TeerAnd as you say, the one thing that really sets this jammer apart from the systems already offered for export by Russia is based on technology transferred from Italy With Russia aiming to put T/R modules into mass production for radars, it is but a small step for them to be used in ECM systems as well – a much less demanding application in fact. As for mission computers and the like, if the T-50 avionics system is based on a F-22/35-style integrated architecture (and there are indications that it is), all bets are off.
I just brought that up as an example of application via collab with partners. But thats not all actually – there is also the other RF side electronics + the UREP on the RWJ, nothing similar is available on the MiG-29K or even what was available via the Russian side for the Upgrades. They offered a variant of the Pastel RWR and podded jammers. The point is the architecture & base design of the RWJ is itself ahead of whats available from Russian OEMs today & the AESA jammer was just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Coming to F-22/F-35 style integrated architecture – again, doubtful that is the case for the T-50 and I for one hope it does not have something similar, or rather the same! The software issues with that type of architecture are legendary & add to substantial time & cost expense. Even here, they are talking of the same for the AMCA. IMHO, its a needless complication & I am not too sold on central processing.
However, the “next best thing” – Integrated Modular Computers – are already in service & even in development (mutiple classes) on Indian programs. These combine everything from MC functions, to display generation for the MFDs and HUDs, map generation etc. There is the OSAMC by HAL, OAC for the LCA & now another for the Super 30 Upgrade.
Coming to Tx/Rx modules for radars being used for ECM systems – but ECM systems are not just X Band, they have to be as wide band as possible. Thats the challenge. For a GBAD system, India (and Russia) can make a large array with different distributed arrays each on a different band. Thats not easy to do with airborne systems as space matters.
BTW, the military market is just around 2% of the WW semiconductor market, and a large chunk of even that, is the US. Hence, the move to COTS (apart from purpose designed RF circuitry for AESAs etc) is inevitable. It amazes me that Russia has still been in the area only in terms of bits and pieces and not full scale. Some of their systems being put on export equipment would not be accepted by users unless they are so tightly integrated into the overall avionics that replacement is not worth the bother.
I find this to be a huge missed opportunity for Russia. Another example is of UAV optronic payloads. Speaking with Russians, I got the idea they were not happy with the weight & form factor of their locally developed payloads. The consequence of trying to do everything inhouse. In contrast, India has managed to develop reasonably ok payloads – we are on the GPA -Mk4 (Gimballed Payload Assembly MK4). The Thermal Imaging module within uses an OTS IR matrix from either Israel or France. We just havent invested in the tech locally. If we did it or tried to compensate for it with jury rigged systems with lower resolution etc, the weight would have increased & the entire array found unsuitable.
IMO, Russia needs more cooperation with select partners, not less. And that will just move their stuff to A+++ level across the board.
TeerOf course… But the point is that it IS HAl alone at fault for kicking out BAe people who just happen to notice the situation… That is concealing the reality of the situation from all relevant branches of Indian government and military… Who does that help, besides specific beaurocrats? It definitely HURTS things like actually achieving good production rates, if it is preventing actual problems from being dealt with and removing compentent people from the factory.
Provided that incident occurred exactly that way to begin with. I don’t intend to pour oil on a fire here, but let me say that what you have here is BAe ‘s response to a US query, and one which if things were as bad as they claimed they were…would have got HAL into a world of hurt from the Indian media & MOD alike. And the former is no friend of HAL or any Indian Govt owned firm.
What did happen. HAL asked for recompense – which they would not have unless they had a half decent case. IAF clearly mentioned both issues regarding lack of available spare parts and that spares on their Hawks were old stock and actually came as if they were flogged & were not in mint question. HAL also mentioned – and was never countered by BAE – that the jigs provided to assemble HAWKs were not proper & there was missing documentation.
Net, this was beyond just some simple issue of under ordering spares by the IAF, and HAL trying to play catchup by diverting spares from other HAWKS in assembly. Suffice to say, neither side probably wants too much to be made out of the issue. HAL is still dependent on BAE & BAE suppliers for some spares for some programs e.g. SHars, and BAE would not like this issue to take center stage both for its rep., in TOT snowballing and plus there is the MMRCA decision.
Let me also point out that the Jaguar – after being inducted into IAF required umpteen modifications. Several by HAL etc and in one notable case, HAL led the solution, but did not receive a dime as the agreement was not watertight from its side. The Hawk will be no different. It too will require customization, and when was the last time 120 odd Hawks were assembled outside BAE premises anyways? That by itself will mean mistakes will be made, things and processes will need to be changed.
TeerTeer thanks for the response! At the end of the day, we will see this decade how the project turns out. Hopefully for the best.
Thank you and same to you. I hope the FGFA is successful and India and Russia collaborate extensively in electronics and aerospace. Russian theoretical research leads the world. One tough thing is the language barrier. IMO, this is a reason why many projects sometimes end up with western partners – both sides speak english. Even so HAL & many our companies have a lot of faith in & like to partner with Russia!
sure for best :).sukhoi always have shown to all that is able to make amazing aircraft,and this time is not an exceptional:)
Absolutely. I don’t mean to sound like we (TR1, I and you) have blind faith but when you see the kind of risks Sukhoi designers took to make Su-27 a success, its hard not to admire that kind of spirit & their capability.
TeerI have serious trouble believing this claim. Su-34 has a very advanced EW system, and the subject is highly classified as is.
The software, and algorithms may indeed be pretty ok. And even the hardware may be sufficient. But what I meant to say was, what is the overall volume & power consumption? This is where the world has moved ahead in terms of using compact solid state electronics, the latest COTS processors, purpose developed RF systems eg AESA etc. This overall weight versus performance yardstick is where the Indian systems (since they are open to collab with leading houses in specific subsystems) get ahead. Now, the Su-34 system may indeed be good but if we go by the recent public dissatisfaction with the Su-35 system by the Russian AF chief & the Brazil eval of the export Su-35 variant in EW (ok but nothing great), there does appear to be a ways to go to catch up. Its basically a function of time and money, plus perceived need. As I once mentioned, I spoke to a Sukhoi rep about this. His point was – we make big aircraft and can carry big systems which our designers give, so what is the problem (insert a huge smile and wave of the hands). Of course, this freedom is not always available to other designers and the scalability factor means that the larger system can be sometimes outperformed if a more compact system is scaled up similarly (provided it was designed for that).
Right, but that was the case of the Su-30MKI, and the true lack of many equivalent Russian subsystems during the 90s and 2000s. The situation is quiet different today.
Actually, I meant today because if we evaluate the Super 30 upgrade there are things the Indian side is looking within for, which it didnt bother for the MiG-29 UPG (cost versus time).
Look, whatever Russia can make which matches upto requirements, trust me – we’ll go for it, we really appreciate the political reliability of Russia and historical ties, hard bargaining apart. For instance on original Bison plan was to use Thales MFD but when we saw RA MFDs were ok, we promptly took those even though rest of IAF fleet standardized on Thales ones.
But some Russian subsystems eg Mission Computers, OACs, DMGs, datalinks etc haven’t come up to that level yet, eg the latest being offered by (say) competitors like ELTA, Thales, Raytheon etc. Which is why you’d have seen even for the MiG-29 UPG, the IFF hardware upgrade contract went to Thales. If a similar (forget better) system was available from Russia we’d have jumped at it, integration with the MiG-29 Phaza radar would be easier.
This system (http://www.haledgewood.com/images/osamc-data-sheet.pdf) eg is ahead of some Russian systems, like the ones we are getting on the MiG-29K but which are retained for purposes of cost & integration expense. And this is one of many firms with specific products like this however, the lack of publicity since these are mostly developed for local needs makes them go under the radar.
I agree, that is why I am genuine interested where Indian contribution makes sense in terms of achieving the best performance – I have yet to see firm specifics. Of course, they may opt for Indian systems on FGFA simply because of desire for domestic content, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Thing is Indian side does not go for Indian systems unless they either match or surpass best of what they can get from abroad. Eg for MKI they deliberately went for Indian RWR & even for upgrade they are going for a new project because its an area where we now have substantial experience. But radar – well the clear leader there is NIIP not some Indian firm. IAF is fairly conservative when it comes to equipment deployment. They’ll depute people – fairly senior even – to local development programs, but it will not get ordered en masse till it meets fairly stringent criteria.
I agree 100% in the case of Su-30MKI, but I have my reserved skepticism in the case of the PAK-FA. Now I am not saying that every piece of Russian equipment as relevant to combat aircraft is superior to anything in the world (that would be absurd) but in terms of equipment created specifically for the PAK-FA, I have trouble finding specific instances where Indian equivalents will be substituted because of increased performance. OF course there is the further issue of integration. I think the chance of 3rd party equipment finding its way to be slightly higher, but then again, I think both India and Russia want to stick to domestic kit in the PAK-FA/FGFA. They can afford to and have the capability to do so, unlike in say the Su-30MKI scenario. Further, there is the question of how much foreign integration Russia will allow India to do on the aircraft. I expect Indian personell would have to complete the actual process without active participation by the 3rd party responsible for the content, and that might not help with cost and time. Maybe French components, that both Russia and India have experience in using and license producing…but I think PAK-FA is more sensitive program than say T-90A tank. .
Thing is the contract which has been negotiated allows India to play around with its FGFA like they did on the MKI per that interview. Currently, we are making our own rigs for the MKI and adding all sorts of stuff which does not necessarily involve Sukhoi. The agreement per HAL also states that if the Indian equipment significantly outperforms the Russian stuff (now how significant is significant I dont know), they may order it too. Personally, I dont think it will happen as Russia has a huge MIC which too needs orders. These sort of things get political. At the end of the day, if India gets a FGFA which it can modify and customize to its needs & can supply stuff to foreign customers – I think thats ok. Per se, there is nothing so great about French or even other stuff that we (Russia and India) cannot match, its a question of cost and time. India may tend to spend more on finetuning such things because frankly we are undergunned (numbers wise) so every little bit counts and strategic forces wise, we are nowhere near Russia. That (and IMO a more resolute political leadership) gives Russia a lot of strength.
TeerAnd the LCA is over 95 percent composites in surface area. Just saying HAL has some useful experience in that regard, which can no doubt benefit the PAK-FA and FGFA.
Exactly. And not just the LCA but programs like the ALH et al. HAL, NAL and DRDO have now got substantial experience in developin, processing & using composite materials.
BTW Teer, regarding the LCA and MiG-29UPG’s EW suite, from what I gather it’s merely a partially indeginesed Elettronica Virgilius ER suite?:confused:
Don’t go by what that joker Sengupta writes. The LCA and MiG-29 suite is the Radar Warner Jammer, developed by DARE as an over five year long program. There is no such thing as “partially indigenized” – thats another one of those idiotic things the guy keeps coming up with by just looking at pics and assuming that everything in India has been “indigenized” from some foreign brochure.
The RWJ program has been done by DARE (DRDO) to come up with a flexible system that is modular & incorporates multiple receive channels (more = better coverage & accuracy, depending on what the platform can support) to the DARE Central receiver & exciter (which then takes these signals via DRFM channels and then sends them onto the jammer after post processing).
The jammer again can have multiple channels, which is the beauty of the design. Its scalable and modular. The individual modules can be ported over to different aircraft and depending on volume and power, you can scale up the performance.
The LCA & MiG-27 jammers are conventional but newer solid state ones, developed by India. The MiG-29’s jammer is being codeveloped by DRDO & the Italians and will use AESA tech originally developed for the EF & other programs. The jammer being AESA means higher ERP, better coverage & lesser points of failure and will be made by BEL.
The RWJ system is also a step behind what is now being developed for the CABS AEW&C by DARE. Its even better in terms of signal discrimination and sensitivity, though of course it wont have the jamming component but will be focused on EWS.
These are of course the public programs. Its a given DRDO etc will not publicly talk about other programs which they may or may not have underway including for the FGFA.
TeerThat’s pretty big news! To what extent are the engine components built in India?
Got to check, but one thing is that the critical things like blades probably came from HAL’s own foundry and forge units. However, for a lot of the other raw materials – that are then processed and made into items, those probably still come from Russia. Russia is one of the largest producers of titanium based alloys.
TeerWhat upgraded avionics? What basis is there for the FGFA having better avionics than PAK-FA?
Also what Indian software? I am sorry for being skeptical, but frankly I don’t see any basis for the FGFA being any more advanced than PAK-FA. There is still very little if anything that the Indian aviation industry can provide that the Russian cannot, usually faster and better. For example what will India actually contribute to the second tier engine? Maybe they can send engineers to work in Russia, the more personnel the better.
If one compares the latest Mission & other OBCs India puts into its aircraft in terms of even raw parameters like MIPs & functionality provided, they are ahead. Russia still does not seem to be leveraging COTS as it should.
Indian EW suites are already ahead. I am yet to see anything like the system on the MiG-29 UPG on the Russian side yet.
Thing is in the past, India has collaborated with Israel, Italy etc to finetune the RF hardware while in software it has constantly invested. This helps. As versus Russia’s go it alone approach. Its now at its 7th RWR design in around a decade plus’s time, considering each variant or new design to be better than the prior. And now, its deploying jammers which give equivalent and eve better performance than podded ones, but which are compact & less powerhungry and can be deployed internally.
Also, India tends to put in whatever it gets from the best of French etc suppliers in. In terms of RLG-INS, the latest Indian RLG-INS is equivalent to the Sagem Sigma90 suite on the Su-30 MKI but is being focused on missiles. The Russian suites were simply not found competitive enough even in the current upgrades.
Basically, there are a lot of areas where other suppliers or even India is a bit ahead – these include items such as datalinks, Display Map Generators & other kit.
India is ahead in certain areas in avionics software thanks to requirements of the LCA project. Most of the stuff developed for that program is displayed locally, and not really exhibited abroad but the software stuff developed via the program is innovative & some of its not even available elsewhere. One of the key things is hardware replication. Since (at the time) India did not have enough money to spend on hardware, test rigs for simulation were developed which did everything from HUD to DMG to MFD emulation, all avionics kit in fact. This is something which other programs worldwide have not looked at on the same scale. Another area is software for composites, from design to composites.
Autolay is an example of a system which is now being used by Airbus. Even a PLM application was developed especially for the LCA, since at the time Siemens & Dassault applications were either too expensive or even not available. Similarly suites for the entire value chain of avionics and even maintenance are being developed, similar systems are not available from supplier abroad or are often provided by a consortium. Russia for example tied up with some European firms for some kit for the Su-30 MKI.
Where Russia is ahead – predominantly thanks to NIIP (Phaza is yet to catch up with NIIP) is radar tech. India & even other European peers don’t have as much experience (in airborne radars like India) thanks to underinvestment & when it comes to Phased Array radars (like some European vendors). Another area where Russia has an advantage (over the rest of the world) is materials technology. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia inherited huge amounts of technology & also kept some key programs running. Probably these were also benefited by the tie-in to strategic programs. Anyways, Russian GOST standards are exhaustive, certification also comprehensive, and as such materials processing techniques and systems are still very competitive.
No point in even bringing aerodynamics up – with TSAAGI, Sukhoi etc, we all know they are worldclass.
Basically, if the Soviet Union had transitioned smoothly to the Russian one, and levels of investment had been kept similar, little doubt that across the board, Russian capability in avionics would have kept pace or been superior even. However, the “lost decade” following the fall of the SU, hurt Russian industry.
General consensus is Russian tech is reliable, works well, but suffers in terms of overall sophistication thanks to reliance on dated Russian hardware and often incomplete transition to modern day programming standards (as I said, things are changing – Bars is in modern code) and is behind current standards in terms of weight to effectiveness. Raw performance is likely similar. Eg, if India wants a mobile ABM radar, the Russian approach in recent past (being PESA as on most S-300 and S-400 systems) will probably weigh a few tons more, and be less reliable (using multiple individual transmitters) than the distributed AESA with graceful degradation.
India evaluated Russian AWACS for instance, and then chose the Phalcon instead. Now the gap would have narrowed to some extent, but it is still there. Indian strategic programs evaluated Russian capability comprehensively, but ultimately went with Israeli and French AESA tech. The hardware was where Russia was lacking.
I see the PAKFA as a good chance for Russia to catch up with modern standards across the entire board by developing all new systems, everything from airframe components, materials to subsystems.
The Flankers basically re-used a lot of systems and components from the original aircrafts, but the T-50 appears to be a clean sheet approach. But there will be areas where India will probably pick and choose systems locally and from abroad which may be a bit ahead of their Russian peers or more customized to local conditions. Russia’s aims are probably different and more focused on overall combat power including the strategic forces which soak up investment.
TeerWell i meant Paveway III or paveway IV ( which some people i know speculate that we may already have purchased a dozen or so for testing ) or was it Sudarshan LGB ?
Would either be Paveways or Griffins – or both. Point in latter case being to qualify both types for LCA. Sudarshan production would just be ramping up.
TeerWhat is the RADAR that they will have on it for FOC?
MMR. They could do some initial tests with the 2032, but the MMR has been developed for the LCA & no reason why they shouldn’t use it.
TeerOne more thing.
LRDE’s new radars meant for air surveillance, for both AF and Army have now cleared trials.
These include the 3D TACTICAL Control radar (90km), variant for the Army. Around 20-30 ordered.
The 2D Low Level Light Weight radar (50-60 km), Bharani has cleared trials & Army has placed orders.
The 3D Lowe Level Light Weight radar, Aslesha (60 km) has also cleared trials, & AF is placing orders. This uses AESA tech.
The 3D Low Level radar scaled up for 70% more range (100 km), is now being developed for the services.
All these are less expensive systems versus the huge AESAs being developed for the AF. They are being ordered in number and speak of the huge strides made in local radar development.
These include the Arudhra (300 KM AESA) and LLTR (150 KM AESA). Both systems are in an advanced stage of development and will be ready for trials and production in 2-3 years time.
These are apart from the long range AESAs (600-1500 km+) being developed for the BMD program. The 600 km ones (versus VLO RCS targets) are already ready for production.
The “next systems” India will focus on are fighter AESAs and aerostat mounted radars. These will pretty much round out the value chain & imports will be reduced to only niche systems.
TeerMost likely testing of internal EW suite. I doubt there is enough power on board to power a growler like suite. Btw wasn’t the dedicated range for EW was at Gwalior ?
Edit : Which LGB’s are being used, Paveway (2 ? or 4 ? ) or is Sudarshan ready ? Is the EW suite on Tejas similar to AESA based assembly that has been put on MiG-29 UPG ?
It is the internal suite. It does not use AESA but High power solid state tx.
One thing is its far more powerful and capable than the ELTA 8222 SPJ we have been using so far and hence the LCA (which already has a reduced RCS) can actually accomplish an EW role.
About the LGBs – note the number used, 18. These are extensive trials.
BTW, the users already love the LCA. With the uprated Ge414 engine, one guy mentioned “it will outmatch anything” in terms of performance, referring to both IAF inventory and anticipated opposition. It will perform like a dream as the handling and responsiveness already meeting and even exceeding expectations. The extra thrust will compensate even in a highly loaded regimen, which is where the 404 cannot match but the 414 will exceed.
TeerErm, I don’t think the AL-31FP will be able to handle the AESA and other avionics upgrades’ power requirements, also if the airframes are to be strengthened and treated with RAM coatings and other RCS reduction measures there will be a significant increase in weight.
I’d expect Salyut’s AL-31FM2 (29,200lbs), or the outside chance that the monster AL-31FM3 (~31,000lbs) will be installed.
Once the price negotiations are completed and contracts get signed, I’m sure concrete details will emerge, for the ‘Super-30’ will be Irkut’s rival to the Su-35S on the international market.
If you replace the internal generators, you can squeeze out more power even from existing engines. Lets see whether engine change occurs. Currently, the first HAL built (as versus assembled) AL-31FP has cleared a critical long test at Koraput.
TeerI was wondering when the LCA will be doing trials with BVR weapons, have they already happened? Have I missed the news?
I have read news about it dropping dumb, bombs R-73’s and guided munition but nothing about BVR missiles.
When would these be tested?
They will come in these or follow on trials. The Derby is the chosen BVR missile.
TeerSadly true, also a very difficult situation for BAE Systems. India is a huge market for the company so they have to be sensitive to Indian ego’s over the matter. The customer complaining about availability due to lack of spares they should of purchased then further complaining about delayed deliveries due to parts being taken from CKD kits to repair aircraft already in service would be politically challenging! Clearly BAE Systems have been trying to avoid an official argument but if true HAL’s behaviour of kicking out BAE staff when the problem was pointed out is hardly constructive.
Then again many a service the RAF included has made the mistake of believing parts mtbo figures during procurement and under buying spares.
HAL is caught in the middle. IAF would have gone by the minimum necessary spares angle as on the brochures (which never works out) and then asked HAL to boost serviceability. As always the truth is in the middle. If HAL alone were at fault, enough leaks would have appeared before hand itself.
TeerThats Mohanty speaking. And TBH as an analyst, he is so so. Not that clued in.
Take a look at his comments on the engine. He doesnt even know about the follow on engines being developed.
So before you get all depressed, refer to the HAL R&D heads statements earlier this year in an interview. Per his note, Indian input is intended to exceed one third of the total D&D of the IAF’s FGFA.
1. The India team will have access to all the design data and information and a number of agreements with the requisite confidentiality clauses have been signed in this regard”.
2.Derivatives of a number of mechanical systems developed within the country by various organisations for a number of home-grown programmes could find their way to the T-50, even. Among the LRUS developed for the LCA are carbon carbon brake discs, BBW (Brake by Wire system) & others. Items mentioned in specific for the FGFA include even smaller items like the tyres (for which we had a pain with the MKI program), to others like the fire suppression systems, OBOGS (derived from the one developed for the LCA and upgrades).
3. Composites. The FGFA will have a composite wing, and HAL will contribute to that apart from composites throughout the structure. HAL has been significantly ramping up investments in composites and so have certain private players.
4. Avionics, apart from the usual MC etc, DARE (DRDO) will develop a state of the art EW suite for the FGFA. Coupled with the low RCS of the platform, this will make it even more lethal. India will also be working on its own configuration for large sized displays for the cockpit though the initial one will be from the Su-35/T-50 prototype. Software, design, development and verification work packages will also be handled by India. This will probably include work on the FBW. ADA has noted both the FGFA and AMCA may evaluate triplex FBL.
5. Apart from this HAL & Sukhoi will be cooperating on the stealth (which learning HAL can apply to other programs), overall redesign for the second seat, CEMILAC will be working on the very important qualification processes (which will help India for the AMCA) and five DRDO labs have been tapped to supply systems and technology.
The coordination & contribution in this program far exceeds that on the MKI.
6. Spares and LRUs will be manufactured by HAL, with significant TOT, and serviceability will be up thanks to local overhaul and maintenance.
7. Lastly, and most importantly, Russia has offered India a workshare on the final, in development engine for the FGFA. This is the same engine NAK Browne just referred to and the one a Russian engine developer mentioned earlier this year. The HAL Director pointed out India should take this opportunity.
Overall, the FGFA will be a good step forward. Of late, I am seeing a significant impetus in working together from the multiple stakeholders in Indian aerospace, including new entrants whom HAL is working with for everything from making jigs, to hydraulics, and avionics for the Su-30 MKI program. This is the next step.
AMCA and FGFA plus LCA MK2, will make the Indian aerospace industry strong across the value chain. Indian industry is not just happy at the SME, partnering with HAL level. The GOI is clearly being told, that the time has come for multi-billion partners for HAL to complement HAL and pick up both offsets and contribute significantly to local programs. If civilian offsets are cleared, then it is a given that Industry will ramp up.
Sign In
