Saturday, February 21, 2009

OSAMC For Aircraft Upgrades


The OSAMC, originally developed by DARE and also known earlier as the core avionics computer, is presently on board the Su-30MKI and upgraded MiG-27Ms and upgraded Jaguar IMs, and will also be an integral part of the DARIN-3 avionics upgrade package for the yet-to-be-upgraded and re-engined Jaguar IS. The IAF's upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s too will have OSAMC on-board. The OSAMC is also being globally marketed by a joint India-US joint venture.--Prasun K. Sengupta

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

you say that OSAMC is developed by DARE, while the brochure claims as if HAL developed it...

Prasun K Sengupta said...

DARE did develop it but HAL is the production authority, as no DRDO lab engages in industrial series-production.

Anonymous said...

to prasun

ok what is difference between
irbis e PESA and PESA with
1662 t/r modules being developed for chinese su30mk3

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am not aware of the existence of Su-30MK3. Am also unaware of the existence of PESA with 1662 t/r modules. Who's the OEM for these two items?

Zorin said...

IDEX 09 is on and no one seems to mention anything about it.Is it a NO GO zone for Indians?Why does UAE show such concern about defence - who are they defending against and how it is the Western countries sell anythng to them when it could well be used againt Israel or even leased to Pakistan to use againt India?

Anonymous said...

in tejas then what they use?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,how can a heaviar FC-1(normal take off weight of FC-1 is 12700 kg vs 8500 kg of LCA) with a underpowered engine(dry thrust of RD 93 is 50 kn vs 55 kn of GE-404 IN 20) carry 3900 kg external payload?There is a speculation about internal fuel capacity of LCA-2400 kg or 3000 kg. What is right?

Bobs said...

is the OSAMC fitted out on the Arjun or on the USN battleship, as the first pic suggests?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,when will ASW variant of naval DHRUV come?

Anonymous said...

2moro

Abhijoy said...

@Bobs

Haha...OSAMC on an Iowa-class battle ship! You know as well as i do that never was the case.

But seriously...what a beautiful ship. Operational life 1940-2006. Sensational. I'll take an Iowa firing full broadside over a Kirov-class anyday!

Zorin said...

Here's an excerpt from defencenews.com:
"A logical Indian response to this latest demand (Russian arm twisting for more money) would be to tell the Russians that they can keep their hulk and either find a new supplier or accelerate the Indian indigenous aircraft carrier program.
While the progress on that program has been slow and the date of completion has now been pushed to 2014-15, directing $2.9 billion of additional funding into that effort could well serve to accelerate progress nicely. Alternatively, there are plenty of shipyards that could build a new carrier for the same sum.
What really matters now is whether the Indian Navy will be so scandalized by these latest demands that it will be politically possible for them to walk away from the Gorschkov.
Undoubtedly, doing so would be the sensible course of action. After all, there is an old naval adage that is very relevant: "Reconstruction Never Pays."
I thought a new Aircraft Carrier costs $4billion plus depending on size plus aircrafts added could well see a total cost of $5billion plus. Even though the Russians are clearly overcharging, are they still not cheaper except that they have delayed the delivery when India needed the ship right now?

Anonymous said...

prasun, why no splendour in ur blog anymore? lost intrest?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Am abroad in a neighbouring non-ASEAN country for witnessing SAM test-firings and visiting an institute devoted to developing UAVs. Hence the paucity of time. Anyway, for those who care, IAC does not stand for indigenous aircraft carrier, but Integrated Aircraft Carrier. The way in which the India-based journos are referring to the IAC is a perfect case of the blind leading the blind,I guess. Very frustrating ro discover that these folks don't do their homework.

Bobs said...

hey, how come the previous comment posted by me comes under the name 'Prasun K Sengupta' ? something is fishy...

thiru said...

Hi, am from Malaysia. Is this computer on Su 30 MKM? Also Prasun ji, do you know if the RMAF next fighter acquisition would be the more sensible 2nd Flanker sqd, or a ridiculous 4th type Superhornet fighters?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

No Thiru, the RMAF Su-30MKMs use the Russian SVS-2C-U-30MKI mission computer, not the OSAMC. The only Indian components on board the Su-30MKMs are the two radar computers (RC-1 and RC-2) built by HAL for the RCS NO11M 'Bars' PESA radar. Regarding future MRCA procurements, the requirement is for acquiring another six Su-30MKMs to fully equip No11 Sqn. RMAF HQ is also evaluating a plan for trading in its existing MiG-29Ns and acquiring MiG-35s. But if competitive bidding is involved, then the MiG-35 will have to compete with the JAS-39 Gripen NG. There are no plans for acquiring any Super Hornets.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

By the way, the aircraft batteries for the MiG-29N and Su-30MKMs too are of Indian origin, these coming from HBL-Nife Pvt Ltd, a Hyderabad-based company. This company is also supplying batteries to the air forces of Myanmar, Vietnam and Indonesia.

thiru said...

Finally some different information. Are you saying that they wanna make the present sqdn 24 planes? and not go for another 18 planes to form another sqdn? I thought 18 was the sqdn no for RMAF. The folks at Malaysian Defence website seem to indicate that the gov is actively looking at Superhornet. Why would the gov trade in the Mig 29 for Mig 35, when the planes are claimed to be a maintenance hog ( not like I dont love the plane). And I dont think buying the gripen would be a good idea as well, coz then we would still be stuck with 3 types of fighters. I feel the gov should try to sell the MiG 29's and replace the with flankers. The previous sukhoi's were bought for US$ 900 Million I believe. Not bad for the number of planes involved.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,in locally built T-90 what version of OSAMC will be fitted?

Anonymous said...

Sir,

Do you have any information about stealthy with Chinese Aegis with VLS SAM based on probably a Type-54 platform being offered to PN??and about current VL SAM on Type-54 ie range, radar etc??

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Thiru: the 24 Su-30MKMs reqd are for a full strength squadron as well as attrition reserves. The Super Hornet is only being looked at for as long as one can look. It is just a look-see look-see attitude. The MiG-35 is unlike the MiG-29N and features many maintenance-related enhancements.

To Anon@5:27PM: There are no plans for installing the OSAMC on the T-90S/M MBT.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda, please update about BARAK-2 SAM system

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Well, the Barak-2 saga is a mixed-bag of success and indecision. While the Indian Navy is going all out to encourage the DRDO and IAI to develop the MR-SAM ASAP, and while the Indian Air Force is totally committed to acquiring an extended-range (120km) version of the Barak-2, the Indian Army HQ continues to fumble and instead of joining forces with the Navy and IAF, last year floated a separate RFP for its own MR-SAM reqmt to replace the existing Kvadrat M-SAMs. The Russians thought that since the Barak-2 is most likely to be selected by the Army as well, decided not to offer the Buk-2ME. Thus, there was only one party that responded to the Army's RFP, this being the IAI/RAFAEL consortium that offered the Iron Dome system, comprising the Barak-2 M-SAM and the EL/M-2084 AESA radar. And since only one party put in a bid, the stupid MoD decided that this was against DPP-mandated regulations, and therefore the RFP was cancelled!!! Thi is where the Integrated Defence Staff should have stepped in and advised all the three armed services to jointly invest in the Barak-2 M-SAM/LR-SAM projects, and jointly procure them, which would have made the entire R & D project financially viable, and would have encouraged the Israeli OEMs to commit to the MoD's offsets requirements. Instead, the stupid retards in MoD have clearly failed to adopt such an acquisition strategy, while the Army HQ has decided to play politics with its sister services, thereby further delaying the planned replacement of the Kvadrats. That's the sad story.

thiru said...

Prasun Ji, why is India looking at pumping in more money into another M-SAM/L-SAM, when the quoted range of 120 km is covered by the S 300 which India possess? Why not buy more S 300 system or the even longer ranged S 400? Also what about the locally built anti missile which successfully did an endo-atmospheric interception test? It had a range of about 120 km If I'm not mistaken. Why not adapt that missile system into a home grown L-SAM?

Anonymous said...

Prasunda, among SA-7 & BARAK-2,which SAM system will be installed in KOLKATA class destroyer?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Thiru: There are no S-300s in India and they were never bought by anyone in India. As for the PAD and AAD-1 missiles, they're designed for intercepting inbound ballistic missiles. Therefore, their engagement algorithms and those of the command-and-control systems are useful only against ballistic missiles. They are still under developmnent and will take another seven to 10 years to be fully developed. The LR-SAM reqmt of the IAF is meant to meet the operational needs starting 2012. Also, the LR-SAM will be employed for cruise missile defence.

To Anon@8:02PM: SA-7's production ceased in the 1970s. The Barak-2 will be on board the Project 15A Kolkata-class destroyers.

Bobs said...

prasunji, S-300 were bought by India almost 14 yrs ago....the current status is unknown.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,if i am not wrong in GODAVARI class frigate SA-N-7 SAM system is present. If production of SA-7 system ceased in 70s ,then how are they present in GODAVARI class frigate?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@10:11AM: The SA-7 and SA-N-7 are two different systems. The SA-7 is shoulder-launched, while the SA-N-7 is the navalised Pechora of the type on board the Kashin 2-class DDGs and Poject 16 Godavari-class FFGs.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,is chinese HQ-9 SAM system superior in performance than our Akash SAM?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Of course. The HQ-9 is LR-SAM while the Akash is E-SHORADS.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda, your E-SHORADS article is very good.Thanks,for giving good information.

Anonymous said...

Prasunda,please inform us about internal fuel capacity of LCA.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

It is quite simple, really. The LCA was originally conceived as a replacement for the MiG-21 family of defensive counter-air combat aircraft, with limited ground attack capabilities. As the years went by since the mid-1980s, the mission requirements also increased and the LCA is today being envisaged as a M-MRCA. In addition, due to the proliferation of AEW & C capabilities in the region, gone are the days when combat aircraft on either side of the border could be stationed in forward air bases and scrambled in response of impending or clearly identified aerial threats. Today, air bases are vulnerable to cruise missile attacks while at the same time aircraft taking off from forward air bases in the plains will be immediately detected and tracked by AEW & C platforms. Therefore, the very tactics of airpower employment is now changing. In future wars, aircraft will have to be located not in forward air bases, but in air bases in a country's interior (at least 500km away from the border) and will converge as a strike package in a way that will keep the enemy guessing in terms of the overall objective/target and further complicating the airborne battle management functions of AEW & C platforms. For this to happen, MRCAs will have to spend quite some time in transit before arriving at their respective staging areas and then refuelling in mid-air (if sufficient aerial refuelling tankers are available) before proceeding for their strike sorties. Now, such aerial refuelling support will not always be available, especially for those LCAs that are expected to be flying combat air patrols within friendly airspace and consequently, the LCA will have enough fuel only for a 1.5-hour sortie even when equipped with twin underwing fuel tanks. This is clearly not acceptable in operational terms as it would mean carrying less ordnance. But if the LCA were to be equipped with 2 conformal fuel tanks then there would be two more weapons stations available and at the same time the unrefuelled flight endurance of the LCA will increase for up to 2 hours. It is this logic that has driven Lockheed Martin, Gripen Int'l, Dassault and EADS to already develop offer the conformal fuel tank option for the F-16IN, JAS-39IN, Rafale F-3 and EF-2000 Typhoon. Therefore, for the Tejas LCA to become a viable M-MRCA, it must incorporate both conformal fuel tanks and an actuated aerial refuelling probe.

Anonymous said...

As for the PAD and AAD-1 missiles, they're designed for intercepting inbound ballistic missiles. Therefore, their engagement algorithms and those of the command-and-control systems are useful only against ballistic missiles.

wrong. the AAD, not AAD-1 btw, can engage aircraft as well - the only issue is the expense of using such an expensive round as a SAM.

go check with DRDL if you dont believe me

Prasun K Sengupta said...

There's no need to check anything with anybody, as it is the DRDL itself that is co-developing the M-SAM and LR-SAM with its Israeli counterparts. Surely you would agree that the DRDL would not have gone for an expensive JV with IAI/RAFAEL if it all by itself could have converted the AAD into a cost-effective anti-aircraft SAM. Therefore, if you believe that the AAD has anti-aircraft capabilities then you should ask the DRDL why has it joined forces with its Israeli counterparts to develop the M-SAM and LR-SAM and waste the Indian taxpayer's money.

thiru said...

This issue was brought up in The Hindu as well, as I remember reading. Of course it can be argued that the editor may not know weapon systems enough to come up with such claims. But you have to wonder if the decisions to spend huge amounts of taxpayers money with the Israeli's may not have had some form of corruption in it. Does that sound possible?

Prasun K Sengupta said...

Your remarks may carry some weight IF we are to believe that the AAFD/PAD projects were 100% of Indian origin. But that's not the case. There's substantial Isreali technological inputs and off-the-shelf sub-systems supplied for the PAD/AAD systems, which the DRDL is not bound to disclose at this stage for obvious reasons.

thiru said...

Hi Prasun ji, thanks for the clarification. Now it makes sense, coz b4 this I only knew that the tracking radar was Israeli. On another note do you know if there is problems with the logistics of the RMAF MiG's? I've been hearing comments from M'sian defence magazine journalist that there are problems with it and it suffering much lower operational readiness compared to the hornets. Does this problem also affect the Indian AF?
Also, regarding the Russian project 22350 DDG that you posted in 2008, is the ship currently being built resemble that image you posted or is it just some artist conception. Sorry for asking outdated article questions, coz honestly I just bumped into your site and I really like your articles.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

There should not be any problems regarding spares support as MiG-29 spares are readily available from Russia and India. If the standard three-year spares package is procured regularly then there is not any problem, but many a time the air force does not order such spares packages due to budgetary constraints, as was the case between 1997 and 2000. The MiG-29Ns also require more maintenance than the F/A-18Ds, especially the RD-33 engines, and these engines have to be sent back to Russia for overhaul. Only the 1,000-hour airframe inspections are done at Kuantan by ATSC and it is for this reason that at any given time 2 MiG-29s are grounded for routine servicing.
Regarding the Project 22350 DDG the first such destroyer is now being built in St Petersburg.

sumantra said...

prasunda, you said:
It is this logic that has driven Lockheed Martin, Gripen Int'l, Dassault and EADS to already develop offer the conformal fuel tank option for the F-16IN, JAS-39IN, Rafale F-3 and EF-2000 Typhoon.
===================
can you provide some links or pics of the proposed modified a/c except the F-16IN.

thiru said...

Thanks, I was wondering if you will be doing any articles on the Sukhoi Su 30 MKM in the near future? There are still some discrepancies on of the electronics fit for the plane, like the RWR of the plane, and how good it is at detecting AESA signals. I think the Indian Tarang should be better at detecting an AESA signal from enemy planes. I've read that, the RMAF actually havent got the weapons that they advertised, and even you mentioned they dont have the R 77. I was wondering if whats up with that, and if you will have a better insight of it.