely messed up. That’s the problem with a lot of his “analysis”, while perhaps intended with the best of intentions, it completely misses the mark and has little correlation to reality.
Eg, there is a lot spoken on Arjun Ammo currently on that thread – but there is absolutely no idea there that the current Arjun actually dates from a decade back, and now the Arjun is in series production ammunition is being upgraded – because it makes sense to finally invest in the same! When the Arjun ammo was first developed to today, the DRDO has achieved a 50% increase in L/D ratio and this keeping in mind the design challenges of the separated penetrator and propellant design of the T-tanks. They require a lot of care about sabot design. Indian rounds now achieve what we got via import from Israel some 5-6 years back. Even a similar level of capability on the Arjun, would boost its performance by a huge amount. Let alone the fact that now penetrator blanks are available from OEMs and can be machined in India. That is what we did even with Israeli rounds. My point is Damian (and most of the guys on that thread) were not just unaware, they seemed totally unaware of even the basics of where the tank is & the context even. And there lies the problem.

Basically, there were recent exercises in the Pacific Fleet involving coastal missile batteries and submarines. Kravchyk wrote an article that made its rounds all over forums as well as news sites about how miserably the Fleet failed at hitting anything, and how the Marines uttrly failed in their landings, basically crapped completely all over the military. One problem, he wasn’t there. Twower (the blogger) was a journalist actually present at the event, and with visual evidence disproved that douchebag’s blatant lies. Moral of the story, you see anything with Kravchyk’s name on it, use it to wipe your behind.

We have Sengupta. If you have read any of his “articles”, you’d get the exact same feeling. The number of whoppers put out by this one guy beats almost the entire journalistic fraternity hollow. Whats worse is he runs his own blog and has kids eating up his stuff as if it were real.

They are thick though, and from what I have seen on the Arjun ammo layout, much thicker than those shields.

They have to be thicker than the Arjun ammo layout because as I said, they vent the entire ammo at one go. The carousel, if it had vents could have adopted a similar approach.

You would be surprised of how far a modern round can penetrate. And it’s not just from the front, where it would have to go through the thick frontal array- if the round comes at an angle into the hull (or the turret, due to the Arjun’s weird lack of side coverage), there will be more than enough energy left to make that hull ammo storage useless.

Not really, let me explain, because I have seen public pics of what happens to KE rounds once the Kanchan package is done with them. The Arjun uses Kanchan extensively & the aim of the ammunition storage, as I said, is to be the final protection in a long line of defeat mechanisms. Not be the primary armour itself. I’d wager the modern Russian composite package works much the same way as Kanchan & can significantly degrade both KE and HEAT rounds. Only ERA is a simpler way as its modular and can be replaced easily, but it comes at the expense of slghtly weakened zones where it cannot be placed or where overlap is not possible.

Good discussion, thanks Teer. If you do have photos of the hull array close up or testings with the array detonating (or not) I would be much obliged. Detailed photos of Arjun are far and in between. I am not above changing my opinion, but I am skeptical by nature.

Thanks for your civility. I don’t think that the T-series are bad designs, but just got overtaken by time, its just that ammunition and gun development overtook the earlier ones. The T-64 IMHO was the super tank for its time considering a bunch of factors, though it had a slightly different autoloader.

I can request for some pics of Arjun though of not all the types you want- only issue is that while taken at a public event, they were taken by an acquaintance and he won’t be keen on putting them online.

What I do know is – the Arjun ammo storage was meant to actually overcome the limitations of the T-72 storage system, and the designers deliberately chose thick ballistic steel for actually containing individual rounds after the design was validated, coming to armor, and there are images of APFSDS breaking up after it hit Kanchan. The Army actually regards the Arjun, at least per one guy as “fully protected against tank threats”. But they have always cribbed about its weight. At 58.5 tons, its just too heavy for them, as their entire logistics train (bridging, construction eqpt to support an advance) is built around the T-72.

I don’t grudge your skepticism. Its just that these same queries were what had been raised by I and others way back in 2003-4 when the Arjun first started being displayed at public events, and the public got a chance to look at the interiors and ask why certain features existed and their rationale.

If you wish – we could move the rest to PMs, as I really don’t want to sidetrack the topic anymore.

BTW have you seen the latest DARE EW suite for the Su-30MKI, I am wondering whether the jammers shown are SAP-518 or SAP-14 ones. Or derived from the Su-35. They could be Indian but why not use Russian jammers designed for the Flanker, is a thought that struck me.

If those are the same jammers used on Russian planes, we have a huge production run going on, with minimum publicity.

What does China offer even remotely comparable to the very useful Kh-58UShKE?

Is the Kh-58 available for export or Russia specific?

The report mentions a 9 month delay on supplying aircraft:

Not worthy of comment? I can only guess someone / some entity screwed up somewhere. One doesn’t want to point a finger at the guilty party, does one? No, much better to keep your mouth shut. You never know, you might need them to keep their mouth shut if you screw up!

You might want to check on some of the facts before impugning Krishna by implying that he needs to keep quiet as a quid pro quo. The journalist was angling for a bite and the officer didn’t. That’s his prerogative. Give him the dignity he deserves, and not go jumping at shadows because someone tried to bait him & he didn’t reply line and verse.

There are several events which occurred over the past year which could have been tied to this.

Its not exactly uncommon knowledge that the group lead for the Tejas testing from the AF side resigned recently – he had better offers from outside the establishment. This is a continuing problem for programs like the LCA. Promotions are very competitive and people who acquire such valuable experience are often picked up by a burgeoning Indian aviation sector.

This was widely tied to delays in the testing regimen. These things will continue to happen from time to time, and you can’t just appoint just about any person to ASTE or NFTC either. They need to have the proper experience and will take time to settle in.

Apart from this there has also been talk of IAF adding stuff to the LCA for a while, the comment on classified stuff begs the question as to what exactly was added.

Plus, there were delays earlier with some kit which have been sorted out and widely reported as well. One was the autopilot. Others were structures for which a pvt Indian firm was found for series production.

Point is ASTE is IAF, they need not necessarily know of all the decisions made by AHQ, ADA, HAL or NTFC.

In case you are unclear about the alphabet soup. ADA is the designer, primary integrator (and tier 1 partner) is HAL, IAF is the customer, which deputes people to NTFC which runs the LCA test regimen and ASTE – Aircraft Systems and Test Establishment, is the IAF authority for test and verification of upgrades, new equipment etc. In this, they are assisted by the certifying authority which is CEMILAC, which is again staffed by DRDO and IAF/IA/IN personnel and runs independently of all these organizations (though “owned” by DRDO) to certify aircraft like the LCA. Other partners and subsystem providers include labs like NAL which works on the LCA FBW and composites, the TATA Group (which stepped in to manufacture the NAL developed composites in bulk) and dozens of private SMEs across India.

In short, ADA & HAL design per IAF need, HAL makes, NTFC flies, CEMILAC issues release to certification (IOC and FOC) with trials conducted by ASTE and based on data collected from all stages of process.

It is ASTE’s job to just test the aircraft, not decide on when they are delivered, what problems are faced in production (unless they are tied to what ASTE discovered) etc. Thats the rest of the folks job. Before thinking that Krishna’s keeping mum is a quid pro quo, please think of what his role is & that he will stick to his mandate. His job is to test the aircraft for user compliance, nothing else nothing more.

The rounds in the carousel are in the strongest protected part of the tank. Ofc if penetration does occur, and hits the rounds, you are in trouble. But that is no different from Arjun/Leo2 hull ammo being hit. The crew is screwed either way I am afraid. Half hearted measures will not change that.

I am afraid you are missing the point – please reread what i wrote to get what I meant about the weakness of the carousel, the presence of so many rounds all next to each other, exposed. What exactly does strongest protected part of the tank mean per se & against which threat? For anti tank, infantry fired rounds (HEAT based) which are fired from the flanks (std tactic of infantry troops) – perhaps. Because they’ll have even the roadwheels running interference. But against APFSDS – that carousel is less protected than the Arjun layout, *because* the rounds are all exposed to each other. Check the image I shared. Propellants & penetrators (again with propellants) all next to each other, in one carousel without separation!

In contrast, the Arjun’s hull rounds are all individually separated in their own armoured cases and sealed in. This design is an improvement over the original Leo2 layout & similar to that of the Merkava, which stores its ammunition in composite containers (to minimize fire hazard) and even shrapnel damage. The Merkava designers can use thinner composite boxes because the rounds are located towards the rear of the tank & the engine is located in the front. So they adopted a compromise, with 4 rounds to a box. In the Arjun’s case, the designers did not have this luxury so they did not skimp on weight but used high grade steel instead (which is the base of the tank armour as well).

Hence, the Indian approach, to use steel casing & IFDSS. This is not a “half hearted measure” by any means in either case, but a well thought one & better than the carousel autoloader which puts all the ammunition, without separation, in proximity to each other.

The Leo2 approach superficially looks the same, but is not exactly the same. In images that I have seen, the rounds are not cased in, but remain open for extraction with only clamps holding them in place, and are in lightweight containers built into a rack. They took the position of the hull storage (being below the turret ring) to be protection by itself. Thats not whats on the Arjun.

In ODS, the penetrated T-72s flipped their turret not because of just the turret ammo, but the carousel detonation. That takes away the best protected part right there.

Remember, in both cases, the assumption is that penetration has occurred, and what next. In the Arjun case, the propellant in each round has to penetrate the entire armour (with each round in its own container) to cause a massive explosion. In the T-72/T-90 layout, one round is enough to set off the entire carousel since all rounds are exposed to each other.

In Chechnya T-72Bs were penetrated by RPGs in some instances 14 times (!!!!) and no ammo detonation occurred, because the ammunition was in the carousel.

Again, see where the shot was fired from and what it was! We are not talking of only HEAT fired from the flanks here – which is vulnerable to the roadwheels but long rod APFSDS. The Arjun has been designed for tank to tank combat & the criteria was containerized ammunition based on our experience with the T-72, where even in peacetime, ammunition cookoffs caused entire tanks to be lost. The MK2 btw is to improve on the containerization even more. From a few years back, one option being explored was to have a semiautomatic autoloader in the bustle with all rounds in it, similar to that on the Merkava Mk4. I know of an Indian pvt firm which was to be assigned that work.

The T-90MS is a compirmise solution (all tanks are ofc) but a pretty good one by the look of it. No ammo aside from in carousel, all of it is moved to the separate bustle. Very safe solution, though it lowers the number of combat ready rounds. Why not complete redesign? Russian army isn’t even interested in the tank, they have something brand new in the pipeline (Armata). I would like to see them place a modest number of orders until Armata is ready..but who knows. Makes more sense for India I think, given how many T-90s they are gunning for.

Any details on the Armata? From what is there on the net, on the T-90MS, some rounds not all have been moved to the bustle, and the carousel remains as is. Though more advanced ERA has been added to the front and flanks.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?203498-Arjun-lining-up-to-be-world-s-most-expensive-tank!!

They had a good discussion about this on mp,net, in the interest of staying within the context of this thread, I am goign to leave it at that.

Frankly, the discussions on MP,net can often be inaccurate. The title itself is absurd. Arjun lining up to the worlds most expensive tank – sure, if you divide program costs for a limited number of tanks by the units and assume they are unit costs.

Which is what a particularly silly journalist did when he wrote a writeup on the Arjun misinterpreting a statement given as a reply by the DefMin, nvm the journo, Rahul Bedi has a reputation for being amongst the worst in the field India has produced (and the list is long indeed).

The point is that a lot of the discussions on MP.net, including the one you cited, are full of haphazard conclusions based on data which is flawed to begin with. The Arjun MK2 costs are high only when seen in context of the initial 124 which account for both infrastructure and unit costs. But the Army has asked for another 248 to follow on, once trials are complete. As the production run increases, costs go down.

Only reason I even posted the pic is because I was told repeatedly here (not by you) that the Arjun had completely isolated ammunition. Clearly, not the case.

The Arjun does have completely isolated ammunition – what in the picture suggests that it does not? Consider, each round is in its own individual container, again placed in an armoured box and provided a hatch. This is an approach which Indian designers felt was reasonable answer to the ammunition in the crew compartment issue, especially when complemented by an IFDSS which reacts in microseconds. The same IFDSS has now been chosen for the entire Indian Army T-72 and BMP-2K fleet as well.

The bustle stuff is good with venting panels, but problem is by creating blow off panels, you create weak spots. That’s not such an issue for the back of the turret top when the entire section is separated from the crew, but towards the front, you want maximum structural integrity, even towards the tank hull and even towards the bottom, which may have to face mines as well. There is little point in the Arjun incorporating blow off panels at the bottom, if tomorrow, the tank has to acquire more armour (see recent uparmour packages) which add additional modules for antimine protection.

The best article I read was about a USAF F-16 pilots evaluation of German MIG 29, He was constantly saying how easier his F 16 is to fly compared to MIG. Let me try and dig it up.

I think the pilot is being rather disingenuous in comparing his AMRAAM equipped Viper to yesterdays MiG-29. Let him go up against a latest MiG-29 variant and lets see what he says!

Also, the IAF MiG-29s were not heavily upgraded. Yet, when USAF flew against them in India, AF Times carried an article with the US pilot noting “we were exchanging shots with them at the same time, I killed, I got killed, this is not how we would like to fight” – noting that the MiG-29s were very tough opponents. In other words, training matters and when used to its potential, the MiG-29 had the ability to fight even much more modern fighters.

Todays MiG-29s have their own pluses and minuses. And whats this about learning from the west stuff? The FSU collapsed and as such developments stopped. That does not mean, that the Russians would not have done their bit. The HMCS and missile combo, IRST all superior to what was on the Viper. If improvements had continued, they would have refined the cockpit further, added more fuel etc. Big deal.

BTW, in Indian service, MiG pilots could be swapped from plane to plane relatively easier because of the immense standardization between Russian cockpits. The same design, same dials, made life easier! A lot to learn from and IAF adopted the principle when they did own upgrades.

Maybe the Russkies are paranoid that some ‘Growler’ with a NGJ will tell their prized PAK-FA’s to head for Hawaii. The Indian armed forces no doubt will have similar concerns about COTS, I guess it’s a question of ‘who do you trust?’ Hell the Yanks don’t even trust the Brits!!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A99a33f93-77bd-4b38-8983-79eccfd5e00e

However, I do think the Russians & Indians will co-develop/co-produce many future systems ( it wouldn’t surprise me if the Russians participate in the AMCA at some point), where one will often cover the other’s shortcomings. Their relationship is tried and tested.

Those are reasonable fears – India is setting up a verification facility for imported electronics chips etc and aims to expand its current facilities.

I do think now that cooperation with India and Russia should increase. But the size of Russia’s MIC means that leaders will have to justify looking outside to domestic workers which is not easy.

Right now, India seems to be working with anyone and everyone!
US for COIN radars! First it was Sweden.
All over the place. If not for corruption scandals, South Africa and arty would have been a big plus.

Fighter ECM systems (the transmitting part, that is) generally cover not much more than X-band for self-defence against enemy fire control radars. Their passive ESM receivers will also warn of low-band search radars and detect datalink activity in modern systems, but there is usually no capability to jam in this frequency range – that’s what aircraft like the Growler are for.

Sorry, but have to disagree – this is mistaken given todays developments. The current gen ECM systems – at least in all the discussions I have observed – all cover X Band & the nearby Missile bands (X-Ku) + have extra fit planned for, often via extra podded systems available to cover extra bands as required (L/S etc). The Growler is more the exception than the rule! As a general rule of thumb, it is now expected that any of the latest fighters in development or being deployed should be able to field some sort of interim or even a standard capability against non fighter threats. Very few countries if at all, can afford dedicated EW squadrons. Eg even this on the 35 covered multiple bands.
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/ELT-568-V2-Italy.html

There is a very good reason why the Typhoon and Rafale were able to use AESA technology in their ECM systems long before applying it to their radars. Module counts and power levels are low, hence high price and low efficiency (low ERP at high power consumption and waste heat) due to immature production processes – all the usual AESA pitfalls – are much more manageable.

That was then – I can assure you that todays AESAs being used on either the Typhoon and Rafale are very likely not the same systems initially developed either and are every bit as sophisticated as radar systems. India has developed and productionized some 5-7 (even more probably since I am erring on the conservative side since I dont have my notes with me) types of radar Tx/Rx modules & these are every bit as competitive as imported ones from peers. However, for both airborne fighter radar & ECM systems, the delta is so critical (minor margins of difference at every stage), that cooperation – at least on the RF design & fabrication side, counts.

And furthermore, if you try using low ERP systems for the ECM component when better systems are available OTS from a more modern supplier, your kit will fall behind.

Basically, roughly an ECM system has to do “half the work” of a Tx/Rx radar system & needs to cover specific hot spots in an aircraft designed for the same (and discrete elsewhere) eg Rafale, but the same leeway is not available on fighters like the Flankers and MiGs which need both high ERP and also, with low number of modules even while managing the heat and power requirements.

BTW, finally, evidence that the Super 30 upgrade includes a new DARE developed EW suite – theres probably a MAWS on the spine plus ASPJs on the wingtips.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/pkartikk/AeroIndia2011/Hanger-ADA/DSC_0504.JPG.html

I agree completely, Russia ideally needs to embrace COTS more than they are currently doing – in some fields they might stand a chance of catching up, but in others they’d better cut their losses and take the COTS approach. However, if for some reason (institutional inertia?) they do not wish to do so, their only, tenuous hope of accomplishing their aim is by maximising sales – and that means large-scale exports in addition to domestic production.

Concur!