Saturday, February 14, 2009

Honeywell's Re-Engining Offer For IAF Jaguars




The above-posted brochure is self-explanatory, except for the fact that this re-engining is only one component of the upgrade package for the Jaguar IS/IM, which is being proposed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), and which will include the third-generation DARIN-3 navigation-system system and an integrated defensive aids suite, both of which have been designed and integrated by the DRDO's Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), using several avionics LRUs originally developed for the Tejas LCA. The cockpit, shown at the Aero India 2009 expo, will now feature the same HUD as that on the Tejas LCA, along with three large MFD-55 AMLCDs supplied by THALES-Samtel Display Systems, and HOTAS controls, all utilising a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus. It remains to be seen if these upgraded Jaguars (about 120 in all will be upgraded and will be in service till 2022) will also be equipped with the fly-by-wire flight control system, which was tested out by BAE Systems way back in the mid-1980s on the Jaguar. By the way, these upgraded Jaguars are also due to be fitted with multi-mode monopulse radars for which the EL/M-2052, Captor-E and Seaspray 5000e are being proposed.--Prasun K. Sengupta

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

every body wants piece of pie....thats what it is all about

Anonymous said...

mr sen gupta,

can you thow some light on various sam system that we have , specially short range ones. trishul, barak, spyder,now maitri

Anonymous said...

HONEYWELL is a dying company. no many aircrafts use Honeywell engines nowadays. The Honeywell air purifier in my home got spoilt a few weeks after the 3 years warranty came to an end. Now GE, P&W, SATURN and SAFRAN rule the roost.

Anonymous said...

and not to forget RR

Anonymous said...

PKS one more thing, did anybody came and knock your head with Base ball bat?? [LOL] bcoz one stupid fool was threatening

Anonymous said...

read this sengupta: http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content

doesnt say its a TD

Anonymous said...

or this: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=10612

Anonymous said...

Prasun see --> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/Tejas/LSP/LSP02.jpg.html


just in front of the tail is a small funnel kind of thing jetting out (yes, with the rectangle small rectangle hole facing the cockpit).

What is that sir?

its also visible here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/SZZnAqOXAoI/AAAAAAAAF-w/RGUUnSsOtao/s1600-h/DSC01739-737762.JPG

why wasnt it there on the older tejas concepts (TD1/2etc)?

thanks.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@6:31AM: Well, for starters, Trishul was only a technology demonstrator, not an operational system and therefore it will not be put to production. The Barak-1 is a naval system optimised for engaging anti-ship cruise missiles. The Spyder acquisitions by both the Indian Army and Air Force are to fill up an interim void made by the decommissioning of older OSA-AK and Strella-10M systems. But the more prolific E-SHORADS that will eventually replace all existing SHORADS of Soviet/Russian origin will be the vertically-launched Maitri, which externally resembles the Astra AAM and Mica VL E-SHORADS and will be ordered in great bulk by both the Indian Army and Indian Air Force. Mind you, the older SHORADS had a range of 9-12km, whereas the new-generation E-SHORADS can go up to 18-24km in range. Now do you see why I insist on calling the Akash SAM as an E-SHORADS and not an M-SAM, whose range should ideally be between 40km-60km?

To Anon@7.07AM: I think the annual engine sales figures of Honeywell will prove your statements wrong. As for air purifiers, you should have gone for Japanese or South Korean brands. Your mistake (LOL).

To Anon@7:09AM: Are you kidding? Only a whaco will make such threats but won't have the balls to surface. And that's exactly what happened (LOL).

To Anon@7:25AM: Are you suggesting that whatever this publication says is the gospel truth? The same publication made predictions about the ATV's launch on January 26 this year, about the first PHALCON's arrival last month, etc, all of which turned out to be way off the mark.

To Anon@7:35AM: That's the ram air intake for supplying air for both the environmental control system (ECS) for the avionics bulkheads (or an air conditioner in layman's terms) and for the on-board oxygen generation system.

Sontu said...

Prasun da,
Nomoskar.
Please clarify why we needed a separate SAM system as Maitri?
Why the Barak MR-SAM could not do that job too...it looks MR-SAM will have a better range than VL-MICA.What's the exact requirements for E-SHORADS and difference between these two Systems (I mean MICA based Maitri and BARAK MR-SAM).

Seconly....
There are several examplaes are there where Derby, Python or AMRAAM (I mean good AAMs)have been configured and used as SAM system..then on the same line why Indian Astra can not be configured as a SAM system for ARMY or IAF ?

Regards,

Anonymous said...

Prasun so does that mean that the ram intake is for cooling the avionics and other components inside the plane?

it looked like it leads into the engine to me.

why didn't the older versions had that ram air intake?
as example see this photo --> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Fighters/Tejas/TD/LCA13.jpg.html

i dont think cooling the avionics was a new feature? surelyit must have existed on earlier models. how was cooling done on earlier models.

i also ask why is it that in ajai shuklas blog there is article about the old tejas being knocked down. why is this so? why cannot they just fit the upgrades into it and keep it as a worthy air frame? the bulk of the airframe in both the TD and the LSP is same right? abeit for the ram intake which is just a small modification. isnt it a waste of $$$$$

Anonymous said...

No other fighter plane other than Taiwans indegenous fighter uses Honeywell F125. and thats the case because GE and P&W could not export to Taiwan. Sales figure highly but not as good as RR, GE and P&W. As for the air purifiers the stupid sales man told me Honeywell is great and best because made in USA and SHARP brand is made in THAILAND so its low quality and the prices were not much difference so I bought it. U got any recommendation for other brandes of purifiers? i am still not bhought a new one. point is if this company cannot even make some air purifiers how can make proper jet engine? maybe it will also get spoilt immediately after warranty void period.

Anonymous said...

i can tell one thing is GE is really good. my office intercom and telephone systems use GE brand and over 10 years already still lasting and never once also spoilt. i have seen GE X-RAY machine is looks really nics.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Sontuda, Nomoshkar. How was the show today? I heard some horror stories even from the exhibitors today, who were totally overwhelmed by the crowd density!!! I reckon it is high time such exhibitions were held only for trade visitors and not for the general public since such expos are clearly not meant for generating public awareness or for collecting souvenirs, which was clearly the case for the past 48 hours. A truly sad and pathetic state of affairs indeed which will only discourage future participations by potential exhibitors. Afterall nowehere in the DPP manul does it state that companies that do not exhibit at Aero India will not be awarded any contracts. Afterall this expo is being held since the late 1990s and the central/state govts had ample time to improve the related infrastructure and trade show procedures, but this was not the case even in 2009! Most shocking indeed!!! Nor was any attempt made to give the show a regional flavour by bringing in (instead of the families of IAF personnel and the kith and kin of all Bangalore-based DPSU/DRDO employees) sizeable delegations of military personnel from neighbouring SAARC countries in batches by IL-76MD transports. A great majority of the exhibitors I spoke to were totally disgusted by the crumbling infrastructure and neolithic logistical planning by the show organisers (CII and the Defence Exhibitions Board). Anyway, hope you saw the scale model of the AEW & CS at the DRDO pavilion. It now has separate AESA arrays both on the portside and starboard and the AESA arrays will be dual-band, i.e. S-band and L-band. In other words, the same approach adopted by the Israeli 'Eitam G-550 CAEW & CS. It vindicates my earlier view of the need for an AEW & C platform to have 360-degree surveillance capability. Looks like the CABS has taken by opinions to heart with deep conviction (LOL!). Another observation was that of the Rustom UAV which bears a more than close resemblance to the ELBIT Systems-built Hermes 1500 UCAS. But the point here is this: why should any end-user in India wait for the DRDO to develop the Rustom over a 7-year period when similar systems like the Mantis UCAS are available today? Another bizzare event was the showcasing by TATA of its own mini-UAV designs at a time when HAL has already tied up with ELBIT Systems to offer the Skylark hand-launched UAV to the Army. This being the case, I've no doubt that given the choice between a DPSU-sourced product and a product developed by the private sector, the MoD/DDPS mandarins will favour HAL over the others! So much for a level playing field!!! Which brings us to the Tejas LCA, which will now have to morph into a 'bigger' size (and rightly so) since the aircraft was designed by scientists to prove a scientific point, and not any operational point! Therefore, not only will the airframe be up-scaled, but it will also have to be equipped with conformal fuel tanks now (similar to those designed by EADS for the Typhoons meant for Saudi Arabia) as the IAF wants to use all underwing pylons for carrying weapons and does not want any underwing fuel tanks. In any case there's no need for a defensive counter-air fighter like the MiG-21bis as aircraft like the Tejas LCA will no longer be required to be dispersed to forward air bases (which will be vulnerable to cruise missile strikes) but will have to be based within the hinterland and hence the need for greater flight endurance. But the press at Aero India does not seem to be covering all these issues, maybe because they're not communicating with the IAF's operational planners responsible for visualising future air warfare scenarios.
Now, to answer your question, the Barak M-SAM is designed to engage targets in a different flight altitude regime than that of the Maitri. Its that simple. Air defence systems are hierarchical and there's no SAM that can do it all. It's like asking why have the 1.6km-range Milan-2/3 ATGM or the 3km-range Nag ATGM when the 4km-range Konkurs-M can do the same job. Now to answer your second question, you will realise in the not too distant future that the airframe/fuselage of the Astra AAM will bear a remarkable resemblance to the Mica EM, while that of the Maitri will be similar in looks to the VL Mica. Anyway, if possible, then try to talk to the Lockheed Martin and Boeing guys (that is if they haven't already fled the show site) how they've perfected their sensor fusion challenges and developed tri-mode sensors for PGMs (MBDA has to date developed only dual-mode sensors). Have fun! Subho Ratri.

Anonymous said...

Another bizzare event was the showcasing by TATA of its own mini-UAV designs at a time when HAL has already tied up with ELBIT Systems to offer the Skylark hand-launched UAV to the Army.

some pics please sir??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:59AM: You can download the pics and brochures from here: http://www.prdomain.com/mediaroom/aeroindia/ig_index.html

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:12AM: The ram air intake piping feeds the avionics bulkhead and on-board oxygen generation system both of which are located BEHIND the cockpit. The TD airframes were used just for proving that airworthiness of the airframe construction. The avionics started going into the PVs. As they TDs have now outlived their usefulness they're being cannibalised. It's a pity that India does not have an aerospace museum where such airframes could be displayed.

To Anon@10:23AM: At least Honeywell can speak of a decent sales track record compared to Rolls-Royce, which hasn't even flight-tested an advanced derivative of its Adour turbofan with afterburning for the Jaguar. Regarding air purifiers try out the South Korean brands like Samsung or LG. They're available at bargain prices.

Anonymous said...

i never heard of samsung and LG air purifiers!! but i saw they are existant from online search. did u use them? are they good? which model? i know for fact LG air cons are very worst. they start making funny noises after some period. Come on RR is doing better than Honeywell when it comes to engine division. almost all regional jets have option for RR engines. RR Conway was a award winning engine. RR trent is used on A380. Compare customer numbers of A380. 3 quarters option to buy it with RR engines. Honeywell is not even elligible to be fitted on these marcelous aircrafts. With only 1 customer for its F125 engine it surely cannot be that great like you claim. at least RR is more used. and is trusted as the original engine for the Jaguar.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I've been using the LG systems for years now. No problems thus far. Product support is also appreciable. Regarding engines while I appreciate you going GA GA over RR (LOL!), the fact remains that only the F125 has to date flown on a Jaguar testbed and has been flight-certified, while Rolls-Royce's turbofan has not. Also, you can't compare apples with oranges, just as you can't compare Honeywell's engines on board the Chinook with similar engines made by Rolls-Royce on the AW-101. The fact remains that Honeywell's F125 is in usage now while Rolls-Royce's proposed turbofan for the Jaguar re-engining programme has yet to take to the skies.

Anonymous said...

I am not Ga Ga over RR. dont worry. just dont like Honeywell because of their low quality products. Which model LG air purifier do you use and how long? maybe i will also buy if its tested.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Any LG model that is available will do. But do check out the locally available service/support availability. That's the key. A product may break down due to various factors, but as long as there's prompt product support available it should be all right.

Anonymous said...

Prasun how can the IAF buy the Embraer built Tucanos off the shelf without issuing an RFP. Wouldnt this amount to a single vendor situation which I thought was a definate no-no. Also in this case what about 30% offsets.
if this goes through this might be the fastest purchase ever for the MOD.
The world over General Aviation pilots learn basic flying skills on Cessna 152/172 skyhawks. Any particular reason why militaries dont like to use Cessna's or Piper's for training student pilots?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Of course RFPs will be issued and the parties bidding will be Embraer with its Tucano, Korea Aerospace Industries with its K-1 and Pilatus with its PC-21. All three are viable contenders bu the Govt of India for political reasons MAY opt for the Tucanos. The Cessnas and Pipers and Diamonds are very good for ab initio and ATPL-type flying training, but military flying training is a totally different business. For instance, for the latter one needs to practice formation flying, spin recovery and the like.

Void Walker said...

prasun wrote:
" It's a pity that India does not have an aerospace museum where such airframes could be displayed. "
---------------------------------
haven't you seen the HAL museum near the airport in Bangalore, the Naval museum in dabolim ,Goa and the Sevices museum in New Delhi???

Prasun K Sengupta said...

What have all these locations got to do with an aerospace museum? Or are you having difficulty in distinguishing between aviation and aerospace, naval and aerospace, or between armed forces and aerosapace?

Sontu said...

Thanks Prasun da,
Show was good and is really becoming good source of lots of info on new projects and programs related with defense and aerospace domain.
But as you said we still need to improve the infrastructure and facilities to make it grand like Paris or Berlin aero shows.
Also we need to teach people how to behave in these kind of shows..(like most of the people just interested in getting some free calendars or pens kind of things and making the show arena as hell by spreading water bottles/cans/beer glasses /paper leaflets etc etc.)I was so ashamed by seeing our own service people(all so called big officers) are using the official vehicles(or rather what ever they could get free like govt or defense jeeps/trucks /trolleys etc )for fully loading relatives and families and driving like kings not only in the arena but also in the runways/taxiways without following any security limitation or restrictions...some times they were not following the general traffic rules even ...really felt sad.

Really we need some kind of separation between live aero shows and display Halls for serious and educated techi/business visitors, to make it more result oriented.
Otherwise kids and wives and salis of biggies would continue to use this venue as to improve their status and show off kind of things.

Thanks for your answer on SAM/SHORADS.
When free please clarify one point, which learned from Aviation Week's “Shownews” says Navy's Mig-29K s are getting Zhuk AE-AESA?

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/

My understanding was these birds will be equipped with Zhuk-ME radars.

Regards,

Anonymous said...

What is the use of having light combat aircrafts in a carrier ? Isn't wise to use medium class fighters for variety of reasons ?

Anonymous said...

above query is related to developing naval tejas. the time spent could be usefully spent in making tejas fly as per the reqts of iaf.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Sontuda, the first 16 MiG-29K/KUBs will have the Zhuk-ME but for the follow-on 29 MiG-29K/KUBs there are two radars on offer, the BARS-29 PESA and Phazotron's Zhuk-AE. I spoke extensively to the chief designer of the BARS from Tikhomirov NIIR at the show (whom I had earlier met at the MAKS 2007 expo) and he updated me about this on-going competition with Phazotron. His point of view is that since his company is already developing a variant of IRBIS PESA (for the Su-35BM) with an AESA antenna which will be offered as part of an upgrade package for the IAF's Su-30MKIs, it makes financial sense for the Indian Navy too to opt for this route, i.e. accepting the PESA first and then upgrading it with an AESA antenna in future (by 2015). The AESA variant of the IRBIS-E will be available from 2012 as well. Incidentally, a further miniaturised variant of the IRBIS-E is now being designed for incorporation on the FGFA. In short, Tikhomirov NIIR is not saying that the IRBIS-E AESA variant is better than the Zhuk-AE in terms of performance, rather they are comparable in performance, but for India's case exercising the option presented by Tikhomirov NIIR will be 'financially more viable' than going for an entirely new radar and its associated product logistics. Now, THALES too is vying for a piece of this cake and is proposing the RBE-2 AESA and the OSF IRST as an integrated package for the to-be-upgraded Su-30MKI (they're not offering this for the Tejas LCA, by the way and it is EADS that is offering the Caesar AESA/Pirate IRST package for the LCA).

To Anon@7:43AM: Believe me, the term LCA will no longer be in vogue as the Mk2 version of the LCA that BOTH the Navy and IAF now desire will incorporate fuselage-mounted conformal fuel tanks, and will also have a TVC nozzle (if the Eurojet 200 is selected). EADS has already offered these add-ons for the Tejas LCA to convert it into a viable M-MRCA and both the IAF and Navy have already fallen for this approach. The TVC nozzle was one of the prominent exhibits at Aero India. Also, as I noted above, the Caesar AESA/Pirate IRST package was also displayed at the EADS booth at the expo.

Raghav said...

whatever happened to Russia's offer of Tu-22M bombers to the IAF?
I have always had this question:
While the IAF keeps pursuing fighter aircraft what about bombers? Doesn't the IAF need any heavy duty bombers like the Tu-22M or the B-52? The last bomber we had was the Canberra.
Don't we need bombers for strategic bombing missions or is the IAF's role merely restricted to providing CAS for ground forces and defending our airspace.

Sontu said...

Thanks Prasun da
I am surprised to know that...

>Incidentally, a further miniaturised variant of the IRBIS-E is now being designed for incorporation on the FGFA.

Why a downgraded IRBIS is being offerd for PAKFA..PAKFA is supposed to have a much better version,presumably the uprated version of IRBIS AESA?
Is it due to available power shortage/limitation on PAKFA compared to SU-35 BM ?


Also I expect IRBIS with AESA to be much better than Zhuk-AE because of IRBIS's better power aperture,since I expect IRBIS ASEA to have more T/R modules than Zhuk-AE and hence IRBIS will have better range and capability to detect targets with much lower RCS.

Could you please do a comparision on available IRST packages like OLS-35 (of MIG-35) , PIRATE (EF-2000),OSF (Rafale), IRST on JSF and the proposed IRST on F-16 Block60IN .

I am assuming the bast IRST would be the one being offerd with JSF (in terms of range of detection and track because of using longwave IR emmiter)but due to design/integration issue it wouldn't be able to give a 360' coverage like OLS-35 of Mig-35.

Tumi ki bolo ?

Subhoratri,

Anonymous said...

Naval Tejas looks far better than the normal one with the bulging cockpit, rather than the flat one for normal Tejas. Wouldnt it be better to make all Tejas's with this configuration ?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Raghav: The Tu-22M3 offer from Russia was a leasing package just like the Akula-2 SSGN/INS Chakra offer. It was not taken up by the IAF for a very simple reason: the days of strategic saturation bombing campaigns via manned aircraft are long over. The emphasis is now on EFFECTS-BASED operations, i.e. using precision-guided munitions or PGMs (guided by laser, millimetre-wave radar or imaging infra-red sensor or by PY-code GPS updates) to achieve pinpoint strikes. In other words one does not need to drop a huge quantity of ordnance to guarantee the destruction of a target, but to expend only one or two PGMs to ansure assured target destruction. Secondly, as concerns the range and reach of PGMs, we today have cruise missiles (air-delivered or surface-to-surface) that can travel more than 1,000km and deliver accurate and massed fire-assaults. Even with bombers like the Tu-22M2 and Canberra such precise strikes were not possible. In other words, the technology has matured enough for one to engage in 'knowledge-based and effects-based operations' instead of engaging in 'estimates-based' warfare as was the case in the past. The next wave of technological innovation which is already available now is the employment of armed UAVs or UCAS like the Mantis and MQ-9 Reaper, which will make the usage of manned combat aircraft (like the Jaguar and MiG-27M) irelevant in the next decade. The UCAS will be used extensively for close air support, thus leaving the manned combat aircraft free for deep interdiction over a mission radius of 400nm and mind you, this can be doubled with aerial refuelling support. Therefore, the combination of standoff PGMs and aerial refuelling gives today's existing interdiction aircraft like the Jaguar and Su-30MKIs a strategic reach as well as the capability of accurately delivering offensive ordnance.

To Sontuda: No no, please don't get me wrong. Miniaturised does not automatically translate into downgraded or inferior. On the contrary, due to the increasing availability of nano technology-based materials and components, miniaturisation of existing LRUs of the IRBIS-E AESA will be possible, that's what I meant. I too prefer Tikhomirov NIIR's approach over what's being proposed by Phazotron JSC on the grounds of both cost and performance.
Now, coming to the IRST domain, one crucial issue should be kept in mind: the IRST is not a standalone sensor; rather it is closely integrated with the airborne radar, the mission computer and the helmet-mounted display sight (HMDS). Therefore, one cannot for example integrate the OLS-35 with the RBE-2. The OLS-35 can be used only with the Zhuk-AE or BARS-29, while the OTIS-IR from Saab Microwave can be used with ELTA’s EL/M-2052, the OSF with the RBE-2, and the Pirate with the Caesar. On the F-16 Super Viper the AAQ-32 Internal FLIR targeting system is integrated with the APG-80 or SABR. There is also a pod-mounted IRST available for the Super Hornet and which is integrated with the APG-79. Of course, the most advanced radar/IRST package utilising the latest in sensor fusion technologies will go on board the JSF, but for the Tejas LCA this package will not be considered due to the US’ export issues. In terms of achieving 360-degree visual/IR-based situational awareness in the air combat domain it is not going to be of much use due to the simple reason that the pilot wearing the HMDS will not be able to see 18O-degrees backwards to engage a rear-end target with air combat missiles. Furthermore, based on what the Urals Optical & Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) officials told me, the belly-mounted IRST sensors on the MiG-35 are primarily meant for BOTH acquiring ground-based targets (and that too not as far as/from not as high as what’s possible today with Litening/Damocles/SAPSAN-type target acquisition/designation pods) and also serving as a missile approach warning system. In other words, it is meant to be used primarily for aircraft survivability purposes, and not so much for ground target acquisition. The latter can be done anyway by PESA/AESA-type radars using the ground moving target indication mode.

Void Walker said...

to prasun:
what you fail to understand is that all the three places that I have mentioned have an aerospace museum,with special emphasis on preserving historical aircraft..the HAL museum on the other side of the airport has the first model of the LCA (used for roll-out in '95),the first prototye of HANSA, the first CHETAK ,the first HF-24 MARUT ,the first MiG-21 trainer version and the first Dhruv prototype (first flight in '92) among others preserved in all their glory....similar is the case in Goa,where we have preserved the first models of the ALIZE and the LOCKHEED CONSTELLATION,that were in service with IN...also you can find a similar situation in the airforce section of the services museum ,where we have preserved our first GNAT and AJEET.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

I get your point, and I'not disputing that. All I'm saying is why have all these exhibits in far-flung areas separately when one can consolidate all of them under 1 roof, and also include the space applications elements, so that interested and informed visitors can get the whole picture of the country's aviation & aerospace heritage and accomplishments. It reminds me of the still prevailing paradox in NDA. When we all go there we all learn to salute in one way and only after passing out and proceeding to one's individual service do we learn to salute and march differently! In other words, during inception the trainee cadets are all ingrained with unity of thought and jointness, and once out of NDA the respective services affiliations create the mental barriers that promote loyalty to one's own services.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,what is the difference between weaponised version of ALH & LCH?Another question from me:will ADA's LCA MK2 replace IAF's mig-27,jaguar?

Anonymous said...

anon above,

weaponised Dhruv is a weaponised troop carrier - for up to 12 troops to be delivered to hostile areas. LCH is a twin seater dedicated attack helicopter for downing UAVs and targets specially for high altitude warfare (eg siachen, kargil)

Prasun s.

Unfortunately I couldnt attend aero-india this year. would you please shed some light on what you learnt about the progress of (1) LCH (2) HJT Sitara. Would also be delighted if you could verify reports that Suriname is ordering several Dhruvs under a easy financed package from India.

Good day!

Anonymous said...

regard your reply to raghav.
what u say is true but a bomber like the B-1B lancer can carry more ordinance than fighter aircraft be they PGMs, JDAMS or even cruise missiles. so doesn't it make sense to have a few squadrons of dedicated bombers with some stealth features like the B-1B, Tu-160 or even the B-2 that can carry a large payload of PGMs, fly to long ranges, sneak into enemy airspace under fighter cover, deliver the ordinance and come back safely. A mission by a dedicated bomber is definitely worth more than three missions by strike aircraft simply bcoz the bomber has a larger load carrying capacity. I think this is the primary role of the B-2 after the cold war. The USAF wants to use the B-2 to conduct precision air strikes with PGMs as its stealth features increases its survivability in any hostile situation and so can penetrate deep into enemy airspace where even cruise missiles can't reach.
correct me if i'm wrong.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

What you say is true, you're not wrong at all. But what Raghav was asking was about India procuring such heavy strike aircraft and my reply was about the futility of procuring such aircraft (like the B-1B, B-2, Tu-160) in the Indian context, since these aircraft will never be available for export due to the SALT/START arms control agreements. That being the case, the IAF has to devise an offensive airpower doctrine based on a judicious mix of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and manned combat aircraft.

Max said...

@Prasun

Regarding heavy bombers India already has a fleet of Tu-142s which is fundamentally a Tu-95. By 2013 when India starts receiving the P-8s, they should be in a position to convert the Tu-142s into bomber aircraft. Even the Russian air force will apparently keep the their Tu-95s operational until 2040. I'm sure India's will do justice until that period, perhaps with a major overhaul.

Of course for precise strikes in hostile territory cruise missiles may be a better option but once the enemy is weak and their air-defence is taken out it would be wise to use heavy bombers to take out targets over a wide area. It's just like what the US did in the invasion of Iraq. They first took out Iraqi air defence and airfields using guided missiles launched from outside Iraq, then weakened the Iraqis further using heavy bombers on hostile territory (e.g. bunkers, hideouts etc.) which were spread out over a wide area / carpet bombing.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Max, the issue is not about which aircraft can carry out saturation bombing, but whether such bombing campaigns are required to be undertaken by the IAF. Just like the Tu-142s even existing IL-76MDs can be stuffed with 1,000lb dumb bombs and can be tasked with conducting saturation bombings of the type the IAF did in 1965 with its An-12Bs over the Lahore Railway Junction. All that is required is for such transport aircraft to be equipped with an accurate long-range navigation system like ring laser gyro-basded INS coupled to GPS receivers. That's it. From that standpoint, the IAF already has the kind of heavy transport aircraft that can undertake saturation bombing campaigns from high altitudes.

Raghav said...

Doesn't ADA have the capability to build marginally stealthy planes like the B-1B or Tu-160? After all they use the technologies of the 80s and is within the reach of ADA to build such planes now that we have built the Tejas.
Does the IAF have any plans for a future bomber?

Raghav said...

here i am not talking of saturation bombing. Like what Anon@10.06AM said, does the IAF have plans for a heavy stealth bomber to deliver PGMs. UAV bombers are quite far away and won't be available to us for a long time. so in the meanwhile it does make sense to develop a stealth bomber. it will rapidly improve our offensive airpower. what do you say?

Anonymous said...

to prasun

india wanted tu22m3 for naval strike and it is very good for naval strike to take out ships with supersonic cruise missiles

its got excellent speed and range to fly anywhere over indian ocean to shouth china sea and a potent treat for naval ships while carrying supersonic cruise missiles

Anonymous said...

prasun,

most of the times upgrades r done by the manufacturing company of any aircraft

like mig upgrading of mig29

dassault upgrading mirage

antonov is upgrading an32

sukhoi continously upgrades su30 and other su27 series aircraft

so for jaguar upgrades engine will come only from RR u will c

-------------------------------
if dassualt or EADS start upgrading f15,16,18 then americans will cry and shout that these aircrafts can't b upgraded by any other country except american firms so according to this european aircraft manufacturers also reserve the same right

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Raghav: Are you kidding? ADA and GTRE are technology developers and design houses, not a manufacturing entity like HAL. That is what has created all the problems for the Tejas LCA. Had HAL been involved as prime contractor for the Tejas LCA right from the beginning then all the re-engineering problems one is facing wouldn't have taken place at all. Now one has created an institution like ADA with R & D capabilities that in many ways have duplicated the aerospace engineering competencies that HAL already had and was deemed to have. If precious financial and human resources are wasted in this manner one will never be able to acquire the kind of aerospace industrial and technological competencies that India aspires to acquire. It is also for this reason that it will be cost-prohibitive for India to consider acquiring stealthy bombers, which will require an R & D investment of almost US$20 billion.

To Anon@ 8:12AM: Exactly what is it that the Tu-22M3 can do which a Tu-142M cannot? Today cruise missiles are stealthy, have long-range and are supersonic and therefore the launch aircraft becomes just a launcher, it does not require high speed or high service ceilings.

To Anon@8:19AM: You're mixing up the airframe OEM with the engine OEM. You cannot compare Rolls-Royce with MiG or Antonov or Dassault. If you want comparisons then you must compare them with BAE Systems and Dassault, who together created the SEPECAT consortium in the 1960s for jointly developing the Jaguar. Now, since SEPECAT is already HAL's industrial partner and can supply HAL with all the design knowledge of the Jaguar, who supplies the engine--R-R or Honeywell--is immaterial. At the end of the day, it is HAL with SEPECAT's support who will be prime contractor for the Jaguar/DARIN-3 upgrade programme.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

Exactly what is it that the Tu-22M3 can do which a Tu-142M cannot? Today cruise missiles are stealthy, have long-range and are supersonic and therefore the launch aircraft becomes just a launcher, it does not require high speed or high service ceilings.
--------------------------------
tu142m is not supersonic and bigger and soviet union specially developed tu22m3 to destroy NATO surface fleet because aircraft carrier carried f14,18 and aim154 missile these aircraft could easily destroy coming subsonic
tu142m bomber

but tu22m3 was smaller and can go upto mach 2 and

after firing sworms missiles on surface ships it could fly supersonic to get out of there faster so that even if it is deteced by fighter planes f14 it could outrun the killing range of aim154 missile easily but a
tu142m wasn't able to do that

but tu22m3 r still excellent for maritime strike provide excellent range and dash mach2 speed

and it will b most foolish to retire tu142 form indian navy because they can still b operated till 2030 and they provide excellent range ,payload and r able to carry brahmos

Sontu said...

Raghav,

Regarding the strategic stealth bombers ...Indian need two things.

1. Long term strategic plan/air attack doctrine...which envisions that kind of usage of heavy/strategic stealth bombers (using conventional free fall/dumb bombs or even High Volume of PGMs) i.e. cheap but high volume bombing in a large geographical area.

2.But to implement above doctrine..India need to have Air Sanitation capability like Complete Air Supremacy and Air Denial capability.

3. To have complete air supremacy India will need absolute stealth strike aircrafts like F-117 or F-22 kind of things..to ensure the destruction/disabling of the opponent's Radar/Early warning networks plus SAM /Air defense systems in the very first wave of strike. These strike aircrafts need to ensure that there are no potential long/mid range Radar and SAM resources/systems are not available to our adversaries. Then only we can think of using kind of strategic heavy bombers in the opponent’s air space with reduced risk. (Please note WHEN and HOW the B-52 bombers were deployed in Iraq and what was the objective of that deployment)

However the only advantage of such strategic heavy bombers are only to frighten the opponent’s ground forces which are deployed over vast areas and who will not give up so easily..and hence they will drag the ground based war for a quite long time..so to make those ground forces surrender in bulk at the earliest and keep the war cost/impacts minimul..these kind strategic heavy bomber is needed.

Please note that... these tactics has been successful in Iraq but not in Afghanistan.

Regards,

rahs said...

Prasun it would be great if u could pls come up with an article on the current state of ongoing upgrade of the (1) Mirage fleet (2) Fulcrum fleet of the IAF and a comparison btw the two upgrade packages..
If not an article, cud u pls provide the current status of the aforementioned upgrades..
Thanx in advance!

Anonymous said...

DRDO's "Can Do" attitude is commendable, but they should first plan "how to".It seems they fail to plan even though they may not plan to fail.Add to that stupid bureaucracy and here you have a project to make all butts smell like roses by 2010 and elevate another M.Hasthamaithunan to some director's position to waste tax payer's money!

Zoltán said...

Dear All,

I study at the Avionic Technical Institution of the Bólyai János Faculty of Military Engineering of Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University in Szolnok. This is my last semester and I have got all the necessary exams to become an electrical/avionic system engineer, specialized in board automation and instruments.

I’m writing my thesis on board data recording systems, specialized in magnetic tape and I would like to collect more data about civilian aircraft to complete my degree.

Could you give me a hand and inform me about your aircraft and the board data recording systems on them? Could you send me some information and maybe other usable description of them?

I would be really grateful for your help.


Yours sincerely,
Zoltan
balajti.zoltan@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Zoltan, pls ask the DON here, Prasun Sengupta. He is a KNOW ALL fella.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

'KNOW ALL DON'!!! Why me? Thanks anyway.
Zoltan, best thing for you is to contact RADA Defence Electronics of Israel or SAABTech of Sweden or THALES Avionics of France who, among others, make such systems. Just e-mail them explaining your reqmts and they will e-mail you their brochures in PDF format.

Anonymous said...

KAD (aka Know All Don), Zoltan asks for Information about YOUR aircraft (ie Indian airfraft) on board data recording systems. What has SAAB, THALEs etc got 2 do?

Personal question if u dont mind: hav u been to israel prasun??

Anonymous said...

1 more thing KAD,

"India's indigenous aircraft carrier to sail by 2011: Indian Navy chief"

Plaussible in ur opinion??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

FYI KAD owns an MRO facility, not any aircraft. I don't know from where Zoltan heard that KAD (aka I) own any aircraft. In any case even if I did own any aircraft (Indian or otherwise) such on-board recording systems are not made by any OEM in India. HAL too only licence-assembles them. Regarding your second question: no comment.
Regarding the IAC's launch date, the CNS had himself last December confirmed that the IAC will be launched by 2014. Where did this 2011 figure pop out from?

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
any news on the Gorshkov fiasco!looks like Ruskies want more money.

Zorin said...

I wonder if the usual people are away, whether not much happening or simply people losing interest.there used to be mroe to read from the bloggers, more articles and new information. Seems very little info/discussion lately. For example there was nothing added to the blog one whole day 1 day ago!Only three or four posts are new in 2 days.Come on guys!

Zorin said...

"Russia's Sukhoi aircraft maker confirmed on Thursday that the advanced Su-35 Flanker multi-role fighter would enter service with the Russian Air Force in 2011.

The company earlier said it planned to produce the new aircraft, billed as "4++ generation using fifth-generation technology," over a period of 10 years up to 2020.

The company is expecting to export at least 160 Su-35 fighters in the future to a number of countries, including India, Malaysia and Algeria." Ria Novosti
Prasun, do you think this is a mere guess from Sukhoi given these are the countries they generally export to, or is it likely? The bad mafioso deal re: Gorshkov will surely push the Indians away from major commitments with Russia other than those already signed.

Anonymous said...

Does India use KORNET-E anti tank weapon?I only read about KONKURS but they are older than KORNET ATGM and apparently the KORNET-E is one of the best atgms?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Zorin: No, there are no plans by India or Malaysia to buy the Su-35, but a lot of the avionics enhancements for the Su-35 will be retrofitted on existing Su-30MKIs/Su-30MKMs.

To Anon@5:24PM: The Kornet-Es have been with the Indian Army since 2003 and their launchers are on the Windy 505 ATVs of the SF (Para).

Anonymous said...

KAD, actually Sureesh Mehta was the one who says 2011. It popped out from his mouth. read

http://www.india-server.com/news/indias-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-to-6224.html

so whats your comment about this? is it plaussible? to me also it seems like 2011 is very inadequate but would like to hear ur opinion since you urself say u are Know All.

About my other questions i already said that Zoltan most probably meant India not ur personal airfrafts if any. u are trying to kindle people. but anyway Zoltan also is nowhere to be seen so 4get him. no problem about the other one regarding u visiting israel i understand ur resevations.

Anonymous said...

MRO owner can make a lot of money right KAD?? sorry if again is personal question, but i am just curious what sort of qualification one needs to operate MRO facility? i never heard of any course about aircraft maintenance. and also its very wide scope because there are so many types of planes. Is it covered in aero-engineering? where do they offer this kinds of course? and the job is on other words like a aeroplane mechanic right?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:35PM: I never claimed or said that I know all. That was mentioned by someone else above. To me the 2011 figure is overoptimistic. 2014 will be more realistic.

To Anon@10:40PM: To own and operate an MRO facility you need 1) lots and lots and lost of money 2) an A & C/E licence to become a licenced engineer, and 3) acquiring the expertise to become an aviation business player.
There are several courses available even in India for acquiring degrees in aeronautical engineering. Only after acquiring an A & C or A & E licence can an aeronautical engineer touch an aircraft for repairs. Not otherwise. Mind you, I'm talking about aeronautical engineering, and not aerospace engineering which is all about designing and developing aircraft and related. structures/components.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, aerospace is a super set of aeronautical. aerospace includes aeronautical & astronautical. it is not that
only aerospace engineers can design and aeronautical engineers
or
only aeronautical engineers can repair.

only difference is that aerospace engineer study propulsion in outerspace also whereelse aeronautical engineers won't do that.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

ONLY aeronautical engineers holding A & C/A & E licences from national/international airworthiness regulatory authorities can engage in MRO activities by profession. No one else. Even a highly experienced aerospace engineer without such licences will not be ALLOWED to even attach a nut or bolt to any civil/military registered aircraft. If he/she does so, then he/she is committing a criminal offense.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, I am not saying that unlicensed highly aerospace/ aeronautical engineers can involve in maintenance activities.

What I am trying to say is that the way in which you differentiate aerospace from aeronautical is wrong

Anonymous said...

Prasun KAD,

1. is the prerequisite for the license is a degree in aeronautical engineering?

2. who issues the A & C/A & E licences? is it issues by individual countries or an international agency where the license is applicable in all countries?

3. also how about specialization? I dont think its like a mechanic is it, whereby they can repair almost all cars? can u for example do maintenance for ALL types of flying vehicles? from simple single seat prop planes to 747s? then helicopters? And the totally differing working mechanism between american and russian aircrafts. surely there should be specialization isnt it?

4. What is the scope of the job? overhauling includes engines or just replacing the tyres, brakes, suspension and other minial parts? I was under the impression that most commercial airliners are covered by maintenance by the engine manufacturer (Rolls Royce, GE etc).

5. how about clients? i am not asking your client base as i know its confidential, but is it confined to private aircraft owners only or does it include military and airlines companies? this is general question and general answer would do.

Anonymous said...

cont'd from above,

correct me if i am wrong but i feel that military and sirlines operators source their maintenance from either the manufacturer or a nationalised maintenance facility (HAL etc). So as a private player who does one depend on? if its just private aircraft owners then isnt it inadequate as too few people have aircrafts?

One last question is will the MRO facility be held responsible for any screw up? for example mistake made during maintenance causes plane to get damaged, or worse still, lives lost. Can this cause revocation of the licence?

And thanks for clearing my earlier doubts. :)

Prasun K Sengupta said...

1) A diploma or a degree in aeronautical engineering is preferable. However, after a BSc in physics or Maths is also enough. One then has to sit for exams for acquiring the A & C/A & E licences. The exams are administered by the airworthiness regulatory authority of the respective country. In India's case it will be the DGCA and you can obtain all necessary data from the DGCA's website. However, if one is rich enough, then one can sit for such exams administered by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or European Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA). As FAA and JAA licences are universally recognised, they will be easily endorsed by the DGCA, meaning you then won't have to apply for a separate DGCA exam.

2) It is only after obtaining the A & C/A & E licence can one proceed for type-rating, i.e. specialising on a particular aircraft type or engine type or types of avionics etc. For instance, if one is already qualified to service the Sikorsky S-76 and wants to service the Dhruv ALH as well, then the engineer/technician has to undergo a 90-day conversion course to add to his/her servicing portfolio.

3) Normally, licenced engineers prefer to specialise in servicing either fixed-wing or rotary-winged aircraft types purely due to the cost of acquiring such specialised expertise.

4) The A & C & A & E licences are issued for undertaking MRO work on airframes, engines, accessories, instrumentation, and avionics. One can choose to specialise in a minimum of two trades,i.e. airframe and engines, or airframe and avionics, or avionics/instrumentation and accessories.

4) As far as clientelle is concerned it ranges from private MRO companies to military operators to aircraft/engine manufacturers. All these organisations require licenced engineers. However, for those trained as licenced A & C/A & E engineers within the military, upon resigning or retiring from the military they will have to sit for DGCA-administered exams as military licencing reqmts are different from civilian licencing reqmts. Just because one has an air force-issued A & C/A & E licence does not automatically qualify the enginner for obtaining a DGCA-issued licence.

5) Any private party operating an aircraft must comply with the MRO-related airworthiness directives of the DGCA. In case the OEM of the aircraft has a locally available MRO centre in-country then the aircraft owner can outsource his periodic MRO reqmts from such a facility. In case of airlines those with healthy financial status and a large fleet choose to have their own in-house MRO facilities while those with smaller fleets either decide to pool their resources by either collectively utilising an existing MRO facility (which may belong to another airline) or may totally outsource its MRO requirements from a dedicated MRO facility abroad. This is called 3rd party MRO outsourcing. For the military there are three levels of maintenance: 1st line (squadron-level), 2nd line (intermediate), and depot-level (undertaken by Base Repair Depots or entities like HAL.

6) In the aftermath of any accident the liability is not only that of the MRO facility, but also of the aircraft manufacturer and prime responsibilty for any lapse that led to a disaster is fixed only after the probable cause of an accident is determined by the accident investigation authority.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Anon@1:45PM: There's a total of US$2.5 billion still available from the final account settling of the Ruppee-Rouble trading arrangement from the days of the erstwhile USSR. Therefore, rather than pay the money to India in cash, the Ruskies in the mid-1990s suggested that they would like to pay back in kind. India said yes and this is how two projects were born: to dry-lease two Akula-2 SSGNs and to acquire the refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and its complement of on-board aircraft. Now that India wants to dry-lease only 1 Akula 2 (instead of two) the Ruskies are in a bind as they need the cash and therefore the best way for them to get it is to suggest to India that the Ruppee-Rouble debt adjustment chapter be closed earlier and have consequently proposed that instead of the money pledged by India for the 2nd Akula-2 SSGN, that money now be spent on the aircraft carrier project. But mind you, when talking about the total amount for procuring the INS Vikramaditya, one should deduct the amount that goes for procuring the MiG-29K/KUBs, Ka-31s and Ka-28PLs under a separate package. Consequently, the cost of procuring the aircraft carrier comes to about US$2.1 billion, which is what any other foreign shipyard like Fincantieri or Navantia would charge. But having said that, non-Russian shipyards would have delivered such an aircraft carrier within four years of contract signature, unlike the Ruskies.

Anonymous said...

Prasun, does that create a bad image for Ruskies in other countries that would like to buy ships ?

What happens if India publishes a white paper on the delays associated with arms from Ruskies, just to educate the other countries in perils of buying ships from Russia.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

italian and other european shipyard won't even talk to convert gorky to carrier in $2.1 billion

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@3:22AM: That's right. They would deliver a brand new carrier within a four-year period, instead of converting an existing vessel.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
what is the helicopter complement of INS Vikramaditya. Only the Mig 29K, KUB's get mentioned. What is the delivery status and number of units of these choppers being procured.

AkI said...

Dear Prasunji,

Can you comment on the latest news about the Russians asking a total of US $ 2.9 billion for the Admiral Gorshkov. (refer article in Indian Express as well in www.defencetalk.com dated today.)

Earlier I has requested your comments on the price increase for naval MiG 29's to be purchased.

They are royally screwing us in all defense matters like T-90,MiG29 & now the Admiral Gorshkov.

Has Russia given up on the Indian Market?

This screwing by the Russian has a silver lining. Indian defense planners & politicians should remember Chanakya's saying : "There are no permanent friends or enemies; there is only permanent self-interests."

We are being taught a bitter lesson this way; but will we learn?

Anonymous said...

Navantia sells ~6300ton destroyers (Hobert class) for $8billion. So Aircraft carrier for $2.1 billion is not possible, unless it is built in India. But I agree on that timeframe part.