sumeet1981Nick,
Which medium power radar from Elta was procured ? I thought decision was still pending.
sumeet1981vikas earlier you raised questions about why su-30 can’t be upgraded to MKI etc… here are some good answers:
[by the way hi from airforcefan, remember me from PDF :)]
http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Defence/11threport.pdf
Page 70-72 in the report.
Sukhoi-30
5.28 On the feasibility of upgradation of SU-30 aircraft and the
negotiation with the Russians in this regard, Defence Secretary stated
during oral evidence as under:
“….What the Russians have said that they cannot be upgraded
and converted into MKI. They had given a value, which we have
not agreed. One of the things, what we have done is and that has
happened in 2005-06 itself, is that we have compressed the
deliveries of Sukhoi-30 MKI and, therefore, we will have a large
number in lesser years of time.”5.29 Another representative of the Ministry further supplemented
in the matter as under:
“According to Russians, why the upgrade of the Sukhoi-30 could
not go through was that major structural modification was required
for thrust vector control, canard and primary load bearing structures
required to be strengthened. These are the technical requirements
for that. The fatigue life of Sukhoi-30K had been used for air
combat up to 40 per cent. The full potential of upgraded aircraft
would not be available and so it would not be cost effective. So,
the Russians advised against it. This was also examined in
consultation with the DRDO, HAL and the Air Force and then it
was decided to go in for the swap. That was the decision”.
5.30 In reply to a query on the cost effectiveness of the upgrade
programme of SU-30, a representative of the Ministry of Defence further
elaborated before the Committee as under:
“During the initial negotiations in 1996, you may recall that at
that time Sukhoi-30 MKI did not exist, only the Sukhoi-30 existed.
A concept was evolved and the overall scheme of what kind of
aircraft it will be incorporating canard, thrust vector control of the
engines and the load structures were not finalised. This evolved in
the intervening period of 10 years. In these 10 years, a lot of
changes have taken place and the aircraft today is a far more
potent weapon system than it was envisaged to be earlier.
In another assessment in 2002, the Russians informed us that it
would not be feasible to upgrade the Sukhoi-30 K because of three
major reasons. They said that for accommodating the thrust vector
control engine, you have to entirely change the rear portion of the
fuselage where the engine has to be accommodated and the
swiveling have to be changed which have to be able to swivel in
any direction, upwards or downwards, left or right.
Then, the second reason was that this aircraft, Sukhoi-30 MKI can
carry 2 tonne additional weapon load as compared to Sukhoi-30 K
and because of that, the load carrying capability has gone up
significantly. Therefore, the entire primary load structure have to
be changed and have to be strengthened significantly which will
not be feasible to be done in Sukhoi-30 K economically.
Similarly, other reasons given by them was that the canard which
has to give the super maneuverability in Sukhoi-30 MKI has to be
fitted on a special structure in the fuselage. Also in our utilisation
of Sukhoi-30 K, we had utilised this aircraft primarily because it
could carry out only air combat missions. For air combat it has
got much higher fatigue spectrum, as compared to the multi-role
capable aircraft.
These were the things which could not be visualised in 1996. That
is the reason why at that time they thought that it would be
possible to upgrade the aircraft which was provided for in the
contract whereas when the actual time came, they advised us that
it would not be possible , even if you sink in money, it is going
to be wasted. So, looking at the cost economics, the decision was
taken in consultation with the HAL and DRDO.”5.31 When the Committee desired to know the upgradation plan
of Russian aircraft Sukhoi 30 MKI, Defence Secretary stated during
oral evidence as under:
“You had mentioned Su-30 MKI. We are improving the Su-30 MKI.
MKI is both India and Russia Joint Development. We are making
flight computers and many other avionics system; part of them is
manufactured in Russia with Indian parts; and part of them ismanufactured in India with Russian parts. So, that kind of joint
working is going on. We are persisting with the swap deal. We
also had the similar kind of a thing. We discussed very intensely
with the Russians. But the Sukhoi 30 aircraft is of a different
generation. In fact, bulk of the system would be required to be
changed; it cannot be upgraded. That is what the Russians and
the Indian technical discussions have come to. So, in that case if
we send ‘x’ numbers of Sukhoi 30 to them, they in turn, will be
able to replenish with Sukhoi 30 MKI. This is what their proposals
are. This discussion between our side and the Russian side is going
on.
sumeet1981http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Defence/11threport.pdf
Pages 75-76
Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft
5.39 On being asked by the Committee about the unique features
and the capabilities of the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA),
the Ministry submitted as under:
Super Maneuverability
Supersonic Cruise
Stealth
New generation air-air and air-ground weapons
Thrust Vector Control engines
Datalink and Network Centric Capability
High reliability
Multi Role capability
Advanced Avionics
Wide variety of sensors
Active Phased Array RadarPresentations on the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) have
been given by Sukhoi Design Bureau (SDB) and RAC-MiG. The
proposal is presently under examination.”5.40When the Committee desired to know the present status of
the Aircraft, the Ministry has further elaborated as under:
“Meetings with Russians have been held for the Fifth Generation
Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) development. The last such meeting was
held on 26 & 27 December 2005 when Sukhoi Design Bureau (SDB)
and RAC-MiG participated. Based on the inputs received during
the presentations, an approach paper on the subject is being
prepared by the IAF. Further, the IAF is finalizing the Air Staff
Requirements for the FGFA. The concept for the Fifth Generation
Fight Aircraft has not been finalised as yet. Indian involvement in
design, development and productionization are essential
requirements of the approach to the FGFA programme.”
sumeet1981http://www.indianexpress.com/story/21678.html
Advanced stealth fighter aircraft India-Russia’s new joint venture
Shiv AroorPosted online: Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 0000 hrsDefence: Moscow offers first flight by 2009, BrahMos-model to be used
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 24 : After six years of negotiations on jointly developing an advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft with stealth features, New Delhi and Moscow today reached an agreement at a meeting of their Defence Ministers.
Designated PAK-FA, the multi-billion dollar programme will be the largest and most complex in Indo-Russian military cooperation, dwarfing BrahMos, the only true joint military project between the two countries as of now.
Fronted by Sukhoi Design Bureau, the PAK-FA will give both countries a distinct leap in fighter technology — the Russians have promised a first flight as early as 2009, and are open to a BrahMos-style model for development with New Delhi. In the next decade, the fighter will be produced in large numbers to replace legacy fighters in both countries’ air forces, including MiG-29s, Jaguars and Mirage-2000s.
New Delhi was initially reluctant to embark upon a programme that was already past its basic design phase in Russia, but has now reconciled itself to making a possible lateral entry into the programme, assured by Moscow that progress off the drawing board will be spearheaded by both countries.
The programme envisages a fighter with all fifth generation capabilities. These include advanced stealth features, a full composite airframe, a crucial active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, advanced integrated onboard sensors, vectored thrust nozzles for superior manoeuvrability, the ability to deploy beyond visual range and ground attack missiles and importantly, the ability to supercruise — fly at supersonic velocities without the use of engine afterburners.
In response to a question from The Indian Express, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said, “The programme, based on a Sukhoi project, is in its third year now in Russia and draws substantial funds from our national budget. India has informed us that they have made a final choice. We can now open out contractual work to India.”
Defence Minister AK Antony said “necessary measures are being taken to expeditiously finalise the respective inter-governmental agreement in this regard.”
Four other inter-government agreements were signed today. These include the transfer of technology to license produce RD-33 jet engines for MiG-29 fighters at HAL’s Koraput facility and, as reported by The Indian Express on January 11, the protocol of intent on the joint development and production of a Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA).
Other issues that came up at the sixth meeting of the Inter-governmental Commission on Military Technical Cooperation included the sale of 80 Mi-17 helicopters, 347 T-90 tanks and additional Su-30MKI fighters. The next inter-governmental commission meeting will take place in Russia later this year.
sumeet1981Scooter,
Some info for you about Indo-Russian projects:
[Read all this keeping in mind what i told you about Indo-Russian relationship few days ago.]
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/23/stories/2006122305661600.htm
India, Russia to intensify cooperation
Sandeep Dik****
“Defence experts finalise 12 projects”
——————————————————————————–
HAL asked to become a joint partner in manufacture of Sukhoi-30 and MiG 29
Fitment of BrahMos on a new warship under Russian consideration
——————————————————————————–NEW DELHI: India and Russia have decided to cooperate more closely in defence research and development with the identification of three cutting-edge areas in which the scientists will work together.
A joint group of specialists has identified and finalised 12 projects in stealth, hypersonic and microwave technologies, according to highly placed sources. The decisions were taken at a meeting of the India-Russia Working Group on Military Technical Cooperation which ended here on Friday.
Work on two projects on naval stealth technology has begun and is progressing “satisfactorily” while one more project in this area is under finalisation. This technology will make Indian naval vessels less prone to detection by hostile warships.
In hypersonic technology, however, Russia is yet to give its clearance. In microwave technology, Russian specifications are not meeting Indian requirements and the problem is under study, the sources added. Both sides will cooperate on technologies to track ballistic missiles.
Another major area of cooperation identified by the two sides is in the aviation sector. Russia has asked Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to become a joint partner in the manufacture of Sukhoi-30 MKI and the MiG 29 M2 series. The two sides have also agreed to extend their cooperation in jointly manufacturing the supersonic missile BrahMos. With the additional investment of $50 million for the development of the Air Force version of the missile, work has begun in both India and Russia for modifications and the integration aspects have been finalised with the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The Indian Air Force has issued instructions for the fitment and trial of BrahMos on its Su-30MKI.
The fitment of BrahMos on a new warship is also under consideration.Other high tech areas where further collaboration between defence scientists is envisaged includes stealth technologies for aircraft, aerodynamic technologies such as creation of plasma wing tunnel facility for air vehicle applications and development and testing of submerged air intake models for unmanned aerial aircraft.
From JCage @ BRF
I think India has enough to offer without the MRCA itself-
Confirmed purchases, moreorless:
– 40 additional MKIs,
– 330 T90S’s
– 80 Mi-17s
– 3 Talwars
-120 RD33s to be manufactured in IndiaDevelopment projects
-Hypersonic missile, Brahmos follow on
-Fifth Generation fighter
-Irkut-HAL MTAIn the works
– Another bunch of defence projects, as mentioned above
– Russian proposal for Mi-17 follow onMore orders for Russian weaponry
-BMP upgrade
– ATGMs- Kornet etc
-Krasnopol rounds etc
For India’s second line of SSK [follow on to Scorpene] we may order Russian Amur class submarines.
sumeet1981Nick,
Man are you at BRF ? if not then join you will be a valuable addition there.
i don’t expect scooter to understand it still. Scooter, if we don’t get rafale at good price the order will go to Russia. Expect boeing and LM to just come have tea coffee etc.. in india and go back to US. The only substantial purchase from US would be P-8I. There really isn’t anything else we want from you guys.
sumeet1981Scooter,
losing MRCA will hurt them from commercial point of view but since we are already involved in other very significant projects with them it won’t be that big of a blow to our relationship. Besides this will be india’s last purchase in a buyer seller relationship.
Vikasrehman,
Rafale and EF typhoon will be there too. They have their own display areas seperate from Dassault, EADS and BAE Systems. I don’t know if they will do a fly past.
http://www.aeroindia.in/layouts/layout-pdf/HallB.pdf
http://www.aeroindia.in/layouts/layout-pdf/HallC.pdf
To check out all others please visit here:
http://www.aeroindia.in/htm/layout.htm
sumeet1981scooter,
The russians are under the least pressure to win MRCA, though they would love to.
60+Mig-29s, Bisons, 27ML, 230 MKI and now this 5th generation fighter ==> IAF will be predominantly Russian. Mig-35 could fail MRCA just to reduce our “overdependence” on Russia.
What you are not able to understand is that pressure is not because of any single deal instead because of the “nature” of relationship between India and Russia and how it is turning into one of JV & production worth tens of billions of dollars.
JV for MRTA and 5th Generation Fighter and ressurrecting GLONASS will be inexcess of 15 billion dollars. Forget other orders from services to Russia.
To put it bluntly, going for RD-93 for FC-1 is an absolutely stupid decision on part of chinese and pakistanis. Shows how well risk management/assesment team performed. Delays in the engine integration will effect production schedule and overall cost of the project.
sumeet1981About the ICWI Mode for the X-Band APAR radar, thales had to develop:
1) Solution for acquiring ones own missile.
2) Generating a uplink datalink
3) Most importantly scheduling scheme for guidance signals to support multi target engagement by ESSM.
APAR uses all of its antenna on time sharing basis to complete various jobs the radar is tasked with [Every 1 second there are 1000 milliseconds to be distributed over various jobs]. The optimized solution from thales ensure that all antennas have their time budget 100 % utilized. Infact, thales have built APAR for environment where more than the tasks require more than 100% time budget of the antenna. Because of this no fixed time sharing scheme can be applied. Hence APAR needs to continually optimize its overall performance by best compromising task’s priority, performance and the
available time resources. Therefore a very robust scheduling fucntion has been developed for radar usage under many different kinds of operational scenario.
Therefore guidance signals to ESSM are confined to a severe timing protocol.
4) And finally manufacturer has come up with solutions for handing over engagements that are in-progress to neighbouring antennas (for example as a result of ship movements).
Thanks to multi beam principle of MF STAR and CLOS guidance principle of Barak-1 we don’t have to deal with a lot of this. It was one of the major challenges for Thales to accomplish and this kind of stuff requires extensive testing and debugging and consequently pushes the cost higher.
If you look at high resolution PDF of MF STAR, [i gave you the low resolution one, here is the high one: http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/0/30310.pdf%5D
you will see according to task you see different transmission pattern. You have narrow/concentrated beam for missile guidance while stacked multiple beam while the radar performs volume search. In different sectors all this can happen simultaneously and it gives me an impression that here also antenna is being shared on time basis like APAR.
S-Band offers narrow beamwidth making it difficult for ESM and ARM to detect it. Difficulty for ESM such as RWR and recievers that are inbuilt into jammers mean, low likelihood of main beam getting jammed.
Also this facilitates improved detection of targets placed in between multiple stand off jammers at regular spacings or even close to a jammer. S-Band radar will experience jamming if jammer is placed near or inside its main beam but due to wide beamwidth of L-Band it can experience EM blinding over a wide angular sector in multiple SOJ scenario. Antenna sidelobe level for S Band is 5 dB less than L Band for equal sized antennas.
If L-Band has been used for long range surveillance, C-Band is commonly used for fire control and S-Band which lies in between is a comprise between long range volume search and fire control. If you consider this in addition to S-Band’s performance in ECM enviroment its seems to be a good choice to put both function into a single band radar.
Moreover,
1) At low elevation angles L-Band suffers from propagation effects making it unsuitable for horizon surveillance.
2) Comparitively X-band has very favorable low-altitude propagation characteristics that make it very attractive for use in horizon search against low-flying ASCMs. In terms of low altitude propagation effect factor X-Band has 35 dB advantage over L-Band and 17 dB advantage over S-Band at a radar horizon of 21 kms when all these different band radars are positioned at a height of 26 m. [TEMPER propagation Model from Applied Physics Lab at John Hopkins University.]
So if you have surveillance feature built into a S-Band radar chances of detecting low flying CM are better. Therefore you also see missile horizon search mentioned as one of the operational capabilities in the PDF to MF STAR. L-Band radar can’t do it just as well, it isn’t L-Band cannot do it.
On the advantage L-Band side:
Clutter increases with frequency so the spectral spread of clutter is more in S-Band in comparison with L-Band. For Sea clutter, when angle is < 1 degree
and at VV polarization L-Band experience reflectivity 10-15 dB lesser than S-Band. At H polarization and high grazing angle the difference in clutter reflectivity values for the two bands is around 2dB.
Weather and atmospheric attentnuation increases with freq. Generally at 0 deg elevation in a clear environment L-Band has 1dB less attenuation than S-Band at 200 nautical miles. Precipitation echoes for S-Band are stronger than L-Band eg -75 dB as against -90 db for 10 mm/hr precipitation rate.
If chaff payload is held at constant then the RCS value is directly proportional to frequency. So for a constant chaff load, RCS is 3 to 5 dB higher in L-Band than in S-Band.
RF transmission loses increases with freq.
Volume Search performance directly varies with power aperture product, L-Band provides least expensive design for a given product value.
RCS of stealthy targets is more in higher freq than in lower ones.
Of course i haven’t covered many other comparison topics like multipath, diffraction, Freq. Agility band, Antenna gain, Reciever Sensitivity, Velocity response, angular accuracy and resolution etc……. [due to shortage of time. Sorry!]
now a little about S-Band v/s X-Band: the higher you go the better performance you get against low altitude stuff. A larger and heavier antenna will be needed for a S Band radar to give equivalent performance of a compariively small X-Band radar. And considering the fact that the lesser the weight, the higher you can go X Band has obvious advantage over S band.
And various studies like NAAWS have shown that to attain optimal level of ship level resources volume search function etc.. should be performed by a dedicated surveillance radar and not just MFR.
Consequently we have a multi sensor RF suite in modern day ships:
References:
Comparison between L Band and S Band for 3 D Surveillance Radar.
AMS Systems.
Design and Consideration in choice and defination of Phalcon AEW System.
IAI Elta Division.
AN/SPY-3: Navy’s next generation force protection radar system.
NAVSEA, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dalghen Division, Technical Digest.
Overview of APAR MFR.
Thales Nederland.
sumeet19817Seas,
drop me an e-mail: [email]sumeet1981@yahoo.com[/email], i will send it as an attachment to you.
MF-STAR is indeed a great radar. But what do you say about combining surveillance features with fire control ones into the same radar ? I have read that thats not the best way and hence you have SMART-L + APAR and a DBR from US.
Israelis did study SM-2 Block3 as another option against Barak NG but finally decided to pursue Barak – NG in a joint venture with India’s DRDO. This missile will be compatible with LM MK41 launchers.
In modern day threat environment you need to deal with saturation attacks or multiple attacks. To support multiple engagement via ESSM which is a semi active missile one requires the ability to provide multiple, simultaneous illuminations. This necessitates the use of an interrupted continuous wave (ICW) illumination waveform for terminal homing, rather than the more conventional continuous wave. It also allows the SPY-3 radar to continue to simultaneously search for, detect, and track other threats.
MF-STAR will support two types of missiles: Barak-1 which works on CLOS principle and Barak-NG which will use INS cum mid course updates till it reaches terminal stage when it opens up its active radar seeker. Since this radar uses multiple beam principle, many Barak-1 can ride on those beams towards multiple incoming threats simultaneously . We don’t need ICWI. Correct me if i am wrong.
In your previous posts you have elaborated on drawbacks of using pencil shaped beam, but can you elaborate on drawbacks of this multiple beam tech. if there are any.
Still I feel american solution is better. Fusion of X-Band FCR with S-Band SR radar is great. Also S-Band offers better performance under ECM than L-Band.
but then doesn’t the L-Band offers better detection against low RCS targets than both S-Band and X-Band ? And L-Band has many other benefits over S-Band. Its a frequency of choice for long range surveillance. But still we will see products like Master-T radar from Thales Raytheon which is an S-Band Surveillance AESA radar. Sometimes choices of different bands for same type of equipment leaves me totally confused. I mean Lockheed and Northrop promotes L Band for Surveillance radar, Thales-Raytheon is promoting S Band and all this while its generally acknowledged that L-Band is best for long range surveiilance.
you are right AESA technology by itself has benefits over PESA and alfonso’s post cannot change it. But i think he wants to emphasize the fact that mature PESA technology isn’t that bad after all. The point being that difference between AESA and PESA isn’t like F-22 raptor and F-86/F-104. With world quickly changing over to radars using AESA technology many uninformed people want to dismiss PESA tech as if its dust. And thats not true. Ask awesome PESA designers like NIIP Thikimorov or designers of systems like SPY-1. Another point he raised about reliable, well tested and mature software can give you the best utilization of modes associated with Passive EScan and Active EScan should definately be taken into account.
And lastly for each technology there are way(s) to best design your product. Simply just because one is using AESA tech won’t make one’s product great if one messes up or miss some design feature associated with that technology which are critical to obtain desired performance levels from that equipment.
sumeet19817Seas,
yeah i am young. 🙂 anyways thanks for your effort.
here is the link you requested:
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/4/27554.pdf
after reading alfonso’s article posted by Zajcvec i can already see some of the benefits of Elta MF-STAR.
sumeet19817Seas,
thanks for your very informative posts. although not directly related to FREMM program, please comment on Elta’s MF-STAR radar in comparison with Herakles, EMPAR, Arabel & SAMPSON.
here is a pdf for MF-STAR:
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/3/27543.pdf
sumeet1981ummm
so the info i posted at BRF makes its way to AFM so quickly w/o me even realizing it.
I am in process of writing up an article that will contain useful content about Erieye & Phalcon AWACS. Everything will be from tech papers published by actual manufaturers & L-Band & S-Band stuff from other companies across the globe. Info on ESCAN radars will be provided too. I will provide proper references but don’t ask me for actual papers. Because i am not putting whole papers that are copyright protected on the net. The post will appear on BRF and i will cross post info over here.
thanks.
sumeet1981Su-35 uses the N-035 Irbis radar with the EKSV computer system, OLS-35/KOLS-35 IIR/TV/IRST, MAK-35 Display system (2 MFI-35 9×12 inches AMLCD, MFPU, IKSh-1M wide HUD plus one back-up MFD), KRNPO-35 nav/attack system (with the LINS-2000 laser gyro INS) and the L-175M Khibiny-M EW system between other known pieces of equipment.
Fiber Optic databuse arquitecture, center-federal computer arquitecture and Multi-Sensor Integration logic.
Pit i thought it was a proper central avionics architecture like F-22 with its Comm, navigation, Identification, Radar, IRST & other sensors all integrated into one architecture controlled by A central computer. what do u mean when you call it central-federal architecture ?
sumeet1981Phalcon AWACS or MKI or MRCA or PAKFA/Mig LFI etc… or any other big item purchase are not an end in themselves. They all will be a node, a node in the big network that india is building.
Courtesy Vick@BR all pieces from DN except from one from AWST & one from JDW.
Indian, French Firms Form Global C4 Effort
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
Paris-based Thales and Rolta India have joined forces to develop communications and intelligence systems for the global market.
The Rolta Thales Ltd. venture, with initial capital of $10.6 million, will be owned 51 percent by Rolta and 49 percent by Thales, and focus on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (C4ISTAR) systems.
Headquartered in Mumbai, the new firm will transfer technology to make state-of-the-art products in India for export, said Kamal Singh, Rolta chairman and managing director. The deal still needs Indian and French regulatory approvals, expected in the next two to three months.
The board will comprise four directors from Rolta and three from Thales. The chairman and managing director will be from Rolta, said François Dupont, country director here for Thales.
He said Thales is looking at becoming a multidimensional defense company in India. To launch that endeavor, Thales in 2003 set up Thales International India here to service Thales equipment in service with the Indian Defence Forces.
Singh said the venture will develop state-of-the-art C4ISTAR systems for the defense and homeland security markets in India and internationally.
“We foresee a business potential of around $500 million during the course of the next five years,” he said.
Dupont said the idea behind setting up the joint venture with Rolta is to meet the vast C4ISTAR requirements of the Indian Army.
Dupont added that the French systems house is looking at more joint ventures in aerospace, land, naval, security and simulation systems with both private and state-owned Indian companies.
Last year, Thales set up an avionics maintenance center in Gurgaon, near New Delhi, with 40 specialists to work on maintenance of a range of avionics systems.
Thales in July also set up Thales Software India, with 35 personnel to develop software for Thales units around the world.
Without elaborating, Dupont said Thales plans two other joint ventures with Indian companies in other defense sectors.
Indian Army Launches New Net-centric Communication System
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
The Indian Army has launched Phase III of its Army Static Switched Communication Network (ASCON), called “Mercury Thunder,” part of the service’s quest to build a network-centric warfare system.
The ASCON network connects all Army commands, integrating the telecommunications infrastructure of the hinterlands with the Army’s tactical communication networks. It is a digital, fully automated, secure and survivable static communication system that is based on microwave radio, optical-fiber cable, satellite and millimeter wave communication equipment, a Defence Ministry official said.
Inaugurating the network here on Sept. 13, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that Mercury Thunder is the Army’s strategic backbone network and will not only create space for a digitized battlefield, but also support, facilitate and interconnect other network-centric systems, including tactical command, control, communications and intelligence systems; command, control, communications, computers, information and intelligence (C4I2) systems; and tactical communication systems. These entities can now be located anywhere and simply plug into Mercury Thunder’s information infrastructure.
A Defence Ministry source said the ASCON communications network is incorporated with a satellite, but refused to give details.
Establishment of network-centric warfare capabilities is in line with India’s 2004 military doctrine, which emphasizes upgrading the electro-magnetic satellite communication systems to meet the needs of modern C4I systems.
India To Examine Joint Space Command
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
The Indian military’s plans for space will be charted over the next year in a concept paper by the Indian Defence Ministry’s Integrated Defence Staff (IDS).
Among the possibilities: a new joint space task force that would fold in space applications from the three military services. The MoD assigned the study in July to the five-year-old IDS, which develops joint structures, doctrines, concepts and training for the three wings of the Indian Defence Forces.
This integrated approach would incorporate ambitions by the Indian Air Force, which earlier this year proposed a dedicated aerospace command. The Defence Ministry turned down the proposal.
“We understand that setting up a dedicated aerospace command within the Indian Air Force is a big task and requires billions of dollars to set up a nationwide military satellite application network,” a senior Air Force official said.
He said the service agrees with the Defence Ministry that there should be a joint military space command.
In July, the service set up an independent space group at its headquarters here to research space-related airborne applications. Its work will be integrated with the IDS plan.
The Air Force official said that the service now uses the state-owned Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) space center in Thiruvanthapuram, in southern India, for satellite communication and navigation.
The Air Force official said that with the induction of three airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft from Israel early next year, the service study how AWACS can be used with India’s space assets.
Once the three AWACS planes are in service by 2009, the Air Force plans to set up an Air Command and Control System (ACCS). The Air Force has asked the state-owned companies Bharat Electronics, Bangalore, and Electronics Corporation of India, Hyderabad, to propose an indigenous ACCS prototype that can be linked with the three AWACS planes and satellites.
The ACCS will integrate the Air Force’s air traffic control and surveillance, air mission control, airspace management and force management functions.
Meanwhile, the Army’s $217 million satellite-based surveillance and reconnaissance program is due to be ready early next year. The secretive program is being designed and developed by ISRO and the Defence Research and Development Organisation.
The project will enable the Army to keep closer surveillance on troop movements, missile silos, military installations and airbases of neighboring countries, as well as augment surveillance over Indian airspace, said an Indian Army official.
The Navy, too, is working on a plan to exploit space assets, but details have not been disclosed. Whatever the service’s plans, they and the Army will join Air Force efforts under the umbrella of a future joint command.
A little dated and from Janes but still useful supplement to above info:
India gets ready for AEW&C, moves other projects forward
RAHUL BEDI JDW Correspondent
New Delhi
* India is spending USD25 million preparing for the arrival of a new AEW&C capability
* Work is under way on developing an indigenous capability as well
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has begun readying ground facilities to support three Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) airborne early-warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft ordered two years ago for USD1.1 billion.
Official sources said work has already started at IAF bases in Chandigarh and Bareilly, 250 km north and northeast respectively of New Delhi, where the Phalcon systems, which comprise an IAI-built radar and mission suite mounted on an Uzbek Il-76TD transport aircraft, will be based.
The first AEW&C aircraft is scheduled to arrive in November 2007 and formally enter service in early 2008. The remaining two are due to be delivered in August 2008 and early 2009.
The ground infrastructure to support the aircraft is estimated to cost around USD25 million and will include hangars, maintenance facilities, workshops and technical training schools, military sources said.
According to industry sources, each of the IAF’s Phalcon systems will be equipped with the L-band active phased-array radar mounted on a stationary radome developed by Raytheon Airborne Systems.
They will also be equipped with a maximum of eight multifunction operator consoles with 20-inch (50.8 cm) active matrix liquid crystal displays from Barco of Belgium and two electronic countermeasures/electronic intelligence operator posts.
This will make the aircraft an airborne network-centric battle-management platform in addition to its basic AEW&C function.
India’s military is concentrating on honing its network-centric warfighting activities to develop an integrated real-time C4ISR capability. The Phalcons will constitute an integral component of this potential, military planners said.
The IAF is also likely to exercise its option of acquiring two additional Phalcon AEW&C systems to expand its operational envelope in the region and to deal with out-of-area requirements. It is expected to confirm the order next year.
An additional reason for the IAF further bolstering its air reconnaissance capabilities is the continuing negotiations between nuclear rival Pakistan and Sweden for seven AEW&C systems based on an Ericsson Microwave Systems Erieye radar and sensor suite mounted on used Saab 2000 aircraft.
China, with whom India has an ongoing border dispute, is also believed to be acquiring two Russian A-50 AEW&C aircraft by 2008 and additionally ordering an unspecified number of similar platforms. It is also planning on supplementing these imports with its local AEW&C programme.
In 2005 India’s cabinet committee on security also cleared the development of an indigenous AEW&C system jointly by the IAF and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) by 2011 at a cost of INR18 billion (USD409 million).
The DRDO has signed a memorandum of understanding with Brazil’s Embraer for EMB-145 jet aircraft as platforms for the AEW&C systems.
The local AEW&C programme is being revived five years after the crash of a modified Hindustan Aeronautics Limited HS 748 aircraft fitted with a DRDO-designed revolving dorsal rotodome. The crash killed eight people on board, many of them key programme scientists.
Separately, IAF Chief Marshal S P Tyagi said that the much-delayed request for proposals (RfP) for the IAF’s requirement for 126 multirole combat aircraft will be issued during May to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Gripen International, Eurofighter, Dassault Aviation and Russian Aircraft Corporation-MiG.
The IAF is seeking additional fighters to augment its combat fleet, which has shrunk from 39.5 squadrons to 35 at present. According to the parliamentary standing committee on defence, this will further reduce to 29 squadrons by 2007.
ACM Tyagi also revealed that an RfP for 80 medium-lift helicopters would be issued shortly exclusively to Russia’s Rosoboronexport. The IAF is seeking to add to its fleet of 40 Mi-17M helicopters acquired six years ago to provide an improved capability to meet natural disasters and for emergencies like the December 2004 tsunami.
The IAF is also evaluating technical proposals for 15 medium-powered land-based air surveillance radars submitted by Alenia Marconi Systems of Italy, Israel’s IAI-Elta and the local state-owned Bharat Electronics Limited in collaboration with Thales of France.
An RfP for 19 low-level transportable air-surveillance radars is also likely to be issued soon, ACM Tyagi said.
The IAF has also shortlisted prototypes developed by Electronics Corporation of India and BEL for the delayed integrated air C2 systems (IACCS) that are to undergo field trials during the next few months. ACM Tyagi added that the first phase of the IACCS would be operational by the end of 2008 and deployed to near India’s western border with Pakistan.
IAF is busy enhancing its sensor system. In addition to the plan to buy the new radar systems mentioned in above JDW article and israeli Aerostats & SPYDER system, MASTER-T S Band AESA is choosen to be the main long range surveillance sensor. Check this out slide 5. Market presence: 2007-2011 Orders by destination. Look for the size of indian pie. Its huge and indicates that a bulk order for Master-T radar have been placed. Simply the firefinder radar order couldn’t give it such a big chunk of that circle. Infact this radar was evaluated sometime in early years of this decade and choosen to be winner.
http://www.thalesraytheon.com/press/press_conf_farn_06.pdf
New Delhi May Buy Qatari Mirage Aircraft – From Paris
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
If Indo-French negotiations pan out, France would buy 12 used Mirage 2000-5 jets from Qatar and resell them to India along with eight French Air Force Mirage 2000-Hs.
The broad contours of such a deal were worked out in Paris during a Sept. 3-5 visit by Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee. Final details are expected to be settled when French MoD officials visit New Delhi in late September, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said.
A French diplomat here confirmed the proposed deal. Neither official provided more details.
Last year, India negotiated directly with Qatar to buy the aircraft, but talks broke down over price, the Defence Ministry official said.
Ministry officials failed to properly calculate the cost of buying, operating and supporting the aircraft, and therefore offered a price based purely on the cost of the used aircraft, omitting other factors, the official said. He called this a blunder that has embarrassed India, which fears to antagonize Qatar, the country’s second-largest source of natural gas.
The Defence Ministry official said that is why Mukherjee asked his French counterpart to buy the Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar.
Roles for Dassault, HAL
After the aircraft arrive in India, Air Force officials intend to hire Dassault to upgrade the Qatari 2000-5s and six Indian 2000-Hs to the 2000-9 standard, using Israeli avionics and electronic warfare gear and Russian weapons, an Indian Air Force official said.
He said Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.’s (HAL’s) Bangalore plant would then get technical help from Dassault to upgrade India’s current 52 2000-H Mirages — whose midlife upgrades are five years overdue — to 2000-9s.
The Air Force official said service leaders have asked the Defence Ministry to buy at least 40 additional Mirage 2000-H aircraft that are currently in service with the French Air Force.
The French diplomat said the French Defense Ministry would propose selling to India 40 more 2000-H aircraft through 2011.
He also said Paris had in January expressed its unhappiness with New Delhi’s 2004 decision to reject an offer to allow licensed production of more than 100 Mirage 2000-5s.
In 2004, the Indian Air Force asked Dassault to study the possibility of making the jets at HAL facilities. But the new United Progressive Alliance government decided instead to buy 126 Multirole Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).
The French diplomat said Indian defense officials had told France that New Delhi is awaiting the outcome of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal to issue a request for proposals for the MMRCA.
The diplomat said Indian defense officials intend to split the MMRCA order, buying two types of aircraft.
Mirage is still the choice for Indian Air Force pilots because it has an almost accident-free record in India, he said.
MiG Pushes Ahead With Light Fighter
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/11/2006, page 34
Douglas Barrie
London
Russian air force recognizes Sukhoi T-50 design alone will not meet future fighter needs
Printed headline: Generation Gap
Russian combat aircraft manufacturer MiG could have a prototype of a lightweight fifth-generation fighter ready as soon as 2010, building on classified design work it has been carrying out for several years.
The MiG design, sometimes known within the company as the Light Multifunction Frontal Aircraft (LMFS), is to provide a successor aircraft in the class of the MiG-29 Fulcrum.
Russian air force chief Vladimir Mikhailov confirms the service now intends to pursue two designs, rather than a single, to meet next-generation fighter needs. Sukhoi was initially selected to develop the T-50 as the air force’s future fighter. This aircraft, however, is a heavy fighter in the class of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker. Mikhailov is quoted in the Russian press as saying MiG will develop a light-fighter to complement the Sukhoi design.
THE SHIFT TO FAVOR a two-tier approach to future fighter procurement reflects a victory for senior management at MiG. Company executives have been lobbying the air force to promote this strategy for several years. “People are beginning to understand the need for a second type of fighter,” one senior MiG executive told Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Russian air force “endorsement” will also help MiG in the export arena. Both MiG and Sukhoi have already briefed India on their respective fifth-generation fighter programs. New Delhi, however, is unlikely to opt for a Russian aircraft that is not–at least tacitly–supported by the military in Moscow.
MiG had originally been the incumbent designer to provide a successor to the Su-27, with the 1.42 Multi-role Frontal Fighter (MFI). Conceived in the latter years of the Cold War, one prototype of the 30-ton fighter was to be completed before cancellation in 1997.
MiG is working on a fifth-generation design in the same weight class as its MiG-29 Fulcrum, which the company is also continuing to upgrade. Credit: MiG
The collapse of the MFI program eventually turned MiG’s attention to a direct Fulcrum replacement, though until comparatively recently the company’s precarious finances were not able to support a full-scale development program. As far as LMFS is concerned, MiG has yet to receive any state support.
One company official says all work so far on the light fifth-generation fighter is being financed from its own funds.
Various configurations have been wind-tunnel tested. A company source suggests it is settling on a twin-engine design, with a dry weight of around 10 tons. The design includes thrust vector control, along with a “big wing” to increase maneuverability. Inward and outward canted fin variants of the basic design have also been examined, as has a tail-less configuration. A prototype, he suggests, could be completed within 30 months, with adequate funding. Engine manufacturer Klimov submitted a proposal for an engine for the LMFS earlier this year.
Many of the avionics and weapons systems in development for the T-50, or the PAK FA, as it is sometimes referred to, will also be applicable to MiG’s light fighter.
In terms of air-to-air armament, Vympel, now part of Russia’s Tactical Missile Corp., is working on upgrades of presently fielded weapons, as well as successor designs. Gennady Sokolovsky, Vympel’s general director until recently, revealed some of its plans at a conference in Moscow earlier this year. Sokolovsky appears to have revealed more than either the Russian Defense Ministry or Vympel intended because company officials remain reticent to discuss several of the program designations Sokolovsky detailed.
THE COMPANY IS WORKING on a new short-range air-to-air missile, referred to as K-MD and Izdeliye (Item) 300. This program likely corresponds to the K-30 designation. This weapon is to enter service in the first half of the next decade. Further development of the R-73 design continues–likely as a stopgap, and also for export.
Vympel is working on a substantial upgrade of its R-77 (AA-12 Adder) radar-guided air-to-air missile, likely in line with the Izdeliye 180/K-77M designations. This may see the missile’s signature lattice control fins replaced by conventional surfaces. Range will also be increased, and an upgraded radar seeker and improved electronic countermeasures will be included.
The Russian air force has only a limited stock of the basic R-77, likely drawn from production runs of the export version of the missile, known as RVV-AE.
While the Izdeliye 300 and the Izdeliye 180 will be applicable to the LMFS, the third class of AAM alluded to by Sokolovksy will be limited to the PAK FA, and possibly the MiG-31 Foxhound. Izdeliye 810 is a long-range AAM in the class of the R-33/K-37 (AA-9 Amos/AA-X-13).
India, Israel Propose Joint EW Venture
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
India and Israel want to set up a joint venture to develop advanced electronic warfare (EW) systems for their air forces’ fighter aircraft.
The proposed joint venture, the creation of which would cost around $100 million, is expected to get the go-ahead shortly with a signed deal between India’s Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), Bangalore, and the Elisra Group, Bene Beraq, Israel.
Seventy percent of the venture will be funded by DARE, which is part of the state-run Defence Research and Development Organisation, with Elisra paying the remaining 30 percent.
A senior DARE scientist said the proposed venture likely will get off the ground in the next three to six months at DARE facilities in Bangalore.
Elisra will develop approach warning systems, radar jamming pods and other systems, while DARE will develop cooling systems, electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic susceptibility systems, as well as system integration in the aircraft.
The program is to be fully operational in three years.
Systems for LCA, JSF
The scientist said this venture will see an advanced EW system called MAYAVI developed for India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that Israel plans to buy from the United States.
The EW system will feature advanced radar warning, radar jamming, and electronic combat and self-protection systems. It also will have an Integrated Defensive Electronic Radio Frequency Countermeasures system to help protect the LCA against radar-guided missiles.
Its Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures will protect aircraft against heat-seeking missiles, and be paired with the Common Missile Warning System.
“We are collaborating with Indian agencies for a number of defense programs, but, as per company policy, we do not discuss specific programs,” an Elisra executive here said. The executive added that DARE was selected as a partner after trying several other defense partners in the world.
A senior Indian Defence Ministry official said India wants to forge alliances with Israeli companies to develop a variety of high-end defense technologies so that the Indian Defence Forces do not have to depend on the West for critical technologies.
Elisra has helped DARE in the past to develop an EW system called Tempest for the MiG-21 bis fighter upgrade program. EW systems from Elisra also are being supplied for the licensed production in India of 140 Sukhoi Su-31 MKI aircraft at Hindustan Aeronautics, Bangalore.
The Defence Ministry official said India has procured an unspecified number of EW suites from Israel for LCA prototypes, but declined to elaborate.
India To Spend More But Defence Ministry Seeks Greater Increase
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, NEW DELHI
India’s defense spending for 2007-2012 will jump about 44 percent over the previous five-year planning period, but there still will not be enough money to implement some of the country’s most ambitious defense plans, Defence Ministry sources said.
India’s Planning Commission has approved a defense budget for the 11th five-year plan of about $142 billion, up from $79 billion in the previous plan. Sources in the Planning Commission said the defense spending for 2007-2012 is based on the assumption that India’s economic growth will grow by around 8 percent.
Defence Ministry officials said the budget falls short of its expectations by around $22 billion and will not be sufficient to accomplish such goals as the purchase of network-centric warfare systems and the establishment of a nuclear command structure and aerospace command.
Planning Commission sources say the increase will raise India’s annual defense spending to 2.56 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP); spending has been about 2.33 percent of GDP under the current five-year plan. The Defence Ministry had sought to set defense spending at a minimum of 3 percent of the GDP under the new plan.
India needs to procure about 200 advanced fighter aircraft to keep its fleet strength at the minimum acceptable level of 40 squadrons; purchase more than 1,600 155mm guns for the Army as part of its long-term conversion of all field guns; purchase air defense systems for the Army, Air Force and the Navy; and buy advanced radars.
The military also must execute its long-term network-centric warfare plans by setting up C4I systems and buying dedicated satellites.
In addition, the Navy will have to procure about 30 warships to replace aging Soviet-built vessels to be decommissioned in the next five to seven years — most of them bought in the 1960s and ’70s.
The Navy also is to build two homegrown nuclear submarines for around $1 billion each and procure six more, as well as purchase maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The service has only three Il-38 aircraft following the crash of two in 2002, and its aging Tu-142 Russian aircraft are overdue for replacement.
Replacing all of the military’s aging Soviet-built weapons would cost about $12 billion to $15 billion, an Indian Defence Ministry official said.
Neighboring Pakistan spends 4 percent of its GDP on defense, and China spends 6 percent, an Indian Army official said.
————————————————————————-
I think what we also need is a dedicated airborne Ground surveillance system featuring SAR, GMTI, EO surveillance etc. to augment our satellite based surveillance and reconn. system. ASTOR from Raytheon and probably some system from Elta should be actively considered.
Sign In
